From the March 25, 2007 New York Times article by Jesse Green mentioned on ArtsJournal.com
Musicians or mice? "These products are cheaper and more compact than human musicians. They do not get sick or have bad nights. And after years of gradual improvements, their sound is now good enough to fool many nonexperts, especially since they are almost always used, as recommended, alongside traditional instruments."
34 comments:
Don't get rid of the musicians.
Next it will be CGIs and Voice replecators replacing the actors.
Oh sure, the techies (at least one) will still have a job. Negotiate contracts to make it work for everyone. I'd hate to think the musicians' union has shot every musician in the head, contractually speaking.
Live music IS decernable. And how sick would that be to hear a fake orchestra tune to a fake oboe's A?
If you use techno music, you may as well call it "Kiss me Karaoke" or the "Kareoke and I".
In more than a few cities, musicians have pretty much priced themselves straight out of market. And quite frankly, between dealing with their union or using technology, I'd go with the canned music. It's an entirely different situation with actors, as, generally speaking, they're more flexible in negotiations and, frankly, hold a significantly more important role in live theatre. I'm sure such a statement would irk your average musician, but in terms of live theatre, it's the actor, not the musician, who bears the greater responsibility in telling the story.
Word on the street is that Anonymous theatre has a 13 piece LIVE orchestra for A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum!!!
Tonight only, at the Gerding. Woo Hoo!!!
I am upset by the comment of anonymous 3/25/07. I am an actor and I am irked by your comment. I have always believed and WILL always believe that musical theatre is a collaborate effort of all kinds of artists coming together to showcase their talents in order to create one piece. Machines are not artists. Can't figure out how to post my name, but this is Joey Klei.
Joey, you can be upset all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that musicians have priced themselves way out of the market for many areas. And if you can't afford them, you can either avoid doing theatre without music or replace them with a cheaper alternative. Given that situation, which would you prefer? Sure, you'd want to keep live musicians around and keep doing musicals, but the fact remains that it's not necessarily financially feasible for many companys out there. So, again, which would you prefer to sacrifice: the musicians? Or the musicals?
neither - just makes me drive to find more sponsorship and grants nationally and locally that will help in the production of musical theatre.
If any of you saw Anonymous Theatre last night (and I suspect one or two of you did since 500+ people attended), you saw a great example of why live music is so important and why, if musicians are sharp (sorry), they will stay competitive and flexible with their pay and not be sent packing by someone with an iMac, GarageBand and a stack of blank CDs.
This thread is perfect example of how the point is getting missed. It's not a matter that live musicians are better or better appreciated; it's that so many companies just cannot afford them. Musicians are too expensive, and no matter how much you may prefer them, or how great Anonymous Theatre's show was (I didn't see it myself), they are still priced beyond a lot of company's budgets. That leaves theatre companies with the choice of either discontinue the use of music completely in their shows, doing acapella musicals, or utilizing music that they can actually afford (namely, canned music). Personally, I'd prefer to have canned music over no music at all. Sure, I'd ultimately prefer to have live musicians just like everyone else. But for an ever-growing number of companies out there, that's just not an option.
What Jeff said. I mean, who else is gonna grab the set and save it from collapse but the conductor?!
I did see "Forum" last night, and yes indeed it was an awesome display of what live music can and will do for a production. The musicians and Alan were pertinent to maintaining the chase scene and keeping the frivolity and tone together - BRAVO to you all. What a wonderful experience and experiment that EVERYONE in the theatre community should try to experience either as a patron or as a participant. I was excited to see so many people from the community coming out to support not only one of Portland's companies, but their fellow artists.
This thread is perfect example of how the point is getting missed. It's not a matter that live musicians are better or better appreciated; it's that so many companies just cannot afford them
That was kind of my point; a computer and software is less expensive than an orchestra.
If there are musicians that want to work for the sake of working, being seen or getting their name out there, they'll do it. Those that do it for the paycheck, not that there's anything wrong with that, they'll stick with the paying gigs. It's not so much about not being able to afford musicians as having them be affordable.
