Klarinet Archive - Posting 000375.txt from 2004/07

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Amplification of music (somewhat OT)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:21:08 -0400

At 07:47 PM 7/11/2004 -0400, Karl Krelove wrote:
>And I still wonder why (we discussed this once before), in the case of
>material that was written before the days when ubiquitous miking was
>practical or even possible, the same acoustical environment for which it was
>written won't still work. Why, for example, are the balances in Broadway
>theaters (and theaters that produce Broadway shows in other cities) so
>electronically managed (and often mis-managed)? Before wireless mic systems,
>they couldn't have had all those wired microphones trailing cords all over
>the stage - at best they had fixed apron mics and maybe a couple of booms up
>in the fly area. Did they have even that much in the 1930s or 1940s?

Probably not. Remember Ethel Merman? She had a HUGE voice that carried
out into the hall without benefit of amplification. Others knew how to
project, too, and had to to make in the theater. Of course, they did not
have to compete with ringing cell phones! :-) When I was in high school
and doing musical theater there (late 60's), and in small-town community
theater later (80's), we did not have microphones other than maybe a couple
of fixed ones on the apron that probably did very little. Now, it seems
that even very small high school productions can't project beyond the pit
without scores of wireless mikes, poorly balanced, switched on late,
etc. Part of that is that they are not taught to sing and project
properly. And part is that electronics are the solution to
everything! One advantage is that they no longer have to keep telling the
pit to play softer -- they just crank up the actors' mikes!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org