|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 11:54:17 GMT
That’s why I said some clever set designer would be able to eventually work it out. Given the opportunity I’m sure someone could figure it out and if given free reign to re-direct and completely overall both shows... where there’s a will there’ll be a way. And have both shows run as consecutive parts like in HP? Now that would be a nice challenge... preferably not given to Laurence Connor... again... unless they find a way to magically expand the Grade II* listed Her Maj's let's not give either co-producer any ideas of this sort 😂 Yes, exactly like Harry Potter. But way, way, way into the future and only if Phantom ever stops being profitable in its current form (which let’s face it, looks unlikely given it’s been going for 3 decades already). To be honest, and again way into the future, I like the idea of a ‘Lloyd Webber Theatre’ with a company that does his musicals in rep. He has plenty of musicals to rotate through, and I’m sure there’ll be an audience for them in the future (especially if they’re the only ones licensed to do so). To be honest I see Sondheim ending up with something similar in NYC eventually too.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Jun 24, 2020 13:50:06 GMT
I think I'd be fairly straightforward to run them in rep. Black box stage, some set pieces, video & projection.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 24, 2020 17:27:53 GMT
Some new thoughts today. Let's accept that changes are going to happen to the orchestra. Don't know if you've look into the pit or been down in there, but it's very cramped down there. To the extent the 3 keyboard players live in the Her Majesty's boxes stage left. Social distancing measures are going to be around for a long while. It's probably likely and to an extent beyond producers control that the number in the pit will be reduced. Reductions will probably be seen in the doubled instruments like strings etc. Wouldn't be surprised if percussion gets halved too. Heart breaking for those who have been with the show longer than some of the cast members will have been alive. Again, substage Her Majesty's is quite tight. IF they're talking about changing the set, upgrades to automation from hand driven, then this is going to be a huge overhaul. The equipment driving the set in Her Majesty's is Victorian and eats up most of the space under the stage. To fit brand new automation and rigging is going to require all the antique, victorian equipment (some of the very last left in London - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't some of it listed) to be ripped out. This would be an upgrade on the scale of Theatre Royal Drury Lane's 'restoration', would take months of planning and construction. This show wouldn't reopen in 2021. I wonder with such a long shut down, as you suggest, whether they will bring in the scraped UK tour into another West End theatre as a stop gap?
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 24, 2020 17:29:22 GMT
Also remember reading that as spectacular as The Phantom of the Opera is, it doesn’t actually have that much physical scenery.
|
|
5,280 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 25, 2020 15:58:45 GMT
Also remember reading that as spectacular as The Phantom of the Opera is, it doesn’t actually have that much physical scenery. I think that’s one of the reasons the design is so genius. It’s actually very simple, mainly a black box with drapes.
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jun 26, 2020 9:24:08 GMT
Also remember reading that as spectacular as The Phantom of the Opera is, it doesn’t actually have that much physical scenery. I think that’s one of the reasons the design is so genius. It’s actually very simple, mainly a black box with drapes. The quiet elegance of the black box scenes accentuates the moments of grandeur even more when they happen- chandelier rise, masquerade staircase- truly spectacular stagecraft Quote from someone who used to work in the show: "From a technical point of view the show will look twice as sharp - for someone from the old school with crews of 30/40 people backstage it’ll be dead and soulless- all the craft gone - all the skills - all the human input - that’s why people like working on it"
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 26, 2020 11:12:47 GMT
Also remember reading that as spectacular as The Phantom of the Opera is, it doesn’t actually have that much physical scenery. I think that’s one of the reasons the design is so genius. It’s actually very simple, mainly a black box with drapes. Exactly, that's one of the major positives for the production. I'm hoping that this extended closure and revamp does result in the audience having exactly the same experience as before but with significantly improved technology/safety underpinning it. I can understand why, as posters have mentioned, some crew enjoy working on a production with technology that still harks back to the Victorian era. In that sense it is very much a working museum piece. However, if something went wrong and a crew or cast member became injured or worse during a performance owing to using frankly outdated technology, I think we'd all be sat here the next day rightly saying safety/technology upgrades should be put into place. This closure gives that chance. That said, personally I will miss hearing the large set pieces being rolled around on stage, it's a peculiar quirk of Phantom and adds to its charm. Equally I can understand why, and entirely agree, a lot of people believe the production should remain identical in appearances. Yes, Phantom is very much a product of the 1980s, and yes the illusions are now a bit "naff", however no-one has suggested repainting the Mona Lisa because we could make her more life-like with modern painting techniques...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 10:29:28 GMT
Some new thoughts today. Let's accept that changes are going to happen to the orchestra. Don't know if you've look into the pit or been down in there, but it's very cramped down there. To the extent the 3 keyboard players live in the Her Majesty's boxes stage left. Social distancing measures are going to be around for a long while. It's probably likely and to an extent beyond producers control that the number in the pit will be reduced. Reductions will probably be seen in the doubled instruments like strings etc. Wouldn't be surprised if percussion gets halved too. Heart breaking for those who have been with the show longer than some of the cast members will have been alive. Again, substage Her Majesty's is quite tight. IF they're talking about changing the set, upgrades to automation from hand driven, then this is going to be a huge overhaul. The equipment driving the set in Her Majesty's is Victorian and eats up most of the space under the stage. To fit brand new automation and rigging is going to require all the antique, victorian equipment (some of the very last left in London - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't some of it listed) to be ripped out. This would be an upgrade on the scale of Theatre Royal Drury Lane's 'restoration', would take months of planning and construction. This show wouldn't reopen in 2021. I wonder with such a long shut down, as you suggest, whether they will bring in the scraped UK tour into another West End theatre as a stop gap? It's a monumental task, if the plan really is to re-automate the whole show. Just some images of the victorian mechanics that would need ripping out to make room, below and above the stage. Sub-Stage Mechanics: Grid System Above:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 16:07:25 GMT
A few thoughts, trying to think dispassionately:
- Phantom has been there since 1986. You can hear the set ricketing around, wobbling (Christine's dressing room!) and (apparently) there are not infrequent non chandelier drop shows. I think is perfectly understandable that it needs updating for 2020. Both for efficiency, safety and appearance. Yes is a clever set design but I do now believe it could look slicker. The lightening bolt, the flame thrower thing and the non moving masquerade dummies look daft.
- There has never been any mention of bringing in the 25th anniversary tour and I am 100% sure they will not! So nobody needs to worry about the angel scene at end of act 1 being that one. Rather, surely they will bring in elements from this year's ill fated tour. So few of us have seen it we can't really judge but audience response seemed to be excellent. We also know that set was not 100% complete in Leicester due to the low proscenium and was to be 100% unveiled in Manchester.
- The West End is on its knees. They HAVE to save money. A highly dependent tourist show, in the short term they need to lure back repeat visitors from the UK. New ish version and some clever marketing may do this. And am not talking about the mega fans, I mean Joe Bloggs who has seen it once or twice over the last 34 years.
- None of us have any idea if Cam Mac has a primary motive of changes so as to not pay the estates of the original creatives. My personal view is that it's very unlikely and it is slightly unfair to say this. I think rather he doesn't want a museum piece. The accusations of Cameron not spending money are also nonsense. Maybe he spends less than he used to. He still spends more than pretty much everyone else. What is also unknown is how well CM and ALW currently get on. Though certainly there are I guess inferences that CM would like to change more than ALW.
- Halving the orchestra was inevitable at some point. It is lovely to have that huge orchestra but totally unnecessary. Of course is very sad that half won't have their contracts renewed. But music technology is so different now compared to 1986. And the blending of synthesised sounds with real strings is incredibly effective now. 99% of people in the audience would never be able to tell the difference. It just makes no economic sense to continue to pay 30+ musicians.
- Shows can't be museum pieces. I totally get why mega fans of the original don't want to see any change. Only comparison I can make is my own Starlight mega fandom. When they brought in the new version in Bochum for the 30th it was VERY different and I really thought it ripped out the heart of the show. However audiences loved it and sales which had been flagging massively picked up. So although its not my fave version, I am really glad it happened if it means it can continue for another 30 years.
