No More Feedback: A Sound Reinforcement Forum

The art and craft of designing sound for theatre and entertainment has many faces. For those of us that focus our art on creating prerecorded sound and music, sound reinforcement designers are like a second cousin. We know them a little and they are related to us, but we really don’t know what they do or how they do it. To truly explain their world, we would need to write another book. However, an excellent starting point to understanding this discipline can be found by reading the answers to the following questions poised to some of the leading designers in this field.

In this forum, we focus on the kind of work that is typically associated with musicals, spectacle, and other large-scale entertainment venues. This work combines elements of conceptual sound design and sound reinforcement engineering. These productions generally work with larger budgets and require a significant amount of labor. As you’ll read, along with this expansion of responsibilities comes a greater need for a good sense of production politics. The professionals that we polled have an enormous range of practical experience. Or, we could say, a “dynamic” range of experience.

THE SOUND REINFORCEMENT DESIGNERS

Tom Clark has been a theatrical sound designer for 26 years. He is the founder of Acme Sound Partners, nominated in 2008 for the firstever Tony Award for excellence in Sound Design of a Musical (In the Heights), winner of the 2003 Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Sound Design (La Boh é me), and the 2001 Entertainment Design Magazine EDDY Award for excellence in theatrical sound design. Acme’s designs include the Broadway and National Touring productions of 2008 Tony Award-winning Best Musical In the Heights, Legally Blonde, A Chorus Line, The Drowsy Chaperone, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, 2005 Tony Award-winning Best Musical Monty Python’s Spamalot, 2004 Tony Award-winning Best Musical Avenue Q, and The Full Monty, among others. Acme has designed all of the New York Shakespeare Festival’s productions at the Delacorte Theatre in Central Park since 2001. Mr. Clark taught sound system engineering and theatrical sound design at the Yale School of Drama and served as resident sound designer for Yale Repertory Theatre from 1987 to 1989.

Originally from England, Jonathan Deans has focused his work on the live entertainment side of sound. In London, he worked at Pye and Morgan recording studios in London and the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden. Later, in the West End as mixing engineer and then as sound designer, his sound design work included Mutiny, Time, Blood Brothers, Kiss Me Kate, Jean Seberg, and On Your Toes. After moving to America, he started work on different forms of live entertainment that needed to have a more soundscaped and dynamic approach. This led to sixteen years of work with Cirque du Soleil on productions such as LOVE, KA, and Zumanity. His productions for Broadway have included Young Frankenstein, Lestat, Seussical, and Fosse. Jonathan continues to teach sound design at UCLA.

Peter Hylenski’s Broadway credits include Shrek, Cry Baby, The Times They Are A-Changin’, The Wedding Singer, Sweet Charity, Martin Short: Fame Becomes Me, Little Women, Brooklyn, and Laughing Room Only. Other credits include Le Reve at Wynn Las Vegas, Ragtime (London’s West End, Olivier Award nomination for Best Sound Design), Walking with Dinosaurs, Mame (Kennedy Center), Opening Doors (Carnegie Hall), Applause (Encores!), Princesses (Goodspeed), Annie, Children’s Letters to God, Go, Diego, Go!, Dora the Explorer, Ovations!, and the Spoleto Festival (1999–2002).

Tony Meola’s many Broadway credits include The Ritz, Laugh Whore, Wicked, Man of La Mancha, Sweet Smell of Success, Copenhagen, Kiss Me, Kate, Footloose, The Lion King (Drama Desk Award), The Sound of Music, Steel Pier, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, The King and I, Moon Over Buffalo, Smokey Joe’s Caf é, Guys and Dolls, Five Guys Named Moe, She Loves Me, The Red Shoes, and Anything Goes.

Otts Munderloh has worked with Michael Bennett, Bob Fosse, Mike Nichols, Gower Champion, and Jerome Robbins. His many Broadway shows include Harold and Maude, The Glass Menagerie, Big River, Dreamgirls, Hurlyburly, The Real Thing, Sophisticated Ladies, Whoopi Goldberg, Ain’t Misbehavin’, A Day in Hollywood—A Night in the Ukraine, Barnum, The 1940’s Radio Hour, the revival of Sweet Charity, The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe. The Front Page, Cabaret (1986 Joel Grey revival), Macbeth with Christopher Plummer and Glenda Jackson, Jerome Robbins’ Broadway, Tru, Grand Hotel, The Secret Garden, Crazy for You, Jelly’s Last Jam, Ain’t Broadway Grand, and Passion. Other projects include Edwin Drood at the New York Shakespeare Festival’s Delacorte Theatre, Brooklyn Academy productions of The Gershwin Celebration, Nixon in China, and The Gospel at Colonus.

