At 04:35 PM 01/29/2005, Christopher Smith wrote: >> 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.
Yes, okay, I thought as much. I wasn't trying to defend that particular show, you understand, but the larger issues involved here are ones which interest me.
>> 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!
I agree with you, but I also understand that there are probably large segments of the audience who feel the other way, who spent the hundreds of dollars to hear Pavarotti and no one else.
>> 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.
Okay, but I'm not sure I accept the right of those groups to define "adequate". You can say they weren't paid to scale, which is something quite different.
>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.
I agree with you -- this is fraud, or at least breach of contract, and it is reprehensible.
>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.
Yes, I agree.
>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.
Both of these are problematic in terms of audience-building, which is important for long-term stability. Audiences expect a certain sound to go with their opera, and they may desert you if you give them something less. I used to conduct for a chamber opera company that did, among other things, a Pelleas reduced for an orchestra of 16 or so which I thought sounded remarkably good. But for every patron who was pleased to be able to experience this work in an intimate and inexpensive way, there was another who felt that we weren't being true to the work.
>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.
Well, this gets at something which I think is true, unfortunately: While I have been talking from my point of view, as a performer who would like nothing better than to be able to afford a full orchestra for all performances, there are also those who are just looking to make a buck, regardless of quality. Yes, not everyone will see the Sinfonia as a stopgap, and some people are eagerly looking to it as a cheaper way of putting on shows, forever. And I also understand, reluctantly, that since the union has no way of judging intent, they have to act as though everyone is a mercenary at heart. But this can make it very difficult for those of us who are not.
Aaron.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
