Threaded Order Chronological Order
| This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Michael_212 03:56 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: HERE LIES LOVE to open with no live musicians - selmerboy 03:38 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| The show is styled as a night in a karaoke club. To use live musician would go against what's in the script. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:47 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 03:56 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Question - is this "artistic choice" specifically and clearly stated by the authors, in so many words? | |
| reply to this message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Michael_212 05:34 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Chromolume 11:47 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| I Googled and couldn't find a direct quote about it, but my experience seeing the show at The Public is that the authors were putting the audience into a dance club where the characters had pretty much no dialogue with each other. They just sang songs, mostly into handheld mics. Creating a disco nightclub experience including recorded music was the obvious intention. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:08 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 05:34 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| I hear you, but I'm not sold. What would The Drowsy Chaperone have been in such a "realistic" rendering. Just Man In Chair and a record player, with tracked music. And it would have been awful. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Michael_212 12:09 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Chromolume 09:08 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| I would think The Drowsy Chaperone might have been lip-synced with a period-sounding recording, which might have been interesting. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:44 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 12:09 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
|
|
|
| No, that would have been awful. And as un-theatrical as you can get. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:23 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 03:56 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| We readily accept a live orchestra, in most shows, as being outside of the "world of the play," providing accompaniment for the show but not being part of the characters' literal world. So I entirely disagree with your premise. A live orchestra could still function as the accompaniment for karaoke. Have you ever thought about where the accompaniment is for the Von Trapp kids singing "So Long Farewell" at the party? (Let alone the Landler that everyone is dancing to?) I mean, it's not a cappella. We accept there's something there, represented by the live orchestra. No reason why karaoke couldn't be done the same way. And I can think of at least one example where it's been done. In the song "I Chose Right" from Baby, Danny sings to his own accompaniment. He plays the chords for the verse on his portable mini-keyboard, and then he starts a tape recorder, which has the track for the refrain. But we don't hear it on tape - we hear the live orchestra playing as if it were what Danny had recorded. There are also numbers where the live orchestra becomes an enhanced version of what starts as, say, piano onstage. "Once You Lose Your Heart" from Me and My Girl and "Autumn" from Titanic are two good examples. We accept the orchestra joining in even though they are not literally part of the scene. So - nope, I don't buy it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:35 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Chromolume 10:23 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| We can go back at least as far as "Bill" in Show Boat for a song that starts with onstage piano accompaniment and then the orchestra joins in. Kern and Hammerstein repeated this two years later with "Why Was I Born?" in Sweet Adeline. And a much later example is "Unworthy of Your Love" in at least some productions of Assassins. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 10:55 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:52 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - AlanScott 10:35 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Though "Unworthy" would begin with guitar, of course. As does "I'll Never Fall In Love Again" from Promises, Promises. "Everything Else" from Next To Normal also starts as solo piano, with the orchestra joining in later - though we're to understand the conceit that Natalie is playing by herself the whole time. And, one of the greatest examples, IMO - "The Piano Lesson" from The Music Man, where Amaryllis' exercise not only wonderfully becomes the melody for the mother/daughter argument, but is enhanced by orchestra as well - but of course, Amaryllis is "playing solo" the whole time. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Michael_212 03:12 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Chromolume 10:52 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| And yet, with all these precedents, the authors still decided to write their show the way they felt was best. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 11:39 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:38 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 03:12 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| I can only speak for myself. I worked on a tracked show recently - a show that the authors wrote that way because they felt it was best. It was a horrible experience. I won't do something like that again. Nor would I have any desire to see or support another show done that way. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:20 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 03:12 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. Understanding that a live orchestra was required, thats the baseline. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: SCH 03:56 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - NewtonUK 07:20 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| It is not true that a live orchestra is required. The contract requires that musicians be employed and paid, not that they perform. There is no conflict between the artistic decision to use prerecorded tracks (which I think is a totally valid artistic choice for this show) and the requirement to hire and employ a minimum number of musicians. Whether or not that was budgeted for is another question, and one that the producers should have known to address ahead of time. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Michael_212 05:20 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - SCH 03:56 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with you totally. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: selmerboy 07:23 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 03:56 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| No one is stopping them from doing a DJ-driven sing-a-long show, but that is not a Broadway musical and they should have found another venue. Anyone who has seen Hamilton, Six, And Juliet, or any number of other shows has heard live musicians nailing every conceivable style of music. The “concept” of the show is not a valid argument. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:32 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - selmerboy 07:23 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| I am gathering you have not seen this or you would not be making this comparison. As I wrote elsewhere, it is not about the style of music; it is about the ability to deliver what would be expected, which is recorded music. This is an issue about the labor contract and whether an acceptable resolution can be effected so that the production can go forward. That's it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 04:19 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 03:56 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Can't live musicians create that sound? They wouldn't have to be traditional instruments. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here is the orchestra list from the 2016 recording of the title track from HERE LIES LOVE + 1: Live Musicians played these 'tracks' | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:26 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - KingSpeed 04:19 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Orchestrations by Tony Finno Guitar Synth Bass Keyboards Violins (4) Viola Cello Trumpet French horn Trombone Clarinet Flute/Oboe (double) 14 musicians THE ROSE OF TACLOBAN Orchestrations by Gil Goldtsein & Tony Finno Upright bass (loop) Toy piano Percussion Rhodes Piano Violins (4) Violas (2) Cellos (2) Trumpets (2) Frenc Horns (2) Clarinet Flute.Oboe (double) Euphonium 19 musicians |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Last Edit: Michael_212 04:27 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| Posted by: Michael_212 04:23 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - KingSpeed 04:19 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| I have no idea, but I would trust the authors to have their show performed as they want it. If they're using the same script that was used at The Public, I think using live musicians would require changing the DJ's opening presentation about the importance of karaoke in the Phillipines. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:57 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Michael_212 04:23 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| If the line musicians are not seen by the audience, their playing would in no way affect the immersion of the karaoke club. We get into dangerous territory when wet insist that authorial intent can override union rules and compensation to workers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:28 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Singapore/Fling 06:57 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| I agree that authorial intent is a slippery slope but I also think that up front AFM would have been amenable to a reasonable deal here as they have been elsewhere. The fact is an orchestra cannot play a fully produced karaoke track and what we would have would be something that doesn't sound right. And I don't think that karaoke figures in any kind of a Broadway precedent. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:31 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - ryhog 07:28 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don’t quite understand what “karaoke” has to do with it. Karaoke is just pop music with the vocals taken out. I can understand the argument that we are in the era of electronic music and that can be tough to do live, but K-Pop lived in that idiom - was it a prerecorded show? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:27 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Singapore/Fling 07:31 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Both you and student rush are carrying on an argument sitting largely outside the reality of the issue here. (I commend to you my post below in response to theirs to you.) Writers (who negotiate individually rather than through a union, as I am sure you know) do not conventionally control things like this and I doubt the contract here is otherwise. Your "student" confounds their personal preferences with what is "required." But AFM is not as hardcore or non-negotiable as you seem to think. Notwithstanding the contract minimums they have been very amenable to negotiating appropriate reductions. And in this case you cannot really compare HLL and K-Pop. In HLL, the karaoke tracks are fully produced (as are all tracks on almost all recordings), not raw recordings and that is what would be expected. K-Pop, by contrast, is live music. The fact that it is electronic, or not, is irrelevant. When one attends a live music concert, one expects (with limited exceptions) live music that, like live theatre, is never exactly the same twice. As I said before, my guess is that this will be worked out but at a higher price to the production. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: selmerboy 11:12 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - ryhog 09:27 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Sorry, but your argument about live music vs recorded tracks is just silly. I do think that we agree that this is largely, perhaps solely, a financial decision on the part of the producers. I also agree that a compromise will probably be reached, but at an artistic cost to the production: if they had planned on having musicians to begin with - even a relatively small ensemble - it could have been executed smoothly and seamlessly by all of the professionals involved. As it stands, I’m afraid any last-minute adding on of players will end up being unsatisfying on many different levels. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:15 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - selmerboy 11:12 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| I do not understand why you would call it silly; it is a part of the artistic integrity of the show. That is not really open to debate but perhaps you can enlighten me on what makes that silly. I do not think there is an "artistic cost" because I would say you have it backwards. Again, that is not the issue here. The rest I pretty much agree with. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:22 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - ryhog 09:27 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Unfortunately, a different poster took us down this road that authorial intent should somehow override union agreements, so we find ourselves discussing what is possible in live music. However this works out, if we find ourselves in a position where non-union musicians get paid a one-time fee for performing the score for a musical in one of the biggest union houses on Broadway, it will be a sad day. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: sondheimobsessed7090 09:18 am EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Singapore/Fling 10:22 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| There's something innately unfair about the phrasing of "authorial intent should somehow override union agreements." Because of a union-busting law in US that doesn't allow authors to both own their own copyright and have a union, Authors don't have an advocate here. If they did, I'm sure there would have been agreements between the Author's union and the AFM for situations like this. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Last Edit: ryhog 11:17 am EDT 05/29/23 | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:16 am EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - sondheimobsessed7090 09:18 am EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| First, it is totally untrue that authors have no advocate: they have agents and lawyers. They do not have a union, not because of a union-busting law, but because of the nature of their relationship with theatre producers. I am sure that the Weisslers, for instance, wished they owned Chicago. I am sure John Kander is glad they don't. Second, an agreement between unions such as you describe would most likely be illegal. Finally, your premise is utterly flawed because the quoted "phrasing" is false: under no circumstances does authorial intent override a union agreement. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: sondheimobsessed7090 09:42 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 11:16 am EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I am an agent for writers, directors, designers, and music directors, and I can say that my work for a writer is not the same as having a union. Most other artists (including the directors and designers I represent) have an agent or lawyer AND a union. These other artists 100% have a leg up in terms of advocacy for having a union. For example, when I represented a music director and an author on the same show for a short weekend run where the author was involved, because the music director also conducted, which is covered by the musicians union, that music director got several times more money than the author did, even though the author was in the room working for almost the entire process, and they essentially worked almost the same number of hours. It's relatively common for the other artists in a process to be paid more and treated better than the author is in new play processes, because playwrights are generally not being paid for their work in the room even though in a new play process they are working full days. That is because they are treated as copyright holders rather than as employees. I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with their relationship with producers, but I can assure you that the reason they don't have a union is because the law as it stands does not allow an association of copyright holders i.e. property owners, to unionize. The Dramatists Guild made the choice to protect copyright, while the WGA in film/TV chose to unionize. That's why TV/Film writers are paid a living wage, but don't own their own work, and theatre writers don't own their own work, but are generally paid far below living wage. The Dramatists Guild has been campaigning for years to change this law so that the playwrights can protect copyright and have a union. This is all tangential to the main point, and I agree that authorial intent does not override a union agreement, unless the union agrees to it. We don't know what the subject of those discussions are. I was responding to the tone which seems to dismiss authors in favor of labor as if that authors are not also laborers who are actually at more of a disadvantage than musicians (and the musicians Union is possibly the strongest union). But my point is that if authors had a union and had a union agreement that required authorial approval over orchestrations, I'm sure there would have been an actual precedent set for situations like this in the League's agreement with AFM. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:33 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - sondheimobsessed7090 09:42 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I would say that what you are doing here is advocating for theatre authors, which is you job and that is fine. You say that union members have a leg up over writers in the theatre but I think a lot of people would beg to differ. A writer in the theatre owns the sine qua non of every production and can negotiate as they see fit. Every other person is replaceable. When they succeed, there is no cap on the upside for the writer; and it is the gift that keeps on giving: an annuity. Obviously for a WGA writer who is a one-hit wonder, it's one and done. I'll take the annuity of the theatrical one hit wonders without blinking. It's pretty facile to say that employees may be better paid in the moment than a playwright. Ask your writer clients if they would rather have the WGA deal. If the answer were yes, the League would jump on it. (And it is laughable to think that the cash flow would be significantly higher. ) Which brings us to your second paragraph. The simple answer is, what you are proposing is intellectually untenable. It's not some mysterious "law." It is the same principle that applies