Return-Path: <stagecraft-report [at] theatrical.net>
X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://raeinternet.com/mpp
X-Scanned-By: This message was scanned by MPP Lite Edition (www.messagepartners.com)!
X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net
Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.10)
  with PIPE id 26338572; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 03:01:02 -0800
X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.10
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stagecraft-off [at] theatrical.net>
List-ID: <stagecraft.theatrical.net>
Message-ID: <list-26338557 [at] prxy.net>
From: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Sender: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
To: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Precedence: list
Subject: Stagecraft Digest #639
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 03:00:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,
	DRUGS_SLEEP autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on prxy.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2
X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned

For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
---------------------------------------------------

Stagecraft Digest, Issue #639

 1. Operatic amplification, redux
    by JDruc3737 [at] aol.com
 2. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by "Tom Heemskerk" <tommy [at] etainternet.com>
 3. Re: Be Happy healthy and safe
    by CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
 4. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
 5. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
 6. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by IAEG [at] aol.com
 7. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
 8. Re: Be Happy healthy and safe
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
 9. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
10. Re: Operatic ampolfication, redux
    by MissWisc [at] aol.com
11. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
12. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by IAEG [at] aol.com
13. Re: Operatic ampolfication, redux
    by IAEG [at] aol.com
14. Re: Operatic amplification, redux
    by IAEG [at] aol.com

*** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject
*** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to
*** one message subject in each reply.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: JDruc3737 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <88.34c5bd65.30e9597c [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 11:12:44 EST
Subject: Operatic amplification, redux

Another log for the fire from todays NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/arts/music/01tomm.html

Happy New Year,
Jeff

Jeffrey Drucker
Production Manager
Bard College Theater & Dance Depts.
845-758-7956
drucker [at] bard.edu

------------------------------

Message-ID: <53760.204.244.226.42.1136150542.squirrel [at] 204.244.226.42>
In-Reply-To: <list-26325707 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-26325707 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 13:22:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Operatic amplification, redux
From: "Tom Heemskerk" <tommy [at] etainternet.com>

>
> Another log for the fire from todays NY Times:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/arts/music/01tomm.html
>

It's really too bad the article didn't further explore the differences
between enhancement and amplification. I'm afraid the continued confusion
between the two will make both patrons and performers all the more
suspicious of both.

th


------------------------------

Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20060101162624.00cf9fa8 [at] pop.west.cox.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:26:24
From: CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
Subject: Re: Be Happy healthy and safe

>Unless it's good news.

It's all good news.  Unless, of course, its an obit.
Let's do what we can to keep 'em to natural causes, this year, shall we?
				Chris "Chris" Babbie
				Location Sound
				MON AZ

Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment.  Rates
negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment...

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <22e.415bd5d.30e9c8da [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:07:54 EST
Subject: Re: Operatic amplification, redux

In a message dated 01/01/06 16:14:17 GMT Standard Time, JDruc3737 [at] aol.com 
writes:

> Another log for the fire from todays NY Times:
>  
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/arts/music/01tomm.html

That's life! Seriously, though, If the composer wants it to sound like that, 
it's his business. Maybe he wants to play with all the effects you can have. 
Heaven forfend that I should put down any seriously creative work. While I 
don't value Adams' work, there are those who do, including the author of the 
article, when he compares him with Berlioz as 'a master of orchestration'. This I 
feel to be over the top, the more so that Adams, as I remember, 'wrote' one 
piece which consisted of four minutes and some seconds of total silence.


Frank Wood

------------------------------

Reply-To: <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
Subject: RE: Operatic amplification, redux
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:14:23 -0500
Message-ID: <001801c60f31$7c365ef0$6701a8c0 [at] Dell>
In-Reply-To: <list-26329554 [at] prxy.net>



> Adams, as I 
> remember, 'wrote' one 
> piece which consisted of four minutes and some seconds of 
> total silence.

That was, I believe, John Cage.


------------------------------

From: IAEG [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <193.4ef1c0ee.30e9cbd7 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:20:39 EST
Subject: Re: Operatic amplification, redux


In a message dated 1/1/06 7:15:04 PM, stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com writes:

<< 
> Adams, as I 
> remember, 'wrote' one 
> piece which consisted of four minutes and some seconds of 
> total silence.

That was, I believe, John Cage. >>


and you believe correctly Jeff

but I will also tell you I had a music Form and Analysis professor who took  
4:22 and disected it and showed us that it was really in "Sonata Allegro" form

I won't go into length but if music buffs want to speculate on how he 
justified that ( and correctly I believe ) you can write your ideas to me off list at 
iaeg [at] aol.com

very best,

Keith Arsenault

IAEG -  International Arts & Entertainment Group 
Tampa, Florida

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <218.10c3c8a7.30e9cca9 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:24:09 EST
Subject: Re: Operatic amplification, redux

In a message dated 01/01/06 21:24:12 GMT Standard Time, tommy [at] etainternet.com 
writes:

> It's really too bad the article didn't further explore the differences
>  between enhancement and amplification. I'm afraid the continued confusion
>  between the two will make both patrons and performers all the more
>  suspicious of both.

