On Jan 29, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 12:56 PM 01/29/2005, Christopher Smith wrote:
>Another >of the points was one of fraud, as NO mention was made of pre-recorded >tracks in any of the pre-show publicity,
I think fraud is a strong word here. If the show had advertised live music and used taped, then it would be fraud. But in the absence of such advertising, all you have are the expectations of the audience, and working against expectations is not fraud. As another example, look at the enormous number of dance companies who perform exclusively to taped music, none of whom advertise that fact. This is commonplace.
This was a musical. Based on the expectations of the thousands who flocked a few years previously to see the French (and all-live!) version of Les Mis�rables and other shows, the audience expected a live orchestra - no question - and certainly live vocals. This was the first time such a thing had been perpetrated in a theatre in Montreal, which is why we made such a stink. Dance companies are different ball of wax.
>yet the ticket price reflected >live-musician prices.
Ah, that's a tricky one. I can't speak to the finances of that particular show, and since you call it a mega-hit, it's entirely possible that what I'm about to say doesn't apply there at all.
In this case, your last phrase was correct.
> It wasn't only the orchestra that was recorded,
>but the chorus as well, and even the principal characters each had
>their own track recorded, ready to be turned on in case they weren't in
>voice that night
Couldn't you also argue that they were looking out for the best interests of the audience? If you bought a multi-hundred dollar ticket to the Met to hear Pavarotti in his prime, and he had a cold that night, would you rather hear his unknown understudy or watch the live performance with a Pav-track playing? Again, I think it's possible to make arguments on either side of this question.
Yet I can't imagine a musician making such arguments! I would MUCH rather hear an unknown (but probably entirely competent, if he is understudying Pavarotti) singer than a recording in a concert hall! I would scream bloody murder if such a thing were to be attempted!
>The >musicians that were recorded for the soundtrack were NOT adequately >compensated for what their tracks were being used for,
Adequate according to whom? The musicians who played presumably felt adequately compensated, or they wouldn't have done the job.
According to the Italian musicians guild, and the French musicians guild, and the AFM. No, they were NOT told that the tracks were to be used for live performances. They thought it was for the album, which came out first, and the scales they were paid reflected ONLY that aspect of the session. The producers defrauded the musicians. If the producers had paid the musicians according to re-use requirements, AND publicised the lack of live orchestra, AND priced the tickets accordingly, then I would not have used the word "fraud" at all. I would have only argued against the artistic aspects of recorded shows (or "karaoke" shows, as our local calls them!)
>When it comes down to it, why should ANYONE go to a live show?
It's a very good question, and I think it has to be answered without regard for issues of employment, or wages, or whatever. For me the answer is easy: You go to a live show because it's live -- because there are elements of the performance that are spontaneous, unpredictable, and unrepeatable. I can talk all day about why a live show is better than a taped one and makes for a richer experience, but the aspects of live performance that I'm trying to sell are not necessarily the ones that someone else is buying.
Let me return to the employment issues for a moment. There has been an ongoing battle in New York between the union and a group called the Opera Company of Brooklyn over OCB's desired use of a virtual orchestra which I think is called the Sinfonia. As I understand it, this is a keyboard attached to a sampler of some sort, and it is played by someone during performance to supplement other musicians playing regular instruments.
Take the case of an imaginary opera which might normally require 36 players. OCB can't afford to hire 36 players, but they can afford to hire 12 plus someone to run the Sinfonia. The union says no, you have to hire all 36 -- to which OCB responds by saying they can't do the show at all. Not only are the 36 musicians the union wants not hired, but the 18 which OCB *planned* to hire aren't. Not to mention the singers, designers, carpenters, and so forth who also would have been employed. Are any of the artists better served by this outcome? Is the audience better served by not having the production at all?
I have no inside knowledge of OCB, but I'd bet that their plan to use the Sinfonia was not an artistic decision but a budgetary one -- that if they had enough money, they would much rather hire a full orchestra than use the Sinfonia. The union's argument is that if they allowed this to go on, OCB (or other groups) would use fewer and fewer musicians alongside the Sinfonia, until it was just the Sinfonia playing (or even a pre-recorded Sinfonia). But isn't it just as plausible to imagine that the organization is looking at this as a stopgap to help maintain a presence and build up an audience and donor base, so that in the future they can hire *more* musicians?
This is the crux of the musicians' union's paradox - do they keep more musicians employed at lower wages, or fewer employed at higher wages? This is not an easy question, and it is the source of many bitter arguments inside the ranks at union meetings. But several things ARE fairly clear to me: if there is not enough budget to hire as many musicians as they would like, then they should either choose an opera that uses fewer musicians, or else do it anyway with fewer musicians than required. There are set minimums as a compromise; both minimum working conditions AND minimum staffing numbers. Smaller theatres have lower minimums. The union can be negotiated with in cases of new or troubled productions, but you can be sure that once this Sinfonia machine gets common use, EVERYONE will want to use it at the expense of show quality.
Again, please keep in mind that I'm not arguing in favor of technology over live musicians. But the issue is a complex one, as other posts have also made clear, and for me the arguments based on employment are among the least compelling.
Aaron.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
