WSJ.com: "On stage at the Broadway revival of Neil Simon's 'Brighton Beach Memoirs' are seven actors—and 23 hidden microphones. The new musical 'Fela!' has 80 speakers hung around the theater, and mic transmitters embedded in a character's tap shoes. And during one song in 'The Phantom of the Opera,' actors choose whether to sing along—or just mouth the words—to a prerecorded vocal track.
With theater producers increasingly reliant on revenues from touring shows playing spaces with as many as 4,000 seats, more shows are being rigged with miniature mics and high-tech sound systems to project the performances to the far reaches of the theaters."
18 comments:
I am very torn about Broadway shows playing pre-recorded songs instead of the actors actually singing. On one side, as an audience member, I want to hear the actors sing live instead of listening to a recording that I could be listening to in my car. The problem with this is that sometimes the actors are not physically capable of singing full volume when they are changing, dancing, or moving scenery. There is also the unrealistic expectation audiences have about the musical numbers sounding like they are from a CD. With these contributing factors the use of pre-recorded sound should only be used when it is necessary to the design, as in phantom, or when the actors are not able to perform at a given moment.
A few thoughts about this article. I'm a big fan of the atmospheric microphones, like the ones being hidden on the Brighton Beach set. Body mics can often be extremely distracting and are a constant reminder of the show's artificiality. However, there are points where augmented sound go too far, such as backing tracks and auto-tuning the singers. I feel that a live performance deserves to be authentically live, and that imperfections in voices or volume are more acceptable than deceiving the audience with false sound.
While I support more usage of microphones, I am not a fan of pre-recording songs and music that's then inserted into the show. The increased usage of microphones is really just a reality that theater needs to come to terms with. The average audience for theater is getting older, the theaters are getting bigger, and while there's something to be said for the old way of doing things, new technology comes about because a need exists. Personal body mics have gotten small enough that you can literally hide an entire setup in a bra or pocket if necessary. The technology exists, so I don't quite understand why so many people fight the growing need for there to be miced actors.
While I'm all for giving the actors a little extra boost in the sound department, the idea that theater has gone the way of 90s pop bands is almost disgusting. It's almost like theater is choosing to ignore how badly the pre-recorded concert sound tracks back fired. I think we all remember the Ashely Simpson SNL videos, and while theater is full of better actors, the patrons are just as unforgiving.
I agree with everyone else here... I do not agree with prerecording the actors singing at all. When you go to a concert, you don't expect to hear the artist's CD that you could easily buy, you are paying for the experience of seeing that artist live. It is the same thing with theatre. You are not sitting there to hear the recording... You want the experience of a live performance.
I think when we mic so many actors for straight plays, although I understand why, we are taking away a very real part of the craft of acting. If we just mic anyone, anytime then no one has to learn how to project ever and one loses that very real piece that is attached to live theatre. Not to mention if I wanted to listen to a recording I would rent a movie or buy a CD. Where is the "live" in live theatre if things are prefabricated? The whole attraction of the stage is the authenticity of a performance as well as a physical/spacial connection with an audience.
Ultimately I understand the microphones more than the prerecorded sound although I really hope that we will not become so dependent on them that we lose the real purpose and history of what it is we do.
Bigger houses for more money... makes it harder on the actors, not to mention 8 shows a week. So they need mics. The draw back to this is young performers in school are not leaning to project. They are too reliant on the mics.
On a note away from the performers, the effects designers can put on voices and replicate nightly is amazing. I feel this became more popular when it was easier to replicate. Also, part of the technology driving the use of mics, is, as the article states, the size and ability to hide mics.
There is something to be said to hear the actors voice naturally, but that really only works in the smaller intimate theaters. So really it is up to the audience member to how they are willing to listen to the performers on stage, its a choice.
I definitely have mixed feelings about all of this. Just like everyone else, I don't really agree with the use of pre-recorded songs. I think that it takes away from the whole experience of seeing a musical. The other thing that I am torn about is the heavy use of microphones in plays. I definitely think that it is more exciting for the technicians and designers (and makes more room for jobs!), but on the other hand, I think that it's a shame that actors are no longer learning to truly project their voices. Once actors are used to using mics, they can become lazy and let the mic do all the work for them, and this can definitely become problematic.
While microphones and sound reinforcement is definitely a tool that theater artists use often, and well, they come with some very important words of caution. The movement towards body mics in musicals especially is a good one when used to help increase the artistic impact of the show, but when body mics are used as a crutch by the actors, the entire show is made weaker. I worry that actors will loose their training to project (and if there is no sound, there is nothing for the mic to pick up). However, they definitely can be useful. As for area mics, I welcome their use as an alternative to body packs. They can often be hidden in the scenery more efficiently than body mics in costumes, and they do not distort the sound as much. Because the area mics are picking up some ambient noise as well, it is easier to disguise the sound. In my opinion, with respect to most shows, the sound designer should endeavor to make the reinforcement as invisible as possible.
