Two Articles about the Sound Design for 'Hamilton'

[paulears]

John - I was being ironic. B-)

[Jevans]

You, ironic? Never. http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

 

(Seriously, though, I'm not sure how well a schools/amateur version would fare - difficult enough to find decent singers at school but I can't imagine there will be many who can reach the standard required in rap...)

[the kid]

I don't think "we" will see it here, we might be I don't see how it can capture the English audience in the way it has america. I hear it is very founding fathers and for want of a better phrase - American.

 

It might turn up here for a run but I don't think it will last. However it might show a new era or musical which will be fun.

[Ynot]

I don't think "we" will see it here, we might be I don't see how it can capture the English audience in the way it has america. I hear it is very founding fathers and for want of a better phrase - American.

 

It might turn up here for a run but I don't think it will last. However it might show a new era or musical which will be fun.

 

Coughs....

 

http://www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/news/hamilton-will-arrive-in-west-end-october-2017_40954.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=13jun2016

 

Having seen many clips now, sadly, I find the image of period dressed cast lurching around the stage amusing. Something that belongs in the Producers. Lovely set, great costumes, brilliant lighting, and ludicrous mismatched content. It's clear why it's a hit. Can't wait for the schools version. Actually, it might be good for the industry because it might mean the whooping, yelling and shouting members of the audiences in conventional shows might go and see it instead of spooling the atmosphere in the 'normal' shows.

 

Grumpy old man mode engaged accidentally, sorry.

Have to say that I myself am more than a tad bemused... Curious to see what the fuss is about I had a gander around Youtube and found some clips and a piece on the origins of the show...

 

Soooo... I was sort of expecting a similar treatment of an historical topic to that we know in Les Mis and the like....

 

So my surprise at the founding fathers of the US being treated to the HIP HOP genre was a bit of a shock...!

And one that rather jars with me - it really doesn't float my boat to be honest.

 

 

 

 

[Jevans]

I'm also not a huge fan of the musical style, but I think it's good to see some variation and innovation, and that the backers were willing to take the risk on an unusual show. A little more variety is always good if it brings in new punters!

[andy_s]

You, ironic? Never. http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

 

(Seriously, though, I'm not sure how well a schools/amateur version would fare - difficult enough to find decent singers at school but I can't imagine there will be many who can reach the standard required in rap...)

I think you'll find that in sarf london there are plenty of 14yr olds who can rap at 200 words per minute. Maybe they aren't attending the stage schools / saturday morning musical theatre classes...

[cedd]

Hamilton has been on my Spotify playlist for a few weeks now, and I remembered this topic (very interesting couple of articles - particularly the first one!).

 

 

I'm sticking my neck out here, and I'm definitely no hip hop or rap fan, but I actually really like Hamilton. I don't class myself as being particularly down with the kids when it comes to contemporary music, but I genuinely like almost all of the songs in the show. Whilst it's certainly not your stock musical theatre sound, I also think they've worked pretty hard to musicaltheatre-ise hip hop enough that it's pallet-able. Unfortunately a lot of the youtube clips focus on the big musical numbers which don't do the show's story telling too much justice. Instead take a listen to The Schuyler Sisters, A Winter's Ball and particularly the finale Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story.

I certainly see the appeal, but I completely get that a lot of people won't. I think for me the most refreshing thing is that rap and hip hop is actually being done well rather than being a gimmick. I've sat through enough shows (particularly by a certain my Lloyd Webber) which are chock full of differing musical styles and can end up, if the director's not too careful, feeling a bit cheesy.

 

Just a different viewpoint

[david.elsbury]

Have you heard 'In The Heights ' ?

[kurzweil_dude]

I think for me the most refreshing thing is that rap and hip hop is actually being done well rather than being a gimmick.

Unlike the current version of Cats. Rum Tum Tugger - the "Street" cat. Absolute cringe.

 

Have you heard 'In The Heights ' ?

Or Seen it! Gareth Owen design in London. Sounds amazing for the space. Difficult presentation in that Audience sit both sides of the stage (Theatres on the Train Track). Works really well. I just kept getting lost during all the Spanish..

[cedd]

I haven't seen In The Heights, but I know that if Gareth Owen designed it, it'll sound good. I've sat in the Railway Children theatre up in York (very similar) and wondered how on earth you'd get on with a louder show in there. I'd assume the place has very poor gain before feedback.

My biggest cringe is the new (new new, not new) Starlight Express currently being done by schools. At least with the old (new!) one each character had a musical style and it complemented (what there was of) the story. The latest one just merged in to a blur of hip hop/techno/whatever. I can only guess what a street Rum Tum Tugger sounds like! One of my favourite numbers from the show and he holds the whole thing together too!

 

But yes, back to Hamilton. My first reaction to the picture in the first article was "flipping heck, look at that lighting rig!". I mean seriously, how much gear is in the air in that rig!

Also, having used one of those Meyer subs to fill the local 1500 seat receiving house, they've got a hell of a lot of bottom end on that show!

[Bobbsy]

Hmmmm...

 

Reading the first link, I came across this section:

 

Steinberg and his colleagues decided to run the whole system at a 96kHz sample rate (up from 48kHz), which results in extremely high-fidelity sound reproduction. This allows the system to be remarkably clear (so the audience can hear every word of the dense hip-hop raps) and highly dynamic—both the quiet moments and the loud moments are extremely clear, with no distortion.

 

“It’s about resolution,” said Steinberg. “It’s like megapixels on a camera. More megapixels means higher resolution. There are that many more samples being taken per second, which means that when you put them back together there’s less space between them, so it’s more accurate. The sound is clearer, it’s cleaner, and it carries more of the original content through the sound system than it would at lower sample rates.”

 

Far be it for me to criticise a designer who's done the hottest show in town, but...this shows he doesn't have much knowledge of the Nyquist theory or how digital audio works if he's thinking in terms of the "space between samples".

 

Still, nobody's asked me to do a Broadway show so I should shut up.

[Shez]

I thought that too. But I'll shut up for the same reason :)

[Simon Lewis]

Far be it for me to criticise a designer who's done the hottest show in town, but...this shows he doesn't have much knowledge of the Nyquist theory or how digital audio works if he's thinking in terms of the "space between samples".

 

You can, however, guarantee that this easily remembered, easily quoted misunderstanding will sink into the general consciousness of aspiring sound designers and non technically oriented training courses. Any attempt to correct such inaccuracies will be met with derision and "what do you know about sound that this Broadway designer doesn't?"... :-)

 

 

 

[DrV]

Although I only have smattering of knowledge about Nyquist theory and do understand that the description was technically inaccurate, I think it was a perfectly reasonable analogy if it was for consumption by a non technical audience. After all, there are no gaps between the pixels on a digital camera either but the meaning was clear enough - more bits means higher definition. (Bits in both senses of the word)

[timsabre]

Although I only have smattering of knowledge about Nyquist theory and do understand that the description was technically inaccurate, I think it was a perfectly reasonable analogy if it was for consumption by a non technical audience. After all, there are no gaps between the pixels on a digital camera either but the meaning was clear enough - more bits means higher definition. (Bits in both senses of the word)

 

I think the question is whether the 2nd part of the quote is true - "The sound is clearer, it’s cleaner, and it carries more of the original content through the sound system than it would at lower sample rates". The Nyquist theory says not. I wonder if they did proper double-blind tests to determine if the extra "definition" was really discernible in the audience.