No doubt there is a whole Union thing associated with this, but I'll leave that to the people who can speak to it with more authority.
Why is it, in a non union house using a non union cast and a non union director, the musicians can't also be non union and therefore negotiate their rates accordingly?
Musicians are paid more than the actors in many cases, yet they dont go to all the rehearsals and they never get off book. So, why is that?
I am not knocking the musician. Perhaps, the musician is giving up a better paying gig to do a musical. Perhaps the musician is suffering damage artisticly by doing Oklahoma! and needs compensation. Steve Alexander? Rody Ortega? Any musician? Got the answer?
"Musicians are paid more than the actors in many cases, yet they dont go to all the rehearsals and they never get off book. So, why is that?"
Deb actually brings up an excellent point. This is something that, as an actor and director, has caused me to be ever-so-frustrated with many musicians, both union and non-union alike. In many cases there are simply more actors than there are solid, competant musicians. As such, they're able to get away with larger pay demands with less of an investment of their time and effort. With the threat of electronic replacement, maybe this may inspire a good change in these practices.
As for those who think that canned music doesn't sound as good as live musicians: you're absolutely right. For now. But if you think that the developers of this technology will not continue to improve upon it so that live musicians can be easily replaced without any discernable difference, you're fooling yourself.
That'll be the day. I will always be able to tell live music from canned, just as I can always tell whether a show is miked, or which singers are miked and which are not. And I don't think that's primarily due to the fact that I've been a sometime (very unaccomplished) musician.
It's my understanding from talking to the director of Forum that they had planned only a 6 piece ensemble. The other 7 or so volunteered their time to be a part of the crazyness.
"That'll be the day. I will always be able to tell live music from canned, just as I can always tell whether a show is miked, or which singers are miked and which are not. "
Famous last words, my friend, to be quoted back to you (by me) a decade from now...
The point is less the sound quality, than the connection the instrument creates between player and audience. That's why microphones are always detectable, because they change that connection. Sound quality is part of it, but only part.
The problem is, I already don't feel any connection with a modern Broadway pit. Unless you're sitting in the front rows, everything you're hearing is mixed through the speakers. I respect that those guys need jobs, but I think the market will win on this one.
"if you think that the developers of this technology will not continue to improve upon it so that live musicians can be easily replaced without any discernable difference, you're fooling yourself."
are you saying that the quality of the sound of canned music is the only thing that causes us to know it's canned? what about the dialogue that happens between singer and musician, or between musician and audience? that happens in the moment, a nuance that canned music can't achieve.
what about the dialogue that happens between singer and musician, or between musician and audience?
I think that you're seriously overestimating what the average audience actually cares about in a production by comparing it to what we theatre professionals deem important in terms of aesthetics. Your average person off the street street (you know, the people we're trying to win back to live theatre from the cheap and accessible appeal of television and video games) couldn't care less and won't notice the difference. Especially if canned music becomes the industry standard. But even if it were actually true, it wouldn't change the fact that, again, musicians are too expensive. I can't help but notice that in nearly everyone's rant about how canned music shouldn't replace live musicians, very few people dare to even approach that fact. How would you suggest to producers to solve that problem? Joey Klei's statement of: "just makes me drive to find more sponsorship and grants nationally and locally that will help in the production of musical theatre" is a perfect example of why canned music makes more and more sense every day. If it's such a struggle to find the funding for a musical theatre production utilizing live musicians, it's not really worth it. The audiences don't care enough to support it through ticket sales, and the musicians have priced themselves way beyond the market value. I'm sorry, but that "solution" is an act of desperation. And if musical theatre and the companies that produce them hope to survive, they are going to need to learn to adapt to the circumstances of today. Or go the way of the dinosaur. Regardless of your opinion, Heather, canned music is here to stay, I'm afraid.
