To Mic or Not to Mic


I’m seeing a lot of mentions about Nico’s mic-ing/ John Adams comments. I do think it’s a noteworthy topic, so I’ll weigh in with my 98 cents.

Personally, I am less concerned with the idea of mic-ing the performers as threatening the “Opera-ness” of a given piece of Opera. While I agree that the bel canto style of singing was originally developed for its functionality (i.e. unamplified projection over an orchestra), I don’t think it’s a betrayal of a bel canto trained singer to mic them up. If that’s a betrayal, then supertitles definitely are too.
So is the incorporation of dance, perhaps. Or even just liberal use of blocking. Here’s the New York Times on that topic, including mentions of “Marnie”: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/arts/dance/opera-choreography.html. I’ve also seen articles in the last few years about experimentation with stage design in opera, and the hand-wringing/pearl-clutching that sometimes comes with it.

I’ll nit-pick a little more… If we think of the Opera form as coming about in the 1600’s, then we can easily say that there have been many technological advancements which were incorporated into the form without destroying it. Down in the pit, there are many “newcomer” instruments. The piccolo flute, piano, and pedal harp - all three of which Muhly orchestrates with quite frequently and deftly. Those didn’t show up until about a hundred years into the Opera tradition. And valve horns - including the french horn which Muhly admits to be baffled by - didn’t come for about another hundred years after that. Wagner, with his (now universally-accepted) values about how performance halls should be built, and how audiences should behave at shows, didn’t come until after the operas of Mozart and Beethoven had already been written. Surely no one has a problem with a Mozart piece being performed in a space not originally intended by the composer.

I say all this to illustrate that Opera, like any art form, is undergoing constant aesthetic evolution. Let’s take high art (and the uptightness around it) out of the conversation for a second. We could use a sports analogy to understand why it’s ok to change aspects of the form. American Football wasn’t always played with helmets, for instance. Or: they continued calling it basketball after they added the three-point line. Maybe that’s the better analogy. Because in the same way that some basketball players don’t concern themselves much with shooting from behind the three-point line, and some focus on & specialize in shooting behind it, likewise there seems to be composers who both use and don’t use mics in their operas. And both methods give us desirable/productive results.

Muhly seemed more interested in being in conversation with the history this form he loves, rather than adhering to every single received norm. For example, he seems to pick stories that are “Operatic” in their scale of emotion, in their grand mythic arcs - yet are thoroughly modern and unconventional.

The most interesting part about the mic-ing conversation, to me, is about how one might compose, orchestrate, and music direct an Opera depending on microphone-aided amplification. If I write a piece that doesn’t require mics, maybe that gives my piece more opportunities to be performed. Since the sound department won’t be so budget-needy, maybe more future productions are possible. On the other hand, mic-ing affords me a much bigger range of expression: quiet passages can be so very quiet, and loud passages can be as balanced and clear as there is time to work on the mix. The workflow of a production looks different too: coming from a musical theater background, I know that mic-ing has a big effect on rehearsal process. When there are mics, it generally follows that the bigger the performance space, the bigger the role of the sound designer in helping realize the composer’s, arranger’s, and orchestrator’s ideas. So the music and sound departments end up in conversation more often, and the sound designer is a not insignificant collaborator.

If it serves my opera for my characters to sing from anywhere other than fully downstage, or to sing very quietly, then I might want mic-ing. If I want my orchestra in a non-traditional location relative to the audience, then I might want mic-ing. If my production doesn’t have a lot of rehearsal time in the performance space, or if there’s not a big budget, then maybe I don’t want  to go to the trouble of mic-ing my opera. Like one of my classmates, I too, find myself wondering whether the Met has a rule about no mics. Maybe that was part of Muhly’s algorithm while working on the commission.

Given all that, I think we should leave it up to the composers and their collaborators whether they want to call their piece an “Opera”, mics or not.