- I don't think the Phantom changes will be anything near as far reaching as that though. I really do think will be a few updates. And personally I look fwd to seeing a slicker, safer, visually enhanced 'brilliant original' which is also more economical, to survive in a post corona West End.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 29, 2020 17:32:50 GMT
It is lovely to have that huge orchestra but totally unnecessary. Sorry, no. There's a sound that comes from a 20+-piece theatre orchestra with a decent string section that you just cannot replicate with half the number of players in the pit, and that lush string-based sound is a big part - a bigger part than you might expect - of the impact of a show like 'Phantom'. Downsizing the orchestra WILL have an effect. The revival of 'Miss Saigon' had a significantly smaller orchestra than the original London production, and it showed. The music didn't sound nearly as good. I get that productions are going to have to save money, and that these are exceptional circumstances, but don't let's pretend that larger orchestras are "unnecessary", or that downsizing the band can be done without any impact on the overall quality of the show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 17:47:26 GMT
It is lovely to have that huge orchestra but totally unnecessary. Sorry, no. There's a sound that comes from a 20+-piece theatre orchestra with a decent string section that you just cannot replicate with half the number of players in the pit, and that lush string-based sound is a big part - a bigger part than you might expect - of the impact of a show like 'Phantom'. Downsizing the orchestra WILL have an effect. The revival of 'Miss Saigon' had a significantly smaller orchestra than the original London production, and it showed. The music didn't sound nearly as good. I get that productions are going to have to save money, and that these are exceptional circumstances, but don't let's pretend that larger orchestras are "unnecessary", or that downsizing the band can be done without any impact on the overall quality of the show. I don't disagree. There is a lush sound from a huge orchestra. But you are in the 1% who would notice. 99% of the punters at Her Majesty's have no idea how many people are in the pit and if this was changed would not notice. Also with modern technology it will still sound excellent. Though I appreciate, to purists not as good. "Unnecessary" in a commercial way. They will save the money of 15 musicians and have no effect on the box office take. Of course it's a shame. Believe me nobody mourns the loss of the frivolous spending we saw on the mega musicals more than I do. But as ever, show BUSINESS. And a 30 piece orchestra is sadly unnecessary in the 2020 commercial workings of a West End long runner.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 29, 2020 17:56:56 GMT
Sorry, no. There's a sound that comes from a 20+-piece theatre orchestra with a decent string section that you just cannot replicate with half the number of players in the pit, and that lush string-based sound is a big part - a bigger part than you might expect - of the impact of a show like 'Phantom'. Downsizing the orchestra WILL have an effect. The revival of 'Miss Saigon' had a significantly smaller orchestra than the original London production, and it showed. The music didn't sound nearly as good. I get that productions are going to have to save money, and that these are exceptional circumstances, but don't let's pretend that larger orchestras are "unnecessary", or that downsizing the band can be done without any impact on the overall quality of the show. I don't disagree. There is a lush sound from a huge orchestra. But you are in the 1% who would notice. 99% of the punters at Her Majesty's have no idea how many people are in the pit and if this was changed would not notice. Also with modern technology it will still sound excellent. Though I appreciate, to purists not as good. "Unnecessary" in a commercial way. They will save the money of 15 musicians and have no effect on the box office take. Of course it's a shame. Believe me nobody mourns the loss of the frivolous spending we saw on the mega musicals more than I do. But as ever, show BUSINESS. And a 30 piece orchestra is sadly unnecessary in the 2020 commercial workings of a West End long runner. Again, I'd take issue with the word "unnecessary". I can see that in these circumstances running costs will need to be trimmed - but that sound is written into this particular show's DNA, and with "modern technology" the smaller band will still sound, well, like a smaller band enhanced by modern technology. Compared to the original, it will not sound "excellent", it will sound... passable. Yes, a lot of people won't notice, and some people will notice something and won't be able to identify it. But it will have an impact. And there's a conversation to be had about why the size of pit bands has - historically, over the past two decades, and not simply as a result of this crisis - been shrinking while ticket prices have soared by way more than the rate of inflation and musicians' pay hasn't risen nearly as fast. It does have an effect. The orchestra at the Company revival wasn't that small, but it was smaller than the original and the music sounded tinny, and sounds even tinnier on the cast recording than it did in the theatre.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 18:04:18 GMT
Well yes and no re the DNA. Les Mis (to me) sounds better than ever with the 2009 orchestrations blending synths and strings. In fact it is a good case in point. When they first reduced the orchestra (?90s ?early 00s) the poorer sound was very noticeable as the technology wasn't quite there. The 2009 version reduced the orchestra size even further but by then the technology was such that it sounded sensational. IMHO obvs.
In 1986 nothing could come close to that sound other than the real thing. Now, they can get near enough for it to be the most sensible solution. You can't pay 30 musicians for negligible effect on sales. It IS sad. But it's life.
Company sounded fine to me; only version I have ever seen though. Miss Saigon sounded different but not worse - I liked the updated orchestrations. I like the original too.
I agree re pit bands though. How much better did Joseph sound at the Palladium compared to Kenwright's version. And the Americans are constantly developing these musicals like Waitress, Come From Away and Evan Hansen because they are cheap. And that I do find a shame. Lavish musicals don't get developed as much these days.
We do fundamentally agree. I'd love Phantom to keep it's huge orchestra. I'm just trying to look dispassionately at the reasons I think it won't.
|
|
905 posts
|
Post by max on Jun 29, 2020 19:48:31 GMT
I agree the effects were pretty weak when I saw it, and that was over ten years ago (lightning strike in particular). Other than that, I rather wish it would remain a living museum piece - including full orchestra. A historic reminder of (and connection to) what theatre used to be. Until now I didn't feel that at all; but given what the future of theatre is now looking like, my view changed.
Anyway - great debate Dom and sf.
|
|
18,837 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 30, 2020 17:07:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jun 30, 2020 22:16:35 GMT
- There has never been any mention of bringing in the 25th anniversary tour and I am 100% sure they will not! So nobody needs to worry about the angel scene at end of act 1 being that one. Rather, surely they will bring in elements from this year's ill fated tour. So few of us have seen it we can't really judge but audience response seemed to be excellent. We also know that set was not 100% complete in Leicester due to the low proscenium and was to be 100% unveiled in Manchester. There is nothing in the recent tour that is superior to what has been at Her Majesty's. The proscenium statues were removed, the Angel was done away with, the chandelier was replaced with the cheap thing from Laurence Connor's production which did not rise from the stage, and some of the gorgeous drapery was eliminated in favour of easier-to-tour flats. The tour did not introduce new effects or anything special that was not possible in 1986. Getting rid of the original Les Mis had nothing to do with stopping the show from being a museum piece, and everything to do with ££££. If Mackintosh had been serious about breathing new life into Les Mis, he'd have contracted first-rate creatives, not previous assistants to the original creative team, and he certainly wouldn't have put into the Sondheim what is actually already a decade-old production. Cameron has repeatedly stressed the economics of running Phantom in past interviews. The motive here is about spending less, while no doubt charging more when the show re-opens. Here is Mackintosh in 2007: "I suspect there will come a time when this glamorous production is no long viable." Then, when the Connor version toured, he was interviewed by the Chicago Times. A quote from that piece: "No show now moves with quite so much cargo: it's impossible to turn a profit. Had Mackintosh tried to reopen the old tour, he'd likely have been faced with the Faustian choice of financial duress or being saddled with the rap that he was compromising his reputation by cutting out much of the scenery." With the Connor version having been ill-received (and consigned to the dustbin), Mackintosh is back at the same dilemma, and has seems to have opted for the latter.
|
|
42ndBlvd
Ensemble
come and meet those dancing feet!
|
Post by 42ndBlvd on Jul 1, 2020 16:55:06 GMT
- There has never been any mention of bringing in the 25th anniversary tour and I am 100% sure they will not! So nobody needs to worry about the angel scene at end of act 1 being that one. Rather, surely they will bring in elements from this year's ill fated tour. So few of us have seen it we can't really judge but audience response seemed to be excellent. We also know that set was not 100% complete in Leicester due to the low proscenium and was to be 100% unveiled in Manchester. There is nothing in the recent tour that is superior to what has been at Her Majesty's. The proscenium statues were removed, the Angel was done away with, the chandelier was replaced with the cheap thing from Laurence Connor's production which did not rise from the stage, and some of the gorgeous drapery was eliminated in favour of easier-to-tour flats. The tour did not introduce new effects or anything special that was not possible in 1986. Getting rid of the original Les Mis had nothing to do with stopping the show from being a museum piece, and everything to do with ££££. If Mackintosh had been serious about breathing new life into Les Mis, he'd have contracted first-rate creatives, not previous assistants to the original creative team, and he certainly wouldn't have put into the Sondheim what is actually already a decade-old production. Cameron has repeatedly stressed the economics of running Phantom in past interviews. The motive here is about spending less, while no doubt charging more when the show re-opens. Here is Mackintosh in 2007: "I suspect there will come a time when this glamorous production is no long viable." Then, when the Connor version toured, he was interviewed by the Chicago Times. A quote from that piece: "No show now moves with quite so much cargo: it's impossible to turn a profit. Had Mackintosh tried to reopen the old tour, he'd likely have been faced with the Faustian choice of financial duress or being saddled with the rap that he was compromising his reputation by cutting out much of the scenery." With the Connor version having been ill-received (and consigned to the dustbin), Mackintosh is back at the same dilemma, and has seems to have opted for the latter. Weirdly enough, the Lawrence production toured North America for 7 years before Covid19 stepped in. American audiences seemed fine with the changes even though the original production toured there for a few decades.