Actually, I haven't found it to be a struggle as long as you use the right resources. I find it time consuming to right grants and to find sponsorship, but it's one of many things I like to do for the theatre and its community. Musical Theatre is one of the only art forms that came out of our country (not to forget about Jazz). Should we not be proud to sustain an art form that we can call our own? Rogers & Hammerstein, Cole Porter, the Gershwins, Styne, Sondheim, Bachrach, Bernstein and even Guettel wrote music and adapted to how it would sound to an audiences ear LIVE. Those composers where in the recording studios to make sure that the exact sound and integrity of the piece was near perfect for recordings. Why discredit a score or an actors experience by mimicking such greatness with a machine? I say, pull up the boot straps boys, trudge through the mud and figure out a way to make it work. Don't sell your audience, your company or an artist short. Give them what they deserve.
I say, pull up the boot straps boys, trudge through the mud and figure out a way to make it work. Don't sell your audience, your company or an artist short. Give them what they deserve.
And if by giving your audience what they "deserve" you send your company into bankruptcy and have to close down, was it worth it?
Steve A here. Yep, Deb Lund, I'm responding.
1. Did someone say that musicians are pricing themselves out of the market? This is simply wrong - written by someone who is obviously neither a musician nor a producer.
I just completed a musical. The musicians for the show got paid LESS than I received in town for my first show, and that was 12 years ago. This is backward wages, y'all.
One of my musicians had to hire a babysitter for his show. The cost of the babysitter was more than his nightly wage. He lost $10 for every show he performed. Where were we pricing ourselves out of the market?
2. Yes, musicians get paid more. And honestly, it's because we have been trained and CANNOT make a mistake. Sad to say, but many an actor can tread the boards and do a bad job. Musicians cannot! We've trained to hit every note right, and are forced to do it with much more consistency.
When you do a more specialized job, you get paid more. That why people go Equity eventually.
3. If an actor gets sick, a sub can be found, even on book, for that evening. It just happened in my last show. If a musician gets sick, we're screwed. Sorry, but we get paid as musicians in order to stay. We play when we have illnesses and should be in the hospital - it happens on almost every show. And it is true - we are much less replaceable.
4. THERE ARE NO UNION MUSICIANS IN LIVE THEATRE IN PORTLAND. I see posts about Equity and non-Equity acotrs. But members of the Musicians' Local 99 are not allowed on stage in Portland - even at Center Stage. All posts about Union musicians must stop!
The last Union musician I worked with had to change his name for the program, and hid during the cast photo, so he wouldn't get in trouble with the Local 99. And yes, this was at Portland's Big House.
------
Please, ladies and gents, if you don't know how little musicians make for a living, don't comment on that.
If you don't pay musicians, you cannot talk about their wages.
If you don't know that Union musicians cannot work in Portland in live theatre, don't engage in that discussion.
Most musicians have committed their lives to making music. They often do not work 40 hours a week. We've made the commitment, and as I stated, the wages have gone backwards. I know this deals little with the idea of canned versus live music. But before you speak out of your A**, make sure it isn't going to smell bad.
And remember - there's nothing wrong in expecting to get paid for a living. I am certain that most people commenting on musicians working for money...well, I bet they aren't musicians. Walk in my moccasins, or borrow a moment of empathy from the Muse.
Those of you whose attitude is: the computer music is coming, get used to it -- I'd like your reactions to some of my thoughts on the matter.
I've been in many musicals, and in every single production there was at least one instance when an actor lost his/her place, stumbled and lost a few beats, skipped a verse, dropped a necessary prop, etc. The conductor and musicians quickly adapted. With canned music, I don't see how it would ever be possible to adapt to unexpected situations during musical numbers.
And as a singing actor, sometimes I make dramatic or comedic choices within a musical scene -- to slow the tempo for a line or two, to pause a moment before resuming, etc. All that freedom would be lost -- it would be a computer performing, and me accompanying the computer, instead of the orchestra accompanying the singer.
Of course the audience would be able to tell, if the computer accompaniment continued and the actor was lost or behind. You think those things don't happen to good actors and singers? Think again. They happen to everybody at one point or another.
