DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2meuhh wrote
One interesting thing is that this argument continues today but regarding live music on Broadway.
Producers are constantly looking to shrink the amount of musicians in the pits of Broadway shows preferring to use recordings presumably to save money. But the quality of the show with live musicians is so much better.
nick_rhoads01 t1_j2n5v11 wrote
What’s makes the recording quality worse? Wouldn’t it be nearly the same?
DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2na0gz wrote
Thanks for asking. Good question.
This isn't even touching on the long-standing Broadway tradition of providing live music for performances.
When you have recorded music, it's the same every time. Obviously. And there are good things to say about that.
You record it once in a studio and it's done. And you can do as many takes as necessary to get the quality you want. You can't vary it even slightly per performance.
But when you have a pit of musicians, the conductor is free to change tempos and pull out more emotions from the musicians, and essentially mix the music in real time by telling certain sections to bring their parts out or be a little more quiet.
All that translates to a better quality, humanized, energetic, and emotional performance. And pro musicians add an amazing amount of quality when playing live. Plus, playing music through a sound system, no matter how technologically advanced is not superior to live instruments playing in the same room.
The trade off is a slight bit more consistency with a recording vs. a better, more emotional, humanistic performance live.
It's like saying, "Why do I need to go see a 90+ musician symphony perform in a concert hall when I can listen to the studio recording?"
Had another thought on live music vs. recorded... A lot of symphonies are now presenting popular movies like Star Wars, The Princess Bride, Singin' In The Rain, etc. and playing the soundtracks live, under the movie while the movie is playing.
They've been doing this for a few decades now and it's getting a lot more popular. They usually present a few performces of a few movies every year. It's a really cool performance if you can attend.
But it's a big difference hearing a 90+ musician symphony orchestra playing the music live vs. in a movie theater or on a big screen TV at home.
vibraltu t1_j2ndxqy wrote
Good explanation. Seen some musicals with canned (pre-recorded) backing tracks, and the undertone really tends to sound kinda stiff (edit: compared to pit band music, which is more lively).
Of course, a lot of pop megastars use canned tracks, and they intentionally compensate with flashing lighting effects and pyrotechnics.
DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2nodek wrote
Oh I agree. I know someone who went from classically trained vocalist in musical theater in college, to national musical theater touring star, to Broadway star, to one of the top agents for TV, Hollywood, and Broadway. If I could tell you who he reps, you'd be amazed.
He has always had super professional performing chops. He told me once that the biggest weakness singing performers have now, as recording artists or in musical theater, is most of them have never been trained classically as vocalists with a voice teacher so they cannot hold notes out for any decent length of time in tune. They never learned to breath correctly while singing or using their ears, nose, throat, respiratory system, and diaphragm correctly. Most of the top performers have been well-trained BTW.
So they learned to compensate with vocal ornamentation so they don't have to. I've seen that SO many times and as a musician, it always irks me when performers overdo vocal ornamentation. Same feeling I get when I hear Kenny G on saxophone. Ugghh...
sluuuurp t1_j2oee01 wrote
It might be more emotional because you know there are humans performing it.
But I doubt you could identify it as more emotional in a blind sound test. The sound is recorded with the same microphones and is played through the same speakers, it will sound identical in both cases. (This is assuming that most seats hear sound from speakers rather than from the instruments directly, which I believe is a fair assumption for most seats in most broadway theaters.)
This is basically the same idea as why people go to see the real Mona Lisa rather than a reprint. It looks 100% identical in every way, but knowing that it’s the real thing rather than a reproduction makes a difference anyway.
DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2ohi2y wrote
With all due respect, people who are even hobbyist musicians can definitely tell the difference between live and recorded under those conditions. The general public? You're right, prob not.