Brian Ronan has designed the Broadway productions of Curtains; Spring Awakening; Grey Gardens; The Pajama Game; All Shook Up; Twelve Angry Men; “Master Harold” … and the Boys; The Look of Love; The Boys From Syracuse; Fortune’s Fool; The Tale of the Allergist’s Wife; The Rainmaker; You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown; Little Me; Cabaret; Triumph of Love; 1776; and State Fair. Regionally Brian has designed A Christmas Carol (McCarter Theatre); Wild Party, Time and Again, and newyorkers (Manhattan Theatre Club); Into the Woods (Ordway, St. Paul, MN); Bleacher Bums (Royal George Theatre of Chicago, IL); and A Little Princess (Theatre Works of Palo Alto, CA). Off-Broadway designs include 10 Million Miles and Bug, for which he won an Obie and the Lucille Lortel awards.

SOUND REINFORCEMENT DESIGNERS’ QUESTIONS

What do you consider to be the primary function or goal of your sound designs? (This seems like a “duh” question, but we are curious to know if there are any subtle or significant philosophical differences between designers.)

BRIAN R: To allow the writers, composers, players, and actors to sound their best in a way that compliments the style of the specific show I’ve been hired for.

JONATHAN D: It has to interest me. I need to be a part of the creative team or at least feel I am.

TOM C: With respect to musical theatre sound reinforcement, I am part of the team to make sure that words and music are heard with equal quality and loudness by all members of the audience.

TONY M: To assist in telling the story.

OTTS M: Non-offensive amplification.

PETER H: My designs strive for two goals: the first is adding depth and realism to a scene. Much like a lighting designer might emulate key light sources to add realism, sound designers can also add touches such as sound effects and reverb to further convey to the audience a realistic aural setting. The second goal of my designs is to appropriately extend the energy of the performance to the listener through reinforcement. By “appropriately” I mean fitting to the musical genre. I wouldn’t approach a design for an orchestral piece the same as a rock musical. The foundation for each of these goals is storytelling through the use of sound.

Are there different design styles or approaches when creating a sound reinforcement design?

TONY M: Yes, of course. Elton John’s music requires a different approach than, say, Richard Rodgers. Electronic instruments became part of the music in the 60s. I remember my father saying on opening night of Les Mis, “I liked it except for the rock and roll music”. Rock influences were so common by then that it never occurred to me that Les Mis is a rock musical, but it really is.

TOM C: Some projects want to seem as unamplified as possible, others require significant overt amplification. Most often the musical style sets the tone. If the size, shape, or acoustic personality of the auditorium is the only reason amplification is required, subtlety is the order of the day. Modern works sometime defy mainstream stylistic categorization, in which case the creative team has to determine the level and obviousness of the amplification. Technological choices follow stylistic choices.

BRIAN R: Every time I approach a musical, I try and wipe the slate clean and respond to the script, the size of the theatre we’re playing, the budget, and the style of show we’re doing. I try to determine what role the sound will play in the performance. This translates into what speakers to use, what mixing board to order, how many mics, etc. The approach to a play is similar. It’s just that musicals require much more pre-planning and generally much more work.

PETER H: Absolutely, I uniquely tailor my systems to the material it is purposed for. The amount and type of loudspeakers for a pop type show can vary greatly from a show requiring only subtle reinforcement. Which microphones I use in the pit and the technique for placing them on each instrument is guided by the style of the show.

JONATHAN D: Yes, although they may use the same basic equipment, the intention and application can be quite different.

In the past, some directors or producers have felt that sound reinforcement design is all craft or technical and isn’t an artistic endeavor. What do you feel is your balance between the “art” and “craft” of design?

