<p>Interesting, and very sad, op-ed piece from today's NYT. I saw this revival in March- the orchestra was WONDERFUL.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11woodiel.html?_r=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11woodiel.html?_r=1</a></p>
<p>I saw that as well. Technology is a funny thing. In music, there are some great things it’s doing to things. I saw Chris Botti last Christmas and playing with him was a guy who was supposed to create a live orchestra with the sound of his MacBook and a keyboard. Some of the songs they did needed it - if anybody saw the live in Boston DVD by him you’d know why. As awesome as it was, of course a live orchestra would have been nicer. I’m not exactly sure how the Blue Note staff would feel about that though, ha.</p>
<p>Not surprising I am afraid. Broadway producers for years have been trying to switch to either fully or partially synthesized/recorded music, for the obvious cost savings that could bring. To a broadway producer the orchestra/pit band is not an integral part of the show, it is a cost, like the cost for light bulbs, electricity, etc, and they have been seeking to ‘automate’ the music for a long time now. One of the reasons they haven’t been able to, besides the unions, is because their hard core audiences wouldn’t stand for it (it was tried in a couple of shows a number of years back, and audiences hated it). </p>
<p>Sadly, I suspect this is going to be the trend with musicals, either fully or partially recorded/synthesized music. On top of everything else, given the lack of musical exposure of most people, especially the tourist types who are the big bread and butter of much of broadway musicals these days, and with a whole generation brought up on digital, compressed music (mostly of lessened quality), it is likely future generations of theater goers will be perfectly happy listening to something that is ‘canned’, probably compared to the Ipod they are used to it will seem to be great…and while live broadway orchestras have their ups and downs, where especially in long running shows the playing may not be all that thrilling at times, for the grand musicals having recorded music won’t be the same.
Live performances vary, something that is recorded is the same old same old (kind of like instead of going to the play, buying the cast recording and listening to it over and over again).</p>
<p>I suspect within 10 years there will be little or no live music with broadway musicals, they would rather spend a fortune hiring actors from Hollywood then spend it on good music, and even more sadly I suspect audiences won’t know the difference.</p>
<p>I also saw this article and decided it was more evidence of a trend that’s been emerging for a while now. In today’s paper, there was an article about making movies more interactive – having singalongs, encouraging people to bring their pets – and it made me wonder what the parallel in classical music will be. Certainly, summer festivals like Tanglewood where people are encouraged to sit on the lawn, picnic and even chat during performances have continued to have strong interest…are we moving to an era where people’s attention spans are too short to sit through an entire symphony without other simultaneous entertainment?</p>
<p>Live music takes audiences to support it. There has to be a “blend” of audience attraction. When we were in London, we went to a concert at the Royal Albert Hall. It seats 5000 (no that is not a misprint) people and the house was standing room only. It was the last performance of a MONTH LONG show which featured a symphony orchestra, dancers, singers, a sing along (actually a couple of them) and pyrotechinics at the end. To be honest, it was a LOT of fun and the music and dancing were terrific. Ours was, I think, the 20th perforrmance and most had been sold out. AND to top it off, we were there on a Friday and there were several other orchestral concerts at other venues that night…also sold out (we had originally wanted to see the London Symphony but couldn’ get tickets).</p>
<p>DD quipped “if our symphony did a program like this once a year, maybe their subscribership would increase”. </p>
<p>Gotta wonder.</p>
<p>Not to mention that ticket prices at the Albert Hall are (or at least were) a small fraction of what they are here in the States, even for shows featuring some pretty big names. I remember attending Proms concerts back in the '80s, paying something like 2 pounds for standing room, sitting on the floor in the upper reaches of the hall (standing room was only completely full for Last Night back then, so there was room to spread out) and swapping sandwiches with some of the regulars. At the end of the concert, we would dash over to the Queen’s Arms ahead of the crowd to get a pint or two before closing…</p>
<p>Seen this coming for at least the last 7 years, since the local village recording studio guy showed us the “latest” software, which is now of course even better.
Studio musicians will go next, no doubt.</p>
<p>It has long been a complaint of mine that when the credits roll on a movie, they list everyone down to the dolly grip’s babysitter, but music credits are given to the composer, and possibly to the arranger and/or conductor, and that’s about it.</p>
<p>I think listing the actual musicians - or at minimum, those with solos, could help put it before the audience that there are real people involved in that part of the film as well. Have a section labeled “studio musicians” and in tiny print (if you wish), list everyone involved. Give those musicians the recognition they deserve, and give the movie makers the recognition they deserve in their use of real musicians.</p>
<p>Yes Bassdad…those Royal Albert Hall tickets were about $20 each (in 2005). That was for seats in the VERY top row! Didn’t matter a bit…all seats were good.</p>