ACTORS WEARING FACIAL MICROPHONES ON STAGE (1 Viewer)

Why is it that so many stage musical actors wear facial microphones today? This is an abomination that never used to happen. There is NOTHING worse than seeing a musical where the entire cast wear microphones on one side of their faces. This is a great distraction that is not necessary. On many actors the microphones hang so low that they almost reach their mouths. If the actors have not been trained to project their voices then they should change their profession. The brilliant French musical HUNCBACH OF NOTRE DAME was completely ruined by the entire cast wearing facial microphones.RENT was also another of numerous stage shows that suffered from the same problem. As a lover of musicals,I have to enquire beforehand before buying a ticket.If they wear facial microphones then I give the show a miss no matter how good the reviews are. You never see an opera performed whereby the cast wear facial microphones so why is it done in many musicals ? When I see a stage show I do not want to be distracted by seeing microphones covering part of their faces.

Other problems with musicals: I never buy a seat next to the side wall as I want to hear the music emanating from the stage, not from a speaker on the wall Finally: when actors sing and dance at the same time, are their voices pre recorded and then played back on tape during the dance sequences? In The United Kingdom it is illegal to do this without advertising the fact beforehand .I know that this used to be common in the USA and elsewhere but does it still happen today?

Come on stage musical directors - employ actors who can project their voices and get rid of the facial microphones.You are losing customers because of this abomination.

The microphones are usually very discreet, hidden in hairlines or in wigs, etc. They are often flesh-toned too. Personally, with the intense amplification needed in doing musicals today, I don't believe that we can ever go back to those unamplified days. Just impossible.

At least on Broadway in NYC, it seems to be a stylistic choice whether or not the microphones are visable. I don't object to singers needing amplification, but I don't think it's something that we as an audience need to see. On the flip side, for a lot of shows the orchestra is now hidden backstage or in an adjacent room, and what we hear isn't the orchestra playing, but what the microphones have picked up and is being pumped through speakers in the main auditorium. I wonder if that - more than the acoustic design of the rooms or demands of the performance - is what's resulting in such over-the-top use of amplification for singers. Bring back the orchestra pit! I don't see why an audience should be asked to pay top dollar for a musical where you can't hear any of the instruments live. (Yes, I know they're playing live in another room - but it used to be that you could hear the musicians in the same room and hear their playing directly, and not just what the microphones catch.)

I hate seeing the microphones. It's a total pet peeve of mine. I don't know that it was the first usage of visable microphones, but "Rent" seemed to change the game here - it suddenly became "cool" to have all your tech showing. It breaks the illusion of the stagecraft, particularly if the musical isn't set in the days of wireless, handheld electronics. By all means, have it hidden under your clothing or in your hair, but there's no reason to be running around the stage wearing a Garth Brooks or motivational speaker-type piece of equipment. The technology exists and has existed for a long time to amplify the voice without drawing attention to it, so it really drives me a little crazy when an effort isn't even made. To me, it comes off as bad stagecraft, unprofessional, and depending on the production, even pretentious.

cinerama10 said:

Finally: when actors sing and dance at the same time, are their voices pre recorded and then played back on tape during the dance sequences?

Click to expand...

I think that is a lot of the reason you see these microphones so often now. They're lip-synching and the microphone helps cover up any mismatched lip-synchs if they're not quite in time with the music.

I find them very annoying, just another gimmick like auto-tune and we continue to lose the "truly talented people" because if you're pretty, and have the right image, producers/directors will have mediocre performers fall back on these "tricks".

Ever hear Britney Spears live for real? It's painful.

Others, like Celine Dion don't use these tricks, they sing natural, and it's much better.

Merman wear a mike? Mary Martin, Ezio Pinza, Alfred Drake, John Raitt?
It's the fault of people getting used to louder music being played in concerts, talking during the performance, all sorts of diversions.
And the fact that actors are no longer trained to project their voices. Granted, today's theaters are barns compared to the jewel boxes of yesteryear. But even in small venues you still get that awful amplification. Voices just don't sound natural!
And you're right: if you must wear a body mike, don't destroy the illusion by having it right in your mouth. Nobody walks around like that. Hide the hideous thing if you don't have the lungs to sing without it.
Tony Bennett can still sing at the Meyerson Symphony Hall in Dallas without a mike (although just one song), but his voice filled the hall. You know how old he is? Maybe he had vocal training...like Merman, etc.?

Julie Andrews has said in interviews that she wished that such microphones were around in 1956 when she played in "My Fair Lady". Undergoing a weekly regime of vitamin shots and living like a nun during her spare hours did absolutely nothing to prepare her for the intense strain of singing the role of Eliza 8 times a week.

Barbra Streisand wore a discreet body microphone during her run on Broadway in "Funny Girl".

bujaki said:

Tony Bennett can still sing at the Meyerson Symphony Hall in Dallas without a mike (although just one song), but his voice filled the hall. You know how old he is? Maybe he had vocal training...like Merman, etc.?