TOM C: We are called on to make an endless series of choices, both predictive and reactive, as we hack our way toward opening night, solving literally thousands of problems along the way. I think most of the art comes from making the process unobtrusive and carefree for the production. We are sometimes applications inventors—A-B Systems, mics mounted on actor’s heads, dynamic insert or system delay to enhance localization, etc., and we are sometimes able to provide an audio system solution for a story-telling challenge such as a subtle reverberation effect that accompanies a purple light that connotes an otherworldly character. Most of all, though, we are collaborators, appending our expertise to the shared artistic vision of the creative team to make the final product better than it would have been without us.

BRIAN R: I lean more to the craft camp myself. There are indeed choices made while mounting a production that are purely artistic—they respond to inexplicable emotional needs. A perfectly placed sound cue or a harmony so well balanced it gives you shivers is as artistic to me as a well-designed hat. However, I think the utility of a working sound design satisfies the strictly commercial needs of a production more so than the other design disciplines. I think the road to becoming a sound designer creates a culture of craft more than art. Very few lighting designers, for instance, have spent a great deal of their professional lives acting as electricians. Set designers aren’t required to know the craft involved with moving their lovely scenery around. Most sound designers, on the other hand, have been professional board ops for some time in their career. Me, I can supply your soundscape but, if need be, I can solder your headset so that it works again. I believe the term “blue collar artist” applies perfectly to sound designers.

TONY M: I don’t know these directors and producers that you refer to. I think it is difficult for a scenic designer to design without having first a knowledge and ability to paint a picture. It’s the same with sound.

PETER H: Sound in general, whether recorded or live, has often straddled this fine line. There are theories and formulas and laws of physics that we follow, but our end product must still relate to the heart of that particular show. In a way, we can equate ourselves to a record producer. We are facilitating the technical requirements of the production, while infusing our own artistic taste along the way.

JONATHAN D: I feel that you should run away from these directors and producers. This is an archaic point of view, which belongs to the archaic producers, general managers, and directors. So thinking that you are going to be able to work with them is misguided.

Is there a particular part of the design process that is more difficult than another? Please consider any of the following: system design, the politics, working within a budget, RF congestion in urban environments, the communication system, sound effects production, and other issues.

PETER H: I think the most challenging part of designing is departmental integration. As a sound designer, there is still a bit of voodoo surrounding our jobs. Explaining why you need a speaker in a specific place, or why you need “that many” can become frustrating. So much of our work is not tangible which makes it difficult for others to grasp basic concepts like speaker coverage angles. Luckily, as our department evolves we are able to educate those we work with, so with a bit of patience these growing pains should work themselves out.

TOM C: The biggest challenge differs from show to show, sometimes between different productions of the same show. Everything has to be right in the end, and the more quietly you get it all that way, the more popular you will be.

OTTS M: These days, the politics.

BRIAN R: The hard part for me is dealing with the many layers of ego and politics that come with the pressure of mounting a production. This pressure can come from various directions. I think that every production has a soul of its own and a distinct personality. One show may have frustrating budgetary constraints, one may have a very insecure director, one may have a diva bass player who calls in the union rep because the percussionist he sits in front of is too loud or a star who feels their performance is being compromised. These are the intangible, unsolvable issues that require bedside manner and support that are often difficult to summon amidst the stress of creating a show.

There is no technical facet of a sound design that I find more difficult than another.

JONATHAN D: The design process does not involve budgets, RF, comms and these common or utility services. These items are things that we just have to deal with in the same manner that a choreographer has to have a bottle of water, jock strap, and band-aids for their feet. If you are thinking of budgets or utility equipment during the sound design, you will probably miss your design opportunities. The most difficult part for me is the conceptual design as it is at this point you commit to the intention and use of your equipment for the entire production. Perhaps a bit like a painter who has to decide on the size of the canvas and what type of paint to use.

TONY M: Politics. It’s the thing that I dislike more and more as I get older.

Are there any “golden rules” to follow when designing sound reinforcement?

TONY M: First, try to make the sound come from the performer. Second, the more you put between the actor and the audience, the more you take away from the live experience.

JONATHAN D: Experience, so you can go with your first impression or hunch.

PETER H: It may sound clich é d, but use your ears! Remember that we are aural storytellers—if a particular method isn’t quite giving you the moment or the excitement you heard in your head, don’t be afraid to experiment and try something different.

BRIAN R: A wise man once told me that to be considered a good sound man, make sure the paging system works and the intercom is clear and buzz-free. The rest is subjective. I’d also add that in terms of what the audience needs to hear at a musical—that no one ever stormed up to the box office and demanded their money back because they couldn’t hear the oboe. By this I mean there are many important elements to the sound of a show that require emphasis, but if the words are lost to the audience, all the storytelling falls apart.