The pre-recorded tracks are a big issue for me for several reasons. The first is the many problems that can arise when a piece of technology is so vital to the story of a show. It is often very difficult to get them right so nobody but the best should attempt them. In addition, audiences are coming to the theater to see a LIVE performance. Recordings are inherently not live. I know that they can be useful, I am just wary of their implementation.
I remember after being exposed to sound technology for so long hearing, I heard that Ethel Merman would sing 8 shows a week without a mic. I remember her voice more than any actor i've seen on the Broadway stage. It's sad that the profession has diminished and a voice is so delicate - they wouldn't dare strain to fill a 1200 seat house.
Sound is ... well confusing. It apparently has to be done just right or the audience will feel un-comfortable. I don't mind mics that amplify and help the audience hear what is occurring, but allowing actors to sing along to something that is not live, is downright deceit. The one quote about not needing to gesture towards who their are speaking to because of the mics is just ridiculous. Theatrical acting is just that, theatrical. You still have to amplify some things and it cannot be 100% real or it wouldn't work on stage. mics are there for reinforcement not replacement. Actors cannot be allowed to get complacent. If the actor talks in a normal voice on stage then the audience shouldn't hear it. There's no reason to rely on mis for everything.
Here at CMU there are some shows that have been mic-ed that quite frankly didn't need to be. Anyway that's my two-cents from a deaf person's perspective.
Not quite sure what the opinin of the author is on the subject - the article seems rather expository. I for one have no problem with large and complex sound systems. If he productin necesitates it, and there's a true need for he mics and effects, that support greater design concepts, then go for it. I do sort of have a problem with prerecorded vocals tracks - the notion of it seems sort of decietful does it not? But I guess we can't assume that actors will always have the strength to belt every time.
Quite an interesting article. I really think it's interesting, from a scene design perspective, the effort used to adequately reinforce the space while keeping the visual appeal of the piece in tact. I have been a part of and seen a number of shows that look like sound was an after thought and, not only is the sound quality bad, the visual aesthetic of the piece is hindered too.
As for playing recorded music and singing a show, it depends on the piece. If it is a recorded song that supports the period, then go ahead. But, I do think that in general it's a bad idea. Live theatre is supposed to be live--that's the appeal. Cast people who can sing the songs and play them, I say.
While in a lot of cases, some kind of miking system is generally a necessary part of productions in some ways, some of the various processes described in this article, making it so the actor doesn’t have to sing, and being backed up with pre-recorded vocals seems a little artificial to me. It’s live theater for a reason, it’s supposed to be about what the actors are doing onstage at that moment, not about these pre-recorded things that get added in.
The technology and design behind these ever-more-complex systems continues to fascinate me. I think, however, that a lot of producer-folks don't connect to the idea that just because technology is cool, doesn't mean it's right for the art. Sometimes maybe things like this let the actors do more in their blocking and whatnot, but other times I feel that the layers of complexity just separate the audience further from the actual art.
For me the most noticable trend I have seen has been how actors aren't always the best at projecting anymore. It's not uncommon to hear a director say, "I can't hear him, let's put a mic on him." This isn't very common here at CMU, but what happens when the base expectation becomes that we can just mic people so they don't have to project? It completely changes the aesthetics of theatre when someone can actually whisper on stage, instead of stage whispering.
I think that the reason people come to the theatre as opposed to seeing a movie is that they want to see the action and magic of the storytelling unfold onstage. There is excitement in the fact that what you are seeing and hearing will only be seen and heard at this one point in time.
This aside, in the past, before microphones, actors were able to project enough to be heard in theaters not much smaller than today (now, of course, big arenas and other similar spaces aside) why suddenly can actors no longer get their voice to travel as far.
There is a noticeable falseness in even the most well designed system where body mics are involved. Therefore, besides extreme cases (or an artistic decision), being heard should be the responsibility of the actors and only amplified in a last ditch effort to make the should understandable.
I can definitely see both the positive and the negative effects of this. There is something to be said about the fact that actors do not even have to sing certain songs if they don't want to. On the other hand, for some people sitting in the back, they may not be able to hear as clearly as they should. As for the microphones that are set throughout the stage, I think that this is definitely a plus which gives greater freedom to the sound designer which in turn may help tell the story even better.
Some of these points made sense, some of them just made me roll my eyes. Using mics to amplify voices to overpower the background noise of automated lighting and scenery makes sense. Although the idea of background tracks during Broadway shows seems like cheating, I think it's acceptable if it's only used during moments where the dancing is too strenuous to be able to do both things at once. Actors aren't superheroes. However, giving body mics to film celebrities simply because they're not used to projecting is lame. If they don't know how to perform on stage, then they shouldn't be doing it.
Post a Comment