Amplification in Opera

Any thoughts on the impact?

I've read that quite a few opera houses now have speakers set up but it's almost exclusively for the purpose of fixing bad acoustics. Then I read a review of Doctor Atomic and found out that Adams had pretty much everything mic'd and amplified in that opera. I haven't been able to find any information on how this affected the experience though.

Personally, I'm leaning towards amplification being a really good idea. I once went to the Met and sat in the highest level for a performance of La Boheme and, while still enjoyable, it was like listening to the music that someone else is playing in their room down the hall. Everything felt so distant. I can't afford to spend $300 on opera tickets to find out how great it sounds when you're a quarter of that distance from the stage and that strikes me as a very bad thing.

One of the problems with opera, and classical music as a whole, is that the audience is dwindling. There's not much to attract younger people unless they just happen to be particularly curious types. But, if one of those less patient types does decide to check out opera for the first time and goes to a performance they're likely to buy those $50 tickets much sooner than the $450 tickets. This person is likely going to be bored out of their mind if they're used to going to concerts where you have to scream to be heard by the person next to you.

Of course, you have the fear that composers and performers will get lazy and that the audio engineers will take control out of the hands of the conductor. Those seem like only possibilities though. You may end up with these problems but you just as easily may not.

All of this doesn't even get into the possibilities that amplification brings with it. For instance, dynamics. If you have mixers who know nothing about classical music you may end up with compressors thrown on everything until it's squeezed into a 3db range but if compressors are avoided you can maintain the normal dynamics. Along with that you can get much quieter and still be effective. Singers can worry about making things sound nice instead of balancing between that and making sure that someone a mile away can still hear what they're saying and so on.

I'm starting to ramble I think. Obviously I have good feelings about amplification in the opera house but I'm still open to the opposing view. It just seems like it would be so good for bringing in a larger audience. You wouldn't have to be well off to be able to go to an opera and have a dazzling experience. You wouldn't have to lean over the seat in front of you to hear someone speaking or stare at the translation screen. I read once that Sondheim is all sorts of nostalgic for the time when you went to a musical and had to really struggle to hear everything and how he thinks it's bad that listeners don't have to work so much anymore. I have to say, I don't understand why someone should have to do any work when they're going somewhere to be entertained.

Anyway, like I said, any thoughts?

I have nothing at all against it, in principle. In the end, the result counts, not how it was achieved. If electronic assistance is needed, fine, use it.

I think however, that it should be very consciously applied. Just making certain singers/instruments loud can have weird effects if it's done without consideration. For example the heard volume of a singer just might not fit to the kind of sound she or he is producing anymore, making it sound highly unnatural and reducing the identification between the singer and his heard voice. (I.e. singing loudly isn't just louder than singing quietly, it also gives a different tone. And if you just make something that is sung quietly too loud, it will immediately give an "amplification impression" which can be distracting.) The other problem is spatial positioning of the amplified sound. Since the majority of the sound is not coming from the actual position of the singer anymore, but from speakers, there is a loss of spatial information and all voices are brought together to a single place, taking away some of the room experience of the opera stage and making it more flat. Clever positioning of the speakers and being careful of how much of which signal you send to which speaker (or even more advanced stereo/surround-techniques) can help with that.

In most cases, all of these things are not a problem when the amplification isn't too strong, i.e. if the real sound still can be heard and it's not -only- coming from the speakers.

I've composed for a project with Guitar, Viola and Live-Electronics recently, where we had to use amplification. It was crucial to find just the right volume of amplification, to make it loud enough to be heard enough for the whole audience, but not make it sound too detached from the stage and the actual musicians. I think that is one of the crucial points: As soon as the amplification becomes so strong that you're no longer hearing the music as a direct result from the music on stage, but just as "loudspeaker music with people moving around on the stage" you probably should use less amplification, since at this point you might just as well record the musicians/singers and not use them live at all, which would be a lot cheaper. If you -do- use live musicians, don't make them appear totally obsolete.

But of course, one basic thing should also be: Build opera houses with good acoustics!

