My first impression of this article was a bit skeptical.. The author wants to discover and understand the “mystery of the theatre” so that he can attempt to “order it into a science.” Really? That seems pretty ambitious, to be talking about analyzing the entire realm and history of theatre in less than a thousand words. But on I read.
The bit about German studios attempting to recreate and improve upon “natural” sounds with synthetic ones really intrigued me. I have had a small amount of experience with amateur/independent recording (my best friend and I made a record back in 2008) and I always wondered why it never quite sounded “real” enough, no matter how much we tried to balance out the master track. Turns out we didn’t have enough synthetic “dirt” in our music (most of it is MIDI and electronic, and the real instruments were minimally amplified).
.jpg)
This was a really interesting analogy to use. It really helped me to see the author’s point; that the visceral theatre experience can be tainted by a contrived unity of style. It seems I overestimated the author’s initial claims. The final sentence was what really hit the nail on the head for me. Reading (and acting out in English class) Waiting For Godot was one of the strangest experiences for me, but the fact that a fresh pair of eyes and ears could appreciate that performance is interesting. Perhaps “seeing it like a baby” is what a theatrical experience is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment