There’s a thread over in Cafe Society on this, but it’s more of a “I have tickets! Oh crap!” kind of thing. I’m reposting some of what I said over there because I think the discussion could be interesting, and this forum is better suited for discussing the “whys” rather than the “whats.”
I was wondering if anyone could justify (other than “because we can”) the union requirement that each theatre have a minimum number of musicians.
Because it sure seems to me to be a naked ploy to create unnecessary work for musicians. Say I have a theatre of a size that, under the union rules, calls for 15 musicians. Say further that I think my particular production will be just fine in this theatre with only 12 musicians. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to do so? Won’t the market punish me if the number of musicians isn’t enough to fill the theatre with quality music?
Furthermore, why shouldn’t I be allowed to use recorded music or synthesized music? Yeah, yeah, I know, “Broadway is all about doing things live” – but surely Broadway patrons are the more appropriate arbiters of that maxim. If they are bent on seeing live music, then productions that do not use live music will suffer.
Am I just missing something? What is the rationale here?
I don’t know if the “market” is going to take care of that. Without a union and an organized picket line, the patrons aren’t going to know that the music is “canned” until the show starts. I really believe that people enjoy live music more than pre-recorded or synthesized music, but they need to be educated. They’re not going to tell you it’s canned when you buy the ticket, so the musicians need to create awareness of the issue.
If you don’t set a minimum number of musicians in the contract, what is to stop the theater from using one musician, or zero musicians? The number has to be set somewhere. In reality it’s arbitrary - is 15 too many? 12? 10? - that’s why you have contract negotiations. Personally, I think there have been times when musicians have gotten too greedy and asked for too much - but I don’t think the solution is to put all musicians out of work. Most of us are barely scraping by, and have to have additional employment on the side just to make a living.
Nobody’s stopping them from using synthesized music. If patrons are o.k. with that, then they can walk through the picket line, no problem. But of course, if the actors are smart, they will support the musicians, because they realize that they too can just as easily be pared down to cut costs. So the theater is free to choose to go to canned music, but it can easily backfire on them.
And as for letting the patrons be the “arbiters”, I’m not convinced that they really have a choice. For example, I have friends who used to work in Las Vegas back when live music was everywhere. From what I understand, all the venues got together and pretty much overnight turned ALL the shows into canned music. Out of work musicians left town in droves. I don’t think the public ever got the chance to decide which they liked better. Your choice in Vegas now is pretty much: go to a show with canned music, or don’t go to a show.
Surely an interested patron can inquire as to whether the music will be live before plunking down his money. And surely press coverage of Broadway will include noting whether or not a given show will utilize live music. **
Why should the theatre be stopped from using a small number of musicians? If the number of instruments is insufficient to produce quality music, then the show will suffer and will close sooner rather than later. **
Obviously, all musicians will not be put out of work: there certainly are sufficient theatre afficianodoes who adore live music and are willing to pay a premium to hear it. And if there aren’t, so what? If that is the case, then clearly live music isn’t that important to theatre patrons. Why should a producer fork over money for a service that isn’t that important to his customers? **
Ha Ha Ha. **
We have productions where the actors are pared to cut costs. They are called “animated movies.” Beyond that, I don’t see how you cut actors – a play or musical has X number of speaking parts; you need an actor for each part. I guess you could cut down on background actors and chorus line types. But so what? The decision of how many chorus line girls to use, like the decision of how many musicians to use, is one of taste and rightfully belongs to the producer putting on the show. **
But that is the choice. If Vegas patrons are still going to shows, they obviously don’t care much as to whether the music is live or recorded. Why should a venue owner be forced to pay for services that aren’t important to his customers?
So you’d support a removal of the minimum number of musicians requirement as long as the lack of live music was prominently mentioned and made clear to purchasers before they bought their tickets?
That doesn’t sound like a very good idea. First of all, the theaters aren’t going to want to do it. The musician’s union would have to make some concessions in order to get it to happen, and for what? You want to put musicians out of work AND hurt ticket sales? Sounds like a lose-lose situation. Maybe we could just drop a bomb on Broadway. :rolleyes:
You miss the point entirely. The point is, you were saying (in part) that the live-musician requirement is appropriate because patrons might not be informed that the show uses recorded music. That is, you were appealing to a consumer-protection argument.
Bricker rightfully pointed out that as long as consumers are aware that a show does not use live music, then that argument goes away.
I seriously doubt that the fact that a performance uses recorded music could be kept secret, even before opening day. Broadway is extensively covered in the media, particularly the New York media. Reporters covering Broadway happenings would certainly make it a point to inquire as to whether a new show uses live or recorde music.
And frankly, a producer who is using live music will want to advertise that fact, for the same reason he wants to advertise when he gets a big star to perform on stage – because that will draw more patrons to his show, and fatten his wallet in turn.
It is a misnomer to suggest that consumers will not be aware of the live/recorded quality of a given show.
I hate to break it to you, but newspaper articles don’t magically write themselves. I don’t know why you think the musicians should allow only the management to present their side of the story to the press.
Let’s see: Show sucks; closes early; everyone’s out of work. Sounds great.:rolleyes:
Sorry, but I do not share your optimism.
Yes, that’s a very convincing argument you have presented.
No, it is quite obviously a matter of cost. It seems obvious that producers are bent on minimizing costs and maximizing profit. “Taste” seems to be taking a back seat. That’s their right, of course, but it is also the right of the performers to strike.
I disagree. They don’t have the choice of live or canned music; the choice is canned music or nothing. An inferior show may be better than no show at all, but it’s still inferior.
No, YOU miss the point. You’re trying to take this to some morally abstract level. The performers know that shows will be inferior without live music, and they picket to raise public awareness of the issue. You seem to want the performers to just leave everything up to the “will of the public”, and allow the theater management to do whatever they want. Were that the case, I have no doubt that the performers would be working 12-hour days for minimum-wage. That’s why they have a union. Nothing is stopping the theaters from doing all-scab shows. They just know that the shows would suck and people would stop going to them.
But his method of informing the consumers is ridiculous.
The reason it is “extensively covered” in the media is because the union is on the phone to those reporters giving them the story. And the theater management is on the phone to the reporters giving their side of the story as well. I don’t understand why you think one side should just lie down and let the other side run over them.
Bullshit. Show me one marquee for a Vegas show that discloses the fact that they use canned music. How many times have you called to order tickets, and have them volunteer the information that there is no live music? People are aware of it because they are MADE aware of it. It doesn’t just magically happen.
See, now, I don’t think it seems obvious at all that “producers are bent on minimizing costs and maximizing profit.” As an example, there is no minimum number of actors that need be employed by any given theatre, right? But that didn’t stop the producers of RAGTIME from assembling a massive ensemble, at least 50 (I can’t recall the exact number) - far more than were literally called for in the script. Furthermore, if we’re to believe that Broadway producers are philistines who would gladly cut the number of musicians as much as possible if not for the minimums, then how to explain the shows - there aren’t many, but there are some - that carry more players than their house minimum requires?
The point that Dewey seems to be making is this: yes, live music is preferable. If a given producer begins using canned music to an extent that it harms the show, or cuts the orchestra to a point where the quality of the music is lessened, his or her shows, relative to shows of equal quality that use live music, will be unsuccessful. That producer will cease to be a producer, at least on the Broadway level, in pretty short order. The most successful producers have never been known for parsimony; can you really imagine Cameron Mackintosh, who throws around money like water on extravagant falling chandelier effects, begrudging a second violin player if Jonathan Tunick writes it into a score?
But the thing is, say Mackintosh produces a small Sondheim show on Broadway, one whose orchestration calls for, say, a ten piece orchestra, and he wants to use one of the houses with a high minimum. Under the present system, he’s going to have to pay musicians who don’t play (I love the euphemism: “walkers”), driving up his daily nut. So what does he do? Raises the ticket prices, or closes the show altogether, if the numbers don’t work out.
Why not simply tie the minimum to the author’s specifications? If somebody writes “The Fantasticks II,” to feature a piano, harp, and drum, make the minimum number of musicians for that production three. If Lloyd Webber ever gets “Whistle Down the Wind” to Broadway, and has it scored for forty instruments, require the producer to hire that many players.
Who’s talking about press coverage of the sides of this dispute? Not me. I’m talking about press coverage of upcoming shows. Articles about such shows will certainly note whether or not the music is live, just as it notes who the leading actors are and who the music’s composer is.**
You forgot: new producer comes along, learns lesson from failed production, makes appropriate changes, and is a smash success.
Look, that’s the way the market works. If you start a clothing store and people don’t like your clothing, you go out of business, presumably to be replaced by some business that does cater to what its customers actually want. Why should Broadway be any different? **
Then you disagree with the proposition that there are many theatre patrons who will demand live music? If that’s the case, why should there be live music in the first place? If the customers don’t care, why should anyone else?
Why should musicians be entitled to work when the theatregoing public doesn’t find live music to be important? **
It was appropriate, as your argument was laughable. The whole point of the picket line is to prevent the use of recorded music. And demanding that Broadway patrons cross a picket line – an intimidating prospect at best – to evidence their desire for recorded music is just silly. **
“Taste” is best judged by the theatregoing public.
And while the musicians have the right to strike peaceably, their argument is nothing more than “we want to be paid for jobs our customers do not think is necessary.”
God, I wish other areas worked like this. I was laid off a few months ago from my law firm due to lack of work in my area of expertise. It’d be nice if I could say to them “sorry, but you must hire a minimum of X number of attorneys, regardless of whether that number is justified by the demands of your clients.” Why should Broadway get to work differently? **
If the patrons feel they are getting a bad deal, then they can not attend shows in Vegas. They can gamble or golf or go out to eat or pick up hookers or whatever. Obviously, live music isn’t that important to the Vegas scene, because if it was some chipper young producer would use live music and advertise that fact, stealing patrons from his competition.
Again: I am not referring to the current dispute when I refer to media coverage.
I am referring to the day-to-day coverage of the Broadway scene: what actor is signed to perform in which new shows which were written by which composer. Surely that coverage will include information about live versus recorded music. The beat reporters covering that area would be remiss in their duties if their articles neglected such basic information. **
The marquee is not the only source of information about a production; indeed, if you want to know more than the title and (maybe) the names of one or two of the key performers, you will not look at the marquee as your source of information. If you are seriously interested in whether a show will have live music or recorded music, you will inquire at the box office, or read newspaper articles covering the theatre, or check the reviews of new shows when the open.
Basically, the question boils down to: Why is Broadway operating under such a restricted free market model?
Let me ask you why NBA owners cannot hire and fire players and coaches at will. Why do they have guaranteed contracts over a long period of time? It comes down to power. The players union has the upper hand. ISTM, the musicians union has the upper hand here. I don’ think there is a fundamental difference in the market for apparel or lawyers and the market for Broadway musicals.
But do you think any orchestrators are going to score shows for forty instruments, knowing that theaters are unlikely to produce them? No, we will just have a situation where shows will all be minimally scored. In the 50’s, shows were all scored for full orchestra. Now, single winds and maybe strings are used, sometimes one on a part. It’s not hard to see the trend. I don’t know about “Whistle Down the Wind”, but Webber generally scores pretty lightly. They don’t use 40 players when they do his shows.
I think you guys might have a good case for reducing the minimums, given the high costs of producing a show, but I think it’s naive to think that if the musician’s union lets them completely eliminate the minimums, that they aren’t going to get aced out completely.
[sarcasm]
And of course an artist will always practice his art in the most economic and profitable way possible. That’s why James Cameron built a 3/4 scale model of the Titanic, because it was cost-efficient. Whenever I create art, I myself always approach it from an economic standpoint, because creative freedom is so over-rated.
[/sarcasm]
Can I ask a potentially stupid question? What’s wrong with “because we can” as a justification? That’s why my pizza guy charges $1.60 for a slice, and that’s why my employment contract reads the way it does. Heck, it’s why Broadway tickets cost what they do?
Here, we’ve got an oligopoly producer (hah!) negotiating in good faith with an oligopoly or near-monopoly labor source. Last time, those negotiations resulted in a minimum-musician requirement. This time, there’s a strike and the outcome is uncertain.
Why is that bad? Are producers to be the only price-setters in the world?
Well, when all the other unions, unaffected by the contract in dispute, also strike, that’s the sort of collusion that, in my view, should be outlawed.
Just my opinion. Certainly what they’re doing is now legal.
I actually have less of a problem with “because we can” as a justification than you probably think. I just wish they’d be honest about it. Amazingly, in all the public statements by the union and the striking musicians, I’ve never once heard one of them justify their position on the pure self-interest grounds of creating unnecessary jobs.
I know someone who had a play on Broadway many years ago. (I won’t say the title but trust me, you never heard of it.) It was a play, not a musical, and in fact there was no music at all. Yet the union rules still required three musicians to be present. They played cards in the back. That’s the kind of thing that gives unions a bad name.
You really think they are going to get “aced out” completely? You feel the demand of showgoers to see live music on Broadway is so low that they will support pre-recorded shows alone? No one will say, “man, I wish there was a live show I could attend”? No new producer will recognise this demand for live music and create a show featuring musicans in the flesh? Not even one?
I put it to you that the demand for live music is sufficient to support an optimum amount of live performers. Placing restrictions on the supply of pre-recorded music (ie, minimum musican requirements) artificially inflates the amount of musicians the industry must support. The result is inefficient pricing and a stagnant market.
If, however, you feel the demand for live musicians is LESS than the current supply… so what? Give the audience what they want. Union action in this case serves to deny consumer choice.
Information asymmetry is one consideration (ie, whether theatre-goers will realise that they are paying for pre-recorded music), but I believe Dewey Cheatem Undhow has covered that one already.