But of course, one basic thing should also be: Build opera houses with good acoustics!

Of course, but even with the best acoustics you're going to be straining to hear over even whispers in the audience when you're in the cheap seating. I guess you could also just make the opera houses much smaller than venues like the Met but then you would have a harder time bringing in enough money to keep the place running which is already a problem. Building new opera houses is also much more expensive than adding a sound system.

I think a lot of the amplification issues would be easily solved by only placing speakers near the stage. The position of the singers could also be maintained by placing microphones on the stage and panning them instead of on the singers themselves.

Of course. Good acoustics don't solve every problem and as I said, I find using amplification very adequate in many situations. I just meant that acoustics alone can make a huge difference and shouldn't be neglected. Bayreuth simply allows other ways of performing operas than other opera houses, for instance. Even with good amplification something can be incomprehensible if the room acoustics don't work. Not even to mention how it influences the way the performers feel and thus the quality of their performance.

But obviously it's also a financial question. It's clear that you can't just build an opera house to suit your needs everytime you feel like it.

Of course. Good acoustics don't solve every problem and as I said, I find using amplification very adequate in many situations. I just meant that acoustics alone can make a huge difference and shouldn't be neglected. Bayreuth simply allows other ways of performing operas than other opera houses, for instance. Even with good amplification something can be incomprehensible if the room acoustics don't work. Not even to mention how it influences the way the performers feel and thus the quality of their performance.

But obviously it's also a financial question. It's clear that you can't just build an opera house to suit your needs everytime you feel like it.

I've heard that Bayreuth is set up so that every seat is a good seat. You're definitely right about acoustics.

The composers didn't have "Soprano Solo with microphone" written on the score. If the hall needs aplification, it's time to pull out the wrecking ball and build a hall that sounds good. I've been the the absolute last row of the very top teir of the Met and I can still hear everything! It's amazing! Probably several hundred yards from the orchestra can I can hear the quiet oboe solo. That is what it should be like!

But obviously it's also a financial question. It's clear that you can't just build an opera house to suit your needs everytime you feel like it.

Why not? The Met seems to do it just fine. So does the Philharmonic. It seems like a lot of these major organizations spend millions of tax dollars and patronage monies on these sorts of things.

Now if you're the Dubuque Opera Company, well that's a different story.

The composers didn't have "Soprano Solo with microphone" written on the score. If the hall needs aplification, it's time to pull out the wrecking ball and build a hall that sounds good. I've been the the absolute last row of the very top teir of the Met and I can still hear everything! It's amazing! Probably several hundred yards from the orchestra can I can hear the quiet oboe solo. That is what it should be like!

Of course you can hear it, as long as no one is whispering. My problem isn't that it's completely inaudible from that distance, it's that it doesn't carry a big impact. If you try to introduce someone to opera who has only ever been to pop concerts and their first experience is some quiet music (a lot of which isn't supposed to be quiet) that's a hundred yards away they're going to lose interest quick.

I wasn't aware that the Met rebuilt their house all the time either. I was under the impression that they're hurting for money judging by the amount they bug me for donations. In the 3 months after since attending a performance I've gotten 2 letters looking for donations and 3 phone calls for the same. They even told me that their ticket sales covers only a portion of their costs.

One of the problems with opera, and classical music as a whole, is that the audience is dwindling. There's not much to attract younger people unless they just happen to be particularly curious types. But, if one of those less patient types does decide to check out opera for the first time and goes to a performance they're likely to buy those $50 tickets much sooner than the $450 tickets. This person is likely going to be bored out of their mind if they're used to going to concerts where you have to scream to be heard by the person next to you.

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. The whole notion that "them youngsters listen to amplified music, so if we amplify opera they might like it" seems to me quite misguided. It's attaching too much weight to a very superficial characteristic.

