Actors as orchestra -- getting tired- Page 2

[BroadwayBaby6]

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

I HATE this trend as well...I miss the days of the full orchestras. Does anybody remember full orchestras any more?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:22pm

I do & miss them

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:25pm

Well, don't blame the actor/musician thing for the lack of full orchestras anymore - you can blame the musician's union for that. The days of "full orchestras" in the pit ended in the 1970s.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:27pm

I do not "blame" anyone for it

I simply do not care for the idea

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:27pm

Nothing innovative about the actor-musician idea at all. Thirty years ago, I LOVE MY WIFE had its band on stage, delivering lines, singing songs, moving furniture, handling props. In that instance, the show was cleverly designed to accommodate them. But with shows like SWEENEY, COMPANY or MACK AND MABEL you will NEVER get the necessary musical quality with actors doubling on instruments as you would having an orchestra in the pit. That's just a fact. As a result, audiences are paying top dollar for chintzy arrangments and second-rate accompaniment.


Amalia Balash
Budapest, Hungary

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:29pm

Amen

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:34pm

I disagree with something like COMPANY where the last Broadway revival largely used synthesized orchestrations. And I don't know how many people were in the pit for the Roundabout's FOLLIES, but definitely less than if that entire cast had played on stage.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 11:15pm

But MB, it's not just quantity (though that's an issue), it's also quality. I'm sorry, but how many quadruple performers are there in the NY work pool EQUALLY excellent in all the necessary disciplines: acting, singing, movement, AND musician? Very few, if any. The first consideration in hiring performers will always be for their type and vocal/dramatic strengths, as it must be (you don't see them hiring Diana Krall or Martha Argerich, do you??), which means something along the way has got to suffer, in this case, instrumental musicianship. So Patti Lupone can squawk out a few notes on a tuba: BFD. Even if they supplement the onstage band with hardcore sidemen (like the bass player in ST, for example), it will always be a compromise and a sorry one at that.
And THE PAJAMA GAME suffers from the opposite problem: its leading man is a superb musician but, however attractive, a wooden actor and awkward stage presence. He's in the wrong damn show! (I'm kidding). But you get my point.


Tootie 'The Most Horrible' Smith
St. Louis, MO

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 11:17pm

I think there's quite a big difference between having the band on stage saying a line, participating in the action here and there, and having the actors BE the orchestra. One is a staging tactic, the other a theatrical concept on the whole.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 11:32pm

Well, I guess its a matter of ear, Hunter, because I thought the actor/musicians played the score to SWEENEY beautifully all 5 performances I attended.

I understand your point, but the economics of Broadway have shrunk orchestras on Broadway. It's just a matter of fact. As I say above, the Broadway sound is never going to be what it was - even if its coming from the pit, because so much of it is now electronic and amplified.

We are also never going to see productions that replicate the original Broadway sets and costumes of most shows older than twenty either. It's just not financially feasible.

I understand the frustration at that, but it's a problem that has nothing to do with Doyle's concept - as others have said - this is one man's theatrical conceit. I don't see a flock of producers rushing to put up their two man trombone version of WEST SIDE STORY. Doyle's had two shows planned for Broadway, and I still maintain that SWEENEY will close to make way for COMPANY. If anything, producers of the show are aware of a potential backlash against the actor/musician concept.

If Doyle's show's were playing at BAM, the ROUNDABOUT or weren't turning a profit, there wouldn't be this debate. Isn't it at least worth celebrating that Broadway is being exposed to something experimental and thought provoking other than the 12th stock revival of GUYS AND DOLLS?

People bitch that all we have on Broadway is jukebox musicals and poorly directed unimaginative productions, and then complain about John Doyle? He may not be the new Tommy Tune or Michael Bennett, but he's at least bringing something unique to the current Broadway seasons and I think that's fantastic.