On Broadway, the ensemble/pit is mic'd but not necessarily every musician individually. It's usually a combo of electronic amplification and natural sound acoustics. In most theaters, the pit is suituated in front and below the stage as has been the standard in theater design since theaters were all live using no electronic amplification.
sluuuurp t1_j2ohp55 wrote
If they aren’t using speakers to amplify the musicians you could probably tell the difference. But in broadway theaters they’re likely doing a lot of amplification which would make live and recorded sound the same.
ilvostro t1_j2pssq5 wrote
I'd heard Star Spangled Banner a hundred times in my life and felt absolutely no emotion whatsoever, but the very first time I heard it played by a live symphony orchestra I was crying by the sixth note. There's a difference.
sluuuurp t1_j2pw02g wrote
That’s probably because you knew it was live, not just because the sound was different. Music isn’t just about the sounds our ears hear, it’s also about the context and our state of mind when we hear it.
LSF604 t1_j2qs25i wrote
a live orchestra just sounds different than something over a sound system. Its not just a matter of knowing its live.
Probably something to do with dozens of analog sources of sound generated right there vs digital sound coming out of relatively few speakers.
sluuuurp t1_j2qtbai wrote
I agree, but broadway shows use tons of amplification so I’m not sure if the same thing applies there. For a traditional unamplified orchestra I agree.
LSF604 t1_j2qvd71 wrote
perhaps, although I don't know if pit orchestras require amplification or not. I've done pit orchestras in amateur theater, and those never used amplification. Obviously broadway is a bit bigger. I don't recall the pit being micd up at any big shows I have seen, but they may have been.
vibraltu t1_j2nczu8 wrote
I recall when the Musician's Union in New York protested against the use of string machines (polyphonic keyboard synthesizers) on Broadway in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2nol8b wrote
Excellent point! I remember it went back decades. Just didn't know it went back that long. Thanks!
kevronwithTechron t1_j2o6t2m wrote
Might as well just record the stage performers on video as well. Maybe they can make one definitive video cut and stream it to my house so I can watch it in my pajamas.
That's kind of an odd place to use recorded music. If I'm paying the outrageous price to see a live Broadway show I'd want to hear live music.
GoofAckYoorsElf t1_j2o5j6c wrote
This argument continues everywhere where new principles, techniques and technologies emerge, and people only see the dangers for themselves, not the benefits for everyone including themselves.
[deleted] t1_j2mwpdy wrote
[deleted]
tenemu t1_j2mxzrv wrote
What if it’s not that simple. What if people stopped attending because of the price, so the producers needed to find a way to cut cost. Either drop the show entirely and pay no one, or limit/drop the live band?
DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2myvil wrote
Reducing live music on Broadway shows started happening a long time ago, like a decade or more. It's not a recent cost cutting measure.
Edit for clariry: Thought I was pretty clear on this. The cost cutting by reducing live musicians on Broadway, trying to replace them with recorded music has been going on for decades. This is not new. Musicians are always fighting this.
FerricDonkey t1_j2n1icy wrote
Right now isn't the only time people have wanted to cut costs.
DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2n3jwt wrote
That's what I said. We're saying the same thing.
[deleted] t1_j2n8exf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2nbby1 wrote
[removed]
monkeybeast55 t1_j2n4nxj wrote
To kind of echo what @tenemu said, making something economically viable (i.e. "pay the rent") is not (necessarily) to "fill their own pockets". Broadway shows are already pretty expensive, and I doubt that most of those that are involved are living in mansions as it is.
Zinjifrah t1_j2nzmpo wrote
Aren't you literally making the same argument as the musicians for movies?
kevronwithTechron t1_j2o74y4 wrote
I think that's a little different. With video technology there's no need to go buy theater tickets for a show. The entire industry is already obsolete to begin with.
Zinjifrah t1_j2of622 wrote
I'm no expert on whether theater is obsolete. They seem to do well enough in NYC. Can't speak to the industry though. Doesn't really change the fact that op was literally saying the same thing about theater shows that live musicians were saying about movies without a hint of irony.
MAD6658 t1_j2qjfcd wrote
I can't say that I agree. I've been to dozens of shows on and off Broadway, and I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a live orchestra and a high quality recording.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments