Use of Microphones on Broadway

Personally, I find being miked is MUCH more suitable.
I have done several straight plays, and all but one I was not miked. I found it very difficult to be able to find a wider range of dynamics in terms of speaking my lines...as in during some intense one-on-one scenes, I still had to remember to project to the back rows, so I had to find a even playing ground of volume. I know that for some that may seem silly, but the play where I was miked I found to be a lot more stress-free and I was able to play a bit more. Musicals its obviously a given cuz the band will blow you away in the quieter bits of music.

---

In the theatre, acoustic sound will always be superior to electronically amplified sound, whether music or speech.

Genrally speaking microphones should be used in musicals due to the orchestra, however, I personally feel there is no reason why ANY play should use microphones! Any trained actor should be able to project their voice throughout a theatre.

I think most plays today use some sort of floor mics or overhead mics to project the sound a bit, but personally, I MUCH prefer un-miced performances. I feel so much more of the intimacy of live performance. Mics, I feel, add an extra wall between the actors and the audience.

I'm including a link to an interview I did with Boyd Gaines in which he makes some excellent points about the use of amplification in the theater
Boyd Gaines/The Grand Manner

---

My biggest complaint with amplification is that is blurs the words.
I saw that revival of LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS and could not understand one word--not one word the urchins sang. Yet I heard every single word in DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY.

I think the younger generation hears differently than older folks.

---

Thanks for posting that link. I think the use of backing tracks certainly should be banned in shows. The whole point of going to shows is seeing a live performance.

It won't be long before an entire performance is back tracked or lip synced.

---

Updated On: 7/7/11 at 10:01 PM

I definitely don't want the orchestra amplified. I also don't want any kind of vocal alterations of any kind for the performers.

But yeah, I'm still really curious how actors would whisper or speak softly in the absence of a microphone. I would love to have been in a theater where the entire audience was so focused and silent.

As for Patti, they should turn down her mic. I feel that an amplified Patti Lupone would be a nightmare.

Has anyone here been to Broadway Unplugged?

---

There also can be a bit of a delay. When I saw South Pacific, I was in the front row orchestra, right behind the speaker. There was a half-second delay (or it seemed that way from where I was sitting), and it was soooooooo irritating.

This is a subject dear to me. When I started going to the theatre in 1951, miking was seldom used. The audience could hear the dialogue because of the actors' good projection and because the audience was very quiet and concentrated much more than is prevalent today.

Someone mentioned that orchestrations were written to take into account the fact that microphones were not used in musicals in the first half of the 20h Century. While it makes sense, I don't believe that it is true. Orchestrators were interested in the sound that different instruments make. It is up to the pit conductor to balance the loudness or softness of their musicians according to the vocal abilities of the singers on stage. Ethel Merman surely did not have to worry about the brassiness of "Blow, Gabriel, Blow" from ANYTHING GOES. Trained theatre singers could project over the orchestra.

My complaint of amplified muicals used to be the harshness and distortion of sound coming from the stage. Even as recently as the Patti LuPone GYPSY, there was distortion of sound at the conclusion of "Everything's Coming Up Roses" as LuPone swooped the final notes, a typical affectation of so many of today's singers that annoys the hell out of me.

I can still remember going to 42ND STREET at the Winter Gardwn in 1980 and sitting close enough to the stage to be able to hear the dialogue and singing straight fom the stage and not though speakers. What a treat. I had the same experience recently at HOW TO SUCCEED...when I sat in the fourth row orchestra and could hear much of the dialogue straight from the stage.

I will admit that sound design has improved over the years and there have been recent shows where I have heard a very natural sound originating from the stage. And even as far back as 1987, when I saw FOLLIES in London, the sound system was excellent. I remember getting a kick out of checking out the sound control booth at intermission and seeing that each instrument in the orchestra had its separate volume slide switch! Yes, pit orchestras are all amplified, too.

I am horrified to learn that some shows allow vocal tracks of pre-recorded singing to be used while the actors lip-synch the lyrics. That is really going too far!

---

"There's also another problem with miking that I noticed when I saw Lord of the Flies at the Open Air Theatre in Regent's Park a few weeks ago. The noise of the wind in the trees would have made projection very difficult, so they were wise to amplify the voices, but I was sitting about twelve rows back and when there were lots of people on stage it often took a moment to figure out who was talking!"

Sounds like a staging issue more than a mics thing.


I guess ill chalk it up to being a product of the mic'ed generation, but im all for them. For me its not about being trained well enough to hit the back wall with your voice. The amplification adds the opportunity (seldom used, but none the less) for unique/non traditional voices to be heard. We've moved away from the super healthy legit singing of the golden age (that allowed for that), and moved on to a more modern/rock sound. Voices like Daphne Rubin Vega (sp), Reeve Carney, and other lighter instruments would not reach the back row...and if they did i highly doubt it would happen consistently 8 times a week (or healthily for that matter). The only other option would be to change their technique... and thus the uniqueness (of their voices) in my opinion. The mics have given us the opportunity to make any kind of show we want without limitations of natural acoustics.

As far as plays go i still like em. For me it does add more of a realistic quality to it. People just dont talk in real life like they do in un-amplified plays. The nuance can (isnt always, but can) be lost. Are there actors who can make me forget the training...ABSOLUTELY! But as a poster said earlier, it just gives a brilliantly trained actor more room to play when they arent made to project. Even when mic'ed actors are still using that training. Most plays ive seen, hardly turn the mics up to a noticeable level...just a bit of support for those smaller moments. Its a nice dynamic.

P.S. -- I do remember that the last revival of "The Most Happy Fella" was without amplification. The one with the two-piano accompaniment. At least it was when it played pre-Broadway in Los Angeles. And it was pretty wonderful to experience. But with just two pianos and a smaller theatre (the Doolittle), they could pull it off without issues. I do remember everyone in the audience leaning forward a great deal during the show. At least it pulled them in (literally).

---