| re: That "live" SIDE SHOW simulcast in Times Square? | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 07:59 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | That "live" SIDE SHOW simulcast in Times Square? - MockingbirdGirl 07:53 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| People will be upset/feel cheated, but it served the same purpose, and to me looked and sounded wonderful on the clip issued to YouTube. Yes, the two stars were in especially strong voice, and it was heartbreaking. I was at the Saturday matinee performance, and wondered if it was taped that day. It was quite similar to what I saw and heard. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| Awww | |
| Posted by: | Ann 08:07 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: That "live" SIDE SHOW simulcast in Times Square? - Delvino 07:59 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| I was surprised it started on time, meaning the opening performance started right on time. But I think they should have run a scrolled disclaimer or something. It did seem to be part of a special live event, standing there in the rain .... | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | icecadet 10:49 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Awww - Ann 08:07 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Would love to hear more the "city permits" that were in danger of being violated had it been broadcast 27 minutes late. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | sirpupnyc 11:26 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - icecadet 10:49 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Amplified sound in public places requires a permit from the NYPD. They had a permit for a window of time that turned out not to be long enough. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 11:37 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - sirpupnyc 11:26 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| But it's hard to believe that the window would be that strict, especially for a telecast in Times Square, which is not exactly a residential area. And if the window was that strict, it's hard to believe they didn't make a point of starting the show on time -- even if was opening night when, performances often start much later than the stated time -- specifically because of the scheduled live telecast. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 12:05 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - Michael_Portantiere 11:37 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| I don't really find either of those things hard to believe. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 11:59 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - MikeR 12:05 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| So, for some reason the permit was for a very short window -- they could have the telecast say, from 7:45 to 7:55, but not from 8:00 to 8:10? And given that those involved with the show knew the window was so small and they wouldn't be able to show the Act I finale live, as had been widely publicized, if they didn't start on time, they still didn't make a point of doing so? I don't understand any of that, but maybe the explanation is that they didn't think the brevity of the window would be strictly enforced. Either way, they were obviously ready with a pre-recorded version as a backup, presumably in case something went wrong with the live transmission. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | sirpupnyc 01:53 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - Michael_Portantiere 11:59 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Have you considered why they didn't start on time? I don't know, but my guess is that it was delays in getting a full, VIP-laden house seated. Something over which the show and the house have only a moderate amount of control. If the show had started with one of the stars' mothers still out in the lobby waiting to be seated, we'd be reading about the cold-hearted marketing people sticking to their artificial schedule at the expense of the cast and the audience. They probably allowed for a 15-minute delay, and when they determined they weren't going to be able to get on the screen before the permitted time had run out, they went to plan B. Clear Channel presumably preferred to honor the terms of the permit rather than jeopardize their relationship with the precinct, whose cooperation is necessary for the future operation of their big expensive gadget. When rolling out a new toy, it's best not to demonstrate on the first time out that you don't care about the limits imposed by the local authorities. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 04:20 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - sirpupnyc 01:53 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Of course I've considered why they didn't start on time; the reasons you state are the same reasons why opening night performances usually start considerably later that the scheduled time. What I'm saying is, knowing that is true, they probably shouldn't have scheduled what was trumpeted as a live transmission if such a brief window was allowed, unless they were determined to try to get everyone in their seats at the theater by the scheduled start time or allow latecomers to take their seats during the performance. I hope that clarifies my point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 03:02 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - sirpupnyc 01:53 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| none of this stopped them from acknowledging they were running a tape. would people have been disappointed? possibly. would they have looked bad? probably. but they'd have looked better than they do right now. people tend to be understanding of things beyond people's control. i'd be making excuses for them - though this isn't a first opening night for most of these people and some have spent considerable time in the past few months watching this production with a stopwatch. they had a pretty good idea what time the number should come up. they also had an hour after it started knowing exactly when the number would come up. technical mishaps people tend to account for. this comes off as dishonesty which people tend to resent. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | Ann 02:03 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - sirpupnyc 01:53 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| The point is, we don't really know. They knew it was going to be opening night - whether or not a delay was built in, who knows. Maybe they should have scheduled a delayed airing at 8:15, to cover even a 23 minute delay. My only issue is with how/when the truth rolled out. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 10:27 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - Ann 02:03 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| My only issue is with how/when the truth rolled out. I'm beginning to think we should start calling this "SideShowGate." ;-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Maybe six years from now... | |
