Prom 21 - 2.08.14: Kiss Me, Kate

[Dave2002]

I hope it's not overdone, if it's done at all. I have tickets for that one.

Can ruin any spatial effect, and also add distortion, but I guess some performers just don't have powerful enough voices or good enough vocal technique to project in a very large hall. Also, given the artificiality of most entertainment, why shouldn't appropriate aids be used?

It may be that, in some ways, listeners at home got better sound. In the hall, the opening sounded more like listening to a 1950s American film than a real orchestra, as in our part of the hall we probably heard more from the loudspeakers used than the live sound. There were also some other technical problems. For a while one singer's voice sounded as though the loudspeaker coils had come adrift - thought it was probably either a microphone or a mixer problem, with the levels set incorrectly. The sound quality did settle down, though there was a point rather later on where a couple of male voices sounded as though they were speaking from under water.

Having now experienced it, I doubt that there was any way this show could have been done without any amplification in the RAH.

Did I enjoy it? Yes, hugely. It was a very well put together production, and I really don't see how it can work having put all the effort into producing it and only running one performance. At the very least I'd have thought it could fill a theatre for several weeks, particularly if there are tourists to fill them.

In the hall we did have the benefit of watching the action, or at least some of it, as some of us only had restricted view seats. A side show nearly broke out with some members of the audience complaining about not being able to see, but perhaps we should pass over that. Listeners at home probably had the advantage, at times, of better quality sound, but would have missed a lot in terms of the visual aspects of the performance.

Of course shows like this are not to be seriously compared with opera - they are just a different form of entertainment. Before we start discussing opera, and even orchestral music with some sort of sacred reverence, why not just admit that they are all forms of entertainment? I have seen a few musicals, and this one just about worked, though I probably still prefer Anything Goes, also by Cole Porter. I accept that for some musicals are not for them, and that was certainly my position not so many years ago, but some of them, in very good productions such as this one was despite a few technical faults, at least serve their purpose of entertaining people, lifting them out of themselves perhaps, and giving enjoyment.

Excellent!

[Dave2002]

What the .... ???

Very good - where did you get that from?

Looked too good to be a mash up.

[Pianorak]

Didn't know Rita Tushingham could sing.

[amac4165]

It may be that, in some ways, listeners at home got better sound. In the hall, the opening sounded more like listening to a 1950s American film than a real orchestra, as in our part of the hall we probably heard more from the loudspeakers used than the live sound. There were also some other technical problems. For a while one singer's voice sounded as though the loudspeaker coils had come adrift - thought it was probably either a microphone or a mixer problem, with the levels set incorrectly. The sound quality did settle down, though there was a point rather later on where a couple of male voices sounded as though they were speaking from under water.

Having now experienced it, I doubt that there was any way this show could have been done without any amplification in the RAH.

Did I enjoy it? Yes, hugely. It was a very well put together production, and I really don't see how it can work having put all the effort into producing it and only running one performance. At the very least I'd have thought it could fill a theatre for several weeks, particularly if there are tourists to fill them.

In the hall we did have the benefit of watching the action, or at least some of it, as some of us only had restricted view seats. A side show nearly broke out with some members of the audience complaining about not being able to see, but perhaps we should pass over that. Listeners at home probably had the advantage, at times, of better quality sound, but would have missed a lot in terms of the visual aspects of the performance.


Excellent!

I was in the fourth fifth row in the arena. Actually, I thought the sound was better than on previous occasions. There certainly seem to be far more arrays of speakers above the canopy than on previous occasions.

With these sorts of things at the proms i think you really need to be quite close in to get the benefit of it I am not entirely sure what you would have seen from the back of the upper circle all the stalls (for that matter) – probably not a lot.

I have just been looking at the video of the 2002 revival (on YouTube) and certainly chorus work and dancing was far higher quality last night.

One of the microphones did go wrong, at one point and Petruchio actually tried to fix it on stage by putting his hand on Lucentio's shoulder. It got a bit better after that, but was not fixed until he came back on stage.

Overall a brilliant evening

[Pianorak]

It can work well.

I am sure it can. Was thinking of West Side Story with José Carreras and Kiri Te Kanawa which didn't work for me, although probably worked for others.

[Bryn]

What the .... ???

Very good - where did you get that from?

Looked too good to be a mash up.