|
|
42ndBlvd
Ensemble
come and meet those dancing feet!
|
Post by 42ndBlvd on Jul 1, 2020 17:04:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 1, 2020 17:36:01 GMT
There is nothing in the recent tour that is superior to what has been at Her Majesty's. The proscenium statues were removed, the Angel was done away with, the chandelier was replaced with the cheap thing from Laurence Connor's production which did not rise from the stage, and some of the gorgeous drapery was eliminated in favour of easier-to-tour flats. The tour did not introduce new effects or anything special that was not possible in 1986. Getting rid of the original Les Mis had nothing to do with stopping the show from being a museum piece, and everything to do with ££££. If Mackintosh had been serious about breathing new life into Les Mis, he'd have contracted first-rate creatives, not previous assistants to the original creative team, and he certainly wouldn't have put into the Sondheim what is actually already a decade-old production. Cameron has repeatedly stressed the economics of running Phantom in past interviews. The motive here is about spending less, while no doubt charging more when the show re-opens. Here is Mackintosh in 2007: "I suspect there will come a time when this glamorous production is no long viable." Then, when the Connor version toured, he was interviewed by the Chicago Times. A quote from that piece: "No show now moves with quite so much cargo: it's impossible to turn a profit. Had Mackintosh tried to reopen the old tour, he'd likely have been faced with the Faustian choice of financial duress or being saddled with the rap that he was compromising his reputation by cutting out much of the scenery." With the Connor version having been ill-received (and consigned to the dustbin), Mackintosh is back at the same dilemma, and has seems to have opted for the latter. Weirdly enough, the Lawrence production toured North America for 7 years before Covid19 stepped in. American audiences seemed fine with the changes even though the original production toured there for a few decades. It did do a run in America, but it wasn't generally received well by audiences who knew better. It also got more critical reviews since the regional reviewers seemed more familiar with the original than the UK regional reviewers. I don't know anyone who has seen both who prefers the restaged version. Anyway, word is that it's been junked and will not be seen again...which is why Cameron Mackintosh set to work trying to find a way to downscale the original and make that economically viable to tour again (since he clearly feels the days of the old-school tours of the 90s won't turn a profit now). Re the Angel being axed, cast members have been speculating about this too, so this rumour hasn't come out of nowhere. They were even thinking of axing it in the US tours of the 1990s and 2000s, but Maria Björnson was dead against it as it was her favourite setpiece. I assume Hal Prince then took up the mantle for her when she passed away, but tragically he's no longer with us to help preserve the artistic integrity of the show.
|
|
501 posts
|
Post by chernjam on Jul 1, 2020 18:01:01 GMT
Sorry, no. There's a sound that comes from a 20+-piece theatre orchestra with a decent string section that you just cannot replicate with half the number of players in the pit, and that lush string-based sound is a big part - a bigger part than you might expect - of the impact of a show like 'Phantom'. Downsizing the orchestra WILL have an effect. The revival of 'Miss Saigon' had a significantly smaller orchestra than the original London production, and it showed. The music didn't sound nearly as good. I get that productions are going to have to save money, and that these are exceptional circumstances, but don't let's pretend that larger orchestras are "unnecessary", or that downsizing the band can be done without any impact on the overall quality of the show. I don't disagree. There is a lush sound from a huge orchestra. But you are in the 1% who would notice. 99% of the punters at Her Majesty's have no idea how many people are in the pit and if this was changed would not notice. Also with modern technology it will still sound excellent. Though I appreciate, to purists not as good. "Unnecessary" in a commercial way. They will save the money of 15 musicians and have no effect on the box office take. Of course it's a shame. Believe me nobody mourns the loss of the frivolous spending we saw on the mega musicals more than I do. But as ever, show BUSINESS. And a 30 piece orchestra is sadly unnecessary in the 2020 commercial workings of a West End long runner. Interesting debate (live vs canned music and the effect it has on live Theatre) I remember seeing "Sunday in the Park" with Jake Gyllenhal with I think a 9 piece "orchestra" which sounded pretty full to me - have been at live performances that sounded live only to find out the singers were there with canned music... but can't explain how amazing it was seeing Sunset on Broadway with a 40 piece orchestra. The music from the overture felt like it was washing over me like a wave. Cannot recall ever experiencing that type of effect that really enhanced the performance overall. There's obviously lots of painful financial realities that will be facing -well not just the arts, everyone and everything. Would hate to see live orchestras being dropped - heck, I hoped that Sunset might inspire larger "symphonic" performances. But at this point, trying to get live arts - live is really urgent
|
|
6,358 posts
|
Post by danb on Jul 1, 2020 18:12:04 GMT
I think stuff like Sunset & the Gyllenhal George are very much the exception. The level of upfront outlay needs the guarantee that only A list Hollywood can provide. The only way they can really make any sort of profit is to offer more lavish packages and make it premium.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2020 18:16:56 GMT
Ahhh, I deffo don't think it should (or ever would be) canned! Just putting the case for a 15 piece orchestra bleeding synth and 'real' strings as a decent compromise in the Corona climate.
