 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2003-02-26 13:12
The latest NY Times news on the negotiations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/arts/theater/26BWAY.html
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FrankM
Date: 2003-02-26 14:01
I've been following this story with interest....and before I continue,let me assure you I'm on your side. Pits should include real musicians. Now, let me play the devil's advocate....isn't the public the final say? I mean, if people will pay to see a musical with canned music...well? My first pro gigs were weddings....way back in the days when a DJ was a guy on the radio. Now the majority of weddings I've been to have a DJ....I've actually had people tell me how much they prefer a DJ....I guess hearing it exactly like the last 100 times they heard it is a good thing. Now, I would rather dance to a lame band than a great stereo system....but then, I'm a musician. I guess my point is, it's sort of a matter of education....we are demanding the people hear it the way we want to hear it, because we know that's the "proper" way. If people refused to go to any musical that didn't have a full pit, this would not be an issue....but I don't think enough really care.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2003-02-26 14:51
John -
The Times story says that "minimums" are the "make or break issue," yet others have said here that there haven't been "walkers" for many years, and from what I've read, the composers want larger rather than smaller pit orchestras.
This does not compute. There has to be something else going on.
Pretty clearly, the producers want to reduce the number of musicians, and the musicians want to keep the work. There's something to be said on both sides.
As synthesizers get better, a single (live) player can produce many voices, and if that's what the composer writes for, it's like trying to sweep back the tide to resist the change.
On the other hand, if the minimums are removed, the producers are in a position to insist, to everyone except monsters like Sondheim or deliberately retro revivals like Oklahoma, that the musicians be reduced to a synthesizer or two.
As a clarinetist, I of course perfer live players of acoustic instruments, and Oklahoma with an electronic orchestra, even of live players, wouldn't be an abomination. And if you remove all, or nearly all, of the "real" players, they won't be around for revivals or new shows that call for real instruments.
We may be fighting a losing battle, but it's the good fight.
Coraggio.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-02-26 15:11
I agree with Frank and Ken, but there is also the demension of quality of playing envolved. We musicians have to keep up with the times if we expect to compete with the DJ using recordings of the real pros. Some bands (and musical pits) I have heard should have been ashamed of their performances, yet were representing our local Musicians Union as "pro" musicians. My point is that the "virtual orchestra" probably does sound good and unless we musicians--everywhere--work to maintain the high level of msuical performance that the public is becoming used to via CDs (recorded by the real pros) and improved sound rendering systems, perhaps we deserve the "fate" that awaits us on the technological horizon. Example--how many average, union membership bands can go out an play the music of U2 (or rap artists) with artist credability?? The computerized synthesiser can!!!
(just playing more of the "devils advocate" folks. I DO support the NYC efforts and live music in general. But, the "other side" may have a point worth considering)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2003-02-26 15:33
Dear Friends:
I appreciate your support of live music and our current negotiations on Broadway.
Musical performance in NYC, and elsewhere, has always been at the highest level on Broadway and other live music venues, such as the Lincoln Center groups.
The problem, as you can clearly see from all the articles I've posted, is money, plain and simple. It's always been about money, from live bands at parties, to the current DJ scene, and Symphony Orchestras folding all over the country...it's money.
Simply put, people do want live music. Producers on Broadway want to make even larger profits with their canned "virtual orchestras" than a live orchestra in the pit, and promoters can make more profits hiring a DJ, than they can with a small combo.
Of the 100,000 NY audiences polled, no one said they preferred canned music, in fact many said, if there isn't live music, then they won't buy tickets in the future.
The current audiences know the difference, don't be fooled by the press, or word of mouth by people who really don't know.
Many of us who have been in the music business for over 40+ years know that live music is doing well and will survive if we continue to give the industry our full support.
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2003-02-26 16:09
I have worked extensively with electronic instruments in my education and my career, and have even composed works for clarinet and an array of electronics including effects and synthesizers. These tools play an important compositional role in modern music, but that role is NOT as a substitute for live musicians. This is the one persistent limitation of electronics -- they are completely incapable of faithfully replicating the variability, complexity and nuance of live musicians playing physical instruments. All the chaos algorithms in the world will not satisfy the ear that they are real. The argument that "its all amplified and projected through electronics anyway" doesn't hold either, because those electronics are designed to convey what the live musician is doing, not emulate.
Entire genres of music going back to Stockhausen and before have grown up around electronic devices. Trance, house, electronica, etc. wouldn't exist without them. Clubbers wouldn't pay to hear someone try to lay down the beat with an upright bass, and Broadway and concert audiences shouldn't be asked to go the other way. The composers have specific timbres, dynamics, articulations, nuances, etc. in mind that are unique to the instruments they write for. If they write for electronics, that is what should be played. If they write for strings, winds, and brass, that is what should be in the pit. To provide anything less is to screw the audience.
Imagine going to the Louvre to see lithographs of the great works instead of the real thing. It would sure be cheaper to maintain. You wouldn't have to spend so much on security. Heck, they'd look pretty much like the real thing unless you step closer.
The right information needs to get to the public. This isn't "Waiting for Guffman" -- the performers and the audiences are pretty discerning. New shows die in a single night on Broadway because they don't have that special snap. These audiences get pissed off when the headliners take a night off, no matter how talented the understudies are. I don't think they will cotton to paying Broadway ticket prices to listen to Music Minus an Orchestra plus stage talent. I don't see the producers offering to share some of the savings they will reap with their audiences in exchange for taking away half of the live performers.
Sincerely,
A pissed off brother from Jersey AFM Local 746.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-02-26 16:18
msloss wrote:
>
> I don't see the producers offering
> to share some of the savings they will reap with their
> audiences in exchange for taking away half of the live
> performers.
Actually I think this is the most telling argument ... If (let's say) the pit orchestra takes $10/ticket to support, and we eliminate half to "save money", shouldn't I get back something of what they "saved"? Like maybe $3 bucks a ticket? After all, they'd be pulling in 2 bucks / patron / performance more than they're pulling in today ...
Of course, 3 bucks barely puts a dent in the prices of Broadway tickets ...
It ain't the money - it's the control ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FrankM
Date: 2003-02-26 18:20
Interesting points....I wonder what % of your ticket price really goes to the musicians?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2003-02-26 20:11
Here's your answer, Frank
A direct quote from the www.savelivebroadway.com website.
"It is interesting to note that the musicians, who are the people who make a Broadway musical a musical, represent a small percentage of the average ticket price, ranging from a low of 2.1% ($1.45) to a high of 11.4% ($6.21), with the overall average 6.1%, based on the latest information from the League.
Broadway grosses have set new box office records in each year of the last decade, the one exception being 2001 when the impact of 9/11 was felt. However, with the help and sacrifice of all the employees on Broadway, by the summer of 2002 Broadway had bounced back and is now once again reporting record grosses. The profits of long running shows, particularly long running musicals, are measured in billions of dollars.These negotiations are not about orchestra minimums - this is about preserving Live Musical Theatre."
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