| Posted by: | seeseveryshow 02:10 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - Ann 02:03 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Maybe six years from now on the day the show closes, they will be able to show a live clip from the final performance in Times Square. Let's all hope so. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe six years from now... | |
| Posted by: | sandcastle 05:03 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Maybe six years from now... - seeseveryshow 02:10 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Maybe they should just abandon this idea altogether. Although didn't Barbra pull this off? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | Thom915 (Thom915@aol.com) 09:18 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Awww - Ann 08:07 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Seems like a little bit of a (non-criminal) fraud to have tried to pull this off without a disclaimer, even just an announcement from Guarini. Perhaps though these are the right people to produce a revival of Barnum. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 08:29 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - Thom915 09:18 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| We all have different thresholds about "live." I've never been able to get past the taped music in PHANTOM, those high notes recorded to serve the stagecraft. I would change the stagecraft. The show is about this guy in love with a voice. And it turns out, a percentage of her money notes are controlled in the back of the Majestic. I have never gotten over it, so we are all subjective in our acceptance of technology's gifts to performance. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| THANK YOU! | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 01:11 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Delvino 08:29 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| i couldn't agree more. either hire an actress who can hit the note 8 times a week (or however many performances you schedule her for) or rewrite it for the notes the actress you've hired can hit. sweetening to make the sound bigger or to cover for dancing is bad enough but this feels like an outright deception. probably because thats exactly what it is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Claire Moore in London PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Ronsdivas 11:58 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Delvino 08:29 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Tho the "note" was prerecorded for Sarah Brightman....Claire Moore used to sing her high E live. Of course she only did 2 performances a week as alternate...until Ms Brightman really started to miss performances. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Claire Moore in London PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Live_From_London 07:31 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Claire Moore in London PHANTOM. - Ronsdivas 11:58 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Claire Moore is such an underated performer, a glorious soprano voice with an amazing belt. I love the story told by the chorus girls in the 'Behind The Mask' documentry, about how during early previews for Phantom, Sarah got very sick and Claire Moore got put on, under rehearsed with no costumes of her own, and got rave reviews for her performance. Sarah suddenly got better and came back the next night :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Claire Moore in London PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 12:01 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Claire Moore in London PHANTOM. - Ronsdivas 11:58 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Two things I've always been curious about, actually - who actually recorded that note (it might not have been Brightman), and has that same recording been used for every Christine, or do they get to record their own if they want? ;-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Claire Moore in London PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Ronsdivas 02:08 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Claire Moore in London PHANTOM. - Chromolume 12:01 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| each Christine records her own note...some have to be electronically "helped" to actually make the top E...while others (like Ms Moore) never had a problem with it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 10:29 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Delvino 08:29 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| I may be wrong, but I believe that the "high notes" (really only one) and the prerecorded vocals for reasons of "stagecraft" are two different things. I can totally understand the strategy behind having Christine's final high E in the title song lipsynched. Yes, I know that Barbara Cook sang those Eb's in Candide every performance. But most singers wouldn't want to have to do that - even opera sopranos who specialize in that kind of coloratura range are not asked to do that every night. As far as I know, that's the only "money note" that is prerecorded. The other prerecorded sections don't involve such acrobatic singing, and are done for more practical "stagecraft" (as you put it) reasons. If I'm wrong, and more of Christine's high notes are lipsynched, forgive my ignorance. (But then, tell me specifically where these notes are.) The show is about this guy in love with a voice. And it turns out, a percentage of her money notes are controlled in the back of the Majestic. The show is also about a guy who has a severe facial deformity, covered by a mask for most of the show. And it turns out, the deformity is created by makeup artists in the dressing room. It's called theatre. ;-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 01:15 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Chromolume 10:29 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| >> Yes, I know that Barbara Cook sang those Eb's in Candide every performance. But most singers wouldn't want to have to do that - even opera sopranos who specialize in that kind of coloratura range are not asked to do that every night. but she did. and it was so impressive people still refer to it. these actresses are getting the benefit of an audience thinking they are equally impressive when they aren't. that's not theater that's deception. theater is about truth. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 12:14 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Chromolume 10:29 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| "I can totally understand the strategy behind having Christine's final high E in the title song lipsynched. Yes, I know that Barbara Cook sang those Eb's in Candide every performance. But most singers wouldn't want to have to do that - even opera sopranos who specialize in that kind of coloratura range are not asked to do that every night." Very true, but then one could argue that Lloyd Webber shouldn't have put a high "E" in the score. Really, did that note HAVE to be that high? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 12:32 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Michael_Portantiere 12:14 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Very true, but then one could argue that Lloyd Webber shouldn't have put a high "E" in the score. Really, did that note HAVE to be that high? Very good point. ;-) I think Webber would say he wanted the exaggerated dramatic nature of the extreme high note. But yes, sometimes what a composer WANTS doesn't always translate to something practical lol. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 01:31 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Chromolume 12:32 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| And also, Lloyd Webber doesn't seem to be the kind of composer who spends a lot of time thinking about what it will be like for people in stage productions of his shows to sing those roles eight times a week. See also Evita, Judas.... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 03:11 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Michael_Portantiere 01:31 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| i almost kind of respect him for this and i don't mean in the sadistic way. knowing a score is complex and a performer can still do it is exciting. i'd rather have two people in the role who could actually do it even if they did it fewer nights a week. but then that would cost money ... the bottom line is find people who can do it. i don't see why the "it's too hard" response should work any better for producers than it does for anyone else in the theater. yes, finding someone who can fit the bill is hard. being able to do hard things is called talent. i blame the audience more for letting them get away with it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Before we let it go: was the Andrews tape controversial? | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 03:53 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - enoch10 03:11 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| It was slightly before this board's time (I'm sure Ann will correct me, but it was before the pile-on of people like me!) Was it controversial? Did Andrews get any flack for cheating that run? It was a famous one in the film, and I do believe we all expected her to make an attempt. And then somewhere, were told she didn't do it. I thought it was obvious in the theater, unlike -- here we go again -- the Christine note, which 95% of the audience has not clue she doesn't hit. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Before we let it go: was the Andrews tape controversial? | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 04:25 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Before we let it go: was the Andrews tape controversial? - Delvino 03:53 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| i don't remember. i remember not liking VICTOR VICTORIA but i had moved away by that point (this was 95, 96, right?) and when i would come in i would catch as much theater as i could and i'm not good at that. when i would see lots of things like that back to back they would all be one big blur by the time i got home - let alone at this late date. it's possible i knew because who i saw it with was pretty plugged in - but i disliked pretty much everything about VV so if i knew it was just one more thing not to like. i disliked it enough that i gave up the chance to see liza minnelli in it. the same person i'd seen it with before could get tickets. for some reason, at the time, that just didn't seem like quite a good enough reason to fly back in. i have no idea what i was thinking - other than liza's vocals were already less than stellar by then and i really, really, didn't like VV. still, now i wish i had seen her in it. was liza's voice taped for this number? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Liza in V/V | |
| Posted by: | sandcastle 06:46 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Before we let it go: was the Andrews tape controversial? - enoch10 04:25 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| I saw her opening night (sensational). And what turned out to be her last perf (voice just gave out, she was still sensational). She acted the hell out of this silly role. She wasn't taped. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Liza in V/V | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 10:58 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Liza in V/V - sandcastle 06:46 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| When I went, she was out. I got a refund. I later second acted it with her understudy, the gifted Ms. Runnolfson Also second acted with Welch. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Correction | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 03:17 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - enoch10 03:11 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| i dont blame the audience. it isn't that hard to fool an audience into thinking the actress is really hitting those notes. i blame the critics/journalists for not shaming them. if they made a big enough stink about it - i'm not just talking about PHANTOM i mean everyone who goes beyond sweetening - audiences would push back. at the risk of sounding like someone (still) complaining about the performers being miked (which i will be happy to do, especially considering this is where all this deception started) i'd be happy if they did away with sweetening altogether. who cares if singers are winded after dancing? audiences didn't care for generations and they wouldn't now. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Correction | |
