| 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 | | |
| 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 | | |
| 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 | |
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: 0.034089 seconds.