That aside, it must be realized that satisfactorily amplifying an opera is not easy. It requires considerable skill from the engineers, and done less than decently it can be disastrous. I would rather listen to an unamplified opera in a good hall that's on the quiet side, than a badly amplified one. You have to remember that in the various types of music where amplification is common, the music itself evolved and developed with amplification in mind, and is tailored to suit it, just like opera is tailored to suit a situation where everything needs to be loud enough to be heard directly. Different approaches are needed for both to function truly well, and when taking one already developed medium, and tacking onto it a foreign means of expression, great care must be exercised if the result is to give the impression of a developed artistic concept, rather than a makeshift compromise.

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. The whole notion that "them youngsters listen to amplified music, so if we amplify opera they might like it" seems to me quite misguided. It's attaching too much weight to a very superficial characteristic.

That aside, it must be realized that satisfactorily amplifying an opera is not easy. It requires considerable skill from the engineers, and done less than decently it can be disastrous. I would rather listen to an unamplified opera in a good hall that's on the quiet side, than a badly amplified one. You have to remember that in the various types of music where amplification is common, the music itself evolved and developed with amplification in mind, and is tailored to suit it, just like opera is tailored to suit a situation where everything needs to be loud enough to be heard directly. Different approaches are needed for both to function truly well, and when taking one already developed medium, and tacking onto it a foreign means of expression, great care must be exercised if the result is to give the impression of a developed artistic concept, rather than a makeshift compromise.

I wouldn't consider it a superficial characteristic. If that were true then why would so many opera-goers rally against the idea and why would people claim that it completely changed the face of musicals? Sure, it's not as important as the actual music but it does affect how the music is written and it certainly affects the experience. My point about new listeners is that it's just one more thing to kill their interest, not the only thing.

I would argue that other amplified music has not developed with amplification. Rock music from the 50s onward and any music that didn't exist before then you can say that for but that leaves out plenty of genres that use amplification. Jazz, musicals, folk music all use amplification regularly now and didn't start with it. It has changed the way they developed since it started being used but they didn't start with sound systems in mind. Saying opera shouldn't use amplification because it wasn't written with amplification in mind in the past is self-defeating. Nothing would ever change if we thought that way.

Honestly, I'd like it if we could rewind 150 years and still have all the advantages that opera had before amplification and recording technology but, since we can't, it seems foolish to not take advantage of the tools at our disposal today.

So far the argument seems to be that if mics aren't used, pop music lovers who for some reason are being introduced to opera won't like it.

The operatic voice itself is trained so that it can carry itself throughout a huge hall and still be heard. The complaint here seems to be that such volume wouldn't be enough for someone used to extremely loud concerts.

So what? Screw them. Why should we change opera the way it has been for centuries just to please an audience that will probably never like it anyway? And just because other genres use amplification and it's been invented, we might as well use it? If we're gonna use amplification, then operatic voices won't be trained the same way; they're trained to be heard across an entire hall without amplification. I've never seen orchestras use amplification in standard halls either (outside concerts/stadiums are a completely different thing, and in those cases even operatic voices are amplified.) And just like it's been said, good amplification of operatic voices is very difficult to achieve, and even then plenty of its natural characteristics are distorted or gone. The ability to carry one's voice across an entire hall is also an indicator of its quality; amplification, for example, would erase that completely, so you could mask plenty of vocal shortcomings and deficiencies.

Amen to that! :thumbsup:

So far the argument seems to be that if mics aren't used, pop music lovers who for some reason are being introduced to opera won't like it.

The operatic voice itself is trained so that it can carry itself throughout a huge hall and still be heard. The complaint here seems to be that such volume wouldn't be enough for someone used to extremely loud concerts.

So what? Screw them. Why should we change opera the way it has been for centuries just to please an audience that will probably never like it anyway? And just because other genres use amplification and it's been invented, we might as well use it? If we're gonna use amplification, then operatic voices won't be trained the same way; they're trained to be heard across an entire hall without amplification. I've never seen orchestras use amplification in standard halls either (outside concerts/stadiums are a completely different thing, and in those cases even operatic voices are amplified.) And just like it's been said, good amplification of operatic voices is very difficult to achieve, and even then plenty of its natural characteristics are distorted or gone. The ability to carry one's voice across an entire hall is also an indicator of its quality; amplification, for example, would erase that completely, so you could mask plenty of vocal shortcomings and deficiencies.

