Jason Robert Brown wants you to boycott the Drama Desks

http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2012/04/the_drama_desk_orchestration_c.php

I predicted this a long time ago but everyone dismissed it as the ranting of a crazy person. I don't look too crazy now, eh?

It's only going to get worse. Producers have made it very clear that they do not want to invest so much in something few people appreciate. You and I may be the exception and what the orchestrator does and what the orchestra plays may be one of the main reasons we love this art form so much but most people out there wouldn't flinch at the sound of midi, would likely not catch the difference, and probably doesn't even know the music is being played live. You'd be surprised at the number of people who express surprise upon learning those people down there in that hole play the music LIVE.

What does this have to do with awards categories? Not honoring the amazing work done by orchestrators is either a misguided step based on ignorance about what orchestration is or is an intentional one signaling a change in how musicals are made. I doubt it's the latter but a part of me wishes it is because the theatre community should know better. Really.

Most people return blank stares when asked what an orchestrator does or they assume an orchestrator is someone who handles an orchestra. When asked how they handle it, they say sh*t like "well, they orchestrate." It's the one area of music that is most important and is responsible for giving a song or a show its identity yet nobody knows crap about it. It's sad.

There are countless threads on this forum about belting, stage effects, belting, direction, belting, rude audiences, blah, blah, blah. Orchestration? Nada.

In reviews of new shows, most don't mention a word about orchestration. If you ask, you'll either get silence or "it was good" as a response.

It's the most important thing to me and I'd much rather watch a cast perform upon a bare stage if it means the pit will feature a standard Broadway orchestra playing a show's score as it was meant to be heard. I honestly would enjoy it far more than a lavish, multi-million dollar spectacle with all the trimmings but with a half-assed orchestra.

Cutting orchestration as an awards category is a big deal because it means it is no longer relevant. I take that as a troubling sign that orchestration is an under appreciated art. To me, it's an art that undoubtedly affects us in ways we cannot explain. I know what the orchestrator does is, to me, sometimes more important than what the composer initially thought up. The orchestrator gives a piece of music life. I don't know how that could ever be irrelevant.

EDIT: By the by, I know people have different understandings of what "orchestration" means. To some it means arranging while to others it means something linked to orchestral instruments, and to others it is about the number of musicians used to play a score. They are all correct (except maybe the latter) but let me make it clear this is an issue about orchestrators--the men and women who take a piece of music and dress it up. The best of them add depth and nuances that enrich the musical experience. They infuse the piece with styles and tease with inflection and articulation. They create a complex painting where only a sketch stood before.

Everything else, including standard Broadway orchestras, number of musicians in a pit, orchestral adaptation, and so on are only related to orchestration but I mention them because the deteriorating quality apparent in those related elements are reflective of society's general disinterest and knowledge of orchestration.

EDIT #2: Oh, and "orchestration" isn't strictly about only traditional orchestral instrumentation (ie, violins; horns; oboe; and so on). Orchestration includes the parts written for keyboards and all and every other element that make up the musical part of a score. "Orchestration" is used because it's what is traditional to the genre, but a musical that uses only electric guitars, keyboards, and a standard drum set will still have "orchestration" assigned to its arrangement regardless of the presence of traditional orchestral instrumentation.

I mention this point specifically because of the oddball responses I've gotten to my many rants about the horrid new Les Mis orchestration. I didn't think it would ever happen but people ACTUALLY assumed that the original, brilliant work of John Cameron was all keyboard rendered and that the new, 25th ann. orchestration was, for the first time, played by real orchestral instruments. I know, the mind boggles.

That would explain why so many refer to the new concoction as "more orchestrated than the original." Good God, shoot me now.

---

Updated On: 4/29/12 at 01:38 PM

I'd rather hear a show accompanied by one, live piano than a wall of pre-recorded or computerized sound. I think it makes that much difference to the drama (or comedy) of the show.

But that doesn't mean I have the vocabulary or knowledge to discuss orchestration, My Oh My. Which may be why there aren't more threads on the subject here and why there aren't better articulated protests at the decline of live instrumentation.

Of course, the use of pre-recorded vocal clips and synchronized film already prevent the musical director from varying tempi ever so slightly as required to aid a specific performance. So maybe the battle is already lost.

John McDaniel explains it best

---

^ That's helpful, TheatreDiva..

But I bet some people will watch that and think an orchestrator merely adapts piano for large orchestras.

Not at all.

There is a great deal of sophistication in that mash-up of instruments that is also original and not heard in the piano rendition, not even the original composer's draft. To an untrained ear it may just sound like a BIGGER version of that piano version.

To the person who said they'd rather a solo piano than a full set of instruments, which orchestration by which orchestrator would you want your piano adaptation to be based upon?