The difference between the two is a very thin line. By me, 'enhancement' is 
done to deal with the acoustic deficiencies of an auditorium. It is very hard 
to do well: the Royal Festival Hall tried some many years ago, and failed. In 
Birmingham and in Salford, it is possible to modify the auditorium acoustics 
mechanically, to suit their wildly variable repertoires.

'Amplification' is done to deal with the vocal deficiencies of the singers. 
It can be done very well indeed: I saw "Guys and Dolls" at the National Theatre 
some years ago, and didn't notice the amplification but once. The operator 
took his eye off the ball, and a singer turned upstage, and didn't get quieter. 
After that, I was listening harder, but still didn't detect it. Unhappily, 
it's not always that good.


Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <13c.22aee280.30e9ce89 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:32:09 EST
Subject: Re: Be Happy healthy and safe

In a message dated 01/01/06 22:51:51 GMT Standard Time, psyd [at] cox.net writes:

> >Unless it's good news.
>  
>  It's all good news.  Unless, of course, its an obit.

Well, maybe. If a respected critic says, of my lighting, "the LD couldn't 
light a match in a coal-hole", I suppose that counts as a professional obituary. 
Except, of course, that some other equally respected critic will say, of the 
same show "the wonderful, low-key lighting perfectly matches the sombre mood of 
the play". Go figure!


Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <1c6.3841ef8e.30e9cf4b [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:35:23 EST
Subject: Re: Operatic amplification, redux

In a message dated 02/01/06 00:15:04 GMT Standard Time, 
stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com writes:

> > Adams, as I 
>  > remember, 'wrote' one 
>  > piece which consisted of four minutes and some seconds of 
>  > total silence.
>  
>  That was, I believe, John Cage.

You are right. Sorry pardon!

One has few opportunities to hear Adams' work in the UK.


Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: MissWisc [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <c8.6e07031d.30e9d081 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:40:33 EST
Subject: RE: Operatic ampolfication, redux

IAEG [at] aol.com writes:
<<I will also tell  you I had a music Form and Analysis professor who took 
4:22 and disected it  and showed us that it was really in "Sonata Allegro"  
form>>

Fascinating! I haven't seen a score for it in years but last  time I heard it 
played (at an April Fool's fundraising concert for Sigma Alpha  Iota) I would 
have sworn that it was a 4-voice fugue. 

BTW, correct name  is "4:33" named for the length of time of the first  
performance.

;)

Kristi  


------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <85.3541652e.30e9d2a7 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:49:43 EST
Subject: Re: Operatic amplification, redux

In a message dated 02/01/06 00:21:10 GMT Standard Time, IAEG [at] aol.com writes:

> That was, I believe, John Cage. >>
>  
>  
>  and you believe correctly Jeff

Apology already sent.

>  
>  but I will also tell you I had a music Form and Analysis professor who 
took  
> 
>  4:22 and disected it and showed us that it was really in "Sonata Allegro" 
> form
>  
>  I won't go into length but if music buffs want to speculate on how he 
>  justified that ( and correctly I believe ) you can write your ideas to me 
> off list at 
>  iaeg [at] aol.com

I can't resist another Heinleinism. The quote may not be exact, but the 
sentiment is: "There are no limits to the power of human stupidity". But it is also 
possible that your professor was laughing his socks off all the time he was 
doing it, as he watched you taking notes.

With some care and thought, I think I could manage to do it myself. The words 
"psychological effect of silence", "metabolic effects of anticipation", and 
"mental tension" already come to mind.


Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: IAEG [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <27c.36ae48e.30e9d708 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:08:24 EST
Subject: Re: Operatic amplification, redux


In a message dated 1/1/06 7:36:04 PM, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com writes:

<< One has few opportunities to hear Adams' work in the UK. >>

Royal Ballet used to do one of his pieces,  saw it on a matinee at Covent 
Garden, , , 

very best,

Keith Arsenault

------------------------------

From: IAEG [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <20e.10b4baa0.30e9d733 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:09:07 EST
Subject: Re: Operatic ampolfication, redux


In a message dated 1/1/06 7:41:10 PM, MissWisc [at] aol.com writes:

<< BTW, correct name  is "4:33" named for the length of time of the first  
performance.

;)

Kristi  >>

yes yes yes, , I should have caught that error earlier, , 



very best,

Keith Arsenault

------------------------------

From: IAEG [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <15.52dbf4a2.30e9d7bd [at] aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:11:25 EST
Subject: Re: Operatic amplification, redux


In a message dated 1/1/06 7:50:29 PM, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com writes:

<< I can't resist another Heinleinism. The quote may not be exact, but the 
sentiment is: "There are no limits to the power of human stupidity". But it 
is also 
possible that your professor was laughing his socks off all the time he was 
doing it, as he watched you taking notes. >>

actually no, , , 

it tested our powers of observation of what might not be the most obvious

I will say this, 

he did his analysis of the form,based on a recording of 4:33 as played in 
front of a live audience, 

there is a filed performance of 4:33 with John Cage sitting at a baby grand 
in a traffic island in the middle of Cambridge MA, /  Harvard Square.

very best,

Keith Arsenault

------------------------------

End of Stagecraft Digest #639
*****************************