THEATRE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE

1987 SUMMER ISSUE - SOUND COLUMN

THEATRE SOUND LEADS FILM SOUND?

By Charlie Richmond 

Some time before the term "sound designer" was used in the film
industry, I designed the sound for a production of 'Private
Lives,' directed by Francis Ford Coppola and produced during a
brief break he had just before the release of 'The Godfather.' 
This was possibly the first time he had been exposed to the
concept of a "designer" of sound as practices in professional
theatre.  Certainly, the film industry had always spent lavishly
on scores when it could, and I was a great admirer of the major
effort Coppola produced with the assistance of his favourite
sound editor Walter Murch in the film 'THX1138.'  It is most
telling that, when George Lucas finally turned his efforts to
creating a high quality, standardized, and defined sound system
for cinema playback, he named it "THX" after that early project.

Now, I'm not saying that 'Private Lives' had a spectacular sound
-- in fact, it was simply standard professional theatre.  We had
a live trio led by Carmine Coppola providing period preshow,
incidental, scene break, intermission, curtain call, and audience
exit music.  Playing quietly in an acoustically treated orchestra
box, they were almost inaudible without sound reinforcement, yet
having them in clear view added a tasteful touch to the
production.  The instruments were carefully miked with cues and
levels carefully noted throughout the regular technical rehearsal
process.  No live sound operator sat in the house; nothing was
left to chance as levels accurate to 1dB were set by the sound
designer for every sound the trio made.  As usual, levels were
increased with the size of the audience, but the cue sheets
remained the operator's master for the run of the show.  The fact
that a "sound designer" was responsible for the artistic aspects
of sound within the production and that the production benefitted
as a result was not lost on Coppola, since shortly thereafter he
directed the first film to my knowledge crediting the services
of a sound designer, 'The Conversation.'

In most respects, the film sound designer performs the function
of both sound reinforcement and sound score design.  The USITT
Engineering Subcommittee on Audio & Acoustics opinion consensus
report states that the basic purpose of reinforcement in the
theatre ". . . is to insure that speech and music . . . is heard
with sufficient loudness, clarity, intelligibility, naturalness,
and with directional realism by the audience."(1)  From the same
report: "The purpose [of sound effects] we re most familiar with
is the heightening of the illusion of realism.  A second purpose
is to heighten a particular emotion . . . A third purpose is
continuity.  Finally, sound may actually become a protagonist . .
. "(2)

The most difficult parallel to substantiate is the function of
reinforcement.  Obviously, since the method of production and
presentation of film sound is exclusively from prerecorded
materials, one could hardly agree that it exemplifies live
reinforcement.  Indeed, microphone, mixing, and vocal alteration
techniques are substantially different between live voice
reinforcement on stage and production sound or automatic dialogue
replacement (ADR) for film, but in both cases the specific goal
is expressly as defined in the USITT report.  In other words, if
the purpose of film sound is specifically to ensure that speech
and music (in this case meaning realistic human-generated sounds
that precisely coincide with the visual images presented, not
underscoring) is heard with sufficient loudness, clarity,
intelligibility, naturalness, and with directional realism by the
audience, then should it not be labelled reinforcement?

Another parallel between stage and film "reinforcement" that goes
beyond the semantic is its relative importance.  In most cases
sound effects and music scores certainly perform an illusionary,
emotional and/or continuity function, but usually have only a
nominal effect on communication of the show's meaning to its
audience.  Reinforcement is essential in both cases: if it
disappears during either stage or film presentations, the show
simply stops and the price of admission is refunded.  This aspect
has not gone unnoticed, of course, since personnel have long been
employed by both film and stage productions to ensure the message
gets across.  What is intriguing is that the term "sound
designer" did not come into general use in reinforcement (stage
or film) until it became a generally accepted precept that all
sound within a production is best integrated by someone with a
good understanding of artistic intent, physiology of hearing,
venue and systems; plus, according to Dr. John Bracewell,
"Motivation, Music, Acoustical Reinforcement, Vocal Alteration,
Vocal Substitution, Mood and Extension of Dramatic
Time/Space."(3)

Film production has consistently employed some of the most
brilliant sound engineers right from the start of the "talkies,"
and no expense has been spared in many cases to create sound
quality, artistry, and imagery.  Perhaps it is the advent of more
elaborate cinema sound systems -- specifically the THX design
mentioned earlier, or more commonly the Dolby stereo and Six
Channel surround systems -- that have created a need for film
sound designers who are not only able to put good sounds onto a
soundtrack but know what those sounds will do to an audience when
it is played back in a cinema environment impossible to recreate
in the mixing theatre.  A good example of this is the custom
cinema playback system design employed for the film Earthquake
with its multiple massive low frequency loudspeakers.  It is
often a good theatre sound designer's knowledge of the effect a
cue will have when reproduced on the theatre's sound system that
allows that designer to make effective choices of material and
production techniques.  Perhaps it is specifically this ability
to "second-guess" the end result that has made the difference
between the "mixing engineer" and the "sound designer" for both
stage and film; certainly it is important.

