There have been several concert versions of the stage show released on DVD over the years, and during lockdown lots of big musicals and plays were streamed on YouTube for free - including, I think, a concert version of Phantom.
I’m not a big fan of Phantom, and yes, it costs a fair bit to see it live (even more for the US now as it’s just closed on Broadway). But there are plenty of ways to see a recording inexpensively.
I'm a big fan of video/DVD when it comes to must-see classic films, plays or adaptations of literary classics. A lot of Dickens, for example, is far more digestible on screen than on the page.
The move by opera and ballet companies to do live-streams to cinemas has also been a boon to those of us who live in the sticks.
To get back to the discussion: I accept of course that there are things you can do in a studio or on a screen which you can't do anywhere else. But, as far as music, dance and theatre etc are concerned, of course, isn't there something special and more "personal" i having them performed by real live people in front of your very eyes, in the company of a group of people? (And does the "watching in a group" criterion also apply to films in a cinema?) My wife loves ballet and contemporary dance and, while it's great to see these on TV, they lose a lot if not seen live. That's partly, I think, because dance is a three-dimensional art form in which people move both across the stage but towards its front and back; and partly because the camera operator decides what we will see while our own eyes can flit around as we wish.
@Baptist Trainfan I actually find the latter part that you mention distracting, and find the focus of a dark cinema much more enjoyable. I've never seen any live dance and I don't think I would seek out either recorded or live dance, but for theatre vs film at least I don't think film is impersonal, it's just different. The editing and artifice is part of the enjoyment for me. But also, being recorded makes something physically accessible in a way live performances just can't be - recorded stage productions make theatre so much more accessible for instance.
For many people the choice is between watching a recorded version vs not watching it at all, not just due to financial reasons but because a theatre environment isn't necessarily physically manageable for many disabled people. Given the choice between something I can watch in bed at my own pace, and something I have to watch on a set date and time while sitting in an uncomfortable seat in a distracting environment, the former is always going to appeal more.
With live music tbh there is less of a difference for me simply because the music I listen to generally doesn't have a live band when performing anyway, so there's just less difference between live and recorded music.
Thanks and I do understand and appreciate all you say. (And, although you didn't say it, live audiences who cough and chatter and rustle can be very annoying - as can unavoidably tall people who restrict your view when you've paid £50 or more for the privilege!) However I still contend that watching an opera or a dance piece on screen - unless specifically devised for that medium - is inferior to watching it "live", although of course I accept that watching on screen may be the only option for many.
Clearly accessibility - both physical and economic - is a real issue, and I congratulate organisations which put on performances in public and outdoor spaces, accepting of course the limitations inherent in doing so. We are lucky at present as we have many high-quality performances available at significantly lower prices than London. In our last place there was much less "on" and travelling to London to see a performance was time-consuming and pricey.
To get back to the discussion: I accept of course that there are things you can do in a studio or on a screen which you can't do anywhere else. But, as far as music, dance and theatre etc are concerned, of course, isn't there something special and more "personal" i having them performed by real live people in front of your very eyes, in the company of a group of people?
Not for me, no. I only go to the cinema when there's something I want to see and don't feel like waiting for it to come to the telly streaming services.
Given the choice I’d prefer a live performance any day.
This is because I spend the majority of my working days in front of a flat screen. One thing I notice when I go outside is how incredibly 3-D everything looks, that there’s motion in all directions, and (after a day of working with black text on a white background) how much colour and movement there is in the world. Going to the theatre is to see a performance not only by the actors but also the way the lights are used to emphasize different parts of the stage, different moods, etc. – they can really create an atmosphere.
In short, a live performance feels more real than watching the same thing broadcast on a screen where you’re removed from that sense of reality by a glass barrier. Yes, audiences can be annoying, but at the same time, being there feels more special than just slumping in front of the telly in your own front room.
I don't go to the cinema these days because the volume levels seem to have gone up to deafening in recent years, but it was a large part of my childhood and I loved it then.
To get back to the discussion: I accept of course that there are things you can do in a studio or on a screen which you can't do anywhere else. But, as far as music, dance and theatre etc are concerned, of course, isn't there something special and more "personal" i having them performed by real live people in front of your very eyes, in the company of a group of people?
Not for me, no. I only go to the cinema when there's something I want to see and don't feel like waiting for it to come to the telly streaming services.
To get back to the discussion: I accept of course that there are things you can do in a studio or on a screen which you can't do anywhere else. But, as far as music, dance and theatre etc are concerned, of course, isn't there something special and more "personal" i having them performed by real live people in front of your very eyes, in the company of a group of people?
