Cheaper ways to record soundtracks

[winston89]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:16pm

I know that there are people out there who want particular cast recordings made that would never be made because it would coast too much. I know that there are people who want albums such as the wicked OLC and Poppins OBC made but as of right now they won't be made.

My Idea is this, why not do what they do at rock concerts that record the particular show. They can recored it from the sound board. Or they can do waht particular bands that allow fans to tape there shows. They can have some guy in the back with a taper mic taping the particular cast. Of course the sound quality from the soundboard recording is bettter then the taper mic.

But, it will be a better approach to some recordings that are not worht spending the money to set up in the studio.

Sometimes I do feel like I am ahead of my time with these ideas. However, only problem is I am only about an hour and a half ahead.

[Solstrom]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:20pm

I'll love to hear the La Cage Revival "soundboarded" by example !!!

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:21pm

I've always wondered why they don't do that. I much prefer the studio recordings, but I'd rather have Striking 12's live album than none at all.

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:22pm

I think this an amazing idea! I for one have many times wished I could have had a recording of a particular performance I was at preserved. Like when mistakes happen, or ad-libs, etc. Also, there have been some amazing performances by replacements in shows that went unrecorded. (Brooke Shields - how does she merit a cast recording EVERY time she replaces in a show?!?!?) They would also cut WAY down on unauthorized recordings being made. I for one would rather pay for a sound board recording rather than have something I taped myself with an old recorder shoved under my a$$. Now, how do we get the Weisslers, et al to agree?!?!?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:23pm

HA HA HA U SED SOUNDTRAK.

Anyway.

Japanese productions do this quite often, and the effect is nice because you get crowd noise and on-stage sounds as well. Although I have a feeling there's a difference between the costs of electronic equipment/production there and here.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:30pm

I also prefer live recordings. Especially operas and other vocal music. Very often studio recordings get a lot of pitch correction, today, even recordings of shows that often get done on a low budget and quickly get pitch correction.

But a live recording rarely gets pitch correction because its hard to do outside of the studio.

Live recordings also give a more real idea of what good singing sounds like when its done well, live.

[Solstrom]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:33pm

I had a taped mic version of Singin in the Rain, in french and is awfull...lot of notes seems wrong because lot of choreography I suppose. But it's cool to had it in french...same way to others (but sooooooo better !)...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:46pm

Remember that, rock musicians aren't unionized and can get away with all sorts of things cheaply.

For Broadway, however, studio or no studio, under Equity rules you STILL have to pay every performer the equivalent of I believe, two weeks salary for the performance. And I imagine the Musician's union will make sure that their players will get a couple of weeks salary as well (not using studio musicians doesn't mean you won't have to pay the live unionized musicians EXACTLY the same rate). There will still be costs for engineering and remastering the recording digitally, as well as the manufacturing (pressing the CD, making the CD inserts and jewel boxes, cover art), and distribution costs.

Altogether, because of all the union minimums involved, you're still looking at a six-figure cost (though perhaps a bit less with a very small show), even to produce and distribute a crappy sound board recording of a show (and you can completely forget about the League of American Theaters, producers, theatre owners, Equity, the musicians union et al EVER allowing anyone to make their own bootleg recordings of a show -- it will absolutely NEVER happen).

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:52pm

And so it goes, that the purse strings of the few prevent the masses from participating in this art on a wider scale.

Now this is something to get upset about, no matter what you call it.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:52pm

you beat me to it Margo.
I second everything you said.

[Craig]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:52pm

Well said Margo.

In short - the studio fees are the least of the costs involved.

Updated On: 1/21/07 at 04:52 PM

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 4:59pm

You cannot get upset about it!
As a union member I think performers are perfectly within their rights to get a decent payment for their performance when it is recorded. Not to mention all the people that are part of the production team that also use their skill and talent to create something as intricate as a Broadway Musical.

When you compare the salary of a Broadway performer(especially a chorus member) to that of other skilled laborers working at the top of their profession then maybe you would understand.

[turquoisefish]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 5:13pm

I have thought about this a few times, The Woman in White was recorded live in the theatre but the Palace Theatre has extra equipment i believe. I would love something like that to happen and i am sure people would pay to buy the cast that they saw (OK every cast change is unrealistic but when there is a set of new leads). I think cost is the one thing stopping there being more recordings, a show like wicked with a cast of over 30 and an orchestra of 10 or so just the cost for the performers soon racks up. What i thought about was performing the show in the theatre with no audience to avoid that noise but not need the studio time.

[winston89]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 5:18pm

Movin out was recorded in this style and I think that the OLC of starlight express was done this way as well. I recall reading an article round the time of the release of the movin out album and it talked about how it was cheaper then the typical broadway album. It was done in one shot over the course of one preformance. That album was clearly done via soundboard. And you would think that doing it that way would be cheaper then spending the time to hire the studio tech and all the people that have to be in the studio when an album is being made.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 5:23pm

Fish:

Usually the whole purpose of recording a show live is to get that vibe from performing before an audience. Recording the show without an audience would defeat the purpose. The Woman in White recorded the entire performance, only, to great effect, re-recording the ends of songs or bits where laughter came in to avoid audience noises. (One song was re-recorded because the whole track was covered with laughter)

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 10:18am

"Remember that, rock musicians aren't unionized and can get away with all sorts of things cheaply."

Actually Margo, I believe you'll find that most major touring rock musicians are members of the American Federation of Musicians. The reason rock acts are encouraging inexpensive live recordings isn't because they don't have union protection, it's because they've realized that there's money to be made from all those rabid fans who want as many live recordings as they can get their hands on.

I think Broadway and its unions are woefully behind the times with regards to recording shows live. It's time for a separate "promotional" live recording scale to be agreed upon by the performing unions so that Broadway musicals can start taking advantage of modern promotional opportunities. I would happily pay $50 for a good quality live DVD of most musicals I've seen, even if it's purchased on the understanding that the video won't delivered for several years or until the show closes. I think any Broadway musical that expects to be noticed by younger audiences should have a few broadcast quality live videos of their best numbers circulating when previews start. Flood those video ipods and online sharing sites with these clips. I believe Spring Awakening has already done this.

Musicals such as Lestat and Pirate Queen have tried online "video blogs" to promote their shows, but from what I've seen Pirate Queen's Castcom never once showed more than a few seconds of any music from the show. Too expensive. Are the unions really helping their members by setting astronomical recording scales that make it impossible to effectively market shows online?

[winston89]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 11:07am

Also, the problem with online video blogs to promote the shows is that the unions puts limits on what they can show. They can show SOME of the music but the union has limits on how much they can show. I know that there could be people out there who hear a couple of songs from the score and say " that sounds good I might go see this show." I just think that it's the fault of the unions who are not doing enough to let the shows find new ways of premoting themselves.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 11:58am

"When you compare the salary of a Broadway performer(especially a chorus member) to that of other skilled laborers working at the top of their profession then maybe you would understand. "

I was going to stay out of this thread until I read the above statement. If we only discuss Broadway, then this claim is ridiculous. At actor's minimum, an performer, if the show runs for the year, will make over $67,000. The median income for Manhattan (believe it or not) is only $34,000. The average income for Americans is around $50,000. So let's not say that actors are underpaid, when they make more than a great many people who do a Hell of lot Mre important and worthwhile work (teachers, prosecutors, doctors not in private practice, firemen, policemen, the armed forces, etc.). Now, in reality, we kinow that most actors dob't work a full year acting. However, you know what you are getting into when you chose the profession. So bitching about not making enough money is not the problem of people who actually do real work for a living not making close to anything an employed union actor would make. While it is certain that when the show's a hit and the producer's are raking in the money that everyone deserves their fair share, but let's not get too greedy when most shows don't even turn a profit, and its the producers who lose money, not the actors.

Now, to the topic at hand. Soundboard recordings would never be commercial quality. They would need to bring in additional equipment to bring it to that level.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 12:17pm

"bitching about not making enough money is not the problem of people who actually do real work for a living not making close to anything an employed union actor would make"

"Real Work"!!!!!
I agree that performing is probably a whole lot more fun than ditch digging, but do not insult the acting community by denigrating their profession. Your comment is offensive.
I am not bitching at all. I am just reminding people that 99% of stage actors aren't getting rich performing on Broadway. The union money restrictions for cast albums ends up being a nice supplement to an actors income and one that, thanks to residuals, can help an unemployed actor after the show closes.
Of course I realize that there are plenty of other professions out there that are underpaid. And I also agree that this shouldn't be a thread about performers' salaries, but I feel that this information is germane to the deabte and should be considered when talking about how the Union rules restrict recordings.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 12:21pm

I also want to point out that the Union rules regarding recordings are not just about making money for the actor. It is about protecting the Live theatrical experience.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 12:43pm

The Equity rules were instituted, in part, to keep actors from being exploited. There's no reason why an actor or musician should lend his or her voice to a recording--ie, do work--without being fairly compensated for it. The producers/etc. are the ones who are going to profit from the cast recordings in terms of long-term royalties, why shouldn't the actors get their fair share?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 12:50pm

"I agree that performing is probably a whole lot more fun than ditch digging, but do not insult the acting community by denigrating their profession. Your comment is offensive. "

Oh give me a break! While I enjoy entertainment as much as the next person, let's not group actors with people who have jobs that matter. I left the profession because I was tired of working with people who thought they had the most demanding job and that what they did benefitted the world, when in reality many actors just don't want to work a real job (that, and I really didn't like it that much, I thought my time was best served working in a lab trying to cure diseases). I don't blame them for that, who wants an office job? Or ditch-digging? Or waiting tables? But to pretend that acting is something noble or important is ridiculous.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 1:12pm

"Oh give me a break! While I enjoy entertainment as much as the next person, let's not group actors with people who have jobs that matter. I left the profession because I was tired of working with people who thought they had the most demanding job and that what they did benefitted the world, when in reality many actors just don't want to work a real job (that, and I really didn't like it that much, I thought my time was best served working in a lab trying to cure diseases). I don't blame them for that, who wants an office job? Or ditch-digging? Or waiting tables? But to pretend that acting is something noble or important is ridiculous."

Spoken like a frustrated failed former actor. I am glad you have left the business because it is people like you who ruin it.
I now realize why you chose to offend the profession.
While Acting will never cure cancer or negotiate world peace, I am still hopeful that people can lose themselves while watching a performance, so as to forget the stress and difficulty of their lives, and maybe through identification with a character or a situation portrayed onstage, can make sense of the unintelligible, heal an unhealable wound, or just simply see something through someone else's eyes for the first time.
I have been doing this professionally for over 10 years and hope I never lose my way so much as to think of what I do as unimportant.

I now step off my soapbox.

Updated On: 1/22/07 at 01:12 PM

[algy]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 1:13pm

We Will Rock You was recorded live in the theatre in London, across the course of 3 performance over two days.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 1:28pm

"I also want to point out that the Union rules regarding recordings are not just about making money for the actor. It is about protecting the Live theatrical experience."

One way to protect the "Live theatrical experience" is to sell some tickets. My point is that payscales that make it cost prohibitive for a new show to put promotional videos of songs online don't make sense in the 21st century.