TOM C: Don’t work against the goals of the production. Highly visible microphones between the eyes of actors wearing period costumes being a classic example of what not to do.

Do you have regular contact with the director or producer? If so, what are their chief objectives or concerns?

TOM C: This varies with each production. We are there to serve—sometimes that means regular conferences with the director, sometimes it just means a greeting at the beginning of the day and a good night at the end.

TONY M: Yes. Usually that what is being done onstage and in the pit is what is being seen and heard clearly in the audience.

OTTS M: Absolutely, producers, budget, audience complaints, directors—countless concerns.

JONATHAN D: Yes, I have contact with directors. Their main concern is that you bathe and look like someone they can be seen with.

BRIAN R: I’m the worst schmoozer in the business. I hang in the back and quietly get my work done. I wait till the director’s not busy and ask my questions or impart a concern. My contact with the director is based solely on how much she or he needs to be kept inside my decision-making process. This is different for every director. I just make sure they know I’m available to them.

Producers I avoid at all costs. I don’t recommend this as a career tool. Instead I’d suggest you learn to play golf, go sailing, or whatever it takes to get producers to know you. You’ll probably get more work than me. I don’t mean to be glib in my answer, it’s just that I’m not confident in my ability to “sell” my work. That being said, I’m often forced to deal with the producer due to proximity. The sound board is usually located in the back of the house and on successful shows there is no place for the producer to sit, so we often inherit them.

PETER H: We certainly have contact with both the director and producer. I find that the director is developing the show on a daily basis, refining the storytelling, so as a designer you are collaborating with them regularly on each small detail of the production. If I had to generalize, I’d say that the producers are interested in more of the big picture. Most producers will talk to you about the overall sound of the show, its final volume level or maybe ask you to help out a particular character. I say “most” because there are exceptions who might put input into every detail of what you do!

How much variance is there in how a director might approach a production?

OTTS M: More than there are productions of the same show.

JONATHAN D: Massive, from zero input to where you want to shoot them because they do not leave you alone. Either type of director does not mean that they do not care or understand sound design.

PETER H: Just as each director has a unique way of speaking with the cast and conveying his/her desires to them, the same holds true for sound design. There are some who understand the mechanics of what we do, and can express in clear terms what he/she is looking for in a particular moment of the show. Some will simply list what sound effects they want where, while others will get more involved and may actually have mix suggestions.

TONY M: A great amount. I hate when they use the word, “cinematic.” It ain’t the movies.

BRIAN R: Huge variance. In terms of sound, particularly musicals, different directors have their areas of focus. Some are very concerned and therefore vocal about instrumentation. Postshow note sessions will consist of very specific direction in what instruments need to be heard and when. Others leave all that to the sound and music department to fight about and trust they’ll get what they want in the end.

Some directors lean on the actor hard to deliver all nuances of a performance, some rely on their technical staff to fill in. In my case, a weaker singer may become my problem to fix.

Probably the largest difference between directors’ approaches to sound in a production is their tolerance for imperfection. I think sound is the element that takes the longest to gel. No matter how much money we spend on gear, it still comes down to clean operation. The sound mixer bears that burden more than anybody on the technical staff. Directors have very different limits of patience for the inevitable “growing pains” of a sound design.

I’ve had the great fortune to work not only with some great directors but to work repeatedly with them. Like all relationships, trust is an earned process. My third experience with a director can be much different from my first. Hopefully the trust is earned. With all they need to deal with, a director basically wants to know that their best interests are being looked after and their vision is being supported. The specifics of good sound can be hard for some to articulate and that results in varying forms of communication.

TOM C: With respect to sound, it is somewhat unusual to find that a director has a particular point of view other than wanting to hear the words clearly and have the music sound right for its style. There is more variety in the director’s interest in the nature of sound effects than of amplification. Except of course for the dead person reverb thing.

Does the director ever make a request that goes against your better judgment? Can you provide an example and the resolution?