It's from a BBC production that was broadcast many Christmases ago. The whole thing can be found on YouTube. Here's Part 1 of 3:

Just Google "Marriage of Figaro BBC" to find the rest.

[gurnemanz]

I am sure it can. Was thinking of West Side Story with José Carreras and Kiri Te Kanawa which didn't work for me, although probably worked for others.

I agree and it was a kind of artificial exercise, probably doomed to fail even without Lennie's behaviour. It struck me when we watched it on stage how much it is about the performers being able to dance brilliantly as well as sing and act.

[Dave2002]

With these sorts of things at the proms i think you really need to be quite close in to get the benefit of it I am not entirely sure what you would have seen from the back of the upper circle all the stalls (for that matter) – probably not a lot.

We saw about half of the stage from near the back of the circle - around Y. Even allowing for the fact that we were looking at an odd angle, and could only see about half of the stage, it was still very good. I think we didn't see the bit with the microphone fix you mentioned, as that would have been over to the right looking from the arena.

The sound high up was, at least at first, a sort of mush - mixture of amplification, plus the RAH acoustics, so as I mentioned earlier, the opening sounded more like a film sound track than a live performance.

I can imagine it would have been brilliant from the arena, though my legs would probably not have coped.

[Bert Coules]

I wasn't able to listen to the whole thing but I heard most of the first act and enjoyed it very much (duff microphone notwithstanding) though I rather suspect that anyone not familiar with the work might have found it tricky to follow some of the scene changes and plot developments: there were some visual moments that drew splendid reactions from the audience in the hall but meant little or nothing in sound only.

It must be difficult balancing the needs of the live audience, the eventual TV/DVD watchers and the radio listeners, though of course the same is true for opera performances: just another of the many similarities between the genres, which seem to me to be far more alike than different. I'd be interested to know just what, for those who believe the opposite, are the essential defining things which make an opera an opera and a musical a musical?

[Nick Armstrong]

I could only hear about 10 minutes - it was the "True to you in my fashion" song and it sounded a ripper, really perfect and idiomatic - just a pity that it seemed the songs were interspersed with some stilted-sounding dialogue. Tempted to try and hear the whole thing though, because COTW this week reminded one that Porter seemed incapable of writing a duff song, even if you're not into musicals...

[Bert Coules]

...just a pity that it seemed the songs were interspersed with some stilted-sounding dialogue.

Ah, so you would have preferred an evening of excerpts rather than the whole work? That's interesting.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It can work well. We greatly enjoyed Opera North's Carousel at the Barbican two years ago and to a lesser extent Bernstein's Candide at ENO.

I tend to regard Porter as essentially a great songwriter. Most of his musicals are no longer performed. We enjoyed Kiss Me Kate a while ago at the Victoria Palace. We hardly ever go to musicals, but the ones we have attended more recently have all been very good value in their different ways:
West Side Story at Sadlers Wells
Kurt Weill's Street Scene, Young Vic
Spamalot
Book of Mormon

Showboat works very well with operatic voices.

Operatic voices surely shouldn't be allowed near musicals.

I would take the opposite view. No-one should be a professional singer if they need a microphone.

[Dave2002]

Ah, so you would have preferred an evening of excerpts rather than the whole work? That's interesting.

I think this is what is needed - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006wqwz

[french frank]

I'd be interested to know just what [ ... ] are the essential defining things which make an opera an opera and a musical a musical?

Leaving out the bit which posed the question of degree (are there more similarities than differences, or fewer similarities than differences ?) the essential defining things for me are the style of the music and the style of singing. Whether you find 'operatic voices' suitable or unsuitable for musicals, the point being made is that there are operatic voices and non-operatic voices.

What's the difference between a 'literary novel' and 'popular fiction'? Between classical ballet and S.American 'ballroom' dances or the choreography of Broadway musicals? No reason why people shouldn't like both but no reason why they should, since the styles are so different.

[Bert Coules]

What's the difference between a 'literary novel' and 'popular fiction'? Between classical ballet and S.American 'ballroom' dances or the choreography of Broadway musicals? No reason why people shouldn't like both but no reason why they should, since the styles are so different.

Interesting comparisons, but doesn't that argument depend on there being uniformity of style within each genre? Which there surely is not. If one can say "I like opera but not musicals because of the stylistic differences" what about the stylistic differences between, say, Doctor Atomic and The Coronation of Poppea? Or between Show Boat and The Phantom of the Opera? It's all a matter of degree.