Ethics in Live Performances

[soundman]

The autotune thread was getting fairly derailed by a discussion of ethics when the question seemed more to be about the technical how-to rather than should I. This is an interesting issue and perhaps worthy of its own thread.

Where is the line between cheating an audience and creating a spectacle? If an actress is blond and the costume designer wants them to have black hair no one would think twice about getting them a wig or getting them a dye job. If the show is booked into a venue where cuts have to be made no apology is made about the extra scenery or lights that got left in the truck. More than a few rock concerts have teleprompters out on the road with them and its not a big deal the artist can't remember the song. If a mic pack goes down or a cast member looses their voice and the A1 has to fade in the backing track there is no announcement after the fact. So where should the line be drawn for our technological steroids?

Personally for me it depends on what the intent of the show. If the focus is on spectacle or pure entertainment like a rock show, musical, and production piece if you can get away with it let it all out. If the show is focused around the craft or talent of a particular group like a choir concert or string ensemble you are then cheating the audience.

 

[Footer]

It really comes down to the phrase LIVE theatre. In a world that everything is airbrushed, computer generated, green screened, and all that fun stuff people come to the theatre or to a show to see a live performance. This is why when a person gets outed for using autotune or choke tracks the public goes up in arms. They paid to see a live show, not a pre-recorded one. Costume changes are one thing, making the performance fake is another.

If the show is indeed a professional show, getting people that can hit the right pitch should not be an issue. If it is, its time to find a new cast member. I know backing tracks and choke tracks are pretty common in the cruise industry and vegas style shows. I have yet to hear anyone using either on Broadway. Because all Broadway music is performed live (how it should be) using a backing track would be nearly impossible without a click track system. Producers on Broadway would love to go canned music, it saves a ton of money. However, the unions has patrons in general have managed to keep it out. Equity does not like click tracks and backing vocals. They feel if the producer needs more sound, they should hire offstage singers. Many theatres do exactly that. However, no matter what everything is live, the way it should be.

 

[MNicolai]

I think it's about authenticity and expectations.

When the talent has a cold but still takes the stage, I've seen plenty still put on great performances that the audiences loved and no one in the crowd was about to walk up to the talent and say, "Wow, you kind of sucked tonight." They typically give standing ovations and afterwards we hear lots of comments to the tune of "It was a great performance, but it was also a real shame she wasn't feeling well." Nobody's at the ticket windows asking for their money back, because they don't expect someone with a cold to give the best performance of their career. However, if the performance really is unbearable because the talent is incredibly sick, then we should have cancelled the performance and should be refunding tickets and cutting our losses.

But what do you do if the person isn't capable of hitting the notes in the first place, regardless of health? You don't book them. They aren't talent -- not in a way that would make me proud to be selling their tickets to our patrons that come to our venue expecting a unique and exciting performance. The bar for authenticity is too low from the starting gate the day that they assume their role, and from there on out it's trickery.

When tricks like autotune are used, there's no difference between the person at the microphone and the kid from down the block. Whoever is singing, the right notes will get hit at the right times. But my audience didn't pay to see the kid from down the block sing, they came to see a performance by someone who contributed genuine art to the musical community.

I asked Daniel Holter at The Burst Collective just outside of Milwaukee what his thoughts on the matter were from the perspective of a record producer:

Do you believe autotune has a legitimate place in recording or live audio situations?

Well, I think a definition of “legitimate” may be needed here, but… sure. Why not? I mean, there are forms of entertainment where such manipulations of reality are not only welcomed but expected. I only have a problem when deceit or a lack of authenticity is the explicit goal.

I’ve seen photographs that overuse Photoshop, and find many of them offensive to my eyes and the spirit of what it means to be human. But there’s a place for plastic and sugar and HDR and 3D and AutoTune, just as there’s a place for remarkably untrained vocalists and abstract painters and lo-fi photographs.

To each his/her own. I just want authentic experiences, whether such a moment is about being genuinely inauthentic (such as much of pop music) or if it’s about being real and heartfelt. There’s a place for all of it, I say.

