Sweetie, I’ve explained the rationale for why the press will include information on whether the music is live or canned repeatedly. You’re response has been essentially “Lalalalala, I can’t hear you, lalalalala.” You are just flat out refusing to address the point I (and now, storyteller) have made about media coverage. If you want to be wilfully obtuse, that’s your prerogative, but expect me to call you on it. **
Nor did I say definitively that you had; I thought your response to storyteller’s example was sufficiently close to an accusation of lying that your meaning required clarification.
I’m sorry, blowero, but I must throw my lot in with Dewey Cheatem Undhow on this first issue. Your demand for citations to “prove” that, absent a strike, reviews would mention canned music vs. live music in a production was … obstinate, at best.
One reason I asked about your personal preference for music in musicals was in an effort to discern how many reviews of Broadway shows you read in a season. I suspect, based on your dialog here, it’s not many. If you were a theatre veteran, you’d know that reviewers typically go into all sorts of detail about shows, and that canned music would undoubtedly be mentioned. Demanding a cite to prove this point does not suggest a familiarity with the musical theatre world.
I also suspect - sadly - that the majority of theatre-goers would not be savvy enough to notice a difference between canned and live music. There are many that would, and I count myself among them, but I’ve been to hundreds of shows, and I can tell you I see in the audience… many, perhaps most, of the audience are not sophisticated or educated in the musical theatre world. I remember mooing one night during Maureen’s performance art piece in Rent, and being indignantly hushed by the lady behind me; she couldn’t quite comprehend that we were SUPPOSED to moo.
I don’t doubt you. But is the alternative to eliminate minimums altogether, bearing in mind that the major venues have threatened to go to tape or “virtual orchestra” as bargaining leverage? Surely your wife knows that many non-union venues have in fact done just that. To tell you the truth, I’m no big fan of the AFM; I think they get a little too big for their britches at times. But I don’t see how that’s a case for saying the management should be able to just do whatever they feel like. Frankly, I’m puzzled by the idea some people seem to have that theaters are some sort of benevolent entities that will automatically do what’s right, and only reduce the orchestra size when it “sounds better”. For the most part, shows do not sound better with fewer musicians; they are done that way to save money. They’re gambling that the public is going to hear that twangy synthesizer sound instead of a rich string sound (or what have you), and not realize what’s missing. And that’s their right, of course - but it’s also rightly a negotiating point. Musicians can say “O.K., you can use a pared-down orchestra, but we want overtime after X hours, or we want mileage for driving to the job, or we want you to pay X dollars into the health & welfare fund”, or whatever. Why should they have to give up job security AND give up their right to negotiate other things in exchange for loss of job security? I think the issue here is really whether the AFM is going too far, NOT whether minimums should exist at all, ever. I’m curious how your wife feels about continual reductions in orchestra size, and replacing musicians with synthesizers? For example, I understand that The Lion King was done here in L.A. with one string player on a part. Well, they didn’t do that because string quartet “sounds better”; they did it because it’s cheaper to hire 4 players than to hire a whole string section. It’s natural for the management to try to save money, but why are we saying that the musicians have some sort of moral imperative to allow them to do so without bargaining for concessions?
I don’t want to get too hung up on this, because it’s not really the point. The point is, your average Joe is not going to do a bunch of research before he buys tickets to a show. I think if you sat him down and had him listen to a show with live musicians vs. a show with a tape, he would hear the difference, but it’s not necessarily the kind of thing where he’s thinking “O.K., I’ve got to make sure this show has live musicians before I call the box office”. I don’t see the harm in union activism to get the message out. I’ve been involved in contract disputes, and a big part of the job is to get your message to the public. You don’t just leave it up to the press and hope that people are going to try to educate themselves. What’s wrong with putting the word out?
Well, I disagree. He was the first one to start with this ridiculous calling for “cites”, and I was just giving tit for tat. I don’t think I am the one being “obstinate” here.
Good point, Rick - and might I add that you were only slightly condescending. So let me ask you, given that most of the public is probably not as educated as you in the world of theater, are you of the opinion that it’s wrong for union members to try to educate them?
The point you seem to be missing is that the strike is not eternal. We’re discussing the propriety of mandatory minimums; that requirement is proper or not proper regardless of whether there happen to be striking muscians on the street at any given time.
One of the arguments put forth in favor of the minimums is that consumers will be unaware that canned music is being used if the theatre owners are allowed to use smaller orchestras (or even no orchestra at all). Essentially, the argument is that live music by a full orchestra must be mandatory in order to protect those poor, dumb consumers, who will otherwise be unknowingly suckered into hearing canned music. That argument is absurd on its face, for reasons already described – if canned music were allowed, patrons would certainly be informed by the press as to which shows used canned music and which shows were live.
The notion that this would require a “ton of research” is equally absurd. While I’m sure your average visitor from Topeka doesn’t go over every single review for every single production, I’m pretty sure that most of them read a little about the shows they are interested in – finding out who the lead performers on and so forth. Surely the theatre guides that carry that information would also include information on live versus canned music.
Heck, I’d bet your average visitor from Topeka does more research than many New Yorkers, if for no other reason than going to a Broadway show is a bigger deal to them – it’s not something they can just do on a whim. Not to mention that theatre tickets are pricey. If you check into who the actors and directors are in the latest movie before you buy your ticket (total cost: $8-10 per ticket), wouldn’t you make the same basic inquiry as to a Broadway show (total cost $70 and up per ticket)?
Please. The one and only time I asked you for a cite was when you made an assertion of historical fact – that Vegas venue owners had entered into an agreement to prevent live music. That is the kind of proposition that really needs to be backed up, particularly since the absence of live music in Vegas could just as well be ascribed to ordinary market forces rather than explicit agreement.
To put it simply: you claim there was an explicit agreement; on what grounds do you make that claim?
My points have not been basic historical facts; they have been predictions and so forth. I have set forth the rationale for my predictions, which really all I can do – predictions are not really susceptible to citation, for reasons which should be obvious. I note that you have utterly refused to address the rationale I provided, electing instead to just put your fingers in your ears and pretend I haven’t said anything.
First, no, I don’t think the only alternative is eliminating minimums altogether. The producers initially offered to reduce the minimums to seven, and then to fourteen; I believe they settled on something around abotu 18-19. I would have been happier at 14.
Look, I understand that sometimes, cheap producers will cut the orchestra to save bucks. But my contention is this; those are bad producers. The argument that if you eliminated (or reduced) the minimums, every Broadway producer would automatically go electronic, doesn’t hold water. There’s no minimum set budget for a Broadway show. That didn’t stop the producer of Sunset Boulevard from ordering up a huge, obscenely expensive set that probably cost more than an entire pit just to maintain on a daily basis. Do you really think the same producer who (over)paid for that set, who paid a huge cast of actors (it could have been smaller); do you really think that this guy is going to cut out that second violin to save $200 a night?
Good producers will pay for whatever makes their show good, so as to have a successful production that people attend. For some shows, smaller pits ARE preferable; more musicians doesn’t always been a better sound. To my ear, for example, TOMMY sounds better with a small pit (keyboard, bass, guitar, drums, horn) than it would with hugely expanded orchestration. The Fantasticks is meant to be performed with a piano and a harp, and nothing else; it suits the show. That’s why I favor lower (not eliminated) minimums.
I still don’t know what doesn’t work about my solution: tie the minimum to the author’s requirements, such that if the orchestration calls for twenty pieces, the minimum number of players is twenty. I don’t believe that some sort of nebulous pressure to create cheap shows will keep authors from writing large pits, any more than authors today are prevented from writing shows requiring huge ensembles.
Suppose some producer thinks a smaller number of pieces than the author wrote would be “avant garde” – shouldn’t he be allowed to try? And should he have to pay for “walkers”? Why?
Not at all. But I wasn’t responding to the assertion that it was wrong for union members to educate the public. So far as I can tell, no one has advanced that claim.
I said what I said in response to your claim that the public would be unaware of the canned music before they bought tickets, and frustrated and cheated after they discovered the substitution.
I was suggesting that many - perhaps even most - of the ticket-buying public wouldn’t notice the lack of live music.
Well then we are in agreement. I’m arguing against the notion that, ostensibly because of some idealized model of capitalism, minimums ought not to exist at all. I’m not a part of the Broadway scene, so I don’t think I’m qualified to judge exactly what the number should be. I read in the paper today that they came from 24-26 down to 18-19, which seems like a pretty substantial concession to me. Should it have been more? I don’t know, and I don’t really think that’s the point. They also agreed to re-vamp the committee that makes decisions on whether a show is justified in using less than the minimum. Management had complained that the committee was too heavily weighted towards the union. So those of you who are arguing that shows scored for smaller forces won’t get performed, or will end up with “walkers”, this sounds like a reasonable solution.
Sadly, yes - I can envision that happening. I assume you’ve been to Vegas, and you would agree that some equally obscene spending happens, yet these same hotel owners will gladly cut the musicians out of their shows to save money. Or as another example, Disneyland went from live music to tape years ago. They retain a couple strolling bands, but basically axed all their musicians. They certainly have the money available to keep live musicians in the park, but they chose to save money that way. Sorry, but your argument is the one that does not hold water. I suppose you can argue that every producer who does this is a “bad” producer, but that’s sort of a “no true Scotsman” argument.
That’s a good point. I’m curious if you think this re-vamped committee will solve the problem. If shows like that are treated as the exception, they should still be able to get done.
I get the impression that that’s what they are going to try to do. Let’s hope the situation is rectified now.
So let me ask you, given that most of the public is probably not as educated as you in the world of theater, are you of the opinion that it’s wrong for union members to try to educate them?