Seeing a recent advert for the “7 Irish Tenors” all holding mike’s to sing into prompted me to question…before the age of electricity and amplification all the great singers would have had to depend on the power of their voices, and the quality of the acoustics in the venues they performed in. My question is …“are current classical/opera singers, who all seem to require amplification in some way (thinking every shot I’ve seen of Pavarotti, Domingo etc always with mikes ) that much weaker and poorer singers than past generations?”
My first inkling of this was my folks going to see a Russian singer (Ivan Rebroff) back in the 80’s who’s music they loved…they were both appalled to find he performed with a mike…telling me all their past favourites never ever used any amplification …in the same venues. Can someone enlighten me?
Most all actual opera (as opposed to concerts of the “N Tenors” and the like sort) is still performed without amplification.
Probably in those days making too much audience noise (coughing, chit-chat) was probably a bigger no-no. Plus, I suspect opera houses were smaller than the giant theatres today.
OTOH, our school plays (and musicals) were done in a larger auditorium, 800+ seats, in the days before those tiny headsets, and all the actors had to do was remember to be decently loud when speaking or singing.
And acoustics were a more important art - every so often I see or hear a bit about the ability in a giant Roman or Greek amphitheatre to hear a regular spoken voice from the stage in the back row. Microphones probably matter when you’re trying to project to a large indoor sports arena instead of a concert hall.
Also, I look at the seating plans for Vienna Opera house or Covent Gardens, and I count a ground floor of 30 wide by 20 rows of seats - hardly a massive theatre, compared to the floor (Orchestra) of the Met in NYC which appears to have 70 seats across, and go from row A to EE (presumably, meaning 31 rows). The newer theatres also have much higher ceilings, meaning the top balconies or boxes are much further away.
The Met seats nearly 4000, putting it on the larger end of the scale, the Royal Opera House (Covent Garden) around 2200 - neither uses amplification for any normal opera performance (underscoring the incredible technique required of the performers - remember there’s an entire live orchestra between the stage and the audience, too! - anyone who’s never been should check out a live opera sometime if they’re at all interested in that sort of thing.)
Moved to Cafe Society.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Yes indeed. I’ve been to many operas at the Met over the years.
The amazing thing about the technique of the singers there is that not only can you hear them from the back row, they have astonishing dynamic control – lines that are supposed to sound like they’re whispered actually sound like that, while still being entirely audible.
Whether or not you like opera, it’s worth going to a performance just to hear what a trained voice can do.
Is it possible that when these singers are performing individually (as opposed to an opera) that they use the mike for recording purposes, even if they are performing live?
Absolutely. Met performances are sometimes recorded. And/or broadcast on the radio. So there are microphones (although the performers aren’t usually personally miked, or carrying a microphone).
But there is no amplification in the house. None, never, not at a major opera house. It would be a huge big deal, a scandal, if a singer were discovered to be using amplification in an opera house.
Stadium performances (like the however-many-tenors stuff) are another story.
Not opera, but you can easily find pictures of the early crooners (Rudy Valee, for example) singing to large crowds through a megaphone.
You’re almost certainly talking about pictures of them in concert (rather than staged opera) performances.
The sure giveaway is what they’re wearing - tuxedos, or something obviously costume-y?