Interim is finishing up this weekend at school, so I thought I’d touch on a few of the highlights from the more technical lectures I attended.
Lightwright 4
I was incredibly lucky to spend an afternoon with John McKernon and hear him discuss some of the ins and outs of Lightwright. It was kind of nice to hear some of the reasons behind our favorite LW4 qwerks. So here is a small selection of some things I found interesting:
• If you expect to transfer files between MAC and PC, forget using the ° symbol in instrument names as it does not always transfer the degree symbol because of ASCII values.
• Lightwright was actually created before Excel ever came out. I think a lot of people don’t know this, and might explain any frustration people have between the two programs.
• When is the next Lightwright coming out?
It has been a while since LW4 came out, but there are a variety of factors that affect LW 5’s release. Primarily the coding language for the program has changed, and John has started rewriting the 180,000 lines of code from the ground up again. He’s about ½ way through it.
• If you have spare units. Make sure to set their channel numbers all to 0. This way the lights will not be linked together. Example: If you listed them all as channels S1-S15 or all as channel 1000. If you delete any one of those lights, you potentially can delete all of them.
• If you record focus information like a shutter cut or bream focus, and you want to reset the field easily, just click the word associated with it…such as beam, SL, Top, Bot etc…
• For PC users, hold Ctrl-Shift to get the copy paintbrush tool.
SFX 6
This is basically a new program from Stage Research. Forget anything you ever learned in SFX 5.6. The entire program has been rewritten from the base up. It has gone through a huge facelift which has made it a much more flexible and desirable program. I am not going to go into that many of the new features in the program. (If you’re interested check out this LD article about it Click ) All I am saying is, if you are going to upgrade to SFX 6, be ready for something brand spanking new.
When Chris Ackerland was going on stage to do his presentation to the BLMC, it was joked that his lecture will be on the topic of “Lighting Designer As A Human Being.” That term got me thinking, and I realized that a feel for what sort of people work in the Broadway Design industry is one of the most valuable things that I had a chance to learn at the Master Classes. Some of the designers who spoke managed to give very academic lectures. Some, however, went off on personal and socially descriptive tangents. I feel that the most open speakers this year were Chris Ackerland, Brian MacDevitt, and Kevin Adams
Chris seemed to have a very organic approach to his design ethic. He spoke about several shows on which he worked recently: Light in the Piazza, Talk Radio, and 110 in the Shade. In all of these projects, the collaborative relationships in the pre-production and tech periods of the show seemed to be very important to him. Chris seemed like a very easygoing person for whom the relationships and communication between everyone on the production and creative team is very important. He acknowledges his good shows (Piazza) and some bad shows (In My Life) freely. He seems to have a great attention to detail and be mostly concerned about the overall cohesive look of the production. I came out thinking that Chris is someone who I would like to work with or assist.
Brian MacDevitt began the lecture about visual inspiration for lighting design by telling us a little bit about his personal history. He said that he was not very academically oriented in high school and had to undergo many obstacles in order to get his bachelor‘s degree at Purchase College, where he came back to teach. I got the feeling that, because it had been so difficult for him to get into school, he developed a great attachment to the academic process of theatre. Thus in terms of design–and the images which he showed, which were all brilliant examples of lighting depicted in art–Brian‘s approach to doing a show is also very academic. By that, I mean that he would go out, find the appropriate piece of research that resembled his conceptual idea, and then go about recreating it. This is an approach which is very challenging and meticulous, but the one question that I did not get to ask him is whether he would ever use an image that does not have lighting in it as a piece of research, not for its, informative value but purely as an evocative tool–something to communicate the general mood that is the goal of the design.
