 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2003-01-06 15:11
This is probably not appropriate to post, but I am doing it anyway because I feel it is an important issue for the few people still able to make a living playing an instrument.
[Note: I think it is entirely appropriate to post this; I welcome any posting showing the other side of the problem, too.
Mark C.]
<hr />
Dear friends, family, and colleagues:
The following information was compiled by Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians in New York City in an effort to familiarize as many people as possible with the issues that Broadway's musicians are facing in the upcoming negotiations. If you have received this e-mail, chances are you are either a Broadway musician yourself, a friend or family member of a Broadway musician, or some more "distant relation" of a Broadway musician. We ask that you forward this e-mail to as many sympathetic people as you possibly can, even people who are not involved in the business in any way, and even people whom you think may already be aware of this information. We also ask that people who receive this e-mail write letters to their local newspapers so that people all over the US can be made aware of the threat of Broadway's live musicians being replaced by computers playing what is essentially recorded music.
TO SIGN OUR ON-LINE PETITION TO SAVE LIVE MUSIC ON BROADWAY, GO TO http://www.savelivebroadway.com (site will be up in early January, 2003).
AEA and IATSE members, especially those currently working on Broadway shows, we ask you to read this information particularly carefully. And we encourage you to talk to the musicians at your shows about any questions that you have regarding these issues.
BACKGROUND INFO
On March 2, 2003, the agreement between Local 802 and the League of American Theatres and Producers covering Broadway's orchestras expires. From the earliest days of musical theatre, every Broadway house has been required to present musicals with a minimum number of musicians. There are no minimum requirements for dramatic shows. The minimums were mutually agreed upon and evolved over the years largely based on the size of the theatre and the need for appropriate musical projection. Over the last two decades, Broadway has seen a wide variety of musical genres presented on stage with varying musical needs. In a few cases it led to orchestras larger than needed and musicians on staff who were not required to perform each night ("walkers"). In response to that, in 1993, Local 802 and the League reached agreement on language making those minimum orchestra sizes flexible depending upon the musical needs of a show. A panel of prominent orchestrators, arrangers, and musical directors was put in place to arbitrate any disputes over these artistic issues. Since 1993, Local 802 and the panel have approved sharply reduced orchestras for a number of shows, including Smokey Joe's Cafe, On the Town, Footloose, Chicago, High Society, Swingin' on a Star, Civil War, Swing, Aida, Mamma Mia, Movin' Out and Amour. Over this 9 year period, the system put in place has worked. There have been no "walkers". Musicals have been presented with a wide variety of orchestra sizes, and Live Broadway has flourished.
What then are the issues in these negotiations?
The employers want the right to further reduce and/or eliminate orchestras. They claim they need the "artistic discretion" to decide on the musical needs of a show.
Who should be making the musical decisions about a show?
Decisions about the musical needs of a show are properly made by the composer, arranger, orchestrator, and music director, often in consultation with the director and choreographer. These are the people involved in making these decisions, and they have made clear to Local 802 that their ability to do so depends upon the minimum orchestra requirements in the Local 802 contract. Without these minimums, they would not have the latitude to continue to create the musical theatre that has made Broadway so successful over the last several decades.
If it's not about "walkers" or artistic discretion, what is the issue? Why are they making demands to change something that seems to be working?
Broadway producers believe that the technology exists to replace many, if not most, of the orchestra members with synthesized or digitally recorded (sampled) musical sounds. Saving the cost of these musicians' salaries would mean greater payoff to investors and theater owners. Their demands have nothing to do with "walkers" or "artistic" needs. Their demands are purely economic.
It's 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%($1.76) to a high of 11.4%($6.35), with the overall average 6.1%, based on the latest information from the League. Consumers should ask themselves two questions: is it worth this small amount to have real musicians instead of machines providing the music in this apex of live theatre?; and if the producers were able to eliminate some or all of the musicians, would they pass this savings on to the ticket buyers?
Is Broadway in trouble? Do they need financial help?
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 the billions of dollars.
What if the producers got their way? What would happen to Broadway Theatre?
We believe that audiences view Broadway Theatre as the pinnacle of this art form. Broadway is about quality: quality design, quality live performance, quality technical work, and quality live music. New York is the destination for those who want to see the highest caliber of live musical theatre. Half of our audiences are tourists who come to NYC just to attend the theatre. Why would they continue to come if the same caliber of show could be seen in their local theater or concert hall? In the quest for short term profits, producers seem willing to kill the goose that lays the golden egg eight times a week in Broadway theaters.
Could they possibly be that short sighted?
