Sound Off

I couldn’t agree more with Michael Phillips’ article “Loud, but Not Too Clear” (June 4). I grew up in an era when amplification was very limited. Would I have enjoyed Streisand (in “Funny Girl”) or Merman (in “Hello, Dolly!”) more if their already powerful voices were amplified? I think not!

Amplification has destroyed my enjoyment of many shows: from a production of “Singin’ in the Rain” at the Pantages to “Sunset Boulevard” at the Shubert, to “Reefer Madness” at the Hudson, part of the very disturbing trend of amplifying the voices of anyone in a show no matter how small the venue or cast. Is it because individuals now coming into musical theater do not possess the ability to project their voices at all?

Will someone please pull the plug?!

DAN MORIN

West Hollywood

*

Thank you, Michael Phillips, for extolling the virtues of the unamplified human voice. If I may be so bold, I would like to add symphonic music to the list of things-that-should-not-be-amplified. Too many times have I felt outraged by a priceless Stradivarius being squeezed through a $20,000 JBL sound system (not to slight JBL: it’s fine for the bombast of Korn, just not for the nuances of Perlman).

If profit-hungry Major League Baseball owners can retrofit their ballparks to an early 20th century setting, can we not build amphitheaters suitable for the naked human voice? I believe the Romans were able to do it with a minimum of “body mics.”

GEORGE FRYER

Costa Mesa

*

Bravo for your article. There is also another distraction that can come with amplification: visual. Many times I can see the microphones, which tends to destroy the whole illusion

The best example of this was a production I saw in Pasadena several years ago of the stage musical “Fame.” It is, of course, about the students at New York’s High School for Performing Arts. The mics were so visible I felt like it was set in the School for Future Telephone Operators.

BILL BERGFELDT

Hollywood