Updated On: 4/19/06 at 11:32 PM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 11:52pm

Michael Bennett (agian I feel strange writing to one of my gods, try to forward this to him, willya?) I agree with you totally. But I can guarantee you this has been an eyeopener for the members of the Producer's League. I'll bet plenty of "names" are trying to figure out a way to jump on this bandwagon.

And BTW, I agree that there's nothing like an orchestra pit just filled to the brim with musicians. The original, god, it must have been 40-piece orchestra for "Sweeny" at the Uris was AMAZING. The cut down version (did someone call it "Teenie Todd?" That's funny) was just too anemic. And yet somehow, this new version seems to work. I guess it's the onstage immediacy. Someone told me even Sondheim approves?

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 12:53am

Well, of course, he's gonna approve. He would have approved a transfer of the tatty production of COMPANY the Roundabout produced years back if the producer had gotten his act together. What author doesn't want to keep his work before the public?

"Well, I guess its a matter of ear, Hunter, because I thought the actor/musicians played the score to SWEENEY beautifully all 5 performances I attended."

So, given that attitude and by extension, it's only a matter of time before we excuse (on financial grounds) a performance of Beethoven's 9th performed by the New York Philharmonic on kazoos and claves. What a concept! 'This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.' Amen, T.S.

Vivian Darkbloom
Ramsdale, New England

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 1:16am

Hah!

I think the trend is hardly as dangerous as people make it out to be (and will quickly lose its apparent novelty), but I'm with the people who don't really like it. For all its apparent theatrical value, it remains a gimmick to me. The real scare is the replacement of a real Broadway orchestra with a very smart computer. That, I'm nervous about.

[popular_elphie]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 11:19am

Almost every show has an actor/musician or two - most Links in Hairspray play the guitar, 17 of the actors in Jersey Boys also play an instrument, the Rogers in Rent usually play guitar....they're not just as shown as Doyle's productions.

I'm hoping that this doesn't become a huge trend. Pit orchestras are great, and let's keep them working.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 12:07pm

I'm sorry, but Sweeney Todd MAJORLY loses something without the big orchestra. I think I'm the only one who dislikes the revival...

[Gothampc]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 12:35pm

Actually the Doyle version of Cabaret will have the Kit Kat girls not playing instruments.

[vc2134]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 12:35pm

No, you're not. I dislike the SWEENEY revival also. I actually thought the concept was excellent. However, the concept was poorly-executed. I thought that Doyle was a director was some great ideas . . . but he just didn't have the skills to pull them off correctly. There were so many moments during that musical when I was simply confused. Like I was just sitting there, trying to figure out what exactly Doyle and his extremely lackluster designers were doing (or trying to do). I remember SWEENEY because that was the first musical I went to where I thought: "The BLOCKING isn't good." (How often you do fault the BLOCKING in a musical?)

I'm completely 100% in favor of minimalist musicals on B'way (the producer's dream!) but you need a solid production staff to back them up. Not just some individuals with a great concept but no actual skill. (However, I am looking forward to COMPANY. Perhaps Doyle learned something from SWEENEY and improved.)

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 1:49pm

It's overdone already. It worked for Sweeney so now he's gonna do it more and more, but it won't work for others.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 1:49pm

I agree, he didn't pull it off well. Thank God I knew the story before hand.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 1:54pm

What do you mean by "the blocking isn't good," exactly? It's weird, but you have to remember that it's entirely purposeful, even if it doesn't work for you, it's not sloppy or haphazard.

[joshy]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 2:47pm

"It's overdone already. It worked for Sweeney so now he's gonna do it more and more, but it won't work for others."

Oh my god. Do you not pay attention? This isn't a new technique. He didn't do it in Sweeney for the first time. He's been developing it for years!!! And a lot of people think that it has worked in other productions, and it still working in Company and Mack & Mabel.

This whole argument is tiring...

[vc2134]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 1:01am

even if it doesn't work for you, it's not sloppy or haphazard

No, that was my problem. The blocking in that production WAS sloppy and haphazzard. (Then again, I went to see the production in previews. Perhaps the blocking changed since then but I wasn't impressed enough to see SWEENEY a second time.) For instance, one of the characters stood behind a ladder while singing his solo. He was out-of-view of half the audience and his vocals didn't come through particularly clearly. If there had been any artistic merit AT ALL to this decision, I would accept the decision. But there wasn't.