We hope not. However, we know the kind of short term economic decision-making that is so prevalent in the business world today. Certainly Broadway producers are not immune. But we can't allow a few misguided employers to turn midtown Manhattan into Las Vegas or an entertainment theme park. Broadway Theatre is an important economic engine for the city of New York. Cheapening our product could not only threaten all of our jobs and futures, it could also do serious damage to the NYC economy. We all have a stake in protecting the quality of live musical theatre.
Once again, TO SIGN OUR ON-LINE PETITION TO SAVE LIVE MUSIC ON BROADWAY AND FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO http://www.savelivebroadway.com (site will be up in early January, 2003).
Thank you, and please forward!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d dow
Date: 2003-01-06 15:49
Dear Hat:
Amazingly enough very few people in the general populus understand how negative such trends are in the world of music. When producers and impressarios cut orchestras out in favor of canned music an entire way of life as well as thinking is being deystoryed and diluted.
As far as the industry in concerned there is not one iota of backlash except from union musicians like you and I. The frightening thing is how widespread it has become-- even up here in New Brunswick Canada. Non union players here are doing better in some areas than the professional colleagues yet we hear nothing being said or done.
There will also be a day very soon when we will no longer hear one note of live music, and everything will come from a "box". The sad part is there will be a negative turn in original music being composed for there no longer be live players to play it. And once that happens wioll everyone be walking around with an MP3 player listening to what one executive says we have to.
The situation in Musical Theatre is taking a turn for the worse> Example:
The Royal Winnipeg Ballet recently came hear and danced to canned music!
Many performers play or perform to canned tracks of their original recordings. All of this makes a total mockery of those who can play and perform any instrument. I am in total accord with your thinking, who want to hear West Side Story done on a synthesizer or a canned recording? I also know of a recent example where a local producer hear wanted to use canned orchestra music as a background for the singers, and was at the last minute persauded to change their mind and hire a real orchestra. the show of course was a total success. I do not personally attend any concert or ballet where the music is canned, and think to accept this as real is bogus and of course representative of a culture that does not support i'ts own --and it's best.
I am quite amazed that things like this can go on. We are losing touch with a very important cultural treasure day by day, and that is supporting our own artists and musicians ethically.
Sincerely
David Dow
Irate Orchestral Musician and foremost
Music Lover
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d dow
Date: 2003-01-06 15:52
I have misspelled hear meaning "here."
Sorry. Just a little passion showing.
Where will all the students on this board end up if things like this continue?
Concerned,
DD
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2003-01-06 16:44
Same problem in the UK, particularly in regard to Pantomime shows. It's a menace.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-01-06 17:08
The trickle down effect of this trend is also largely overtaking the club date circuit.
Just this past weekend when I was playing a wedding in a large 6 room catering hall, with all 6 affairs going on simultaneously, I peeked into all the rooms to check out the music.
Each of the parties in the remaining 5 rooms were dancing to the sounds of Sinatra, Fitzgerald, Glen Miller, the Beatles, etc... all being "spun" by DJ's.
Our band was the only live music being used that day, where in the not so recent past, all 6 rooms would have been using working musicians.
Sadly, I see this trend only getting worse...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-01-06 17:17
in continuation...
The point being (in my last post) is that Mr and Mrs John Q. Public does not really care if the music is live or "canned" (or worse, cannot tell).
Just another case of the public happily accepting mediocrity...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-01-06 18:32
Henry L. Mencken said it, and it's still true: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." Henry missed one point, though: this country has no monopoly on mediocrity. But that isn't the entire story.
I take exception to a line in the original post: "But we can't allow a few misguided employers to turn midtown Manhattan into Las Vegas or an entertainment theme park." While it's true that almost all music in theme parks is recorded, most Las Vegas (and other Nevada) musical productions are backed by live music. But their producers are people who understand the entire meaning of the concept of pleasing an audience, of providing excitement to those who would be entertained. I rather shudder to think that someday it may become necessary to avoid New York and instead head for Nevada to hear live musicians at a musical production.
On a visit to Reno a few weeks ago, posters proclaimed Ann Murray was to sing at one of the hotels the following weekend. She was to be backed by "The entire string sectrion of the Reno Symphony Orchestra." I almost made another trip just to hear that, and had the show been available the weekend I was there, I would not have missed it. But unfortunately, as GBK says, most people just don't seem to care that much.
Hey, here's a great idea: if audiences eat up canned music well enough, maybe can the other performers, too! Just have everything done once, record it somehow, and keep showing the same thing over and over! Oh, wait... that's been done, hasn't it.
