![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaalaSo there's a new production of Sweeney Todd on Broadway. The show is a minimalist production. In fact, it's so minimalist that the director, John Doyle, is having the actors double as the orchestra. Now, I love this musical so I'm glad it's getting a revival. It's a neat idea too, and I have a lot of admiration for the actors who can pull it off. Sondheim even talks about how great the new orchestrations are. Nevertheless, something about the concept does raise my hackles at least a little bit.
Of course I dislike the fact that a number of musicians won't have that job available to them; it's difficult enough to make a living as a professional musician. Money isn't really the issue for me though. The actors have joined the musicians union so they are rather like a multi-disciplinary version of the musicians in an orchestra who double on more than one instrument. What I object to is the trend in musicals that underplays the importance of the orchestra.
Unless I'm extremely lucky, I will never play in a professional pit orchestra. I have played in eight amateur production, however, so I think I may have some idea of the way things are for professionals. The actors get more glory and their needs are almost always considered before the orchestra. I suppose that's how it should be in musical theatre; we're not the ones baring our souls on stage. But most of the pit musicians I've known take pride in the knowledge that they provide a unique and essential element of the show. To have the actors take over that element feels like they're treading on "our" (admittedly small) turf.
It's a turf that's already been shrinking for a number of years now. Musical theatre orchestras are getting smaller and smaller. When old shows are revived, they are usually re-orchestrated for smaller forces. Synthesizers (even programmed ones that run automatically!) are used instead of whole sections. Wicked has a huge orchestra by contemporary standards and its string section consists of of... one string quartet! (Things were beefed up for the CD, of course.) Productions like Doyle's Sweeney Todd seem to suggest that you can do away with the orchestra altogether. Producers claim that orchestras have to be small in order to save money, but there still seem to be plenty of shows (not Sweeney Todd, I know) with extravagant sets, costumes and effects. Are those things more important the music in a musical?
Additionally, there's the issue of professionalism. Pit orchestras are made up of professional musicians who (I assume) take pride in their work. As far as I know, the actors in Sweeney Todd are professional actors and not professional musicians for a reason. Naturally, their acting performance takes precedence over their instrumental performance. Is the competence of the orchestra that much less important than the competence of the actors? I do my utmost to deliver the best performances I can in pit orchestras--and I'm an amateur--so it rankles slightly to hear Patti LuPone joke about how hardly anybody notices if she makes mistakes on the tuba.
Now, why can't I muster that much interest in writing my academic essays?
Of course I dislike the fact that a number of musicians won't have that job available to them; it's difficult enough to make a living as a professional musician. Money isn't really the issue for me though. The actors have joined the musicians union so they are rather like a multi-disciplinary version of the musicians in an orchestra who double on more than one instrument. What I object to is the trend in musicals that underplays the importance of the orchestra.
Unless I'm extremely lucky, I will never play in a professional pit orchestra. I have played in eight amateur production, however, so I think I may have some idea of the way things are for professionals. The actors get more glory and their needs are almost always considered before the orchestra. I suppose that's how it should be in musical theatre; we're not the ones baring our souls on stage. But most of the pit musicians I've known take pride in the knowledge that they provide a unique and essential element of the show. To have the actors take over that element feels like they're treading on "our" (admittedly small) turf.
It's a turf that's already been shrinking for a number of years now. Musical theatre orchestras are getting smaller and smaller. When old shows are revived, they are usually re-orchestrated for smaller forces. Synthesizers (even programmed ones that run automatically!) are used instead of whole sections. Wicked has a huge orchestra by contemporary standards and its string section consists of of... one string quartet! (Things were beefed up for the CD, of course.) Productions like Doyle's Sweeney Todd seem to suggest that you can do away with the orchestra altogether. Producers claim that orchestras have to be small in order to save money, but there still seem to be plenty of shows (not Sweeney Todd, I know) with extravagant sets, costumes and effects. Are those things more important the music in a musical?
Additionally, there's the issue of professionalism. Pit orchestras are made up of professional musicians who (I assume) take pride in their work. As far as I know, the actors in Sweeney Todd are professional actors and not professional musicians for a reason. Naturally, their acting performance takes precedence over their instrumental performance. Is the competence of the orchestra that much less important than the competence of the actors? I do my utmost to deliver the best performances I can in pit orchestras--and I'm an amateur--so it rankles slightly to hear Patti LuPone joke about how hardly anybody notices if she makes mistakes on the tuba.
Now, why can't I muster that much interest in writing my academic essays?