Not for me, no. I only go to the cinema when there's something I want to see and don't feel like waiting for it to come to the telly streaming services.
I will say that the issue I have with many current films is how bloody long they all seem to be - when Lord of the Rings came out a 3hr film was an anomaly, now it seems to be the norm. My bladder (and general physical comfort) doesn't appreciate this and would really like cinema intermissions to return.
To get back to the discussion: I accept of course that there are things you can do in a studio or on a screen which you can't do anywhere else. But, as far as music, dance and theatre etc are concerned, of course, isn't there something special and more "personal" i having them performed by real live people in front of your very eyes, in the company of a group of people?
Not for me, no. I only go to the cinema when there's something I want to see and don't feel like waiting for it to come to the telly streaming services.
To get back to the discussion: I accept of course that there are things you can do in a studio or on a screen which you can't do anywhere else. But, as far as music, dance and theatre etc are concerned, of course, isn't there something special and more "personal" i having them performed by real live people in front of your very eyes, in the company of a group of people?
Not for me, no. I only go to the cinema when there's something I want to see and don't feel like waiting for it to come to the telly streaming services.
Yeah, possibly; thing is though, I'd far sooner watch a cinematic version of Macbeth at home than go to see it at a theatre. For one thing, if I miss a bit (I find that my brain doesn't interpret Shakespeare's language quite as quickly as the lines are delivered) I can pause or rewind.
I will say that the issue I have with many current films is how bloody long they all seem to be - when Lord of the Rings came out a 3hr film was an anomaly, now it seems to be the norm. My bladder (and general physical comfort) doesn't appreciate this and would really like cinema intermissions to return.
Ironically the extended DVD releases of LotR do have an intermission (while you change discs).
I would, however, note that the 1959 Ben-Hur ran to 3 hr 42 min.
I will say that the issue I have with many current films is how bloody long they all seem to be - when Lord of the Rings came out a 3hr film was an anomaly, now it seems to be the norm. My bladder (and general physical comfort) doesn't appreciate this and would really like cinema intermissions to return.
Ironically the extended DVD releases of LotR do have an intermission (while you change discs).
I would, however, note that the 1959 Ben-Hur ran to 3 hr 42 min.
There was a time that roughly coincided with VHS where there were economic reasons for films being somewhat shorter, and average length has crept up somewhat since then. The bigger change has been in the length of the most popular/largest revenue films.
To get back to the discussion: I accept of course that there are things you can do in a studio or on a screen which you can't do anywhere else. But, as far as music, dance and theatre etc are concerned, of course, isn't there something special and more "personal" i having them performed by real live people in front of your very eyes, in the company of a group of people?
Not for me, no. I only go to the cinema when there's something I want to see and don't feel like waiting for it to come to the telly streaming services.
Yeah, possibly; thing is though, I'd far sooner watch a cinematic version of Macbeth at home than go to see it at a theatre. For one thing, if I miss a bit (I find that my brain doesn't interpret Shakespeare's language quite as quickly as the lines are delivered) I can pause or rewind.
I go both ways on this; I've watched filmed plays at home, as well as cinematic versions of some of Shakespeare's material, but have also occasionally enjoyed going to the theatre. In the latter case the medium was part of the message (with apologies to McLuhan). I too may rewind things if I'm watching them filmed, but there's also a separate experience of being caught up in the flow of language.
Similarly with music. I love recorded music, I also love recorded improvisational music, but at the same time there have been concerts I've enjoyed specifically because they were live and because they presented experiences I wouldn't have had otherwise. I don't think these things are either equivalent or mutually exclusive.
To get back to the discussion: I accept of course that there are things you can do in a studio or on a screen which you can't do anywhere else. But, as far as music, dance and theatre etc are concerned, of course, isn't there something special and more "personal" i having them performed by real live people in front of your very eyes, in the company of a group of people?
Not for me, no. I only go to the cinema when there's something I want to see and don't feel like waiting for it to come to the telly streaming services.
Yeah, possibly; thing is though, I'd far sooner watch a cinematic version of Macbeth at home than go to see it at a theatre. For one thing, if I miss a bit (I find that my brain doesn't interpret Shakespeare's language quite as quickly as the lines are delivered) I can pause or rewind.
Another important factor is the fact that it's much easier to have subtitles and visual adjustments (eg coloured filters or particular colours of subtitles) on recorded performances or cinematic versions.
Sky Arts seems to show a lot concerts by pop and rock artist who have a good reputation. I am not saying this is not art, but it does seem to be the most of what they put out. If not that then documentaries.
Sky Arts seems to show a lot concerts by pop and rock artist who have a good reputation. I am not saying this is not art, but it does seem to be the most of what they put out. If not that then documentaries.
Yeah, if we're going to consider channel names to be decisive we'd have to do some serious study of the History Channel's output.
Sky Arts seems to show a lot concerts by pop and rock artist who have a good reputation. I am not saying this is not art, but it does seem to be the most of what they put out. If not that then documentaries.
Yeah, if we're going to consider channel names to be decisive we'd have to do some serious study of the History Channel's output.
Or indeed TLC aka The Learning Channel, and MTV which hasn't shown music videos in a long time (in my teens it was already mostly bonkers dating shows like Next).
Going back to Hugal’s comment some distance upthread - not everybody learns about sport by osmosis. I’m Welsh and I’ve lived in Cardiff for about 85% of my life, but I know absolutely zero about the rules of rugby or football, never grasped netball either (I can just about comprehend hockey), have never attended a match of any description in my life and have no interest in doing so.
I know nothing about the culture. I don’t know whether you sit anywhere or if different sides get separated. I don’t have any idea what you can or can’t do during the match.
I wouldn’t completely rule out going to a match, but I’d rather go to pretty much any arts event of any description (with the possible exception of horror films). Or, for that matter, do a day’s work, clean the house, go to the dentist, or anything where I can actually see the point of it…
Going back to Hugal’s comment some distance upthread - not everybody learns about sport by osmosis. I’m Welsh and I’ve lived in Cardiff for about 85% of my life, but I know absolutely zero about the rules of rugby or football, never grasped netball either (I can just about comprehend hockey), have never attended a match of any description in my life and have no interest in doing so.
I know nothing about the culture. I don’t know whether you sit anywhere or if different sides get separated. I don’t have any idea what you can or can’t do during the match.
I wouldn’t completely rule out going to a match, but I’d rather go to pretty much any arts event of any description (with the possible exception of horror films). Or, for that matter, do a day’s work, clean the house, go to the dentist, or anything where I can actually see the point of it…
OK. But I bet you know that there are two teams who have to score at their opponents side and that the one with the most points wins. That’s what I mean
My city, Detroit, had a somewhat unique thing going on for a long time, where the art in the Detroit Institute of Arts was actually owned by the city. Sadly, when we went through bankruptcy, creditors thought we should sell the art to pay them back (talk about knowing the price but not the value!). Luckily, folks like my friend who oversees the collections were able to transfer the collections into a private "Friends of the DIA" nonprofit so they're safe. We have all but destroyed every vestige of the public square here in the US, and while we saved our art museum, it makes me sad that the art is no longer owned by the People.
That said, because the three local counties - Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb - all approved millage to support the museum, anyone who lives in those counties gets free admission. So that democratizes the art a good amount! As long as you can get there... Public transit is notoriously bad around here, in part because those very same counties, and other municipalities in Wayne County (where Detroit is located) have resisted connecting up with Detroit for longstanding racist & classist reasons. More classic USA....
At any rate (and this needed to be a separate comment), while speaking of democratizing art, if you've never seen this old YouTube series, The Art Assignment with Sarah Urist Green, check out https://youtube.com/@theartassignment
I'm going to the ROH tomorrow to watch The Marriage of Figaro. Very excited, as it's a favourite opera of mine, and I've never been to the ROH before - I had thought they would be very expensive but I somehow got a ticket for £16. Restricted view, but still.
I'm another one who much prefers seeing live perfomances, even while acknowledging the advangages of filmed versions. It feels bizarre that live screenings of operas at cinemas can cost more than seeing them live (depending which seat you get for the live version, of course).
Comments
There have been several concert versions of the stage show released on DVD over the years, and during lockdown lots of big musicals and plays were streamed on YouTube for free - including, I think, a concert version of Phantom.
I’m not a big fan of Phantom, and yes, it costs a fair bit to see it live (even more for the US now as it’s just closed on Broadway). But there are plenty of ways to see a recording inexpensively.
The move by opera and ballet companies to do live-streams to cinemas has also been a boon to those of us who live in the sticks.
No, I am talking about the one still in development. https://www.movieinsider.com/m19896/phantom
There are at least two other musical versions (Ken Hill and Maury Yeston) plus any number of non-musical treatments of the story.
For many people the choice is between watching a recorded version vs not watching it at all, not just due to financial reasons but because a theatre environment isn't necessarily physically manageable for many disabled people. Given the choice between something I can watch in bed at my own pace, and something I have to watch on a set date and time while sitting in an uncomfortable seat in a distracting environment, the former is always going to appeal more.
