Hall size (was tuned front duplexes)

[Phillip L Ford]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:00:25  
 Delwin D Fandrich wrote:
>

>The difficulty most business-type hall managers give for wanting larger
>halls is, of course, financial. Theoretically a hall seating 3,000 people
>can generate four time more revenue than a hall seating only 750. Still, the
>large halls seem to be constantly in financial trouble. At least they seem
>to be constantly in need of financial assistance from various government
>and/or business donors. I wonder what the economic facts of life are for
>halls of various sizes really are. Do the costs also increase by a factor of
>four? Or are they higher? Or lower? How about real vs. potential revenue? I
>should think it would be harder to consistently fill a 3,000 seat hall than
>it would be a 750 seat hall.

-----
I suspect that a 3000 seat hall is not four times as expensive to operate as
a 750 seat hall on paper.  The cost per seat is lower assuming all seats filled, and
filled as often as they would be with the smaller hall (which seem like two pretty big
assumptions).  This is probably why they get built in the first place.  As with so many other things these days the cost seems to be the overriding factor.  What often seems not to
be accounted for are other  factors, to which it is perhaps difficult or impossible to assign
a dollar value.  If it doesn't have a dollar value it must not be worth considering right?
It's harder to fill a large
hall consistently as you point out.  The list of performers that can be booked gets smaller
as the hall gets larger since you need someone who can draw a large audience.  The
acoustics suffer, etc.  And the money first attitude isn't confined to the hall managers.  Many
performers have it too.  They are stars.  They demand astronomical fees which can only be
made by filling a large hall or setting outrageous ticket prices or both.  The idea of giving a
meaningful or satisfying musical performance is secondary.  I do wonder if an impresario
who chose to use a small hall which he filled consistently and more often than a large hall
using good performers who were not stars and would accept a reasonable fee would make more
money than the one who infrequently booked stars into a large hall.  It's hard to say since
I don't know of anyone doing it.  I would think this might be fertile ground for a manufacture
that wants to associate their pianos with artists.  All the manufacturers who want to do this
seem to be taking the route of building their own 9 ft piano and trying to take market share
from the Steinway C & A program in the large halls with the famous artists.  Perhaps instead
of beating their heads against a wall they might try this approach instead.
>
>I mentioned seating capacities of 500 to 750 simply because these are the
>approximate sizes of the halls at several schools I used to service pianos
>for some years back. There was nothing architecturally special about them
>yet their acoustics were quite nice. I'm not all that knowledgeable about
>building acoustics but it seems to me it is much easier to come up with an
>acoustically excellent small hall than it is to come up with and
>acoustically acceptable large hall.

----
That is my experience.  It seems hard to ruin a small hall but it seems difficult to
come up with a good large hall.
----
>
>These smaller facilities were (relatively) economical to build. They didn't
>require large permanent staffs to maintain, set up and prepare for use. They
>weren't excessively expensive to heat and/or cool. Everyone had a 'good'
>seat, that is they could all clearly (and closely) see the performer. And
>everyone could hear the full dynamics of the performance. Even those seated
>well back. After all, with rows 25 seats wide the last row back in a hall
>seating 750 people is still only row 30. Offsetting all of the positives
>were their somewhat smaller and less elaborate stages which probably did
>limit the types and sizes of productions they could accommodate. Though they
>all had them, these halls didn't really need 9' pianos. I worked in two of
>them that several times brought in 7' pianos for duo-piano works and the
>smaller pianos did just fine. Much larger and the 9' piano becomes nearly
>mandatory. And, I think, the acoustics becomes some trickier.

----
Yes, the small hall would seem to have many advantages.  One of its drawbacks (if it
is a drawback) is that the stage area is necessarily limited.  You're probably not going
to accomodate a modern large orchestra in a hall of this size.  But you can accomodate
everything else - instrumental or vocal, jazz, pop, or classical.  You can even accomodate
a smaller orchestra (chamber orchestra) or an opera performance with minimal sets and
a small pit orchestra.  The fact that you can't
accomodate a large orchestra I think is one of the reasons we have these large halls.  So
much of the available musical life in many American cities centers around the symphony
that the community spends a huge amount of money to build a hall to accomodate it.  Then
that hall is expected to serve for everything.
----
>
>So. Shall we start a movement, or what?
>
>Del
>
---
Let's do.  I wonder how to start.  Perhaps the idea I gave above of approaching a manufacturer
about doing a 'small hall series' or a '7 ft concert series' might be one approach.  I'm open
to suggestions.

Phil
>