Actors as orchestra -- getting tired

[JMVR]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:01pm

O.K. so we liked it in "Cabaret". It was praised in "Sweeney" and again in the recent and now B'way bound "Company". Then they did it in the London 'Mack and Mabel". Haven't we had enough?

I am referring of course, to this trend of having the cast double as the orchestra. I do admit that it was creative and innovative at first, but I just worry when more and more shows are doing it. What's next? The actors will also control lighting and usher you into your seat?

While it may be a great concept for some shows, I really don't want to see the orchestra (as we know it) dissappear or many gifted actors out of work because they can't sing, act, dance AND play a musical instrument.

So it's great that they've done it in some shows but really people . . . let's draw a line somewhere!!

What does everybody think?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:06pm

.... Cabaret and the Doyle concept are completely differently. The actor/musician thing was hardly the central idea of the production, nor did the leads play instruments.

Secondly, it bothers me when people think this is some huge "trend." Do you see other directors barging in and producing work like this on Broadway, or everywhere? No. It's one guy.

And truthfully, I don't know what causes this assumption that the orchestra is going to drop out of existence because of one director's vision, or why it's going to be done with every single show ever written.

If you're going to make a case, at least make it strong.

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:07pm

espeially in M&M it's a bad thing. You can't put on a show that's supposed to have a lot of dancing with actors who play instruments. Apart from that: the score cries out for a decently sized orchestra. For Sweeney it worked though I prefer any day the big sweeney version over the small. Whether it'll do it for Company, who knows, probably works too. But as any director's device, they'll tire of it too soon. Wait and see..

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:10pm

It works for Company even better than it does for Sweeney. It took me a bit of distance from the production to realize just HOW well it works, but it's brilliant.

Updated On: 4/19/06 at 05:10 PM

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:12pm

right, to get me excited: what instrument is Raul going to play?

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:12pm

Hey, I'm an actor-musician. If this "trend" sticks around and gets me jobs, I say keep 'em coming!

~Steven

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:12pm

If you don't like it, don't go. He has been doing this for years and years in England. There are many shows where this can work. I say, more!

[ThePinballWizard]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:21pm

I love it! It's so ingenious and this has been around for decades dating back to Shakespeare. I for one would love to see more productions like this. I would definitely love to see a production of A Little Night Music done with actor/musicians.

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:22pm

Everyone was in a panic with the two piano Most Happy Fella, too. To paraphrase a lyric I can't exactly remember, trends aren't really identified until their at their end.

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:23pm

lol, I give up. Obviously I am in the minority. Fair enough.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:23pm

Franklin, Raul plays the piano for about half of Being Alive, and that's it, except for a couple of cymbal crashes.

[DG]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:24pm

"What's next? The actors will also control lighting and usher you into your seat?"

Have you never attended dinner theatre?

[alwy15]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:27pm

while im all for pushing the limits, and actormusician productions working... thats great...
but i find it incredibly disappointing. because in the ned, it's taking jobs away from musicians, no matter how brilliant the concept may be. and i can't find it in my heart to take jobs away from musicians. and i can accept the concept for sweeney and company but NOT mack and mabel. there, it's just ridiculous

[Behind_the_Spotlight]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:27pm

I actually really like this concept. In my opinion, since musicals have people singing to express emotion and such, what's wrong with them playing instruments, too? The music can tell the story as much as anything. I saw Company, and it was fantastic. But I don't think there's any worry of this becoming 'overdone,' simply because with so many shows, it's just not a logical thing to do. I don't think actors have anything to worry about.

Edit: As far as "Will they become ushers/do lights?" My school had actors as the ushers for How To Succeed, and it was absolutely hilarious, because they ushered us in character. I enjoyed it. Updated On: 4/19/06 at 05:27 PM

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:31pm

Well, would you consider it logical to be done at Mack and Mabel? Seriously?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 5:55pm

"It's so ingenious and this has been around for decades dating back to Shakespeare"

And it saves so much money, too!

Now if we could just get rid of those pesky stagehands....

[joshy]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 6:23pm

John Doyle has been doing this for years. It's not a trend at all. And FranklinShepard-Inc, have you...have you seen John Doyle's Mack & Mabel? It works. It might not be 'logical', whatever you mean by that, but it makes the show far more successful than the other attempts at staging it have been. It's not as if all actors in these productions have to be professional standard musicians either - I'm not sure about the Company production, but in Sweeney and Mack & Mabel several of the performers play little or no instruments. Patti and Michael don't have to be as skilled musically as the others - the tuba came from Patti and wouldn't have been included if she couldn't already play it - and in Mack and Mabel the actor playing Mack plays nothing and Mabel only helps out with percussion. So it's not as if all the actors have to be able to double as a complete orchestra pit player.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 6:28pm

Yes, I completely agree- this new and innovative way of directing interesting theatre is horrible! It must be stopped! We can't have Sondheim shows attracting new audiences and *gasp* becoming commercially successful!

[jimnysf]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 6:32pm

Since there is no orchestra to pay, the ticket prices must be cheaper. Correct?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 8:54pm

Are you kidding?

It is a musical so they will charge musical prices. The idea does nothing foor me. Call me a purist but when I see a musical I want to hear music coming from an orchestra pit

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 8:58pm

"Musical prices?" You must not be aware of the fact that it'll cost you the same hundred bucks to see a play on Broadway at regular price as it will a musical.

Like I said before, if y'all wanna take up arms against the concept, do so, but at least have an argument that makes sense.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:13pm

There is a slight difference. Let me rephrase the point. The whole concept of an orchestra not in the pit with the actors doubling as the orchestra does nothing for me. I would never see a show this way. If it works for others fine

I was answering a question posed by someone else as there is about a $ 15 difference between a straight play & musical

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:15pm

I have no idea where you're getting those numbers. At all. Top price, if you ignore discounts and "premium seats," as well as service charges -- if you were to go to the box office and buy tickets -- doesn't have a $15 difference, in the average case, though it happens occasionally. So it really doesn't do much to back up the point of "musical prices," in addition the fact that I'm relatively sure the post you were refuting was being facecious anyway.

I get your point, it needs no rephrasing.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:16pm

Imagine Follies done this way

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:17pm

Are you telling me that you really think it's just going to be haphazardly applied to shows where it *clearly* would not work? oy.