Re: Moving orchestras out of pits (long)

[Robert Kaplowitz]

I often find myself agreeing with MD's on this one - that the best natural dynamics come from orchestras that can hear each other and the singers acoustically, and MD's who are positioned to do both.

I don't think remoting bands is the solely responsible for the loss of this relationship - I think it really starts with Avioms, and with many scenic ideas (not necessarily bad for the show) about onstage bands. It's also challenged by the non-acoustic nature of many of the instruments in modern pits. Musicians on electric guitars with fender twins at their knees or rock-style drummers on trapsets have a hard time hearing anything but themselves... So - we start remoting amps and baffling kits... But musicians need to hear each other and themselves, so - monitor wedges come out.

Unfortunately, like many solutions, this can lead to more problems - if it's not all brass, electic/electronics and percussion, the wedges start to bleed into sensitive mics for the quieter instruments. So we give the band in-ears, isolating their mixes from the mics - and them from each other. And, because it makes sense, we give them Avioms or similar to control their individual mixes.

Now, the only person who can actually hear both the singers and some portion of the full band is the MD. All dynamics rest on her/his shoulders. That's okay (though, with remoted amps, they need references for the non-acoustics), as long as everyone's in the same pit... Good conductors do this, to some degree, world-wide.

But now you remote the orchestra. Maybe even into 2 or even 3 locations, like on Spider Man? The MD is now a timekeeper. Dynamics are completely relative. A good designer can help that MD to create that relative mix, and really good video monitoring can allow that MD to communicate with sensitive musicians in their remote locations. But the truth of the matter is that, by doing this, we're re-allocating much of the dynamic control, from the music department to the sound department.

Is that all bad? No. Does it put a whole lot of extra weight on the FOH engineer? Sure. And, in most American theatre, at least, that FOH engineer is so busy trying to learn the show itself during tech that band dynamics become less important. (bless the British system of hiring the FOH engineer to be in the rehearsal room & off book before tech, and a production person to run load-in)...

I've certainly been in the trenches, with a short tech, all the dynamics on my dept's shoulders, and an engineer trying to master 22 channels of RF pickups, with critics on their way to the theatre. On an early co-design of mine, Scott Stauffer (the senior colleague on the team) just said "don't worry - I'll mix the band through previews, and once the engineer has pickups down, he'll learn the band mix." We could do that because there were two of us - I was in the house, taking notes, and working with the director, and he could create the band's dynamics.

But is that really a desirable way of working? I personally love collaborating with a gifted MD - discussing arrangements and dynamics, getting their thoughts, asking for their help when needed - in pit situations with a collaborative MD, I've even been invited to take part in the band layout, to suit the acoustics of the pit & the theater.

Certainly, there have been times when I've wished for the opposite - for the MD to stay with the band and give me total control. And, of course, as a sound designer, I am by nature something of a control freak - and remoted bands do offer more control.

I think the reality is that there is always going to be a different sound quality to Aviom & remoted bands. Not necessarily worse. Just different. It always feels more studio - more "produced" to me. For some shows, that's okay - indeed - for some shows, that's desirable. For others, its a loss. I hate to think of Jonathan Tunic's arrangements being broken into small rooms and re-balanced at the console...

For me, what's really important is for us sound designers to be on board with the team when these decisions are being discussed. Because the result has a major impact on the sound of the show. Sometimes, a producer hungry to add some seats, or a set designer who wants a giant tree to grow out of the pit, might be removing our chance to achieve a quality of sound that is essential to the show, and composers and/or MD's may not be savvy enough to speak up in those meetings. At the very least, we can offer our informed opinions - once in a while, directors and producers listen to us. And if they don't, when previews come around, we can remind everyone of our initial thoughts, and (sometimes) use this as a means to get support in acquiring the tools we think might help, or at least in getting them off our backs!

Just my $0.32 on the topic, of course.

-Rob The Opinionated Sound Designer

<><><><><><><><><><><>
Thumb-typed without autocorrect... Sorry in advance.
-Rob Kaplowitz

[Nick Kourtides]

Well said, Rob - and I agree with so much of your reaction.

I think it's vitally important to avoid the myth of "control" of dynamics from the sound desk. And you're absolutely correct to approach Avioms (or anything that is between the performers and their understanding of the dynamics) with a heightened sense of responsibility - I have a long speech prepared that I privately approach each musician with: basically that they can dial themselves into a dynamics universe that doesn't actually exist; and make all of the wrong choices if they're not careful and willing to take some notes from the MD and from me about how their performance relates not only to say, the vocal arrangement, but the dynamics that are actually being performed onstage and by their fellow musicians. It's too easy to just turn the knobs and overplay or underplay the entire show, and the music department often cannot have the right perspective to judge this, or the vocabulary to discuss it. So we need to work collaboratively, especially on projects with ambitious orchestrations and arrangements or stagings that are not designed to just "work" as notated in the score.

But sometimes a remote or unconventional band situation is the point, though, right? For A Chorus Line, the theater is supposed to be an audition hall, among other things...so maybe an orchestra in the room isn't always exactly the right vibe? With the time spent making sure that the ensemble and musicians can hear each others' dynamics intentions and are able to react with a performance that makes musical sense, we know that we can achieve spectacular results. But I think that the material and the concept need to lend themselves to this treatment, and many traditional musicals obviously would suffer mightily without the orchestra in the room. At the same time, this is a huge challenge for producers to tackle, with an order of magnitude increase in materials, staff expertise, and time required to make the music work like music. The idea that a show can be "mixed" against the dynamics that are actually being performed is just wrong. All the sound team can bring to the table is volume, treatment, and effective monitors; there is no button or fader move that equals "mezzo-forte" if someone is belting or whispering. To enable the ensembles to make the right choices, dynamically, is the primary design responsibility - and that is made more challenging with the separation. Not insurmountable, but also not necessarily inexpensive or fast. Too often I hear from the money folks, "Well, we can make this technology investment, and then we never have to rehearse the same way, right?" Uh...NO.

Nick