PETER H: Sure, I think this happens in all departments. Sometimes, however, it turns out that the director’s request wasn’t so farfetched after all and your “better judgment” maybe was a bit extreme. I usually approach these situations in one of two ways. First, if it isn’t going to hurt anyone to try it, then I’ll give it a go. Often the only way to prove your point is by demonstration. Secondly, I may ask what the director is trying to achieve in that moment. Understanding why the request was made might better equip you to suggest alternatives that might fit both the director’s and your vision. These requests might not be limited to just the director, but often extend to the producer as well. In my experience, one of the most discussed topics is the overall level of the show. Many times the director, producer, or choreographer, even, has a differing opinion on how loud things should be. What do you do when you’d like it natural, and they’d like it loud? That’s still a battle many of us fight … and often lose.

BRIAN R: I’m often asked to make things louder than I think they should be. Usually during the last performances before the critics come. Everyone is nervous at that time and louder and brighter are easy things for the senses to detect. In press reviews, musical sound designers will sometimes be critiqued for overamplifying. I’m willing to bet that most often that excess volume is driven by an anxious producer or director. I’ve also been asked to supply sound cues that I don’t think serve the storytelling (one involved bodily functions). Ultimately, I serve the director. I may suggest my opinion but I’m there to support their vision.

TOM C: The most common conflict comes with respect to how loud a show is. Most often the director wants it louder than I do. Sometimes the problem is clarity or punch or tone rather than volume, and the goal becomes getting the sound right without allowing it to get too loud. There is a real lack of common vocabulary here, and often not a great deal of patience with the details of something as amorphous as sound waves. If you have the director’s trust, you will have the time to fix the problem without simply “making it louder.” If you don’t have the director’s trust, you are in trouble. The worst situation to be in is to discover that multiple members of the creative team (particularly, producer, choreographer, composer, lyricist, orchestrator, music director) have conflicting views of how the sound should be delivered. A strong director who trusts you is your best defense here. Otherwise, you are f**ked, unless of course you get it right the first time.

JONATHAN D: Yes, quite often, but we need to abide to the one vision approach which the director must have. Usually it is about overall level, especially when an audience first comes into the theatre and the director is suddenly standing at the back of the theatre and their visual perspective is quite different even though the sound is similar to their rehearsal seats. One might discuss this but really there is no resolution, as one needs to be directed.

OTTS M: Yes, in modern times much more so than in the early days.

TONY M: On The Red Shoes, Stanley Donen asked me to make one number MUCH louder than it ever should have been. I didn’t refuse, but I told him that I wasn’t comfortable with my name remaining on the show if it remained like that. Everyone eventually calmed down (including me) and it got back to listenable levels.

Regarding the challenge of localizing to an actor in a large-scale venue, do you see directors adapting their blocking or staging to help focus attention on the person singing or do they leave the localization problems to you?

TONY M: That’s a really good question. It depends on the director. Some get it and some don’t.

BRIAN R: That is so venue specific. I don’t go crazy about localization and I haven’t encountered many directors who do. I like the sound to appear to come from the actors on stage, but I don’t pan the sound around to follow the actor. I believe that benefits only about 10% of the audience. Frankly, I think the lighting designer bears the brunt of localization.

In a large, commercial venue I also think the necessity of 3,000 or so people to hear all the words supersedes a slight in localization.

PETER H: It seems inherent in modern musical staging that there is some semblance of focus on the necessary performer. Blocking helps, but on a very crowded stage it can still be difficult to pick out the two principals who are singing. Often lighting plays a key role in this through the use of frontlights or specials. Unlike film, where the director points out exactly what you are looking at in each moment, theatre still allows your eyes to wander. It’s a group effort to guide the audience throughout the evening.

JONATHAN D: No and never. It will be up to us to supply tracking systems.

TOM C: The smart ones do it with movement or lighting, often commenting wryly that “with microphones we can’t tell where you (the speaking actor) are unless you raise your hand.” The problem of focus in large halls has to be addressed in many ways in addition to sound.

OTTS M: No, the very fact that sound can do part of this work allows directors to be oblivious.

Do you have any techniques or specific technology that help with this issue?

JONATHAN D: I am working with tracking systems. This is still in its infancy.

OTTS M: No, I’m too old.

BRIAN R: I employ a very basic method of using a phase popper and an onstage speaker to simulate the actor’s voice. I time the various speakers to that source pop. I do most of the tune up of the initial session throughout the preview process.

TONY M: The best one is to get the actor to project. Good speaker placement helps enormously.

