Hi all,
I wanted to weigh in with a few thoughts on this issue. It's a very complex one, with compelling arguments on both sides. To forestall a huge flame war, I'd like to start by pointing out that as a conductor, I come down strongly in favor of live performance and live performers, no question about it. But that doesn't mean that the arguments on the other side are wholly without merit.
At 12:56 PM 01/29/2005, Christopher Smith wrote: >Lon's point was NOT to be anti-technology, but anti-unfair-to-musicians >and pro-artists. Any of those original engravers were free to pick up >the skills to operate a computer, and put their superior knowledge and >professional competencies to excellent use. Not so musicians who are >put out of work, and who may very well move on to some other field, >reducing the number of fine artists plying their trade. That is not >something I would work toward.
Devil's advocate, for a moment: Why couldn't the musicians left without a gig sharpen *their* computer skills, and use their advanced musicianship to help make sampled or sequenced performances better?
>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.
>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. But imagine an opera production, or a dance performance, with orchestra. Such a thing generally costs a huge sum of money to put on. Even when the organization sets the ticket prices as high as the market will bear, they will often lose money if they had to rely on income from tickets. If they were to do the same production without orchestra, and drop the ticket prices accordingly, they might likely lose *just as much money* as they did with orchestra -- lower costs, to be sure, but less revenue as well. Doing without orchestra but keeping ticket prices high (in which case, quite frankly, the organization might *still* lose money) may reflect the realities of finances rather than a desire to fleece the audience.
> 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.
>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.
>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?
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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