Click to expand...

That must have been incredible. I've seen Elvis Costello a few times over the years do a song or more without a microphone, just standing at the edge of the stage and singing out to the crowd - saw him do that at the Beacon Theater (around 3000 seats), and at other shows as well. More recently, I saw a British guy named Ed Sheeran at Madison Square Garden, and in front of nearly 20,000 people, he did one song off-mic. Something magic happens when you have an audience concentrating really hard to listen, while at the same time a singer is focusing all of their energy out at the audience - and both sides feel how fragile that moment is, when I know as an audience member me being silent is as much a part of the performance as the singer singing is.

A microphone - the look of a microphone, how a performer interacts with it, how they hold it and sing to it - can be an important part of a musical performance, particularly a live concert. But to me, seeing a musical theater performing wearing a piece of highly visable technology, while otherwise dressed in costume to appear from another decade or century, just doesn't fit right. I saw a musical on Broadway maybe a month ago, and it was a great show, great choreography, great orchestrations, great cast, had a great time - except that the lead worse a very visable microphone. And she would not stop picking at it and touching it and adjusting it the whole time. Now, maybe I just got unlucky, and it was a fluke or an equipment issue that she was struggling with, but my point is, that never used to be a visable part of the show. I'm sure it couldn't have been part of the choreography. I wonder how the choreographer would have felt about watching the star actress not using one of her arms through most of her musical numbers because she was kept fidgeting with her microphone - it was like, sing a line, adjust mike, dance for a few seconds, adjust mike, sing, adjust mike, etc. I don't want to place too much blame on the actress, cause if you put that thing in my face, I'd be picking on it too - that's why you don't put it right on their face for the world to see! I'd much rather have an invisible microphone, hidden either in the clothing or in the hair or in the floor of the stage or the ceiling, and I'd rather have the occasional line that sounds slightly less clear than the visual distraction of what I saw at that show.

classicmovieguy said:

The microphones are usually very discreet, hidden in hairlines or in wigs, etc. They are often flesh-toned too. Personally, with the intense amplification needed in doing musicals today, I don't believe that we can ever go back to those unamplified days. Just impossible.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you entirely-they have always been obvious to me hanging down one side of their cheeks and often almost reaching their mouths.

Josh Steinberg said:

At least on Broadway in NYC, it seems to be a stylistic choice whether or not the microphones are visable. I don't object to singers needing amplification, but I don't think it's something that we as an audience need to see. On the flip side, for a lot of shows the orchestra is now hidden backstage or in an adjacent room, and what we hear isn't the orchestra playing, but what the microphones have picked up and is being pumped through speakers in the main auditorium. I wonder if that - more than the acoustic design of the rooms or demands of the performance - is what's resulting in such over-the-top use of amplification for singers. Bring back the orchestra pit! I don't see why an audience should be asked to pay top dollar for a musical where you can't hear any of the instruments live. (Yes, I know they're playing live in another room - but it used to be that you could hear the musicians in the same room and hear their playing directly, and not just what the microphones catch.)

I hate seeing the microphones. It's a total pet peeve of mine. I don't know that it was the first usage of visable microphones, but "Rent" seemed to change the game here - it suddenly became "cool" to have all your tech showing. It breaks the illusion of the stagecraft, particularly if the musical isn't set in the days of wireless, handheld electronics. By all means, have it hidden under your clothing or in your hair, but there's no reason to be running around the stage wearing a Garth Brooks or motivational speaker-type piece of equipment. The technology exists and has existed for a long time to amplify the voice without drawing attention to it, so it really drives me a little crazy when an effort isn't even made. To me, it comes off as bad stagecraft, unprofessional, and depending on the production, even pretentious.

Click to expand...

I agree with you entirely. Having an orchestra in the back of the stage with the drama unfolding in front is also a very major distraction even if they only comprise of a few instruments.So terribly distracting for an audience. Some stage shows do require an orchestra that is too small for the pit in front of the audience. This would be an acceptable exception. It has already been successfully done at Sydney's Opera House for at least one show only.Movie presentation has now gone down the drain compared with a generation ago and live theatre is now heading the same way.I rarely visit the cinema because it is no longer the experience that it once was.It will soon be that way for live musicals.

cinerama10 said:

I agree with you entirely. Having an orchestra in the back of the stage with the drama unfolding in front is also a very major distraction even if they only comprise of a few instruments.So terribly distracting for an audience. Some stage shows do require an orchestra that is too small for the pit in front of the audience. This would be an acceptable exception. It has already been successfully done at Sydney's Opera House for at least one show only.Movie presentation has now gone down the drain compared with a generation ago and live theatre is now heading the same way.I rarely visit the cinema because it is no longer the experience that it once was.It will soon be that way for live musicals.

Click to expand...

I was referring to an orchestra playing in another room in my last post re not seeing an orchestra.