With live music tbh there is less of a difference for me simply because the music I listen to generally doesn't have a live band when performing anyway, so there's just less difference between live and recorded music.
Clearly accessibility - both physical and economic - is a real issue, and I congratulate organisations which put on performances in public and outdoor spaces, accepting of course the limitations inherent in doing so. We are lucky at present as we have many high-quality performances available at significantly lower prices than London. In our last place there was much less "on" and travelling to London to see a performance was time-consuming and pricey.
Not for me, no. I only go to the cinema when there's something I want to see and don't feel like waiting for it to come to the telly streaming services.
This is because I spend the majority of my working days in front of a flat screen. One thing I notice when I go outside is how incredibly 3-D everything looks, that there’s motion in all directions, and (after a day of working with black text on a white background) how much colour and movement there is in the world. Going to the theatre is to see a performance not only by the actors but also the way the lights are used to emphasize different parts of the stage, different moods, etc. – they can really create an atmosphere.
In short, a live performance feels more real than watching the same thing broadcast on a screen where you’re removed from that sense of reality by a glass barrier. Yes, audiences can be annoying, but at the same time, being there feels more special than just slumping in front of the telly in your own front room.
I don't go to the cinema these days because the volume levels seem to have gone up to deafening in recent years, but it was a large part of my childhood and I loved it then.
Thought @Baptist Trainfan wasn't talking about the films anyway ?
Many cinemas show recorded or even livestreamed theatrical and other live performances nowadays.
Yeah, but I don't think that's what @KarlLB was talking about given what he said already said about his tastes.
Yeah, possibly; thing is though, I'd far sooner watch a cinematic version of Macbeth at home than go to see it at a theatre. For one thing, if I miss a bit (I find that my brain doesn't interpret Shakespeare's language quite as quickly as the lines are delivered) I can pause or rewind.
Ironically the extended DVD releases of LotR do have an intermission (while you change discs).
I would, however, note that the 1959 Ben-Hur ran to 3 hr 42 min.
There was a time that roughly coincided with VHS where there were economic reasons for films being somewhat shorter, and average length has crept up somewhat since then. The bigger change has been in the length of the most popular/largest revenue films.
I go both ways on this; I've watched filmed plays at home, as well as cinematic versions of some of Shakespeare's material, but have also occasionally enjoyed going to the theatre. In the latter case the medium was part of the message (with apologies to McLuhan). I too may rewind things if I'm watching them filmed, but there's also a separate experience of being caught up in the flow of language.
Similarly with music. I love recorded music, I also love recorded improvisational music, but at the same time there have been concerts I've enjoyed specifically because they were live and because they presented experiences I wouldn't have had otherwise. I don't think these things are either equivalent or mutually exclusive.
Another important factor is the fact that it's much easier to have subtitles and visual adjustments (eg coloured filters or particular colours of subtitles) on recorded performances or cinematic versions.
Yeah, if we're going to consider channel names to be decisive we'd have to do some serious study of the History Channel's output.
Or indeed TLC aka The Learning Channel, and MTV which hasn't shown music videos in a long time (in my teens it was already mostly bonkers dating shows like Next).
I know nothing about the culture. I don’t know whether you sit anywhere or if different sides get separated. I don’t have any idea what you can or can’t do during the match.
I wouldn’t completely rule out going to a match, but I’d rather go to pretty much any arts event of any description (with the possible exception of horror films). Or, for that matter, do a day’s work, clean the house, go to the dentist, or anything where I can actually see the point of it…
OK. But I bet you know that there are two teams who have to score at their opponents side and that the one with the most points wins. That’s what I mean
That said, because the three local counties - Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb - all approved millage to support the museum, anyone who lives in those counties gets free admission. So that democratizes the art a good amount! As long as you can get there... Public transit is notoriously bad around here, in part because those very same counties, and other municipalities in Wayne County (where Detroit is located) have resisted connecting up with Detroit for longstanding racist & classist reasons. More classic USA....
I wonder why it's not called permillage.
I didn't actually know that was the meaning. Thanks.
Nice
The Tempest at the Minack would have been fab.
Amazing performance of Bernstein's "Candide" by Welsh Opera a couple of weeks ago. It's on tour, go and see it if you can.
Perfect. The unclouded Atlantic was the backdrop.
I only know the overture which fizzes along. I'm a big fan of Bernstein.
brilliant. very jealous.
It certainly did fizz - as did the whole show.
I'm another one who much prefers seeing live perfomances, even while acknowledging the advangages of filmed versions. It feels bizarre that live screenings of operas at cinemas can cost more than seeing them live (depending which seat you get for the live version, of course).