PETER H: There are a few systems on the market that address localization. Many of the theories behind these units relate to basic delay/attenuation ratios. With any sort of localization, it’s important to always think about how these moves affect the entire audience. Be sure you aren’t creating fantastic imaging for 50% of the seats, while destroying intelligibility for the other 50%. There are also a few basic techniques that work quite well. It’s pretty astounding what simple linear delay (upstage/downstage) will do when used with a welltuned system.

How “hands-on” do you get with your actors/singers/talent?

BRIAN R: Funny you should ask. Not five minutes ago I was in a dressing room of one actor discussing the onstage sound, I had to hit up two other dressing rooms to play with mic placement, and the hairstyles of another two actors. This is pretty typical backstage behavior. I find most technical sound issues are best handled in the dressing room, face to face. The cast and musicians need to know you’re on their side.

JONATHAN D: As much as possible.

PETER H: It’s important that your cast members feel comfortable when they’re onstage. I’m not shy about jumping onstage during rehearsals to hear what the cast is listening to. Getting to know them, asking if the foldback is sounding good to them, or maybe just finetuning their mic position can help a performer feel more confident in their performance.

TOM C: I try to make sure that they know I am there to help them sound great. Some require care and feeding, but most are quite selfsufficient and are content with a hello, and goodnight. From time to time, there are issues with mic placement or foldback.

TONY M: In production, I usually speak to the actors throughout rehearsals. I spend a lot of time onstage so that I can hear what they’re hearing.

OTTS M: The better the show, the more hands-on I find myself allowed to be.

Are there any challenges to training actors in the proper use of RF mics and placement of bodypacks?

TONY M: Rarely. Everybody usually wants to sound good.

OTTS M: Willingness of performers to adapt.

BRIAN R: I try to instill a feeling of transparency when I encounter an actor who hasn’t worn a mic (a rare thing these days). I don’t want them to alter their performance at all. The basics apply: don’t get hairspray in your mic, don’t get water on your mic, and don’t drop the transmitter in the toilet. These are universal truths.

Basically I want them to put their mic on, get it in the place we’ve agreed to and then forget they have it on and just go do their performance.

PETER H: There are numbers of challenges. The main thing an actor needs to understand is that the microphone is their lifeline to the audience. They should treat it accordingly. Once an actor is aware of microphone positional sensitivity and how it helps or hinders their sound, they will pay more attention to it. One common misconception, however, is the confusion between a microphone and a microscope. Performers can sometimes fall into bad habits thinking the mic will do all the work for them. If there isn’t enough level coming from the stage acoustically, our job transitions from reinforcement to straight amplification, often not the goal of a theatrical experience.

TOM C: The biggest issues are getting them to allow us to hide the microphones—the younger ones tend to think it should be just above the bridge of the nose, and are quite surprised when we back them up into the hairline. It takes a bit of work to convince them of the importance of a center position. Hair loss concerns sometimes become an issue with respect to mic cable mounting on the head—we have a bit of a fight to get away from ear rigs, which don’t sound as good and are more visible.

JONATHAN D: No, RF mics on actors should be as low key to the actor as possible.

Do actors have any problem regarding the use of head-worn boom mics as opposed to lavs in forehead, ear, chest, or other mounting positions?

JONATHAN D: This is a design approach and decision between the director and sound designer. It is not an actor’s choice.

BRIAN R: The opinion of actors about their mics has softened over the years. In my first years as a mixer (mid-80s) you still had old school actors who felt insulted by the mic. On the chest was intrusion enough, but in their hair? The newer breed of actors, though no less talented, have grown up with mics and are pretty open to whatever creative decision has been reached.

PETER H: In my experience, the use of boom mics is usually a decision based on the musical concept of a show; and it certainly is a bold visual statement. An actor may have issues with such a device if it isn’t fitting with the style of the piece. It creates a disconnection between their character and the audience by having this appendage on their face. There are some shows where it is completely accepted; I don’t think I can picture the cast of Rent without the signature boom mics.

TOM C: Mostly not, assuming they make sense for the show. They are easier to put on and take off.

What attributes do you look for in your front of house mixing personnel?

TOM C: Everything! They must have tremendous focus to mix cleanly, good taste to mix artfully, good technical chops to keep the system running, and great people skills to cope with stars, ensemble members, directors, producers, stagehands, music directors, musicians, and wardrobe and hair folk. It may be the hardest job in the business to do really well.