---

Updated On: 4/29/12 at 03:24 PM

1. I think it sucks that they dropped the category.

2. Unless he changed what he said from earlier today, wasn't he "asking" the nominated composers to not go?

3. Isn't that awful easy when you AREN'T nominated?

4. Wouldn't it be more powerful to a larger number of people to go but speak out against it withing an acceptance speech?

---

CATSNYrevival, I don't see JRB as being a di*k (here). It's widely known that Wildhorn can't notate. Any musician can listen to his music and tell by his chord progressions that it doesn't advance beyond college level 2 theory knowledge. Now, his music is still great and immensely enjoyable (I'm in the minority of really enjoying Bonnie & Clyde) but I don't think Brown is chastising him for that. He's merely pointing out that in this case (and with Stephen Schwartz and Mel Brooks) the orchestrators and arrangers have a greater task than one thinks. And at no point in the article do I see him saying that because he writes, arranges, and orchestrates his shows he is superior.

As an orchestrator/arranger, the gig is way more than just dividing notes of chords out to different instruments. It's creating a feel, often creating your own countermelodies, horn licks, etc. And dance arranging is a gigantic beast in its own right. This whole fiasco is really a disappointment. Do you think "The Producers" would be a hit if Mel Brooks was left to his own defenses. Sure, some of the melodies stand out, but the songs would be NOTHING without the immense work Glen Kelly did coming up with the chords to support the melody and the orchestrating Doug Besterman did to recreate that Golden Age sound.

To the person who said they'd rather a solo piano than a full set of instruments, which orchestration by which orchestrator would you want your piano adaptation to be based upon?

I don't pretend to be qualified to make that decision, but I didn't say I prefer a solo piano to a full orchestration; I said I prefer a live piano to canned orchestrations. Big difference and I was seconding the importance of live accompaniment, not disparaging orchestration.

I live on the West Coast, where many shows use prerecorded tracks, and it makes a palpable difference in the pacing of a show when there isn't a live person in charge of the tempi of musical numbers. Frankly, for book musicals, it's deadly.

I know of no show that uses purely pre-recorded tracks in place of live musicians, especially here on the West Coast.

Not doubting you but it should've been reported to the musicians' union, Actor's Equity, and blogged about by more than a dozen. You're right that some musicals have used pre-recorded tracks but to this day it has been sparingly utilized primarily for effect or to enable a one-off not possible while the actors are actively singing. I wouldn't consider Phantom to be a fine example of a show that is reliant on pre-recorded tracks because there is still an almost 30 strong orchestra in that pit night after night and they're not there to push "play" on a machine.

Apologies if it seemed I was interrogating you. I wanted to know if you were referring to the original composer's work before it is handed to an orchestrator or an adaptation of the established, orchestrated work that everyone knows.

I thought it interesting to have a solo piano play what the work sounded like shortly after a composer wrote it and before any idea of any orchestration to be added would go on to shape it. I wasn't sure if that's what you meant.

I too would prefer a solo piano to a pre-recorded track of the score played by a 1,000 member orchestra. Depending on the show, I'd likely go with the original orchestration to be used as a basis for a piano only adaptation. That's how I felt a few years ago, not anymore.

As much as LIVE is a necessary aspect of musical theatre that should be kept alive (duh), it isn't JUST about having a human play something that doesn't require an electrical current to work. It would never reach a point where I'd opt for one musician playing one instrument over something pre-recorded because if it ever does, I'd boycott the whole thing and my expensive seat would be purchased by some fool who believes the crap producers spread relating to modern techniques using less instruments and how that one piano somehow brings something never before heard and understood about the work being staged.

It's bad enough directors have latched onto that tactic to sell themselves and their productions while unfairly putting down the original staged productions and their accomplished directors, we don't need the same thing to occur with the music.

So, while I respect everyone's own opinion and preferences, personally, one piano where a whole orchestra stood before would be a slap in the face and I wouldn't have any of it.

---

With the way bands/orchestras are amplified, sometimes from different buildings for the last Tony Awards, or different floors like in the recent CARRIE (there was a recent article about it), I think the state of live music is not in good shape at the moment.

If you are sitting in the rear mezz of THE BOOK OF MORMON you might as well be listening to a soundboard recording of the show. The 'orchestra' in DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY sounded like a ringtone from those speakers.

I guess my point is that, even if the music is 'live' at the moment, it is so amplified that it may as well just be prerecorded.


I would rather struggle to hear acoustic sounds than hear only amplified sounds.

---

Updated On: 4/29/12 at 07:49 PM

OK! (not like many people pay attention to them to begin with!)

Wow, we actually agree. I know as much as I do like some of his work, that I find Brown *reeally* off putting in interviews, particular video ones. Not sure why, some of it is probably just a personal issue, though I think you nailed some of it.