| Posted by: | Holland 04:59 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Correction - enoch10 03:17 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| "who cares if singers are winded after dancing? audiences didn't care for generations and they wouldn't now." I'm in agreement with you, but the difference between then and now is that there used to be a singing chorus and a dancing chorus, so everyone could do what they do best and still end with a strong finish. And the lead would be more likely not to participate in the dance break and step back at the end in full voice. Personally, I'm a big fan of the single threat. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Correction | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 05:25 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Correction - Holland 04:59 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| yes, so really we are once again back to money because of course we could still have those things. i'm a fan of the single threat, too, and, yes, you have to choreograph with this in mind but there are actors capable of dancing well and singing. i've seen it. it's just easier and cheaper to fake it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 10:46 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Chromolume 10:29 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| I'm sorry, I respectfully disagree that recorded singing is part of a wall sampler reading "It's called theater." Trust me, I'm well aware that the art form is all about the suspension of disbelief. Anyone who feels it's a step in the right direction, and furthers musicals' cause, great. Stand by it. But please, don't lecture me about its use as if it's comparable to make-up to suggest a deformed face. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 11:50 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Delvino 10:46 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Well, it's been going on at least as far back as The Pajama Game, for various purposes and reasons. (And recorded orchestra tracks go back at least as far as 1937 and Weill's The Eternal Road.) The "sweetening" done for shows such as Company and Follies is well-documented - there was also a good deal of taped music (both vocal and orchestral) in the original La Cage, both for sweetening and for scenic effect. You may not like it, but it HAS been part of theatre technology for many years, and as long as it's not misused (and I don't tend to think it's misused in Phantom), I think it's acceptable. No, I'm not ever advocating Contact-style (or touring Rockettes style) replacement of orchestras, nor a singer being extensively lipsynched. But like any technology, if it's used carefully as an occasional tool, I think it's essentially no different than any other technical theatrical device. Granted, most of the time recording is used for specific effect, not as "replacement" vocals. And I don't think anyone wants to easily rely on such methods. But I think there are occasional times when the technology can be used to help, such as with the extreme range demands called for in that moment in Phantom. The alternative would probably be having a long line of sopranos killing their voices for the sake of that one "freak" high E, 8 times a week. The role is a tough sing as it is (and that slow build up to that high note is taxing as well.) Live should always be the first choice. But when an OCCASIONAL certain "effect" is wanted that can't be reasonably achieved live, we at least have the technology to consider. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Thank you; much appreciate the historical info; a note on what is "deception" | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 03:08 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I've been waiting for "Some of Christine's high notes are on tape" at PHANTOM. - Chromolume 11:50 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Much appreciated, and I must say, this has turned into a lively discussion (see comments below), one reason I enjoy this board. I would add Julie Andrews' run in "Le Hot Jazz," in VICTOR/VICTORIA yes? Since that was generally known to be on tape, never performed by Andrews on the Marquis stage. We accepted that because it wasn't even a side of Victoria's performance repertoire we ever heard again in the show, if memory serves. From then on, we stuck with Andrews' comfort zone, because it's the character's. And well, we were so glad to have Andrews back on stage, in a role she'd played a decade earlier on film. See? I'm making an exception. I personally, in light of your thoughtful posts, subjectively, feel there's something different about sweetening sound in, say, FOLLIES or COMPANY, than in employing technology to augment a solo performance with a previously canned note. And in the case of Christine, it's potentially (only to people like me perhaps) egregious because the character is an opera singer, the show is built on her getting a chance to show off her gifts. But we'll agree to disagree, or to leave it anyway. I'd rather go back to the context for my digression, the idea of what constitutes "deception." One reason why the SIDE SHOW tape didn't offend me, or strike me as deceiving in any way ultimately, is because it was still the actual number performed in the St. James, uninterrupted, with a live audience. What we see in the number as it's achieved 8 times a week. They didn't close the theater, go in and shoot the twins doing the number with start-stop or other editing techniques. We get the full-through "Who Will Love Me" shot in a live house. It's not a deception, in terms of the artists' work and how they function in the production. The deception is: instead of being piped in, it was put on tape x number of days before. We're still in the St. James with them, they still sing every note without stopping or technological assistance. Unlike, say .... uh oh, there I go again. Sorry. I'll stop. But yeah, good discussion. Thank you. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Thank you; much appreciate the historical info; a note on what is "deception" | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 08:03 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Thank you; much appreciate the historical info; a note on what is "deception" - Delvino 03:08 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| I do agree that it's an interesting topic. ;-) I will add that, odd as it seems, I didn't realize for a long time that the high note "sung" by Barbara Harris in "Gorgeous" wasn't actually her. Though once I did realize it was lipsynched, it made perfect sense to me (especially if it was originally staged to be obvious in a comic way). I'm curious - do you feel this 'deception' extends to onstage instrumental playing (aside from Doyle, of course)? Many shows that call for characters to play instruments onstage were written with the expectation that the part would be played in the pit and mimed onstage. So, was Mark Lambert "deceiving" the audience by not actually playing the cello in A Little Night Music? Or is it deception to have all of Coalhouse's mimed piano playing actually coming from a real keyboardist in the pit? How about the title character in Fiddler On The Roof? (And yes, I would wager that many people seeing these shows DO think the actors are really playing as well.