OTTS M: Ability to learn, logic, good sense of volume.

BRIAN R: Mettle. Positive attitude. Talent. Fast fingers. Their main task is to make my job easier. That may sound obvious, but I don’t think any technical job is harder than a musical engineer’s. Not only does that person have to possess technical know-how, but they must also balance the demands of composers, conductors, guitar players, producers, actors, and, eventually, me. This balancing of demands must occur during long production hours and in the face of often immense pressure to perform flawlessly. It takes a special talent to do all this and then sit in post-show note sessions and have your day’s work criticized. I’m proud of this often underappreciated group of stagehands.

TONY M: Kindness. Knowledge of the theatre. Ability to get along with others. Smarts.

JONATHAN D: Never to say “NO!.” And of course can mix the s**t out of the show for every performance.

PETER H: A great set of ears connected to some fast fingers! Well, that and a bunch more. I look for great social skills; someone who will be able to speak with the cast and musical director in an effort to keep the audio quality at its highest. Engineers I enjoy working with have an innate musical sense and understand how manipulating the faders emotionally impacts the audience.

What do you consider to be the most remarkable or successful design of your career (or, frankly, of anyone’s career)?

PETER H: Each show has its own successes, whether it’s another designer’s or my own. I try to learn a bit from every production, what I think worked or didn’t, and file that away in my memory.

JONATHAN D: Currently my show LOVE and The Capeman, which was a T. Richard Fitzgerald design.

TONY M: I have always loved Otts Munderloh’s design for Dreamgirls and I’ve copied it many times.

BRIAN R: Otts Munderloh’s Search for Signs of Intelligent Life was one of the most impressive uses of sound effects for a show I’ve seen. I really enjoyed my own job on an off-Broadway show called Bug. In that show, the sound acted as another character in the show. It was thrilling to me.

In terms of shows with sound reinforcement, I’d say Tony Meola’s work on the revival of Man of La Mancha was a perfect fusion of live and amplified sound, Steve Kennedy’s work on Jersey Boys was some of the best and most creative use of technology to help tell a story and, as for me, I’d say Spring Awakening was the right design for that show.

TOM C: Side Show.

OTTS M: A Chorus Line—the original (Abe Jacob).

Where do you see the future for sound designers?

TOM C: The gear is getting better and better. Our work should, too. With any luck, the addition of the Tony Awards for Sound Design will help to improve pay levels to parity with the scenic, costume, and lighting designers, making the career choice less self-sacrificial.

PETER H: It seems as technology grows, we are more empowered to effect real-time control over the sound of our shows. This, combined with a heightened awareness of audio in everyday life, gives us the opportunity to demonstrate some pretty fantastic sound designs. Each year the digital products sound better and can do more, mics get smaller and easier to hide—I guess our tool box is getting larger. As our art form continues to develop, I think greater acceptance within the theatre community will follow, our final product will become better integrated, and audiences will hopefully appreciate what we add to the storytelling.

OTTS M: Tools for actors without any vocal craft, and the directors who use them.

JONATHAN D: Each year the sound designer and designs become more and more complex and although the general audience has “hearing ADD,” they do have high-end equipment in their homes that require something that can exceed their car stereo and 5.1 movie rooms for ticket prices over $100.

TONY M: I think the field will only grow. It should now be taught in high schools since so many use equipment that they have no idea how to use.

BRIAN R: The gear we use will continue to change. The world is going digital with all its lovely benefits and cruel complications. However, the act of amplifying a source of talent, be it an actor, singer, or musician, and delivering that enhanced sound to an audience of paying customers, probably won’t change that much.

One issue future sound designers will have to contend with is the shrinking availability of wireless frequencies. Like melting polar ice caps, the abundance of frequencies is being threatened. The growth of digital TV and the desire of mammoth companies like Google, AT & T, and Microsoft to produce products that use commercially available bandwidths is something that could be of real concern. Unlike corporations, we in our democratic theatre world don’t speak as one. That will have to change if we’re going to continue to provide the freedom that wireless microphones provide to directors, singers, composers, and producers to enhance their performances.

Do you have any other comments you’d like to make or questions we should have asked?

JONATHAN D: Yes, I am very passionate about my work and love my job.

We should all be as lucky as Jonathan Deans.

—DK and JL