How did people in the medieval times hear what the actors were saying on stage?

Question

Mics and loudspeakers a modern invention, right? How did the actors in Opera, and plays being conducted inside theaters, make sure they could be heard by the audience sitting in the farthest benches?

Also, in a theater that can seat, say 1500 people, wouldn't it be very hard for the people at the back to see the details of the play? Unlike today, they didn't have giant images projected onto a huge screen which can be comfortably seen from a long distance? Was it not an unsatisfactory experience? How did people cope with this? What steps were taken by the theaters to mitigate these problems?

Answer 1

As you have already been told, real singers don't use amplification. That's how you can tell the difference between a sunger and a poseur who can hold a microphone. A professional opera singer, or even a competent amateur, can fill a theatre of not just 1500 but 2500 seats with sound, without doing any damage to his/her own voice, or to the hearer's ears. The same is true of actors in spoken dialogue. Nonetheless, there are lots of things which theatres, actors and playwrights did and do to make it easier for audiences - partly, in the case of opera, because of language issues, and partly because sung text is never quite a clear as spoken text.



These include:



1 The design of theatres to have good accoustics - i.e. for sound to travel well and clearly to all parts.



2 Non-verbal clues, which include movements of the hands and body, expressions, scenery, props etc.



3 Familiar plots. For example, may Shakespeare plots are recycled from earlier sources. and many Shakespeare plays have in turn been recycled into operas. It is easier to follow the detail if you understand the broad outlines.



4 Programme notes, so the audience can bone up in advance on what is going to happen.





As for people at the back not being able to see so well, that is perfetly true in a large theatre, and is one reason why prices may be lower there. On the other hand, the sound is often particularly good there because of the reflecting effect (and focus) of the back wall. Swings and roundabouts.

Answer 2

In big theatres, basically the actors raised their voices a lot!

In average sized or small theatres (and most were comparatively small) they simply projected exactly as they do nowadays.

In only one of the plays my daughter has acted in has she (or any of her fellow-actors) had to use a mic of any description - and they never use loudspeakers at all.

A good, well-trained actor can easily project to an audience of 500 plus.



At The Globe Theatre, which is a replica of Shakespeare's Globe in London, the audience comprises about 850 sitting and up to 700 standing - and there are no mics or loudspeakers used. I've been to a performance there, and everyone could hear every word, I'm sure.

The theatre is circular, so the audience is quite close wherever they are.

Look at pictures on the internet - you'll see what I mean.

Answer 3

1. Actors were trained to project there voices in such a way that they could be loud, but not appear to be shouting. Stage actors also gestured more broadly and exaggerated their facial expressions.



2. Performing venues, such as theaters were acoustically designed to act like giant megaphones. The stage area was relatively small while the walls of the auditorium got wider towards the rear. A person on stage could conceivably speak in a normal voice and be heard at the farthest, highest levels of the theater.



3. The balcony levels were actually built quite close to the stage, so the patrons in the farthest back row were not really that distant.



4. In actual midieval times there weren't really any 1500 seat theaters. Places like Shakespeare's Globe theater held, maybe, around a hundred STANDING patrons.



Finally, as far as the theater going experience, the relatively poor visual conditions, remember that they didn't have anything better to compare with. The "cheap seats" we're cheap for a reason. There was no "coping" with it. It just was what it was.

Answer 4

One of the reasons there is a stereotype of theater as containing exaggerated gestures and emotive delivery is because the actors had to have a larger than life presence on stage. Actors would speak with sometimes unrealistically loud voices, and would move in a way that used space more than might the average person in real life. This contrasts the more nuanced type of acting you'll see in film and television, something enabled by the intimacy and attention to detail of a camera.



Playwrights and costumers also had many tricks for helping the audience. Some of these relied upon using type characters who could be identified by their profession, their attire (which might indicate class), an emotion (like the Greek drama masks), or a resemblance to something in the animal kingdom (i.e. a lion-type character might be large and have a beard and would boast, something that helped the audience understand).



Realism in acting wasn't a priority or even a common practice until the last 120 years or so. A particular innovator in realistic theatrical acting you might want to research is Stansilavsky.

Answer 5

FYI, in Opera, even today they do not amplify with microphone.



The composer has written the score, and the singer has trained in voice, so that they can not only be heard by the audience, but be heard by the audience over the orchestra! With no electronic amplification!!!



Amazing, isn't it!

Answer 6

actors had to project their voice. MASSIVELY. any generally the audience didn't mind or understand they just enjoyed the upper class atmosphere which came from theatrics. many just went to show off their wealth not listen to the play.