Just as a note. I started this thread to give people a chance to convince me and as well as to talk about a pertinent topic. I'm also argumentative though, soo.. Just don't want anyone to have the wrong idea when I make my points.

Anyway, why should we keep opera exactly the same just to spite people that we don't think deserve it? Your argument on that end goes both ways.

Also, why should we worry about the way people are trained to sing? If they no longer need to project their voices across great chasms, why does that matter?

I think it might be a bit of a sky-is-falling idea to believe that if singers are amplified they will all the sudden turn into utter crap. Are there still great singers in musicals? Or jazz? Would you not consider anyone in the pop world to be a good singer? It's not like all the sudden everyone who wants to be a vocalist will completely abandon training and leave everything up to the Autotune plugin up in the mixing room. Some may, but I don't think it would be that hard to spot the ones that don't.

Anyway, why should we keep opera exactly the same just to spite people that we don't think deserve it? Your argument on that end goes both ways.

It's not that they don't deserve it, it's that they don't understand and don't like it. I certainly don't see heavy metal groups trying to please opera listeners.

Also, why should we worry about the way people are trained to sing? If they no longer need to project their voices across great chasms, why does that matter?

It matters that if they lack that training, they'll lack elsewhere as well, since the ability to project one's voice and its operatic tone are interconnected.

I think it might be a bit of a sky-is-falling idea to believe that if singers are amplified they will all the sudden turn into utter crap. Are there still great singers in musicals? Or jazz? Would you not consider anyone in the pop world to be a good singer? It's not like all the sudden everyone who wants to be a vocalist will completely abandon training and leave everything up to the Autotune plugin up in the mixing room. Some may, but I don't think it would be that hard to spot the ones that don't.

They could be good voices without that training, but they would not be operatic voices. And opera needs operatic voices, not Broadway singers, or pop singers, or jazz singers. You don't see Placido Domingo singing Rolling Stones songs, and you don't see Mick Jagger staring in La Traviata.

Operatic voices are the way they are and SOUND the way they are because they can't rely on amplification. Make amplification the norm and in a generation or two, the operatic voice will be completely distorted.

It's not that they don't deserve it, it's that they don't understand and don't like it. I certainly don't see heavy metal groups trying to please opera listeners.

Actually a lot of metal groups use symphonic sounds and operatic singing. But anyway, metal isn't particularly looking to woo classical fans because it doesn't have to. Metal has an extremely healthy audience which is not something that's easy to say for opera.

It matters that if they lack that training, they'll lack elsewhere as well, since the ability to project one's voice and its operatic tone are interconnected.

If that tone is not attainable without projecting one's voice then wouldn't any singer who likes that sound still learn to project their voice to create the desired tone? If people like the sound of an operatic voice then singers will try to sound operatic, won't they?

They could be good voices without that training, but they would not be operatic voices. And opera needs operatic voices, not Broadway singers, or pop singers, or jazz singers. You don't see Placido Domingo singing Rolling Stones songs, and you don't see Mick Jagger staring in La Traviata.

Actually, we have Placido Domingo singing a John Denver tune right here:

And then there's Pavarotti singing a James Brown song:

YouTube - James Brown & Pavarotti

And then there's.. uh, well I'm not sure if this really fits but it's neat anyway. Freddie Mercury singing something with Montserrat Cabelle that sounds a bit more operatic than rockish.. Maybe it's broadway:

Actually a lot of metal groups use symphonic sounds and operatic singing. But anyway, metal isn't particularly looking to woo classical fans because it doesn't have to. Metal has an extremely healthy audience which is not something that's easy to say for opera.

If we have to distort opera just to make new fans, I really don't see the point. And metal groups don't use those things necessarily to please classical music fans. Opera might not be nearly as huge as it used to be, but it's not dying either. Huge opera companies all over the world aren't going bankrupt. There are still new talents being discovered and very successful opera singers exist nowadays.