In fact, sound requirements are remarkably similar for both film
and theatre.  The number of film sound effects and "foley" sounds
(sound made by the human body) is naturally much greater than for
stage productions since all natural and incidental sounds must be
recorded, but music requirements are very similar.  Films enjoy
original scores more frequently than plays, yet both can benefit
from having scenes written or directed with the music in mind,
and vice versa.  Silence, too, has significance in both.  Music
forms for both tend to be driven by the current trend toward hi-
tech stylization, yet classic musical motivations still persist. 
Because of the superior ability of film to capture spontaneous
events, it often contains certain "rough edges" which give just
the right feeling; film production frequently exemplifies the
philosophy that fine tuning a sequence could spoil it whereas
live theatre builds in a feeling of spontaneity if desired but
rehearses the scene thoroughly, ensuring it can be reliably
reproduced time after time.

Sound -- both effects and music -- tends to be considerably more
personalized in film since it usually conforms to the camera's
point of view; the point of view of stage sound is almost always
seriously constrained by the static relationship between the
audience and the play.  Introduction of musical elements as early
as possible can be equally important since both film and stage
actors can gain considerable motivation for certain scenes upon
hearing the accompanying score.  Rehearsal recordings are
considerably more common in stage productions simply because the
actors need to hear the sound they will be performing with.  It
is very rare for an original film score to even be composed until
after the picture editing has been done.

Prerecording sound production techniques for both film and stage
are very similar.  Film sound creation is usually considerably
more involved simply because there is more.  The major technical
difference is that all film sounds are synchronized, edited, and
mixed into a final product that remains locked in time. 
Prerecorded theatrical sounds do not require such slavish
adherence to perfect synchronization since the live action has
considerable variability.  All these sounds must remain
temporally discrete until they are required, at which time
perfection becomes the responsibility of the stage manager and
sound operator.

The quality of most cinema audio systems is rather dismal,
ultimately limiting the potential impact of any designer's sound
track.  Notable exceptions exist, but even high quality multi-
channel playback systems have their limitations and are
constrained by well-defined "academy" specifications intended
specifically to guarantee some consistency between cinema venues. 
Every film sound designer has these "lowest-common-denominator"
playback characteristics to contend with and frequently creates
different sound tracks for each of the basic playback systems:
mono, Dolby stereo, Dolby stereo surround, and six-track Dolby.

Rarely is a film sound designer given total control similar to
that commonly allowed theatre sound designers.  Unique
film/cinema relationships exist at theme parks, entertainment
complexes, exhibitions, world's fairs, and similar situations
allowing truly creative and high quality results, yet important
differences still exist.  These presentations are usually
automated and use unskilled operators, resulting in a lack of
flexibility and dynamic range.  Even relatively low-budget
professional theatre companies can today create special playback
capabilities and systems with human operators coupled with high
quality audio equipment resulting in a live sound design with
greater impact, wider dynamic range, and more flexible control
that is ultimately more satisfying than even the highest quality
film-based scores.

POSTSCRIPT:  There is currently informal discussion within the
USITT Sound Design Commission concerning formalizing the
distinction between theatre sound designers of the
system/reinforcement persuasion and those of the score/effects
persuasion.  This has come about not so much as a result of
desire on the part of designers to be categorically considered
one or the other but specifically because Broadway sound
designers have formed a local of IATSE and are actively
soliciting membership in North America.  The difficulty lies in
the fact that, even though many of the "sound score designers"
working in the hinterlands of (far) Off-Broadway have not
particularly felt an urgent need for union representation, they
are almost unanimously of the opinion that the most appropriate
union to represent their interests is the United Scenic Artists.

This situation is currently complicated by an apparent
disinterest amongst sound score designers to commit themselves to
joining a USA local, but not by USA itself since it has indicated
it is more than willing to assist.  Once we overcome the obstacle
of communicating effectively with a sparse population of
designers we will see the coexistence of two groups with
different but complementary interests.  It will continue to be
the aim of the USITT Sound Design Commission to sponsor projects
and disseminate information vital to both groups.  Hopefully we
will also gain the interest of film sound designers.

---------------

Notes:

(1) David L. Klepper, "Theatre Sound and Communication Systems,"
Theatre Design & Technology, Feb. 1972, p. 12.

(2) Ibid., p. 15
(3) John L. Bracewell, "Sound as a Design Art," Theatre Design &
Technology, Winter 1981, p. 4.


----------------------------------------

Copyright ©1987 Charlie Richmond