Hammond
|
The Beast's Voice for RealWant to truly blow the audience away?
Get your sound tech to rent or borrow a digital delay that does pitch shifting and run the Beast's mic thru it, dropping the pitch 3 half steps. Voila, Robbie Benson from the movie.
Serious inquiries from sound techs on this effect entertained via personal message.
|
jarrod001
|
dude that rocks i wanna hear it
|
Voltorb
|
I want to thank you for your help getting the effect configured. 3 was the magic number as you suggested, and it was FANTASTIC! I had to move quick as the production was last weekend, but once the director heard it, he was convinced.
It was a lot of work to turn it on and off manually when there were actors in close proximity, but it was worth it!
Thanks again!
|
musikal_geek
|
You could always just get the actor to pretend to BE the Beast. That way, you don't need technology to enhance a performance of a strong character. It's what we in the business called ACTING.
|
Monsieur D'Arque
|
A bad actor with a good Beast Voice will still suck.
But a good actor whose voice has the distortion made famous on Disney's Beast will be a good match
|
Hammond
|
Musical Geek, why the hostility? You could do B/B without costumes, too, just dress everyone in street clothes, and if they were truly good, it would be a better show than actors with great costumes yet can't act. But does that logic mean that costumes aren't necessary? Disney could have used the same logic and not lowered Benson's voice. He is a pro, after all, so why go to the trouble?
As it happens, the director to which I proposed lowering the Beast's voice ended up vetoing the idea even after it was shown to work, and our Beast was unconvincing. The director did not show him that it is far more effective to express anger without yelling, so he yelled practically every line, and came across as no more than a teenager in makeup. It was a real shame. When he made the transformation, there were no gasps, no applause. What saved the show from being a total loss, despite very good costumes, a wonderful set, and terrific choreography were the natural talents of the actors who played Lumiere, Cogsworth, and Lefou. The principals were miscast, and this director doesn't direct. He blocks the scenes, hands out scripts, and lets the show go where it will, with no direction. When he has naturally talented actors, his shows are good. When he doesn't, they're bad, but with direction they wouldn't have to be.
I am quite envious that Voltorb's cast has a director with the sense to use good tools when they are presented to him.
|
musikal_geek
|
| Hammond wrote: | | Musical Geek, why the hostility? You could do B/B without costumes, too, just dress everyone in street clothes, and if they were truly good, it would be a better show than actors with great costumes yet can't act. But does that logic mean that costumes aren't necessary? |
This is a kind of show where you NEED awesome costumes and sets in order for it to be good. Or at least, costumes and sets at all. They don't necessarily have to be amazing, but you can't do this show without them. Take a show like RENT; it could easily be performed in street clothes and with no set and still have a powerful effect on people, but BATB doesn't have the same kind of writing. I'm not knocking Beauty- it's one of my favorite shows. But, honestly, it just would not work without costumes and sets.
|
Monsieur D'Arque
|
Idk... I've got Minimalist BATB on the backburner, and I'm just trying to figure out how to work it.
|
Hammond
|
MG, the point isn't whether BB needs costumes, it's whether, according to your logic, any show needs costumes, or for that matter, sets, since without good acting it doesn't matter whether you have costumes or sets.
That's true, but it doesn't follow that sets or costumes are therefore unnecessary.
Monsieur D'Arque put it right: A bad voice or bad actor will stink no matter what technology you use; the best outcome is when you have both a good actor and good technology. Don't you think so?
|
The Guard
|
Better to cast an actor who can do the Beast's voice well.
|
Jeronimus
|
I'm surprised nobody thought of the fact that when you lower the voice, he'll also be singing lower. So he'll be singing out of key unless he sings out of key himself and it gets corrected. Or is it turned off when the beast starts singing? Ah, but then the singing and speaking voice don't correspond... mmh!
|
Celeste_SM
|
Our sound designer experimented with this, and also used another device (the name is escaping me) that does something similar to reverb and kind of made the Beast sound possessed. In the end, the staff decided to scrap all effects except for on the non-sound cue roars, which were both pitch shifted and distorted. I personally believe it was the right choice.
Every actor is different, and how you create a great sounding Beast is correspondingly different. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
But it is great to have the opportunity and budget to test and apply technology to the performance, and it is really great to have an excellent sound designer. ( Call him a sound tech and he'll beat on you. We have a mic wrangler for that! )
|
Monsieur D'Arque
|
Try using a guitar pedal with multiple sounds, then running the voice line instead of the guitar through it. That's how many rock bands have achieved their unusual voice effects without vocorders, and been able to duplicate them onstage. It'll also have the added benefit of not lowering the Beast's voice. We digitally altered the Beast's voice mildly.
|