If that tone is not attainable without projecting one's voice then wouldn't any singer who likes that sound still learn to project their voice to create the desired tone? If people like the sound of an operatic voice then singers will try to sound operatic, won't they?

They won't be as good. In a performance of Madame Butterfly I saw (just to give an example of what can, and does happen everywhere) the tenor (whose tone, obviously, was operatic) could barely be heard at the bottom rows of the hall. And guess what, though operatic, his voice really wasn't anything special, on the contrary. The soprano, though, had an amazing, beautiful tone, and she always overpowered the tenor. If that opera used amplification, many of the tenor's flaws would have been masked.

Actually, we have Placido Domingo singing a John Denver tune right here:

And then there's Pavarotti singing a James Brown song:

YouTube - James Brown & Pavarotti

And then there's.. uh, well I'm not sure if this really fits but it's neat anyway. Freddie Mercury singing something with Montserrat Cabelle that sounds a bit more operatic than rockish.. Maybe it's broadway:

Yeah, famous singers do those things once in a while... do you honestly like that? I personally find it very awkward to hear John Denver sung by an operatic voice.

And if you manage to find me popular music singers singing operatic repertoire, I bet it'll sound even worse.

I wouldn't consider it a superficial characteristic. If that were true then why would so many opera-goers rally against the idea and why would people claim that it completely changed the face of musicals? Sure, it's not as important as the actual music but it does affect how the music is written and it certainly affects the experience. My point about new listeners is that it's just one more thing to kill their interest, not the only thing.

I'm saying that it's a superficial characteristic in the sense that few people like "amplified music" because it's amplified. That argument does not have any bearing on the importance of its technical and creative implications, which indeed is something I tried to be very clear about later in my post.

I would argue that other amplified music has not developed with amplification. Rock music from the 50s onward and any music that didn't exist before then you can say that for but that leaves out plenty of genres that use amplification. Jazz, musicals, folk music all use amplification regularly now and didn't start with it. It has changed the way they developed since it started being used but they didn't start with sound systems in mind.

You would argue that other amplified music has not developed with amplification, yet you agree that it has changed the way they developed since it started being used? I'm not sure whether you agree or disagree with me. Whether Django used an amplifier or not does not in any way affect the fact that amplification is a very important part of the modern jazz guitar idiom.

Saying opera shouldn't use amplification because it wasn't written with amplification in mind in the past is self-defeating.

I agree, and I have not said that. I think you'll find that we're actually in agreement over a lot of things here.

I agree, and I have not said that. I think you'll find that we're actually in agreement over a lot of things here.

It does sound like we're in agreement on a lot of things.

I think the point I was making wasn't that amplification hasn't affected the development of music that started without it but that it wasn't necessarily bad that it happened that way. I think a lot of the issue with using amplification in opera has to do with which operas one is proposing to amplify. Amplifying Rameau's Platee might cause a lot of problems but amplifying new operas that have microphones and whatnot in mind doesn't seem so sinful. If that changes the way they're written or performed from now on, I personally wouldn't see that as such a bad thing. It's just another development to me.

If we have to distort opera just to make new fans, I really don't see the point. And metal groups don't use those things necessarily to please classical music fans. Opera might not be nearly as huge as it used to be, but it's not dying either. Huge opera companies all over the world aren't going bankrupt. There are still new talents being discovered and very successful opera singers exist nowadays.

I was just having a little fun with the first part of that argument (I play devil's advocate way too much). But the second part, while opera may not be on it's death bed, it's not exactly doing all that much either. I was looking at the schedules for some major opera houses yesterday and they're littered with works that are 100+ years old. That's fine as I want to have the opportunity to see them, but I get the feeling that it was at one point the opposite as far as new vs old operas being performed. It makes it seem like opera is only hanging on because there are people that still want to see those classics but it's not thriving like it should.