Also: the ending. I brought a friend (from Columbia University) to see the production. Unlike me, she wasn't familiar with the SWEENEY storyline and she kept saying: "Where were they? What was happening?" Because the blocking doesn't provide any locational transitions and makes the production even more difficult to follow. In addition, Doyle should have told the designers that he wanted more levels. In a venue that size, not having more than 3-4 levels makes the production a) difficult to follow and b) difficult to see (especially from the front of the orchestra which is where we were sitting).

Hopefully, Doyle will get his act (no pun intended) together for COMPANY. Although I also agree that if he keeps recycling this concept, it's going to lose all of its appeal.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 1:10am

The blocking in SWEENEY changed a lot in previews and was presentational on purpose - it was not meant to evoke any specific place or location and to Doyle all the actors on stage are equally important in reaction as the person delivering the lines; and that's why it doesn't bother him ocassionally the speaking/singing actor isn't fully visable to the audience. You are supposed to be taking in the entire picture. Again, not a style of staging originating with him.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 1:13am

I got back from seeing Sweeney again just a few hours ago. I don't agree. To me, sloppy, bad blocking would be actors with backs to the audience, or blocking that was so poorly calculated that it would cause you not to be able to see things, etc.

I think Sweeney's blocking is *extremely* calculated, but it's done so in a way that not everybody's going to like, you know? I was reading an interview with Doyle where he spoke about his blocking as a tactic of meta-theatricality, and if you think about it that way, to me, it works. I'm not going to be pretentious and say that there's artisitc merit to each and every move the actors make, because I don't know that, and some of it has to be logistical, but I highly hesitate to think that things like the example you gave were done for kicks, and not thought out. There are so, so many nuances in the staging that you can tell are extremely well-thought out.

The concept works ten times better for Company. But, who knows? Blocking could become an issues on a proscenium stage, but I've said more than enough about that.

Tonight, when I saw the show, the guy in front of me was complaining that he didn't know what was going on, because the spotlight wasn't shining on the actors who were speaking, or who were central, etc. I thought that was interesting.

Also, I was unfamiliar with Sweeney when I saw the show *and* I attend Columbia University; so, I don't really know what divulging that information about your friend proves. Affiliation with CU doesn't make you perpetually correct, or make your opinions invincible, nor does it allow your opinions to be taken for fact. Ivy League affilliate or not, it works for some people, doesn't work for others. Point blank.

Updated On: 4/21/06 at 01:13 AM

[vc2134]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 1:49am

I completely disagree. How does making the work less accessible to your audience members have any merit whatsoever? Are you blocking the production for yourself or your audience? Doyle's directing choices might have been "extremely calculated" but, at the end of the day, there were audience members who had no idea what was going on. The most important function as a director is communicating your storyline to the audience. I've heard numerous audience members complain that they couldn't understand what was happening on that stage. (You overheard one of them tonight.) Now I agree that audience members should be able to connect-the-dots. However, the storyline of SWEENEY is difficult to follow on its own. If you make the blocking difficult to follow in addition, you're going to end up with a production that at least a solid 20% of your audience doesn't completely understand.

P.S. I also attend CU. How interesting. While our theater community/department is nothing short of subpar (and I would never consider any student's opinion "perpetually correct" -- quite the contrary), I consider 90-95% of our students capable of following the storyline of a musical. When one of them isn't able to accomplish that simple task, I find myself questioning the integrity of the director's choices.

P.P.S. On another note, Michael Bennett, I'm glad that the production changed drastically after the first previews. Remember: I'm commenting on my knowledge of the production which was from the early stages of development. Hopefully, Doyle picked up the loose ends and my comments are no longer even valid. My initial argument stands: the concept of "actors as orchestra" works well if executed correctly.