why do people think more instruments=better in a musical? Re: company

i saw the video and I have to say Prefer a smaller orchestra, less players means more rhythmic integrity and for Sondheim that is so very necessary, the same thing with sweeney, the playing is cleaner and the singer don't tax themselves so much that they can't use all the vocal colors and timbres at their disposal.

I thoroughly enjoyed sweeney and already and intrigued with the new orchestrations for Company, it should be more intimate, 19 pieces for a show the size of Company is just silly in my opinion.

---

"i saw the video and I have to say Prefer a smaller orchestra, less players means more rhythmic integrity and for Sondheim that is so very necessary, the same thing with sweeney, the playing is cleaner and the singer don't tax themselves so much that they can't use all the vocal colors and timbres at their disposal.

"I thoroughly enjoyed sweeney and already and intrigued with the new orchestrations for Company, it should be more intimate, 19 pieces for a show the size of Company is just silly in my opinion."

First, which video are you talking about? A video of the current Broadway production or a video of another production or perhaps the video of the OBCR recording session?

If you don't like 19 players, then you probably would really hate the 26 players in the original production. By opera or symphonic standards, that's a chamber group.

Fewer players does not mean more rhythmic integrity. Good players and a good conductor mean more rhythmic integrity.

And with so much ampification nowadays, I don't know that the number of players has that much to do with whether the singers tax themselves.

Not to mention that an orchestra onstage is louder than an orchestra in a pit. At this point in time, though, whether the orchestra is onstage or in the pit, the relative volume of the singer vs. the players is really in the hands of the sound person.

The original Tunick orchestrations are brilliant. His own revision for fewer players was far less effective, really bland.

Haven't heard or seen the new version so I can't compare. But the originals were brilliant.

More players gives the orchestrator greater freedom in creating interesting instrumental combinations. An excellent orchestrator can do a lot with a smaller group, too. Still, 12 players in the hands of a brilliant and inventive orchestrator is not going to have as wide a variety of colors as 26 players in the hands of a brilliant and inventive orchestrator.

That having been said, there are instances where a composer will purposely choose to orchestrate for a small group.

If you're referring to the revival, where'd you get 19 from? There are only 14 in the cast, and though many of them do double and triple instruments, none of them are so talented that they can play more than one at any given time.

---

I can't remember who said it but someone connected with Broadway used the analogy that orchestrating with fewer musicians than necessary is like being forced to create a drawing with only a few crayons from the box. In another words, fewer musicians = less detail, less texture, and less creative options.

I was talking about the video on this website about company. Sorry if I got the number of the original players wrong, but my point still stands, and of course i didnt mean to denigrate the original production, which I grew up adoring, but I much prefer today's aesthetic of smaller orchestras.

I've certainly noticed the trend in new productions as well as revivals, and I find it refreshing. I think it speaks to a new audience of extremely discerning listeners, not that past listeners have been less discerning.

I applaud it and hope it continues

---

There's a certain compliment of musicians that makes a traditional Broadway musical sound like a Broadway musical. Let's face it, when a show closes, all that is left is the cast recording and your memories, if you saw the show, or your imagination, if you didn't. Orchestras for Broadway shows from the 20s through to the early 90s usually had orchestras numbered in the mid to upper 20s. A typical arrangement might have consisted of 8-12 strings, three trumpets, two or three trombones, five reeds, piano, maybe a harp, rhythm section and percussion. Get that together, and you have the Broadway sound.

Now a great orchestrator can make magic with a smaller orchestra, like for example, what Ralph Burns managed with just 13 pieces for Chicago. A chamber arrangement or orchestral reduction can have a certain delicacy. But there's a thrill when a big Broadway orchestra kicks in that you can't get from a smaller arrangement. I loved hearing those original Phil Lang orchestrations for a 24 piece orchestra at the 2001 42nd Street revival. Even though the recent Gypsy revival reduced the orchestra from 29 to 23 (with the strings suffering the most), it still provided that jolt of energy you get from a large orchestra. And one of my favorite memories of the 1990s was hearing those brilliant original Jonathan Tunick orchestrations played for Company in Concert at Lincoln Center. Tunick gave the show the sound of New York. His work is brash, electric, but filled with subtle detail, that you just don't get with the new arrangements.

