As a performer, I prefer to have access to the music as quick as I can. I find it helps me feel much more prepared and comfortable versus relying on a piano in rehearsals, then getting used to a pit. Plus, sometimes I’ve felt like I’m having to compete against the pit to be heard, but that’s also just bad sound mixing at points.
The good news is that these tracks were recorded by a live band so it doesn't sound "fake". Thanks for your feedback! Glad to know actors value and really like having access to the tracks to rehearse.
@@KevinLynchNJ Yeah! The tracks sounded so good in that one clip. The clip helps me pace myself when singing if there are bits of dialogue. Plus, I feel like I can get swept up into the story more in some cases.
As much as I too see both sides of the equation point-wise, I am a proponent of things being performed as live as possible. The human touch is better IMHO, and nothing rivals a live orchestra actually playing live, which only enhances the magic of live theatre and adds a layer of aesthetic value. This upload was insanely cool, and once again - break a leg on an incredible run Kevin!
I agree, BUT! I have had a full pit and the comments I would get from audience members is that it sounded like a track. I've heard that comment a lot since I've been music directing and have had pits and tracks. Do you think they know the difference?
@@KevinLynchNJ The thing is Kevin, they won't know the difference regardless of variables - that's what I neglected to mention. That doesn't supersede the fact that even with the difficulties and downsides, a full orchestra was the reason many shows, particularly older ones that we've come to know and love, are heavily lauded and have award nominations in some original cases.
I think that tracks should ONLY be used in a scenario where if a company can’t financially produce the show with using live musicians. I find that audience members, where I am at least, are very perceptive and can tell the difference between tracks and live players. I would rather do a show with a massively reduced pit than using tracks as 1st of all it’s easier (for me) and second of all the life that the live players feed on to the performers on stage is truly remarkable. And as someone said in the comments, if shows are just going to be tracked what are musicians supposed to do for work. Many many freelance musicians rely heavily on theatre for their income and if tracks become the norm it just won’t be feasible to be a full time musician and over a long period of time the art of playing an instrument could be lost by. I might be being a bit extreme but I wholeheartedly disagree with tracks UNLESS it is a make or break situation whether the show can be put on or not.
I'm of divided mind on live vs track. Just finished a show (an others in the past) where I was both an accompanist and eventually in the pit doing it live. It's hard to eclipse the energy and effect of a live performance, and it will always be my favorite way of doing it. However....a live orchestra definitely eats up a show budget and can be hard to make completely consistent throughout performances. I can definitely see the appeal of a track for all the reasons that you listed.
Everyone can have differing opinions, but I have a massive fundamental and moral objection, disdain, etc etc. for live theatre that utilize tracks. Playing an instrument is an art. Live theatre is live for a reason and I go to a live performance to see just that, something LIVE. Show aren't just the singers on stage. It's the orchestra, the stage hands, the dressers, stage management, the list goes and on. Tracks make the show purely just about the performers on stage and have a giant disregard for all the pieces that make up a live performance. Furthermore, tracks are just pushing aside the point of anyone learning to play an instrument. Who needs to learn when you only need one set of musicians who can just record a track for every show? It's diminishing so many things. I completely understand the budget issues, but I have boycotted shows who even mic their orchestra from another building. In my opinion it's a step towards replacing all musicians and that is just wrong.
What kind of live musicians would play an entire show for only $75 per performance? Quality costs money! An audience can immediately tell the difference between a $75 per performance and real professional musician. Singing to tracks is like going to a karaoke bar.
Conservatories and Schools of Music are cranking out hundreds (maybe thousands) of graduates every year. It's not like there is any shortage of qualified musicians. I don't consider live music a luxury. The performing and visual arts are a necessity in life because the arts enrich the human spirit. You can't get that experience from canned music. Someone doesn't go to a concert hall and listen to a record or a CD. @@KevinLynchNJ
If a diminished budget is the rationale for not having a live orchestra, here's an alternative idea: Spread the wealth. For one show use prerecorded tracks. For another show, don't use any costumes/scenery/lights/microphones but have a live orchestra. That way, more people can be involved. @@KevinLynchNJ
Tracks are more convenient but I feel like having a pit orchestra just looks more professional? Having a backing orchestra makes it look like you're performing for a theme park. I guess that sort of works for disney broadway shows?