Josh Steinberg said:

At least on Broadway in NYC, it seems to be a stylistic choice whether or not the microphones are visable. I don't object to singers needing amplification, but I don't think it's something that we as an audience need to see. On the flip side, for a lot of shows the orchestra is now hidden backstage or in an adjacent room, and what we hear isn't the orchestra playing, but what the microphones have picked up and is being pumped through speakers in the main auditorium. I wonder if that - more than the acoustic design of the rooms or demands of the performance - is what's resulting in such over-the-top use of amplification for singers. Bring back the orchestra pit! I don't see why an audience should be asked to pay top dollar for a musical where you can't hear any of the instruments live. (Yes, I know they're playing live in another room - but it used to be that you could hear the musicians in the same room and hear their playing directly, and not just what the microphones catch.)

I hate seeing the microphones. It's a total pet peeve of mine. I don't know that it was the first usage of visable microphones, but "Rent" seemed to change the game here - it suddenly became "cool" to have all your tech showing. It breaks the illusion of the stagecraft, particularly if the musical isn't set in the days of wireless, handheld electronics. By all means, have it hidden under your clothing or in your hair, but there's no reason to be running around the stage wearing a Garth Brooks or motivational speaker-type piece of equipment. The technology exists and has existed for a long time to amplify the voice without drawing attention to it, so it really drives me a little crazy when an effort isn't even made. To me, it comes off as bad stagecraft, unprofessional, and depending on the production, even pretentious.

Click to expand...

Amplification ruins the purity of the voice being projected from the stage.It is totally unnecessary. It is time that people complained to the producers and avoided seeing shows (as I do) with visible facial microphones. I also refuse to watch dvds of stage musicals where the facial microphones are obvious.(RENT for example-have never seen it!)

bujaki said:

Merman wear a mike? Mary Martin, Ezio Pinza, Alfred Drake, John Raitt?
It's the fault of people getting used to louder music being played in concerts, talking during the performance, all sorts of diversions.
And the fact that actors are no longer trained to project their voices. Granted, today's theaters are barns compared to the jewel boxes of yesteryear. But even in small venues you still get that awful amplification. Voices just don't sound natural!
And you're right: if you must wear a body mike, don't destroy the illusion by having it right in your mouth. Nobody walks around like that. Hide the hideous thing if you don't have the lungs to sing without it.
Tony Bennett can still sing at the Meyerson Symphony Hall in Dallas without a mike (although just one song), but his voice filled the hall. You know how old he is? Maybe he had vocal training...like Merman, etc.?

Click to expand...

The late and great Joan Sutherland never used a mike during her stage shows I know as I worked several times in operas with her. She could even sing very softly and be heard over an orchestra , from every seat in the theatre. My message to todays singers - learn how to project your voice or get out of the business. Amplified voices give audiences a different perspective on how one's voice actually sounds. When was the last time you saw a rock concert where you could actually hear every work that was being sung? Most rock stars fail to project clear pronunciation of the words.

Stan said:

I think that is a lot of the reason you see these microphones so often now. They're lip-synching and the microphone helps cover up any mismatched lip-synchs if they're not quite in time with the music.

I find them very annoying, just another gimmick like auto-tune and we continue to lose the "truly talented people" because if you're pretty, and have the right image, producers/directors will have mediocre performers fall back on these "tricks".

Ever hear Britney Spears live for real? It's painful.

Others, like Celine Dion don't use these tricks, they sing natural, and it's much better.

Click to expand...

Lip-synching during a live show is false advertising unless the audience are pre warned before they buy a ticket. If the live show is no longer entirely 'live'.I would demand my money back if this occurred.

What a bizarre thread. You guys are acting like broadway microphones like this:

Look like this:

I know. The mics used in all the big Broadway shows are quite small and discreet. The comparison is ridiculous. No show I've ever seen has used those face-hugging 'stadium' mics.

The first time I saw the massively used microphones (of the Wicked-type shown above, not the Madonna-type), was in Les Misérables, in London. It was the '90s, so it's quite possible that in was introduced on Broadway roughly at the same time or just before it, i.e. in Rent.

To be fair: it didn't bother me. It hardly ever does.


Cees

One of the first Broadway shows which used the now-common body mics and an amplified chorus was "Promises Promises" in 1968.

That's a lot earlier than I even thought.
It certainly wasn't widespread then yet, Of several shows I've seen in that period and later (I'm thinking hard about it) I'm sure there were no such mikes.

But one can never be certain, of course.

(And... I didn't see Broadway shows in those days.)


Cees

Burt Bacharach needed a specific balance between the orchestra and vocals for "Promises Promises". After that the use of mics on stage began to be much more widespread.

Mark-P said:

What a bizarre thread. You guys are acting like broadway microphones like this:

image15hd.jpg
Look like this:

Unknown.jpg

Click to expand...

Haha

I don't have any objection to the ones in the first picture. I know the second shot is a joke, but I still see headgear like that, that's where my complaint is.