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Exceeding the demands of the triple threat. | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 06:47 am EST 11/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Thank you; much appreciate the historical info; a note on what is "deception" - Chromolume 08:03 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Interesting questions posited. I would say, expectations of accomplishing the triple threat -- acting, singing, dancing -- are built into a kind of tacit agreement between artists and paying members of the public. If you attend a piece of musical theater, it's a given that the practitioners will be able to execute the three requirements with a kind of truthfulness about their own skill and artistry. When actors portray characters who play instruments, the resulting skill isn't part of that contract between artist and audience, hasn't been part of the presumed negotiation. It's not Mark Lambert playing the cello, but his character. Ditto for Coalhouse. Lambert and Stokes Mitchell sang, acted, and, when dancing was required (not much), moved with their own feet in real time. We're parsing, but I suppose I must return to my original argument: expectation and satisfying that expectation. No one expected Stokes Mitchell to be a pianist, just to take the roof off with his singing, and move us to tears with his acting. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Thank you; much appreciate the historical info; a note on what is "deception" | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 03:28 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Thank you; much appreciate the historical info; a note on what is "deception" - Delvino 03:08 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| >> We accepted that who are you we-ing? what if julie andrews came back in a show where she lipsynched her entire show to old recordings without acknowledging that was what she was doing? would that be ok? wait, that's bizarre enough to possibly be interesting. you catch my drift. pretend there was a better example. i honestly don't see why this sort of thing isn't an equity issue. if i could hit certain notes few others could hit and i was losing jobs because folks who couldn't hit those notes were being allowed to (or being forced to) fake it - i'd take it up with my union. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Yeah, I know; it's "Le Jazz Hot." | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 03:09 pm EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Thank you; much appreciate the historical info; a note on what is "deception" - Delvino 03:08 pm EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| Uh oh. Sorry. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | mikem 09:45 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - Thom915 09:18 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| It's like, "We're going to tell everyone we'll have a unique event highlighting the power of live theater, but we're actually going to have a tape and not tell anyone." Did they really think the curtain was going to go up on time? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 09:55 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - mikem 09:45 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| >> Did they really think the curtain was going to go up on time? did they really think they wouldn't get busted? it seems a particularly cheesy thing to do especially when they had, what, a 15, 20 minute time frame? it isn't like no one had any idea what time the number might come up. if i was going to stand out in the rain to watch a live performance of something be (what's the word? "televised?") ... shown ... i wouldn't have a problem with - "it's live so we can't say to the minute what time it will start, but it should be somewhere between 9 and 9:15." certainly i wouldn't have had the same problem i'd have finding out i stood out in the rain to watch a clip. they should have just been honest about it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 09:50 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - mikem 09:45 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| And I love this: The producers of Side Show had announced with some fanfare that Clear Channel Spectacolor would broadcast the Act 1 finale live at 7:45 p.m. from the St. James Theater on Monday night, showing it on a digital billboard in Times Square with what the company called "never-before-used audio technology." So, I guess at this point it's STILL "never-before-used audio technology"?? ;-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 11:28 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - Chromolume 09:50 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| "So, I guess at this point it's STILL 'never-before-used audio technology'"?? ;-) Well, the fact that the segment was recorded instead of live doesn't necessarily mean that new technology wasn't used, whatever it was. But who knows? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Awww | |
| Posted by: | OnceMoreWithFeeling 10:18 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - Chromolume 09:50 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Well judging from the video i've watched of Times Square, the audio is surprisingly crystal clear. I've seen a few things broadcast including the Giants winning and I can't remember volume at all. If there was, it was not that strong. ::shrug:: | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Which rather makes me wonder... | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 08:52 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Awww - OnceMoreWithFeeling 10:18 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| ... were they really going to miss their broadcast window? Or -- since this was essentially an advertisement -- was it a strategic decision to broadcast a version that would have better sound quality... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.511088 seconds.