Kevin Adams, who came in to speak about his design for Spring Awakening, our show for the Lighting Master Classes this year, came off as the most impressive personality to me. He was the first Broadway designer whom I have heard speaking who presented himself as a visual artist primarily. Kevin began his lecture by talking about how installation artist such as Bruce Nauman and Dan Flavin–who worked with fluorescent light and neon tubes to create their pieces in the late sixties and seventies–served as an inspiration to him in his switch to becoming a lighting designer and abandoning his set design career born at Cal Arts. Kevin says that he approaches a show in primarily visual means and that he considers his job to be mainly creating beautiful images that work to advance the plot as well as aesthetic of the show. He makes bold choices in cueing (the movement of conventionals is just as drastic as that of intelligent lights), timing (his bumps don‘t just come at the ending and beginning of songs), color choices, and most of all, his use of practicals. Kevin showed us a lot of his portfolio and spoke to the fact that he is known for his implementation of lighting fixtures such as light bulbs, fluorescent tubes, neon, LEDs, and practical fixtures in elegant and sculptural installation like combinations. These installations serve the lighting rig, the set design, and the dramatic action all in one. Collaboration is important to him, as well, since he has the scenic designer lay out his fixture installations in projects such as Spring Awakening or the back wall of Passing Strange.
All in all, this year‘s class has been a great experience. I feel that I have acquired a lot of technical and theoretical knowledge about design, but I also feel that I have gotten to know some of the people in the illusive design community of Broadway. It was great to see these designers as people and think about how their personalities are reflected in the look of the shows that I have seen them collaborate on. Broadway or not, in terms of arts and aesthetics, it is still just as much about who you are as it is about whom and what you know.
What a show….. Mingle with the Broadway folks… Great conversations.
It’s our first time for Clear-Com. Hard to imagine considering how long we’ve been at this intercom gig. Seeing the young and “older” at the Master Classes and the enthusiasm they bring made my weekend. More important, if you listen, even an old feller like me will learn something.
The future is bright on Broadway… I know, I saw it at the Broadway Master Sound Classes!
Did you go to the seminars at Live Design BSMC? ……. I not only gave a little chat on Saturday, but I attended all of the seminars and discussions on Saturday and Sunday. I had a blast and met some really great young/future sound designers. This was a fabulous weekend and I hope you get to talk to someone who was able to attend and share the knowledge that wafted around. Thanks guys for sharing all your thoughts and thank you to the manufacuterers that attended.
The Broadway Sound Master Classes have, as always, been a blast. Got here Thursday night to see Spring Awakening, and then saw The Pirate Queen the next night. Couldn’t have seen two more different shows, and having Brian Ronan and Jonathan Deans talk to us at the BSMC in the last couple of days about the designs really drove home the significance of the differences in the aesthetic required by each of the sound designs. Jonathan Deans put it best in his program notes for The Pirate Queen when he talked about the great lengths he went to in each show to find the unique qualities that each show demanded in his sound design. In person at the BSMC, one could easily see how his animated style of public speaking and sheer joy for his work translates directly to his art. Nevin Steinberg and Tom Clark presented a completely different aesthetic when they described Acme Sound Partners “transparent” approach to their designs, and I remember how thrilling and appropriate that was in last year’s BSMC visit to Drowsy Chaperone. Brian Ronan, who has three of his shows nominated for best musical (sorry, still no Tony’s for sound design, so this is as close to an award as we’ll get for the moment) brought yet another aesthetic to the table–and, that sound “aesthetic” certainly seems to be driving the buzz for Spring Awakening and its 11 Tony Award nominations. I could’t help but think back to Abe Jacob’s Hair, and how that musical transformed Broadway many years ago. After hearing these sound designers talk about their art, it’s so hard to understand why the rest of the industry doesn’t get it–”it” being the difference between sound as an art form, and the technology and engineering required to pull it off.
Rick Thomas, lost in his blogging.
Speaking of the engineering and technology, Todd Meijer illuminated MAPP online for us all, and then Meyer Sound illuminated us all at their cocktail reception for the BSMC. How cool is it that they continue to be such strong supporters of theatre sound for so many years! The manufacturer’s showcases have been great, and I got Jim Piftizinger to show me around the new Midas digital console. Lots of interesting innovation in that one. Gotta run now, though. John Taylor from d&b Audioteknik is getting ready to do his sound system design presentation, and even though I’ve seen it before, it’s one I enjoy seeing again and again–besides being very clear and easy to understand, John’s one of the most entertaining presenters in the business. Gotta go….the show’s about to start!