Live musicians form an important part of the texture of a musical theater piece. Human musicians play their instruments with emotion and energy, helping create important dramatic or exhilarating moments in a show.
Yes, I've felt resentful at times, when I knew the musicians were being paid more than I was, for far less effort. But I never felt they were being paid too much. I felt I was being paid too little.
I do think audiences will support the cost of live musicians. Several local musicals with live musicians have been hits in the last year or so, and have brought in nice sums for the producing companies. On the other hand, I've gone to a few local productions where one guy was at a keyboard with a computer, and the sound was tacky and uninspiring and, in fact, irritating. You set a tempo on a computer, and believe me -- you get the feeling the actors are little robots singing along with fake music, in perfect, perfect time.
Why not just videotape the actors doing the show once, and play the recording on a screen for paying audiences? It's comparable -- there would be no variation, no subtle changes or development of character through the run, no surprises, no discoveries -- the acting would be the same every.single.time -- just like the music is, when it's done by a computer.
Hello. My name is Jonathan, and I am an experienced music director (more than 25 shows to date) and avid theater goer. I am writing this because my longtime good friend Joey pointed me to this site to read what some of you are saying. And boy, has it got me riled. So I have a question for those of you that contend "musicians are pricing themselves out of the market".... just how much are musicians in your area asking for? Last time I checked, the individual theater company decides what they will pay (unless it's union, and that's another story which I won't get into in this post), and the musician decides whether or not to take the gig based on that pay, his/her schedules, etc, etc, etc. I will not subscribe to the idea that "musicians don't come to every rehearsal, don't put in the same amount of time, etc." But guess what... the musicians spend hours learning their music for YOU, the actors.... for the good of the production as a whole... and when they're playing they play on EVERY tune in the show and then some. Are you, the actor, onstage in every number? Do you have to learn EVERY number? In the majority of cases, the answer is no. But musicians do. As for canned music, I have sworn that if the theatre I regularly do music direction for EVER asks me to provide canned music, they will have seen the last of me. I can assure you I will stand by that. But it'll never happen. Because that theater has a committment to artistic excellence. When they plan their seasons, they budget for live musicians, period. It's not even a question. You can rant until you're blue in the face about money this and too expensive that, but you will NEVER (I don't care WHAT the techno wizzards come up with) achieve the excellence that a live-musician show provides. A couple years ago, Joey and I saw a touring production of My Fair Lady.... it was HORRIBLE for two reasons: canned music, and Eliza Doolittle sucked. (I later found out from one of the few live orch members... my ex... that she was a raging b**** and only got the part cuz... well, I digress. Sorry.) I see NO LOGIC in railing against having paid musicians. I'm truly sorry that actors are not paid more. You are certainly worth it, so please don't misunderstand me. I think it's a travesty that ANY artist who devotes their life to their craft can't be paid for it like the rest of the world is for theirs. We have a SERIOUS problem in this country with lack of caring for the arts. People just don't give a damn. They are too over-hyped on American Idol, Brittany Spears, and all the utter CRAP that is force fed to America via the media. And THAT is the root of the problem. So, I would simply ask... those of you actors who are unpaid (while musicians are paid), PLEASE stop wasting your energy on trying to get rid of musicians, and focus it in a different direction. Your apathy is DEATH for ALL of us. We should ALL stand together. I would also remind you that without live musicians, you would not exist. Musicals were not written by computers. Before the musical existed as an artform, it was preceeded by operetta and opera. ALL of which exists only because of living people who loved their art and chose to devote themselves to it. Please at least show a little respect for your "ancestors". Incidentally, since that awful MFL performance I saw, i have sworn that I will NOT go to a show with canned music ever again. I'm sure I'm not alone in this regard. Finally, I will close with this thought... one day you will be having the performance of a lifetime. You will be feeling that indescribable feeling that we all know when the theatre gods are all smiling, and a particularly difficult number... or a favorite number... or a performance where you have your most cherished loved ones in the audience... is going better than you ever dreamed of. You are truly in a dreamworld of performance. And then, in your vaunted, unpaid, canned orchestra.... the computer crashes. The show has to be stopped. And won't you look like a fool then, when you have no choice but to say "God, if only we had live musicians."