To me, part of the enjoyment of a live production is the belief that the performers -- on stage and in the pit, as well as the stagehands and other workers in the background -- are having a great time doing what they do so well. Somehow, I would find it less than enthralling to dream about how much fun the electronic equipment is having.
Regards,
Joh
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nzdonald
Date: 2003-01-06 20:20
here in NZ the "old timers" all complain that there are no shows anymore...
meanwhile, the "young trendy types" have elevated the status of "DJ" to one of godlike "musician", aparently because it takes some talent and imagination to "mix" (i don't debate this, but it took Mozart and the Beatles a lot more than "some" talent to become enduring and influential). i can't help feeling that people are cheating themselves, like people who go to Thailand to eat at McDonalds....
there has to be an upside to all this, surely? um, yeah.....
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jean
Date: 2003-01-06 22:10
As someone who has played in countless orchestra pits I would like to know what happens when the singer makes a mistake? Doesn't quite "line up" with the music? A live orchestra is constantly adjusting to the singers. I guess this means every performance will sound exactly the same...how dull must that be for the person on stage singing the same song over and over.
In our little town most of the theatres have had economic issues and don't hire musicians. Or they hire students who will play for less money (or no money)...
Jean
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-01-06 22:34
I uses to play Ice Capades, Holiday on Ice and Ringling Bros Circus shows until all decided to go with "canned" music. And who was making those tapes that put us local musicians out of work--our talented union brothers in the big city, that's who!!! So a lot of us "out here in the sticks" have sort of had our "candles" burned on both ends: The employers who decided to discontinue hiring local players (the quality of talent was not a problem in this city) and our union brothers in the recording studios who made the tapes that replaced us. More than a few union members decided to discontinue local membership because of this problem alone.
And, of course, we to have to problem of wedding parties (and others) hiring DJ's instead of live music and local musical productions using reduced orchestras. It is hard to mobilize any meaningful protest by local musicians because, as GBK and others have said, the public really can't hear the difference and, for the most part, does not care. Part of the problem may be economic, but I also think that too many local bands have become too set in their ways and have not bothered to learn the "newer" music, and do not groom their "public image" properly--how they look, how well their show flows, how well they can still play, etc. In any case, live employeement is down, younger local musicians see no good reason to belong to the Union as they can always get work anyhow (employers do not require Union cards--yet all pay their canned music fees for their juke boxes)
So, your having trouble in the "big city"--well, join the club. I'll sign the petition, but local "grass roots" union members also have problems (DJ's, lounge owners, show management, etc) that are putting us out of work. And the traditional Musicians Union seems too weak to really help.
William, Local 166, AM of F (43 yrs)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d dow
Date: 2003-01-07 13:30
Even worse yet, one wonders if the canned music track skips or doesn't work how foolish the performers and producers look?
David Dow
Local 815 AF of M.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2003-01-07 14:48
I'm going to be a little provocative now. Not because I don't sympathise with the plight of musicians who fear for their livelihood, but because I think you're going about this the wrong way.
First, forget the petition. Asking professional musicians to sign this petition is as useful as asking turkeys to sign a petition to abolish Christmas. (Cultural note: in England, most people eat turkey for Christmas lunch.)
Second, don't get sidetracked into arguments against DJs. I can well understand why a wedding party might prefer to listen to a selection of old favourites, performed by the original performers, rather than risk the relative monotony of a live band. Personally, I'd prefer the live band, but I can understand why others - particularly when they have to please many tastes - would not.
The real issue is why so many shows are using a pre-recorded band rather than a live band. Ignoring the financial aspect, I think there are two reasons.
The first reason is reliability. The recording will always turn up on the night, will always be in tune (or equally out of tune), will not cough in the middle of a solo. Of course, a recording can skip, but the risk is very small.
The other reason is that the audience can't tell the difference. Why? Because so many shows use amplification. Once you're feeding the sound through an amplifier, it makes no difference whether the band is live or not. The sound will be distorted, artificial, electronic.
And too loud.
<i>That</i> is the campaign you should be having. Educate the public to appreciate sound that is <i>really</> live, not sound that is being played "live" into a microphone and blasted out "live" through speakers.
When you achieve that, then see whether you can educate the public to appreciate the sound of a singer who can really sing, not just croon in tune. A singer who can make his voice heard above a live band. Without a microphone.