Comments

  1. I agree with your notion that using microphones on singers should be accepted in the operatic tradition, especially when mics are an aural necessity (the need to hear singing over a loud orchestra, for example). However, I admire Nico Muhly's decision to not use mics, for it affected his approach orchestration and forced him to consider how the singers were going to be perceived with the underlying notes and textures.
    You mentioned some technological advancements in music that been incorporated in such; I think what's next for the future of opera is an increased presence of electronic production. One example of that is the "The Echo Drift," and opera commissioned by the American Opera Projects, with music by Mikael Karlsson. This is something I am looking forward to because I believe it will open up the possibilities of storytelling. Many of the subjects in opera are of the past, from old folklore to life in the 18th century. With electronic music, there would be a natural progression to incorporating futuristic elements.
    By the way, I believe the Met is ok with mics...I saw their production of John Adams' "Nixon in China," and the lead singers used them. Check out the "News" aria sometime, for some reason I am quite drawn to it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, I love your post, but personally I think this is a timbre or "timbrish" issue mainly. We as a society are definitely not used to the sound that the traditional opera singing technique provides, so many composers (such as me) may have that sound in the palette BUT don´t use it in the traditional way.

    Nevertheless, opera singers are mainly trained with the traditional technique and they not only love its sound but are kind of "rated" by the audience and the critics based on how they can perform vocally with the mindset of the traditional technique. This is why I wouldn´t be surprised to come across a singer which may be reluctant to perform opera without the traditional opera voice sound.

    And yeah, I know that ideally the composer´s will should be always respected over that kind of issues, but in the real world with this kind of things it just becomes sort of a stupid negotiation...

    ReplyDelete
  3. It would be interesting to me whether someone used mic on and off throughout a performance. Perhaps only utilizing them when the singer could not be heard over the orchestra. This combination approach utilizing them only when necessary and still allowing the opera singer to flex their vocal muscles may be a good compromise for those singers who think its disrespectful to use them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was very interesting reading about your analysis of to mic or not to mic opera singers, given technological and traditional considerations. It’s nice that tradition is still a factor with respect to this art form, while at the same time evolving and adapting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like your point about how a composer might create a work with the fact that there might be mics in the future to amplify the sound. I'm not entirely sure how much more common this is becoming in all mediums, whether it be opera, film music, or concert music, but with how sophisticated live mixing has become, proper orchestral balance may not be as necessary as it used to be. Which is an interesting thought to consider-does orchestration matter when new possibilities are made available via new technology. In times past larger string sections became necessary in order to balance with new brass instruments. I think as music evolves and as we use these traditional mediums new techniques are inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. While I am definitely not against using microphones if needed, or unless specifically requested, I could see why individuals would be hesitant to want to use them. Several of my friends view having a mic placed upon them as an affront to their singing ability.

    Personally, from a directing/conducting perspective, I would like to keep traditionally staged and composed works as analog as possible, but sometimes the room, singer, or orchestration (typically in newer works) just makes this ideal impossible. That said, I have observed some very dynamic choreography of "standard" operas that would have been impossible without a microphone.

    In the end, I'll go with whatever is the most practical and sounds the best, mic or not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For me the insane advantage of the microphone is that it allows for a far wider range of expression than a solo voice in the context of opera, because it means that the singer need to worry about if they are going to be heard or not. This might allow them to whisper lines, or sing so softly that only they could hear, or to shout with the kind of impact that you would get by shouting directly into someones face. I believe the "tradition" of opera is greatly holding back the artistic development of the genre. This is a great pity as I believe in many other genres composers feel free to break the rules, but in this genre they simply will not get commissions/performances if they do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think putting a mic on a singer depends on the context. Sometimes I think the singer's voice don't carry the same way in Opera when microphones are used. Sometimes genres are better heard in a purely acoustic tone.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the idea of incorporating amplification into the composition of a piece is very interesting. I think sound engineers are constantly faced with the question of whether to amplify or not amplify vocalists in certain situations. I think it can be a strong decision for a composer to include whether or not to include microphones in the setup, and can be a great creative choice, but like some previous commenters have alluded to it can be a dangerous decision for a particular space or may hinder performance opportunities if certain venues cannot adequately fulfill the desired setup.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bora Yoon - Musical Perspective

John Zorn writeup - What are the costs of 'irreverence'?