Just had to add one comment to Steve A's thoughts, which were not posted when I wrote my comment last night. He wrote:
"Yes, musicians get paid more. And honestly, it's because we have been trained and CANNOT make a mistake. Sad to say, but many an actor can tread the boards and do a bad job. Musicians cannot! We've trained to hit every note right, and are forced to do it with much more consistency. When you do a more specialized job, you get paid more."
Stevea, I love you, but you're making a mistake here, claiming musicians deserve to be paid more because their job is harder or requires more skills. You're running the risk of alienating some of your biggest supporters -- the actors.
You're comparing apples and oranges, and claiming apples have more value.
I charge any musician in the pit to memorize an entire show and perform it while moving, dancing, walking, handling props, making entrances and exits, hitting the lighting marks on stage, and changing your clothing repeatedly ...all without benefit of written directions. If I had a script and a score in my hand, I could do an entire show and not miss a note or a word. You guys have the music in front of you, for Pete's sake! And you're only performing during the musical numbers -- we're performing in scenes as well as songs.
We both have hard jobs, we both deserve to be well paid for our long hours, skill, and hard work.
With regard to musicians being more precise, ("musicians...CANNOT make a mistake!) well...Stevea, you and I both know pit musicians can and do make some mighty bad errors, even though they're looking straight at the music. Skill levels vary amongst actors, singers and pit musicians. You can't make across-the-board claims that every person in the pit is more precise or incapable of mistakes than every actor on stage.
And yes, I HAVE done shows (Eliza in My Fair Lady, Mame in Mame, Maria in The Sound of Music) where I'm in darn near every scene and every song.
Saying an actor's work is easier, or requires less skill, is just crazy.
It's different, that's all. And when all is said and done, in the context of this discussion, who is more replaceable? I don't think anyone could produce a musical that audiences would buy tickets for if there were no actors on the stage.
As far as I'm concerned, you couldn't do a musical without me, the actor/singer out front. And I WON'T do a musical without you, the trained, talented musician who provides the depth, excitement, and human musicality in the pit.
I was cast in a musical last year and when the producer said at the first rehearsal that he was considering using canned music, the moment he left the room the majority of actors in the show said they'd quit before they'd do a show with a recording as back-up. He decided to use live musicians, so nobody quit. But I wonder if he realized what his cost-cutting measure might have meant to his production, if he lost most of his actors?
Live musicians are extremely valuable -- my entire argument (see my earlier entry) is in support of using as many live musicians as possible, for every musical done. If you're going to do a musical at all, budget for live musicians, period. (But make sure you hire skilled musicians who can read the music their eyes are glued on.) It will pay off when more audiences come to see a higher quality musical performance on stage.
If you're a regular reader, you know of my support for live musicians - always - even when it's only a pianist. I'd rather have one live pianist than computerized music anyday. And if one can afford computerized music, I think one can afford a professional accompanist.
Even if I couldn't tell the difference between canned and live, I also agree with the earlier statement that there is a relationship drawn among performer, audience and musician ... that is, when the musicians are visible. It's a pet peeve of mine when live musicians are hidden offstage somewhere. If you don't have or want to use a pit, that's fine, but there are creative ways to integrate the musicians rather than hide them and break their connection with audience and actor.
On another point, though -- I'm curious: is it always an issue of money? Because I can just imagine (and this is just my imagination right now) some companies or directors or producers just not wanting to trouble themselves with more artistic personnel -- "let's just get the tracks; less to worry about; it's just easier ... heck, then we don't need a rehearsal accompanist and maybe not even a musical director..." Again -- this could just be my imagination, but ...