There, I said I would be provocative.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2003-01-07 14:50
...and I apologise for trying to be clever and use <i>italics and then forget to switch them off again</i>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William Hughes
Date: 2003-01-07 15:31
When I was 13 years old, my father took me to New York where I saw my first Broadway shows ("The Unsinkable Molly Brown" and "Donnybrook!"). Nothing then, or now, is so mesmorizing, exciting and filled with anticipation as the musical overture performed live from the pit (or in some cases from the stage). I cannot imagine how any form of audio wizardry could hope to replace that feeling. It is not a question of technical quality, sound fidelity or musicianship. It is the essence of live performance and the personal connection between performer and audience. I don't have the cure, but count me as a lifelong and ardent supporter of the cause.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2003-01-07 16:23
Most of the audience won't be musicians. Most of them will concentrate exclusively what's on stage, once the overture is over. Most won't look into the pit. Many will regard the overture as a tedious waste of time while the late-comers sit down and before the real show begins.
So long as pit-bands are hidden away in a pit, and are amplified, and the singers are amplified too, and the show relies much more on spectacle than on music, the audience won't know or care whether the music is live or not.
I will. You will. Everyone on this board will. We aren't typical.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Sloss
Date: 2003-01-07 19:36
If one follows the logic of comparing live amplified music to recorded music, that would be it for nearly all forms of live music being presented today. Should Frank Foster fire his bass and guitar players and just play a DAT to accompany the band? Should the Rolling Stones bag their tour and just send a CD around to the venues?
Amplification has become a part of the sound of live music. It does not take away from the experience (except when it is engineered poorly). What makes Broadway special is that you have the very best on stage and in the pits turning in a performance instead of just going through the motions. As in any live performance, there is something absolutely electric when the cast clicks together and connects with the audience. The leading lady might stretch a phrase for emphasis or the leading man might drop his dynamic two levels more than usual because they are in the moment. A tape cannot respond to those artistic impulses. And, how long will it be before the cast members stop trying to inject creativity into their performances because there is no give in the accompaniment?
What could happen on Broadway won't trigger an immediate disaster. Sure, at first it will reduce the pit work by a percentage. Then, audiences start to realize the performances got less interesting and maybe they don't come back to see something a second time. Maybe first-timers are disappointed because it just doesn't have the snap of a truly live, dynamic performance. Shows don't sell out, runs end earlier, Broadway loses its rep for quality, and then the disaster is truly under way.
People who want to see exactly the same thing on any given night with any given audience go to what we like to call in the trade "a movie". People pack the Met, Avery Fisher, and half the theatres on Broadway for the experience of live performance. Why come to NY, or go to any venue around the world for that matter, to listen to a tape?
This isn't just labor rhetoric. This is the conservation of art, whatever your opinion of musicals. And John Q. Public does care, if even at a subconscious level. If the experience is less special, JQP will stop coming -- he just might not be able to articulate why.
Best of luck to our 802 brethren.
Mark Sloss
AFM Local 746
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-01-07 21:25
It has recently happened here in Australia with a Dance musical called Hot Shoe Shuffle by a prat called David Atkins. I don't know what persuaded the people, who shall remain nameless but we know who you are, to pre-record the score knowing full well what was going to happen. I think that a bit of forethought by those players that frequent studios would have seen a boycott. Alas no, they must have been payed a wad of cash without thinking of the longer term. The show is boring as bat @!#$ anyway and is only further ruined by canned music. A couple of people who have seen the show have demanded their money back because they expected live music. Many people are just to stupid to notice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-01-08 12:30
Were I to attend a performance at $75 USD (or more) and find no live bodies in the pit - management would be issuing my refund.
Orchestras are alive and well in my neighborhood, playing in touring productions. The musician's local isn't particularly strong, but their COST to the producers is manageable.
My guess is that the larger productions that are profitable will always distinguish themselves with live performances.
As one who has suffered through more anemic Wedding bands than I care to count, I believe DJs have their place.
Nothing can suck the air out of a room like an off-key, overblown, should-have taken my Prozac rendition of "Once, twice, three times a lady" followed by the chicken dance.
Cursing the American public for ignorance is lame.
It's the American public that made Broadway what it is today.
Wanna complain? Call the producers of these crapfests.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-01-08 12:32
Charlotte Church is touring with Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer - full pit orchestra in tow....
you won't get me withing 5 city blocks of this saccharine pap!
(And it sells out.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-01-08 13:10
I have also attended far too many weddings with a DJ spinning the hits.
What galls me more is the typical reaction of the people: "Wasn't that DJ just wonderful?"
Give me a break! With enough time, a chimpanzee could be taught the same thing.
He would also look a lot cuter in his tuxedo...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d dow
Date: 2003-01-09 00:27
I like it when the hard drive they use skips the discs they dowloaded!!!
Serves them right!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
