talktooloose

Rather than write this in a comment to grubbybastard as he asked, I will make a post of it. I told him that I would relate the conversation I had with the sound engineer during intermission of John Doyle's production of Sweeney Todd starting Patti Lupone and Michael Cerveris.

I'm of the opinion that one of the things that have negatively affected Broadway musicals since the golden age is the use of the microphone. The amplified sound, balanced through a board, certainly creates volume and clarity (and it is a boon for second-string TV stars making their singing debuts) but it also creates distance between the audience and show. Theatre becomes a passive, television experience rather than a throbbing member inserting itself into your heart and mind.

Patti Lupone is a big believer in unamplfied singing for the reasons given above. She says that without mikes, the audience leans in and becomes more involved. They have to work harder and that means they are more commited.

Michael Cerveris is a pop-singing microphone baby. He likes to whisper and cajole. Patti likes to belt. I noticed a huge difference between their vocal qualities in the show. He seemed over-amplified, emphasizing his less than live style. She seemed to be drowned out.

So, I asked the sound-lady why and she said that Patti goes nuts if she hears herself at all in the monitors, whereas Michael disappears if he's not being blasted. This is not an ideal situation for your leads.

I'll go with Patti, please. It's one thing to be discreetly amplified. It's another thing to forget you're onstage and trying to reach a live audience.