Wanted to throw this into the discussion. It scares me to hear that some of the posters, instead of finding a middle ground or working with musicians, would rather go cheap and get machines. In some of the comments, it leads me to believe that one might be drivin to make a profit - let me tip a hat to thee David Merrick. Even he knew producing Musical Theatre was a poker game. In my experience, it has always been a joyous day to break even OR make a small profit, that equals success (regionally, we don't have the opportunity to run successes for five years to recoup). I remember the Musicians Union Strike in 2003 and wanted to share an article I found on-line that talked about it. No one succeeds, unless EVERYONE's ego's work together. Peace :)
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20030304/1/298
I just want to thank the musicians who have responded. I so much more prefer to hear it from the horse's mouth than to sit and read speculation. I'm glad to know that nobody said "Musicals are so trite that you have to pay me a lot to do them". That was my personal fear.
A few years back, there was a strike on B'way regarding canned music. I was totally behind the musicians.
I am taken back a bit by the fact that the union houses here don't hire union musicians. How can they get away with that? It doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't some of them be union (like the cast)?
Hey, and be nice. Snotty comments just make this discussion too stupid to engage in.
Responding to Followspot's last question, yes, there is another big reason people use canned music. As somebody who has produced musicals in some of Portland's smaller, more "experimental" venues, there is also the issue of space. Where do you put a band on the stage?
A lot of shows in Portland get produced on a postage stamp sized stage. I think we have all seen Stumptown struggle with that at the IFCC. Sometimes there barely seems room left on stage for the actors or the choreography. And getting the mix of voices to musicians when they are that close together - and that close to the audience! - can also be pretty tricky.
For many years back in the 70's and 80's you saw small musicals produced in small venues with a single synth and a synth player. It sounded awful. Was that really an improvement over canned? One musician got a job, but frankly I'd rather hear several live musicians - and you can pay several studio musicians to do this - on CD through a good sound system.
I think the best example of this for me was a few years ago Lakewood produced a wonderful production of Man of La Mancha. I thought the music was canned. Apparently because of space concerns, the live musicians were placed in an nearby room and piped into the theater. I didn't see the point of that. But given the size of the stage and intimacy of the show, I did see a good reason not to have the band on stage.
Also, I go to see The Nutcracker every year at OBT. Some years the orchestra was canned, but honestly I could never tell until the conductor stood up - or didn't - at the end.
So maybe I'm a Neanderthal but I'm a pretty regular theater goer and I really can't always tell the difference. I think it's fine to go with whatever best suits the production, the space and the company's budget.
Sure, live performers add a nice quality, but when was the last time you saw a straight show with a live musician? All plays have music. Some have a lot. But rarely do they have live instruments. Besides, you start hiring live musicians for straight plays and you put Rody Ortega out of a job! Can't have that!
I just don't think you can really say one is always a better choice than the other.
the last time i saw a live musician in a straight play was Vertigo's "Lie of the Mind", and, before that, in defunkt's "Bang. Curtain. End of Show." in both instances, though the musicians participated in quite different ways, they left an indelible mark on their respective pieces (far exceeding a mere nice quality). they added a depth that simply wouldn't have been there with canned music. i can't imagine either play without them. (nor can i imagine Rody ever needing to fear for his job...)
Rody is a great example of the hybrid: a live musician who produces canned music from his performance.
Theatre Vertigo's production of Lie of the Mind had a live musician.
I'm just saying.......
Tom
I think I'm coming at this from kind of an unusual angle, but some folks might find it interesting.
Last summer, PCS did my play "Lost Wavelengths" as part of JAW/West. "Lost Wavelengths" had a bunch of original songs; I wrote the lyrics, Hal Logan wrote the music. As we were rehearsing in the space of a week and doing a staged reading, there wasn't time for all the actors to learn to play all the songs on the varied instruments required, so some of the music beds were recorded, and actors sang over them (magnificently, I might add).
One character, however, played several songs on electric guitar, and we ended up having Hal sit on the edge of the stage with his amp set up behind the actor, who "played" unplugged, and the effect was really stunning. Not only was the music live, but, after awhile, you really accepted that the character was playing. Coolest damn thing in the world.
The music worked both ways, recorded and live (and, of course, all vocals were live), but there was something rather thrilling about that live guitar effect. Something hard to quantify. Recorded music works, but live music rocks.
Steve
P.S.: Deb Lund also played live keyboards (splendidly in character), and other actors played considerable live percussion.
I'm the director of small community theater group in a small midwestern town. We are in our 6th season of summer musicals, all of which have been reasonably successful. We specialize in training young actor/singers for musical theater, dealing mostly with late high school and early university ages. As an older Equity actor, professional theater director, and a trained music director, I've had experience in my life with all sorts of pit orchestras, both live and "canned." Some of our shows in my small company have used GarageBand multi-tracked pit orchestras - no live members. The audiences were made aware from the start that the orchestra was pre-recorded, but that it was recorded specifically for our cast, using the tempos that we had rehearsed over and over, and the tempos that the individual singers had agreed upon. In almost every case, the actors were able to adjust their performances so that they, at least, performed "live" even though the orchestra was pre-recorded. Could the audience tell that it was a multi-track recording? Yes, of course. But because we made no pretense otherwise, and because the recording was very high quality, no one really cared. They all knew that the only other alternative, given our budget, would have been to use a single piano and a drumset. Even in a small midwestern town, a hired pit orchestra of only 4 or 5 players can run over a thousand dollars for a 6-performance run. I think the audiences got more than their money's worth, and it is all for a good cause - summer entertainment and a chance for young people to do a high-quality musical that is a step above the normal community theater. Our young actors have gotten the chance to do some shows with what amounts to a 20-piece orchestra (each part recorded painstakingly on a separate track and then layered to form a full orchestra) rather than just piano. Would I rather use a live orchestra? You bet - but only if I can afford GOOD musicians. There is nothing so demoralizing as working your tail off as an actor, and then discovering during tech week that the pit orchestra is just awful. It brings the whole mood of the show down and it seldom recovers. For those who are looking for advantages, one advantage we've found is that if the orchestra tracks are recorded in advance, the choreographers can use them to rehearse with, and there is absolutely no change in tempo or sound during performance - they are already prepared for the tempos and inevitable glitches in the recording process. The dancers have been very happy with that aspect in general. With a live orchestra, I've seen numerous community shows that have problems with tempos that vary from night to night. On some of our smaller shows, we've used mostly live players, but even for those shows, we use computer tracks on some of the complex dance sequences. But we have done other shows where the orchestra was entirely multi-tracked and pre-recorded, up to 40 instruments including some really wild percussion. Do the actors ever screw up and get off the tracks? Of course they do - but surprisingly seldom, oddly enough. When they do, they know that it is entirely up to THEM to get back on, and so they train to do that with as little fuss as possible. To be truthful, in most musicals that are beyond the really beginning stages, even a live pit orchestra will soon settle into "standard" tempos for each song in the show, and if they actors are rehearsed properly, there shouldn't be too many instances of sudden lurches out of tempo that can't be easily fixed by self-correction. One last thought - because even the professional touring groups (have you glanced in the pit in the touring versions of "Wicked" or "Jesus Christ Superstar?"), there are often two-five synthesizers playing the string or brass or woodwind parts. The argument of "I can always tell when the instruments aren't real" is moot, given the fact that you are either facing a live musician playing a fake synthesized set of instruments, or you are facing a recorded version of the same thing. GarageBand has some pretty amazing instrumental sounds if you purchase the jam packs and add-ons; the trick is knowing how to play each instrument so that it sounds as real as possible. Would I trade it all for live players? In a heartbeat - but I need the budget to do so, and it just isn't there. Recorded pit orchestras are one way to get similar results, with less budget(but admitedly far higher hours involved to record each track), and our young actors have benefited from the experience of having to deal with a recorded track. Just my two cents worth.
Post a Comment