| Multiple Perspectives, (Hopefully) One Sound |
|
|
| Written by Jason Pritchard | |
| Nov 05, 2007 |
; "Image") How the band, the actors and “me” all fit together in performanceI sit behind a console and mix a show. That’s my reality, but what about the actor’s show? What show are they hearing? Then there’s the band or orchestra. Is there another show happening in the pit? While everyone is doing the same show, the external influences that affect each of the participants can be very different. The people involved are spread out around the room, the actors on stage, the musicians in the pit, perhaps backstage or other remote locations. Not to mention the audio engineer behind the console, which may or may not be located in a position which allows the engineer to hear the show that most of the audience hears. And certainly not what the musicians or actors hear. Everyone has a different point of reference. Performing is a complex combination of anticipation and reaction. Each person’s actions are influenced by the actions of other people. When anticipation and reality coincide, the job feels easy. It’s when the collective anticipated actions are incorrect, and the performance becomes reactive, that difficulty sets in. For engineers to be successful, they should have an understanding of what the other people might be hearing. Through consistency of performance, understanding the realities of the other participants and compromise in execution, the tension of seemingly incoherent actions can be made amenable. ; "Image")
Me SyndromePeople are selfish. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just reality. Each of us is in our position because we care about our little slice of the show. It’s easy for the band to play the show as though their performance doesn’t affect the actors onstage. And it is also easy for the actors to fail to realize that their performance affects the musicians in the pit. Those performances both affect and are affected by the audio engineer and the sound system. Alterations in performance by one group forces the others to react and change. That’s actually the beauty of live performance, but it is also the one biggest daily battle with which we are faced. When the performance is happening, it is hard to realize that one’s actions have so much influence on the other groups. The actions of the others that one experiences are often questioned, or written off as “I’m just hearing things.” The struggle for consistency and ease of performance is felt globally. The Band A couple of years ago, I had a conversation with the music director for a show I was mixing. We were discussing revamping the monitor system for the band. The old system was unwieldy, loud and didn’t give the musicians what they needed to hear to play a consistent performance. The system was so bad, in fact, that it strained the relationships between the musicians. Consequently, the show was difficult to mix, the people were unhappy — going to work felt like a job (if you can imagine). We wondered if it had to be this difficult. We agreed that the mix had to be consistent from show to show. The effect of outside influences (someone else’s monitors or the FOH mix) needed to be minimized. We agreed that the perfect mix for the drummer was different from the perfect mix for the keyboard player, yet we needed consistency and continuity for everyone. So we replaced the old analog console with one of those new-fangled digital consoles, and replaced the wedges and amplifiers with headphones. A mix was created that was more or less balanced for an average mix of elements. From there each musician worked with the engineer to tweak the generic mix to something customized to their liking. A couple weeks and 30 snapshot cues later (one or two for each number in the show), we had nine individual mixes that were what each person needed to hear throughout the show. Although each mix was different, each was consistent from show to show. After running the show like this for a couple of months, the consistency of the mixes brought some pleasant — and wholly unexpected — results. The musicians began to hear things that they had never heard before. They began to hear when the bass player changed strings. They could hear a drum overhead microphone out of place. They could hear subtle variations in level that before now were second-guessed due to the daily inconsistency of the old system. And they corrected for what they heard. Meanwhile, at front of house, I stopped chasing inconsistent levels and mixing for damage control. We were able to take the sound of the show to another level, and it was easier and much less frustrating for me and for them. Going to work was fun again. We had found a way to have different things, but have those different things in a consistent and orderly manner. The band, in this case, got tighter because each player could hear what they needed to be consistent. The downside was isolation from the audience and the rest of the performance. Band members put on the headphones and got into their own space, then forgot that there was anyone else involved. Overall, the situation got better, but the side effects didn’t go completely unnoticed. There is always a trade-off. Actors Onstage monitors in a musical are a touchy subject. The performers on stage need to be able to hear the music, as well as each other. The issue of putting the vocals in the monitors often comes up, but the process of having them there is fraught with difficulty. The process adds extra level to the stage, which potentially creates more problems being able to hear. The problem is made worse in musical theatre when performers often don’t use hand-held mics or headsets. In this example, each performer was wearing a hairline mounted microphone. The amount of gain needed to allow hairline mics to work is often not conducive to the presence of monitor speakers. Vocals produced from speakers located in the lighting ladders in the wings, or through floor-mounted wedges, also damage the illusion of the performer’s voice actually coming from the actor’s mouth. Once again, a trade-off. During one show I was working, I received a request from the cast. The performers were having a hard time feeling “reinforced.” While the sound department is responsible for making sure that the P.A. is reinforcing and everyone is being heard, this wasn’t an issue of “the audience can’t hear me.” The performers were struggling to sing above the music that was in the monitors. The decision had been made long before, by the sound designers and musical directors, that there were to be no vocals in the onstage monitors. The increased chance of feedback, along with the damaging effects of a secondary P.A., were among the reasons that this decision was made — a decision made on behalf of the audience to protect their enjoyment of the show. Nevertheless, performers’ requests are important and need to be addressed. First, I had to try and understand the issue that was being presented. I’m not a singer, or performer, but I did what had to be done. We arranged a little time during a sound check with the band where I could walk around the stage and take a listen to the sound that was being presented. This might have worked, except that the issue had to do with “feeling reinforced.” The only way to understand what that meant was to mic myself up, stand onstage and sing through the P.A. Not my finest hour, but very productive in terms of gaining an understanding of the issue. What I heard was very revealing. It was true that it was hard to tell if the P.A. was on, but that was mostly because the music coming from the monitors was quite loud and there was an electric guitar in the pit with an amplifier pointed at the stage. With a little tweak of the onstage monitors, and a slight spin applied to the guitar amp, the performers could hear what they needed. They felt more comfortable onstage and relaxed their singing a little, which protects voices and allows them to produce a much nicer, more controlled sound. The show was better for the change, and we didn’t exacerbate the problem by trying to add level to the stage. Sound affects everyone, and everyone hears it differently due to location and the uniqueness of individual experience. The best thing an engineer can do is to listen. Listen to the P.A., listen to the concerns that others might have about that which they are hearing. They will likely rely on the expertise of the engineer to understand the issues and to work toward an amicable resolution. Sometimes the request to fix a problem isn’t met with a solution that is obvious. With a little care, real-world solutions can be simple. Not every problem requires more gear, or more sound. Jason Pritchard is head of audio for Cirque du Soleil’s production of LOVE. Don't get Stage Directions? Click here to subscribe now!
|
||
| SD Archives | |||||
 March 2010 or |  April 2010 or |  May 2010 or |  June 2010 or |  July 2010 or |  August 2010 |
| Browse all the archives >>> | |||||
|
|
© 2005-2008 Timeless Communications 6000 S. Eastern Ave. Suite 14-J Las Vegas, NV 89119 P: (702) 932-5585 • F: (702) 932-5584 Site design and development by Eklyptic |