On Sunset - can anyone remember how many musicians were in the Adelphi pit? Most annoyingly the CD does not list them....
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 1, 2020 18:21:00 GMT
I remember seeing "Sunday in the Park" with Jake Gyllenhal with I think a 9 piece "orchestra" which sounded pretty full to me One difference there, though, is that Sunday In The Park's original orchestrations were created for an orchestra of only eleven musicians, and the show was written with a chamber production in mind. There's a reason the original Broadway production went into the Booth, which is one of Broadway's smallest houses.
|
|
6,358 posts
|
Post by danb on Jul 1, 2020 19:30:01 GMT
Ahhh, I deffo don't think it should (or ever would be) canned! Just putting the case for a 15 piece orchestra bleeding synth and 'real' strings as a decent compromise in the Corona climate. On Sunset - can anyone remember how many musicians were in the Adelphi pit? Most annoyingly the CD does not list them.... Jeez Dom don’t send me into the box of doom under my daughters bed...I’ll be covered in dust for days. It was certainly a healthily sized band; we often sat front row as it was a little cheaper than the rest of the stalls in the Paige glory years. I would sit in wonder at the noise they were making. The ENO orchestra were something else though weren’t they. What a noise that was. I could’ve cried when the orchestra struck up that overture....swoon.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2020 19:50:46 GMT
Ahhh, I deffo don't think it should (or ever would be) canned! Just putting the case for a 15 piece orchestra bleeding synth and 'real' strings as a decent compromise in the Corona climate. On Sunset - can anyone remember how many musicians were in the Adelphi pit? Most annoyingly the CD does not list them.... Jeez Dom don’t send me into the box of doom under my daughters bed...I’ll be covered in dust for days. It was certainly a healthily sized band; we often sat front row as it was a little cheaper than the rest of the stalls in the Paige glory years. I would sit in wonder at the noise they were making. The ENO orchestra were something else though weren’t they. What a noise that was. I could’ve cried when the orchestra struck up that overture....swoon. LOL! If you don’t, then I’ll have to next time I’m at my parents house ;-) Have LuPone, Buckley and of course EP editions of the programme somewhere... Insane score, just love it.
|
|
6,358 posts
|
Post by danb on Jul 1, 2020 20:06:03 GMT
Busy couple of days with the whole world reopening, but I’ll try and get under there and have a look.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2020 20:07:01 GMT
And another random souvenir brochure question - was the Phantom one ever updated with the Josh Piterman/Danny Whitehead cast? It hadn't been when I went in January which is unusual as Phantom usually pretty good with this.
If there ever was one, would be quite the collector's item now!
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 1, 2020 21:36:29 GMT
On Sunset - can anyone remember how many musicians were in the Adelphi pit? Most annoyingly the CD does not list them.... Can't remember exactly, and my programmes etc are all in storage right now, but 24-ish.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2020 22:31:33 GMT
On Sunset - can anyone remember how many musicians were in the Adelphi pit? Most annoyingly the CD does not list them.... I just got out of bed to go look for you... all my programmes are in a box elsewhere in the house.. find the box, programmes going back 35 years.... but no Sunset programme?? HUH? got the original brochure, but the programme... HMMM..... There's another box somewhere... if someone hasn't already found the answer, i'll dig out the other boxes tomorrow. I'm now a man on a mission to find my Sunset programmes... But i did see all the brochures from so many shows i havent looked at in years... thats now my plan for the weekend!!
|
|
2,566 posts
|
Post by viserys on Jul 2, 2020 6:27:34 GMT
|
|