FAQ'S (Frequently Asked Questions)

Why do you hate cast albums so much?

I hate them because they often sound terrible. For some reason which will always remain a mystery to me, theater record producers are content to put out CD's that don't in any way sound the way the person who created the sound (the orchestrator) wants them to sound. We're often not allowed at mixes and therefore unable to have any input.

They don't want us around because they're afraid we'll waste a lot of time saying: "I can't hear the third flute!" But in truth the main problem with cast albums is always the overall concept, not details of orchestration.

The sad part is that there are no second chances. The CD is there forever, no one is going to make a second recording of, say, URINETOWN. And what's out there is often a disappointing listening experience.

UPDATE: I've been having better luck in this department recently. Sh-k-boom/Ghostlight has been great about allowing input at the mix as was Steve Epstein on Grey Gardens. Things are looking up!

What are the worst-mixed of your cast albums?

Without a doubt the worst mix is URINETOWN. What I requested to be a pop mix ended up as the worst kind of cabaret mix (all vocal, no band, some sort of strange "you're in the theater listening to this live" sound concept). I don't think the producer has listened to a pop recording in the last 30 years. He's also one who allows no input from anyone during the mix process. On the Urinetown "Overture" mp3 on the discography page of my site, for example, I had to add sampled bass, kick drum and high hat to the mix to make it sound anything like what it sounded like in the theater (and how I always heard it). The clip on this site sounds great, but that's not how the CD sounds.

What are the best-mixed?

One of the best mixes by far is ANNIE GET YOUR GUN. Steve Ferrara and John McDaniel produced and it really sounds great. Steve is principally a pop music producer and it shows. I wasn't there for the mix, but didn't really need to be.

THE LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA also sounds quite beautiful. It's a very classical recording and mixed with little to no compression, but sounds great. Be prepared to turn up the volume knob on your iPod or stereo receiver, though, since there's no compression. The same producer (Steve Epstein) mixed the Broadway version of the Grey Gardens CD and it came out quite nicely as well, with the same classical music concept.

I'm really happy with the SEE WHAT I WANNA SEE mix. Joel Moss was great about allowing input at the mix. In general Sh-k-boom/Ghostlight has been really good about that. I'm looking forward to the upcoming mix for LITTLE FISH with that label.

THE THING ABOUT MEN is the first CD that I was allowed to attend the mix (along with the musical director, Lynne Shankel and the composer, Jimmy Roberts) and it sounds really great. I wish the tiny band of 4 musicians had been bigger, but for what it is, it sounds great. When it comes to mixing, 4 heads really are better than one because you get a good compromise on how things sound and how things balance out.

I listened again to ONCE UPON A MATTRESS recently and, except for needing some overall compression, it sounds pretty good. Kind of an "old Broadway" sound but you actually hear a good bit of the orchestration.

FLOYD COLLINS is very good and has a lot to recommend it, not the least of which is the extraordinary music. The main problem with that recording is that the orchestration concept was ruined by undermixing the folk/country elements (the guitar and, especially, the harmonica, which is drastically undermixed). The whole concept of the show was a dialectic between two elements: folk/country and classical/expressive. The two elements have to be equal or it makes no sense. Unfortunately, folk/country lost out on that one.

The score to WILD PARTY is an incredible score. I have a few small gripes regarding the mix but it still sounds impressive: like most cast albums the vocals are sometimes mixed too loud, the guitar is inaudible throughout the CD, the tuba nearly so. And while I don't like much reverb on a CD, to my ear the recording is TOO dry and clinical. Nonetheless, TIME OUT rated it one of the top 10 show albums ever, no doubt because of the amazing score by Michael John LaChiusa and an amazing cast.

What DO you do, exactly?

I am an orchestrator and arranger. I take someone else's music and give it color, texture and musical shape.

What is the difference between an orchestrator and an arranger?

In theory, there IS a difference between the two roles. In practice, however, the jobs almost always overlap and the terms get used interchangeably.

ARRANGING has to do with the STRUCTURE of the music. It could involve:

1) new intros, transitions, and endings;

2) new accompaniment figures to the melody (that is, completely different from what the songwriter or composer originally wrote);

3) new structural arrangement of the musical material;

4) complete change in musical "feel" of a piece of music (for example, doing a Schubert song in the style of NY house music (!)); and

5) various other quasi-compositional tasks.

