The Phantom of the Opera - His Majesty's Theatre

No doubt. I think the public would care if they knew about it.

But stuff like this doesn't really get coverage in the mainstream press, although I notice a few news outlets have run with the orchestra story.

And I do think the repeat audiences will know the difference as soon as they see the new production (on the basis that it is the Leicester tour they're putting in, based on what Cameron has said and the planning submissions etc). The changes are too great to overlook.

I think more than "Phans" care about the artistic integrity of one of the West End's flagship productions (even if you don't). That much has been demonstrated by a lot of the industry reaction today, both in London and across the pond.

I think the element of snobbery is to be found in the posts that keep saying "Joe Public" isn't discerning enough to tell the difference.

I suppose it's predictable that the posters who said this would never happen are now saying that no-one will care anyway, rather than actually acknowledge the loss.

I certainly don't believe that is the case. I think the Leicester production (and it seems increasingly clear New London will be based on this) was lavish (relative to most current musicals, perhaps not to the 1986 Phantom), expensive (ditto), sounded and looked gorgeous and with a great cast had a real buzz about it and was a sensational production.

I truly believe CM and RUG intend to put on a fabulous production. They also need to save money on certain aspects to make it viable. These changes I think won't be noticed my most people. It isn't contempt for the great unwashed. The show will STILL be great. The product delivered still fabulous. 

(Further, CM and RUG are really not being cheap. Yes this will be cheapER than the original. But believe me will be more expensive to mount (and there will be more money visible on stage) than Come From Away, Evan Hansen, Pretty Woman, Six, Jamie, Hamilton and pretty much every recent musical. Whatever people's opinion of Cameron it is factually incorrect to call him cheap. Yes, he spends less than he did in the 80s/90s but as stated ad nauseam the industry is totally different now. And new Mary Poppins, new Les Mis, AND I believe the new Phantom are still bigger and more expensive than the majority of West End musicals. Which will do for me).

 

If the whole orchestra was cut, played on a soundtrack from speakers hidden in an orchestra pit would you feel the same? As you say there will be some that won't be able to tell the difference, some would even pay £100+ to hear it play on speakers. At the same time, it's a compromise to make it more financially viable.

Maybe if also the protagonist doubled up as ensemble in the scenes they weren't in. Again, some wouldn't even notice. Should it happen? Could mean a huge reduction in cast size.

I would argue if someone is paying £100+ a ticket or more they should be getting a large cast, a truly detailed set and costume and a decent size orchestra. I also would argue for longstanding shows you would expect part of the ticket price is to cover the fact the show is so old it requires more TLC than others.


In my eyes this all comes down to a couple of key areas.

- the end to properly orchestrated musicals and instead a route of we'll use the bare minimum.

- the end of logical ticket pricing and fully transforming into the road Hamilton went down of small production and company but we'll still charge extortionate prices because we can.

- knowingly giving audiences incorrect advise to buy tickets.


Touring productions and London can be top quality for what they are, but they equally are different. While London is a permanent home, on a tour the logistics of housing a production in a new place every few weeks compromises things such as company size and scale of the set. This is going to be the huge thing with Phantom to see what they mean by building from the tour design.

The orchestra is being reduced because its felt they can get away with it, that people won't care, that people will still feel its good value for money.

I disagree. If people wanted the story of Phantom, they'd watch the film. They want the experience and they want to feel like they're getting their money's worth.

The international tourist comments are interesting, first because they won't be back any time soon. How is Phantom London has to Compete with Phantom NY and other. why would you chose London over it? I'm struggling to find the unique selling point. The only one it had is gone.

It all continues to my concerns that I really don't think that London is going to struggle to create a long running musical. Because just like is being done here, they're so worried about making a quick profit that by focusing on that they're not looking at long term commerciality. Some would argue it was luck Les Mis and Phantom have run and run and run, I however, disagree.

You've still got your theatre fan hat on though, so do people posting on Broadway forums, they're hardly impartial critics. Nor are they the typical casual theatergoer, who you continue to endow with a level of theatre knowledge and critique they just don't have.

I don't understand where you get the notion that a big orchestra is one of the West End's USPs. It isn't, it hasn't been for years (if it ever was). Most of the biggest shows in the West End have a small band and that's it.

For the casual theatre goer and tourist (and I'm talking global tourist, not just people who know Broadway) the USP of the West End is that it is a theatre district and they can dress up, go for dinner and then wander just around the corner and see a big glitzy show in a posh theatre, frequently with a drink in hand, then tumble out into a Soho evening. For quite a few, the particular show itself is secondary (I've experienced enough tourists in my West End theatregoing to know that, I'm sure we all have), they've just decided they want to see a show and almost randomly picked one.

Phantom will still tick that box regardless of how many musicians are in the pit, every West End show does no matter what its artistic merit, and the more famous the show, the more likely it is to attract tourist trade.

It's still the logo, score and plot that everyone has heard of. It'll still be a big night out for most. So they'll still buy tickets. I really am struggling to understand why that is so difficult to comprehend.

I posted something very similar to this previously, however not in this thread apparently and I can't find the post for the life of me;

It isn't one thing in isolation which kills a show. You could cast Biggins as Christine and there would be no appreciable change in advance bookings. It just doesn't work like that on these long runners.

You can half the orchestra, half the cast, make the chandelier not drop, play all the music at double speed to get the punters out an extra half hour earlier, to save on wages. None of this will show an immediate effect financially, with people booking many months in advance for their one big night a year in the West End.

What does happen though, is people who might've seen it in 1992 come back in 2021 and see a shell of the show they saw previously. The orchestra doesn't sound as they remember, the chandelier doesn't come crashing down onto the stage. It wasn't the grand experience it used to be. They tell their friends (and often post publicly online) to this effect, and suggest that maybe The Lion King or Wicked was better for their £80 apiece. Then, of course, there are those seeing it for the first time. Are they likely to recommend to their friends?

Then the problem comes. The next booking cycle. Will they come back? Will they check Twitter and TripAdvisor and see nothing but negativity about how much has been taken from the show, with zero given back to the customer?

On its own, the orchestra redundancies (disgustingly handled as they were) should not directly hurt a show's mass appeal. On its own, the chandelier being replaced and pieces of set missing shouldn't matter. The effects of these losses, cuts and downsizes do certainly stack and give an overall feeling of paying the same (or more) for less.

Cameron Mackintosh became a billionaire by being a perfectionist and stickler for quality. Extremely hard working, with an excellent eye for rights acquisition. Now he is the wealthiest theatre producer in the world, at this crucial time for the arts, and not only is he not giving back, he is actively taking away.

Charge more, get less. It's an indefensible strategy in any business. People get wise to it. I can see this really hurting the show.

I haven't had time to research that - perhaps it can financially assist the 14 unemployed musicians once the show reopens?

Poor example: "Broadway discussion boards" are similar to here and don't represent the tourist market (especially international) and the general public.

Perhaps.

Saw the original a few times. Loved it. It was a spectacle. Event theatre at the time. Excitedly took my teenager to see it in the West end a couple of years back to share my love of the glorious music and I have to admit I thought it looked tired and dated. Some things are better left to beautiful memories.
Regarding the orchestra I wonder if the apathy displayed by some to cutting musicians would be the same if they cut 13 of the ensemble and replaced their voices with a backing track?
My son is just starting out as a pit band musician and I do worry for his future and whether there will be one in this modern age where it’s easier and cheaper to replace trained professionals with a programme.
Just my thoughts. I appreciate it’s a ‘business’ and business must be economically viable but man vs machine is the start of a very slippery slope. Keep music live.