 

[Pie4Weebl]

I think there is a difference in expectations in what people want to see. I don't believe people go to broadway shows to see art, I think they go to be entertained. As my old tech director once told me "There is no such thing as cheating in theatre!" Whatever you can do to improve the performance is worth it.

I think if we let the market decide instead of unions if people should be off stage singing instead of tracks or the orchestra isn't 100% live, you would see a lot more tracked shows. But that isn't to say all shows would be that way. I was working for an opera company who used a prominent symphony orchestra as their pit and every seat ($50 for obstructed view up to $300) sold out. But not everyone wants to pay that much for a good show, and not everything values that.

Back to my original point, when you put on a show, you are trying to sell the audience fiction to start with, why not do everything in your power to make it better?

Should we no longer have people flying in Peter Pan because you can't do that in real life?
Should every musical in a small space only use a piano because they can't fit anything else?

Should I admit that I've made mistakes?
Should I remind you I've done this before?
What should I do?
Should I really believe I ruined my legacy?
What should I do?
Should I have my tattoo removed?
Or should I tell you I am not a role model?
What should I do?

What should I do?


//sorry couldn't help myself

 

[DuckJordan]

I think one of the biggest thing thats controversial in this isn't the use of live musicians vs. track musicians. People expect people not to fly, that doesn't mean they want to see the harness on them. People also expect to be in a safe environment. This also doesn't mean we can't use a prop gun to enhance the effect.

My view on this is that using an auto-tuner on a live voice (to create a better sounding vocal set) is almost as bad as those late night commercials talking about the knife you never have to sharpen. To me there is a big difference in selling fiction and making better and blatantly denying your audience their moneys worth by putting a sub par actor on stage and attempting to make their voice sound like its worthy of Broadway is to me fraud.

 

[Pie4Weebl]

blatantly denying your audience their moneys worth by putting a sub par actor on stage and attempting to make their voice sound like its worthy of Broadway is to me fraud.

If they can't tell the difference, is there one?

 

[Les]

I feel like the show needs to stay true to itself. If the writer calls for flying, then you hire a company to come fly the actors. It's what the playwright wants and the audience expects. I have not read any plays or musicals which call for Autotune to be used where the performer can't cut the mustard. However, they DO call for capable bass, tenor and soprano voices. Again, it's what the playwright wants and the audience expects. Give them that.

 

[soundman]

If they can't tell the difference, is there one?

Shouldn't it be our job to make sure they don't know the difference? Is it wrong to hire an older actress but send her to wardrobe to get enough make up to make her look 15 years younger?

 

[MNicolai]

If they can't tell the difference, is there one?

There is when I, as an audience member, walk up to the performer afterwards and congratulate them for a superb performance.

There also is when at the end of the performance, we stand up and clap in celebration of how talented the performers are and how great their performance was.

 

[Grog12]

I think there is a difference in expectations in what people want to see. I don't believe people go to broadway shows to see art, I think they go to be entertained. As my old tech director once told me "There is no such thing as cheating in theatre!" Whatever you can do to improve the performance is worth it.

So I can't be entertained by art?


People keep bringing up makeup and fly-rigs. As an audience member I have a willing suspension of disbelief that there will be these things, that you can't fly that Annie is 21 years old ect. But I'm paying money to hear their voice, their talent. If their talent is fake then they're taking my money under false pretenes.

If I go to a ballet, you can't autocorrect a missed Pirouet.

 

[Pie4Weebl]

So I can't be entertained by art?


People keep bringing up makeup and fly-rigs. As an audience member I have a willing suspension of disbelief that there will be these things, that you can't fly that Annie is 21 years old ect. But I'm paying money to hear their voice, their talent. If their talent is fake then they're taking my money under false pretenes.

If I go to a ballet, you can't autocorrect a missed Pirouet.

I never said you can't be entertained by art, I'm saying your average ticket buyer isn't going for the "art", they are going to see a show. People go to shows for everything as a whole. They are going for entertainment, especially with musicals.

Theatre is about story telling, the job of everyone involved with the production is do to their part for the story to be told as well as it can be. Actors leave themselves to become someone else for a few hours, perhaps that person is younger, perhaps they have a different personality, perhaps they can fly, or perhaps they can sing better. Just because they may be sick that day doesn't mean there character is.

I don't see the ethical issue around making them sound better if it improves the show. Unlike a dancer in a ballet, a cast member does more than just one thing. Singing is just one part of their role in telling the story. I'd rather see a good performance than a "genuine" one that wasn't as good, as would most of the ticket buying public.

 

[soundman]

If I go to a ballet, you can't autocorrect a missed Pirouet.

I would rather chuckle at a fallen ballerina than hold my ears over a sour note any day of the week.

 

[Pie4Weebl]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'll just leave this here...

 

[MNicolai]

That's a very different application of autotune. That's prefaced by the audience knowing they're not hearing the authentic voice because a very deliberate attempt is made at using a very obvious effect. It's being used as a mastering effect and not as an attempt to deceive the audience into thinking the talent is capable of singing a piece that they actually aren't.

I'll refer you back to Daniel Holter's statement:

Well, I think a definition of “legitimate” may be needed here, but… sure. Why not? I mean, there are forms of entertainment where such manipulations of reality are not only welcomed but expected. I only have a problem when deceit or a lack of authenticity is the explicit goal.

I’ve seen photographs that overuse Photoshop, and find many of them offensive to my eyes and the spirit of what it means to be human. But there’s a place for plastic and sugar and HDR and 3D and AutoTune, just as there’s a place for remarkably untrained vocalists and abstract painters and lo-fi photographs.

To each his/her own. I just want authentic experiences, whether such a moment is about being genuinely inauthentic (such as much of pop music) or if it’s about being real and heartfelt. There’s a place for all of it, I say.

Some artists use autotune in ways that actually are artful and in ways I consider to be a valid use. But that's not really what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is autotune when it's used to actively deceive the audience into thinking a performer is much better at singing than they are -- when it's used because a performer is secretly incapable of singing their part.

 

[Pie4Weebl]

That's a very different application of autotune. That's prefaced by the audience knowing they're not hearing the authentic voice because a very deliberate attempt is made at using a very obvious effect. It's being used as a mastering effect and not as an attempt to deceive the audience into thinking the talent is capable of singing a piece that they actually aren't.

I'll refer you back to Daniel Holter's statement:


Some artists use autotune in ways that actually are artful and in ways I consider to be a valid use. But that's not really what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is autotune when it's used to actively deceive the audience into thinking a performer is much better at singing than they are -- when it's used because a performer is secretly incapable of singing their part.

I posted that as a joke. But still, I think you guys are all picking and choosing what needs to be authentic over what doesn't.

Let's say its a play, and there was a car crash in the play, and the car pins down the girlfriend. Perhaps in real life the boyfriend actually did have the strength to lift the car up and free her. Do we need to cast a character who can actually lift a car with out any stage magic for it to be authentic? Pick the best person for the role, and if there are things that need to be fixed to create the best combination, and can be, why not?

Should we start hanging trees in front of lights to create gobo effects and make things "more authentic"?

Can you really perform The Man Who Came to Supper with out using live penguins and still be "authentic"?

Where is the line?

Are people just bitter over casting choices?

Don't you just want to do the best show with the tools available? Or are you not interested in doing your best and just blaming the casting choices?

 

[Les]

This is getting a bit ridiculous.

A person cast for a singing role in a musical should be capable of fulfilling the needs of the libretto. If they can't do that, this is a casting error and correcting the issue shouldn't fall on the shoulders of the sound guy or girl.

An audience doesn't expect us to place tree branches in front of lights any more than they expect to see a real house on stage rather than a set. These are expected limitations in theatre, a necessary evil if you want to call it that. But, an audience does expect that the person on stage can sing. They do not expect that we, as technicians, will 'correct' their voice to fool them in to thinking they can sing when actually, they can't. If they are sick, well, should have had an understudy.

If you want the show to sound perfect every night, you're in the wrong part of the business.

I also don't feel like we should take responsibility for others' shortcomings as technicians. If the singer sucks, that's their problem. Maybe the humiliation of sounding awful will encourage them to take some voice lessons or find something else to occupy their free time. Sometimes you just gotta know when to accept that it isn't your problem, step back, and say "it is what it is".

Or are you not interested in doing your best and just blaming the casting choices?

I'm interested in doing my best, but not when it involves covering someone else' azz because they can't do their job correctly. Would you hire a lighting designer who can't design? As a result, would you expect the cast to come help you hang lights and run cable? Probably not.

 

[Grog12]

I'd rather see a good performance than a "genuine" one that wasn't as good, as would most of the ticket buying public.

History would disagree with you. Look at Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson. Both put on great live performances, both were lip synchers. Both's careers went down in flames when the public found out they were lip synching (and if you think Ashlee wasn't autotunned in the studio you're fooling yourself).

If a cast member can't sing, they shouldn't be singing onstage. If a cast member cant act, they shouldn't be acting onstage. By autotuning you're doing nothing to improve the person as a whole. You're giving them the right to be a crappy singer because the guys in the booth will fix it. Proffesionals give their all and their life to performance, those who get onstage and can't carry a tune don't deserve to be onstage. They haven't earned the right to take my money.

 

[derekleffew]

...If a cast member can't sing, they shouldn't be singing onstage. ...

Seems like someone made a whole movie about this.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Does one think any less of these actresses' performances? Deborah Kerr in The King and I. Natalie Wood in West Side Story. Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady.

 

[mstaylor]

You make a point about dubbing in some major musicals (movies) but it has always been more accepted to dub voices. It is similar to overtracking in the recording industry. When you go to live theatre the audience expects to hear a singer sing for themselves. I played music in school but I can't sing or dance so I don't. If an actor wants to do live theatre but can't sing then don't do musicals, stay with straight shows and comedies.

 

[ruinexplorer]

I'm on the fence here. I do not plan in taking sides on this discussion but want to chime in that we need to make sure that we keep this civil. I believe that there are very valid points for both sides of the arguement. However, the discussion seems to be apples and oranges often in this thread. We are bringing up professional singers and comparing them to community musical theater. Milli Vanilli were not only lip synching, but they were completely different people (the actual singers were not the ones on stage/MTV/album covers). In the community theater that was originally what prompted this discussion, they may have still cast the best person with the best vocal talent and are actively working on their vocal abilities. In community theater, you don't always have the same range of talent to choose from that you do in regional or professional theater (and they don't have a clue what they'll get before choosing the musical). However, I do agree that if the director had talent that could have sung the role and fit the part, then that's their fault. But if you have accepted a contract to be a sound designer and you have been requested to use Autotune, you have the choice of doing so (even if you have expressed objections) or walking off the job. It is your reputation to uphold as you see fit. The sound designer's job is to make sure that the performance sounds the way that the director intends it to sound. Just as it is the lighting designer's job to make the show "look" the way the director intends. Are we now going to complain when an actor mimics turning on a practical (which should be in the actor's ability to turn on a light switch)? Are we going to complain that the orchestra is using a synthesizer instead of all the individual instruments? Are we going to complain that costume designer uses Velcro or zippers in period costumes (I was paying to see an authentic production)? Or, is it that we as technicians sometimes have disdain for actors and those working with them? We have all had issues with Prima Donnas and clueless directors, but does that give us the freedom to not do what we have been contracted to do (make the best performance with the tools provided, and the actors are one of our tools)? We can all hope for the perfect world (I'm sure the community theater would prefer VariLite to Chauvet, etc), but in reality, it isn't.

So, in a nutshell, I agree that in an educational setting, we are trying to help to train the actor and too much correction would be hampering that goal. In a professional setting the director should have enough talent to choose the performer who has the appropriate talent and this would be moot. In community theater, you have to make the best with what you have and your responsibility is to the audience.