Moreover, for the past decade, Broadway orchestras have been shrinking while ticket prices continue to grow. Consumers are getting a watered down sound, not something that is just being reduced for today's more "discerning" theatregoers. It's 15 musicians huffing and puffing to sound like 25.

You love the reduced orchestras? Great, more power to you. But you're being gypped.

---

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 09:10 PM

The thrill that you are talking about is something I will always cherish, my first broadway show was the original production of 42nd Street and I will never forget hearing a huge brass section like that.

My very first show ever though was The Fantasticks on Sullivan Street, and from that moment, I was hooked on this stuff. I could SEE the musicians, I could feel the piano under me, from the first row where I sat. Mortimer died in my lap, and I will forever be grateful for that.

Not that Im saying that I ever want to see a production of 42nd street with anything less than a full orchestration, but nor would I ever want to see the Fantasticks at the Ford Center with a full orchestra either.

Some pieces are suited for it, some pieces aren't. and some piece you once thought were never suited for it surprise you when it actually happens, but I don't think that anyone should stop trying/

---

As the result of the initial post, I just plopped on the DVD of the COMPANY documentary recording.

While I enjoyed the current revival of the show for what it was and thought the concept and reduced orchestrations were just fine within the context, damn if the original orchestrations don't just blow all of that away entirely. Like many of us, I've grown accustomed to what I can get in a Broadway theatre, this joke that masquerades show after show as somehow a full orchestral experience -- but C'MON, how can anyone seriously PREFER the anemic sound that comes out of today's Broadway pits to what was customary a generation or so before ????

All of the richness, resonance, counterpoint and harmonics that the great scores of the past were intended to have, simply cannot be supplied by 10 or 12 or 15 instruments -- it's simply impossible.

So excuse me please while I go back to watching and listening to what Sondheim and Tunick originally intended for the score of COMPANY to SOUND and FEEL like in performance. I can hear all of those sublime and spine-tingling details that those folks at the Barrymore simply won't experience nowadays when they see the revival. It's a testament to Sondheim's irrepressable genius that with only 14 instruments, his music is still nevertheless a gorgeously provocative and effective rumination on contemporary single (and married life) ...... but to say that the score is somehow MORE effective in its present state is simply laughable and completely ludicrous (and I'm sure that Sondheim and Tunick would agree -- if not, why did they write the score for twice as many musicians 35 years ago?).

---

Updated On: 12/2/06 at 04:12 AM

I don't think Margo was intending to be nasty.

I too love the FANTASTICKS, hell, I spent many years working at the Sullivan Street Playhouse. As much as I like the piano/harp combo, have you heard Tunicks orchestrations for the film? Stunning. (The orchestrations, not the film, per se...)

The FANTASTICKS was originally conceived to be a full blown huge splashy show with a large chorus and orchestra. Financial reasons landed it at the tiny playhouse. Turned out well, but it could have been very different. Wait until you hear 110 IN THE SHADE--same composer, but a much richer score when played with full orchestra.

---

Margo's post was dead on

Saw the original & nothing can surpass it & the sound of a big orchestra. I think the Doyle concept is not for me as having the actors play instruments would be a distraction. The reviewer in the News said one number reminded him of a half time show or something to that effect. I saw a clip of the number he referred to and it was exactly like that

---

I have seen the FANTASTICKS movie and have struggled with the version now available for rent--it adds a chorus which does nothing but "ooh" and "aah" behind the singers as well as about 16 more instruments. It's clutter and it buries the purity and charm of the original. Whatever the creators intended, being forced to work on a small scale made THE FANTASTICKS richer and added to its theme of beauty being found in tacky, everyday things. Blowing it up and heaping productions values on it actually works against it.

I would argue the same for FLOYD COLLINS, another one-of-a-kind show with a sound like no other, which can be as rich and full as a symphony one moment and thin out to a single, tinny keyboard the next. Only seven instruments, but the way they're layered and counterpointed trumps most old-style Broadway arrangements.

---