A response to my 'Urinetown' review
The Fresno State theater department brought us a very fine production of "Urinetown" last month. My biggest disappointment was the sound quality of the show. In my opening-night review, I described the sound design as "terrible" and singled out guest sound designer Walter T.J. Clissen, an assistant professor of sound design at the University of South Carolina, for criticism. He writes in a June 12 response:
The sound problems that you heard opening night were equipment and live mixing issues, and not design. Sadly, technical issues arise from time to time during live performances that are difficult and sometimes impossible to rectify immediately. I understand that the rest of the run was problem-free and that the mixing and equipment issues were resolved. Unfortunately, you were there on a night when there were these technical problems. I am pleased that you were able to return and see/hear a performance where the show sounded as it was designed and intended. It was a pleasure working at Fresno State and I look forward to someday working with them again.
On the jump: A couple of points in reply.
1. In my book, the sound designer is ultimately responsible for the sound, whether it be equipment, design or personnel.
2. I did return to the show a week later and thought the sound was much improved, but there were still issues with clarity and individual singers being overpowered by the live musicians.
Comments:
i agree, the mix and equipment used has to all be taken into consideration by the sound designer and that designer will have to do their best with what they have...whomever may be podding that sound on the board on a given night and their appitude to follow the instructions or levels set by the designer and TD is another issue. This may have been part of the Urine problem.
Posted by: adam at June 13, 2008 3:04 PM
Ooo... I don't know about that. I fault the department, actually-- why bother to spend the money on a quality sound designer if your equipment isn't going to be able to do anything? Could they not use some of that money to rent some better equipment?
Posted by: Elizabeth at June 16, 2008 8:03 AM
To Elizabeth: This is a gray area, sure. Does the general get the sack for an error made by one of his lieutenants? But from what I can tell, the sound issues in "Urinetown" were not just about equipment, but also human error. I guess the main point for me is that the critic (or by extension the audience) doesn't have any idea of the back story of a theater production: not that the star is sick, not that someone spilled coffee all over the props at the dress rehearsal; not that the budget was small. The only thing to judge is the show. And if the sound is bad, the sound designer takes the fall. I agree that the department needs to take a good look at its equipment needs. As I wrote in my review, I also believe that the Fresno State theater department needs to do a musical more than every other year, not just to give its students a well-rounded education and a leg up in an extremely competitive job market (look at the number of musicals produced these days vs. straight plays) but also to develop the infrastructure and expertise to put on quality productions without having to reinvent the wheel each time.
Posted by: Donald Munro at June 17, 2008 10:53 AM
Post a comment
(read the comment policy before posting)