A dance arranger is a clear-cut example. He composes the dance music on piano (often using thematic elements from songs in the show), but has nothing to do with the final orchestration.

The orchestrator's role is a bit different. The orchestrator is concerned with color and texture. Technically, an orchestrator would not do any re-writing of the musical material except to add pads or an occasional countermelody and fill, or to change a figure which is suited to one musical instrument or group and re-think it so that it is better suited to the current instrumental configuration (a keyboard figure scored for orchestra, for example).

An example of a purely orchestrational task (that is, no arranging involved) would be to take a piece originally scored for 30 instruments and orchestrate it for 20, trying to make it sound as much like the original as possible.

In the real world, however, an orchestrator is almost always an arranger as well. He is always ready, willing and able to dig in and re-write, add, or change the material as needed to make the music a commercial and artistic success.

I don't understand why they need an orchestrator for a revival of a Broadway show. Wasn't it orchestrated once already?

Revivals are a special case and the task actually varies from revival to revival. The important decision on a revival is: how different do we want the new orchestration to be from the original? It is an important question and one which is often decided by the musical director and director of the show before the orchestrator is even hired.

The choices boil down to these:

1) Retain the sound of the original but score it for a smaller size orchestra;

2) Retain the basic sound of the original but change it a bit: make it more modern, more authentic, more ethnic, whatever.

3) Completely change the sound of the original because no one is happy with the original or because the original is not in keeping with the new 'concept' of the current revival production.

The first choice is the least interesting and generally becomes a straight-forward orchestration task, without any arranging involved. It is a choice most often made by producers to save money on weekly running costs. Many of the old shows used 25 or 26 players or more. Today shows rarely get above 21 musicians and quite often use 9, 10 or 15. Most of The King and I was orchestration of this type. About 20% of the show was all new material (scene changes, dances, etc), but the other 80% was meant to sound like the original, but scored for an orchestra about 3/4 the size of the original.

The Sound of Music ended up falling into the second category. In starting production, the musical team was interested in keeping the sound of the original (but scored for a smaller orchestra) and, at the same time, in adding elements of traditional folk music.

When I looked at the original, however, I was concerned because the orchestration was VERY 'meat and potatoes'... that is, very straightforward, almost nothing in the way of countermelodies or texture. Basically the original orchestration doubled the melody A LOT and left the rest of the orchestra to do "oom pah pah" accompaniment figures. It was a style that, with a million strings, would sound simple but very lush, but in our orchestra (of 7 strings on opening, cut down to a string quartet as the production went along) would not be very interesting AT ALL. So I asked (and received) permission to do whatever I wanted, so long as it still sounded like The Sound of Music to an audience member.

I think the result was quite successful in that it's often very, very different from the original (LOTS of countermelodies, lots of moving horn lines, etc), yet not stylistically jarring in any way. And by using recorders, handbells, tuba, a zither and other folk instruments, I was able to capture the authentic Austrian folk music quality the director was after.

The third orchestration choice in a revival is the most fun because it's the option which is most like doing a brand new show. When the director and musical director say: "Let's do anything we want. We have a new concept, don't worry about the original." On the Town and Annie Get Your Gun both fall into this category. On On the Town the director wanted a completely new sound, using the sound of a big band, without strings. In other words, he wanted to retain the nature of the original music, but make it jazzier, less symphonic in its orchestration

I saw a show recently that clearly needed a bigger orchestra. Why didn't they use more musicians?

The thing most people don't realize is that the orchestrator has very little to say about the size of the orchestra. The number of musicians in a pit is usually determined by the producers and general manager of a show long before the orchestrator is hired. This number has to do with weekly running costs and what the producers feel they can spend per week on a show and still expect to make a profit over the long haul. Once hired, an orchestrator can say: "Look, you asked me to orchestrate for 12 but I really can't deliver the sound you want without 18." About half the time, if you're really,really persuasive, you can get a few additional players, but the other half of the time the powers-that-be will tell you that that's all the production can afford and that you must make it work with that number.

Living with that smaller number can be difficult, but sometimes you have no choice but to give in (for lots of reasons). It would be nice if you could also include a personal note to the NY TIMES in the production's program which said something like: "IT'S NOT MY FAULT! I REALLY DO KNOW BETTER!" But unfortunately you can't........!

GOT ANY QUESTIONS? EMAIL ME at
bruce AT SIGN brucecoughlin DOT com (you know what to do)
and I'll post questions of general interest.