They won't be as good. In a performance of Madame Butterfly I saw (just to give an example of what can, and does happen everywhere) the tenor (whose tone, obviously, was operatic) could barely be heard at the bottom rows of the hall. And guess what, though operatic, his voice really wasn't anything special, on the contrary. The soprano, though, had an amazing, beautiful tone, and she always overpowered the tenor. If that opera used amplification, many of the tenor's flaws would have been masked.

Would that necessarily be bad? You say he had an operatic tone but couldn't project. If you were at that performance and he projected just as much as the more skilled singer, wouldn't your experience have been that much better?

Yeah, famous singers do those things once in a while... do you honestly like that? I personally find it very awkward to hear John Denver sung by an operatic voice.

And if you manage to find me popular music singers singing operatic repertoire, I bet it'll sound even worse.

Yeah, they do tend to sound pretty bad trying to sing opera. Like in this:

YouTube - Pavarotti and friends - Nessun Dorma

I think I was just jumping at the opportunity to post some funny videos. ;) There are some of Domingo's solo work too... yikes. They're too bad to link to, heh.

Would that necessarily be bad? You say he had an operatic tone but couldn't project. If you were at that performance and he projected just as much as the more skilled singer, wouldn't your experience have been that much better?

His tone was operatic, but not good/very pleasing. The fact that he couldn't project his voice well his proof that he didn't have a very good tone. It serves as a standard of measurement. More voice projection = better tone.

How would you define "voice projection", for someone who isn't particularly well versed in traditional theories of vocal technique?

His tone was operatic, but not good/very pleasing. The fact that he couldn't project his voice well his proof that he didn't have a very good tone. It serves as a standard of measurement. More voice projection = better tone.

Were you only able to notice his bad tone because his voice wasn't carrying or did it just sound bad and his voice not carrying was just that much more evidence that he was a bad singer?

How would you define "voice projection", for someone who isn't particularly well versed in traditional theories of vocal technique?

It's the ability to make one's singing (or speaking) voice heard clearly in a large space. This is accomplished by making use of the specially trained voice, supported by a specially trained diaphragm muscle, and amplfied using the natural resonating chambers of the body (the oral cavity, the sinuses, etc).

Good singing, and particularly operating singing, is basically highly refined and controlled screaming. Almost anyone can produce a scream that can carry and be heard quite clearly in a 3,500 seat auditorium - possibly even a 50,000 seat stadium - but through extensive training an opera singer uses the same kind of mechanism to sustain beautifully produced musical tones.

It takes talent and an exceptional instrument as well. Speaking for myself, I am capable of making myself heard fairly well, but despite my training my vocal instrument is better suited to more intimate applications, such as church or chamber music. Not every voice is suited to opera; training helps, but the instrument must be suitable.

Just to put my two cents in on this issue: my husband - a rock and jazz-fusion guitarist - doesn't enjoy my concerts or church services because he is highly accustomed to making and listening to music that is amplified considerably as a matter of course. Whether or not we realise it, most of us are so accustomed to everything being amplified, from the preacher at church to the principal at the school assembly and most contemporary/popular music. Everything nowadays is so damned loud, and we have come to expect it! I don't think this is a particularly favourable development, particularly when an operatic singer's voice - capable of producing sounds upwards of 110 decibels - isn't considered present enough in a reasonably sized auditorium. Amplification is potentially damaging to hearing, and I see this trend as spiraling out of control if even opera isn't immune to unreasonable expectations.

Not to mention making opera singers (or any singer) sing too loud (for whatever reason) *will* damage their voices, and result in a lack of agility, and, usually, far too much vibrato.

Not to mention making opera singers (or any singer) sing too loud (for whatever reason) *will* damage their voices, and result in a lack of agility, and, usually, far too much vibrato.

I've heard a couple times that this is a problem with modern tenors like Jose Cura (who I actually like a lot). I've read that they push their voices too much and, while it sounds good for a while, it damages their voice and they end up with short careers. If they still have to project to get the right tone this issue may only be partially reduced by using amplification.

Oh, and I can't stand it when singers cannot turn off their vibrato. I understand opera uses quite a bit of it, but seriously... Oh! And when singers roll their R's even if the libretto is in English. Argh!