across the board. I have a friend whose family owns a small chain of high end dress shops. The top sales people make more than the owner. But when they die, their heirs do not inherit anything. This notion explains this situation and it has been thus since the invention of capitalism. As I say above, if the DG seriously decided it wanted to be a group of "laborers" rather than owners, they can become employees and the producers will become rights holders. But you can't have it both ways: there is no version of economics in which that can be validated. Owners work hard as hell. Walk into most nice chef-owned restaurants and you will find that the hardest workers are the chef and their dishwashers. You say "if authors had a union and had a union agreement that required authorial approval over orchestrations, I'm sure there would have been an actual precedent set for situations like this in the League's agreement with AFM." Guess what? Any writer who wants approval over orchestrations (or casting, or the color of the set, or anything else) just has to have their agent or lawyer negotiate it in their contract. Writers in the theatre have something quite precious: control. The theatre is a crazy business but most of the people I know who have chosen to jump in have an abiding faith in the success of what they believe in. That's true of producers, writers, and everyone else who has a stake. They don't want to give up what is precious. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: sondheimobsessed7090 12:14 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 11:33 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| This is still tangential to the thread, but I wanted to clarify this for you since you clearly are not fully educated on the topic of authors and how it works, and as I actively want these laws to change I wouldn't want misinformation to be spreading on this. Owners of restaurants and Authors are not at all in the same boat, Authors don't set wages of anyone, they don't employ anyone, but ultimately set by the producers, they actually don't always have full control, that has to be negotiated, they actually will get a royalty that's mutually agreed upon, that royalty is significantly smaller than the amount that an owner of a business would take home.And often in exchange for producing the work, a producer will demand to get a percentage of an Author's royalties for future productions for a certain number of years, on Broadway, this can be up to 50%. (Non-profits less, but can be up to 10%, with the occasional one taking more than that) A freelancer is a different thing than a business owner. The idea that "there's no version of economics in which this can be validated." is absolutely untrue - actually other countries (I can't speak for every country, but the countries I deal with the most UK and Canada) both have a Writers Guild that can both collectively bargain and protect copyright. The US is actually the odd man out here, and although there is a bargained agreement from decades ago for Broadway only (not off-broadway or regional), the Dramatists Guild is not able to renegotiate that very outdated deal and update terms for writers based on new technology and realities, because of current antitrust legislation in the US. FYI I can promise you that most of my writing clients would prefer the WGA deal, but the point is that it shouldn't be an either/or. You're right that it's negative for TV/Film writers to and frankly part of what's allowing studios to become more and more conglomerates because they own all this IP rather than the authors. But the people writing for TV/Film bargained by the WGA are much more likely to be able to live off of what they make in the room. Unless you happen to write a hit musical that plays on Broadway and is available for licensing, it's almost impossible to make a living in theater - and the folks who can are very very rare - you wouldn't say that everyone would prefer it if you understood how rare it is. Of say, 100 clients, I'd say one of them makes a living off of their theater income. On the other hand, every single one of my clients who is working in TV/Film is supporting themselves with that income. Everyone else in theater has to have a full-time other job, a wealthy spouse or other familial support. To try to put in perspective for you - a writer who recently had a show at a major theater off-broadway only made $10,000. This is for something they worked on for years, specifically with this theater, on top of the three weeks of rehearsal, two weeks of previews, and rewrites outside of rehearsal. and they ended up having to do a lot of marketing and community outreach work themselves for free. The lowest level staff writer in a TV room would make $10,000 in about two weeks. As I said, the Dramatists Guild, along with other writing organizations, have been advocating for years to change these antitrust laws. Here's a letter from them recently detailing why these laws should change. https://authorsguild.org/app/uploads/2023/04/Creators-Together-Collective-Action-Rights-Letter-4.27.23.pdf |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:56 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - sondheimobsessed7090 12:14 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I could just as easily say that you need a good deal of education. I don't know you and you don't know me so let's just deal with what we don't have to make assumptions about. Some of this takes us pretty far afield from this thread and this board so I will try to keep it short and sweet. First of all, no one doubts that, in terms of present dollars, TV/film pays better. That is partly because of the revenue differential and also because of the copyright belonging to the studio. Nor does anyone doubt the long term value to the writer of a successful Broadway show. Second, there is no direct comparison with the landscape in another country where, often, a corporation owns the copyright, and/or the compensation looks quite different. Likewise, we function in this country and while one can lobby, it is important to understand that the proposed legislation, even if passed, would not make DG a union. Moreover, it is of course naive to think that adding to existing upfront amounts would not have collateral effect on total potential compensation. Third, what you say about DG renegotiating a non-existent collective contract makes no sense. There is no contract, just a model, and that model can and is updated whenever it is deemed appropriate. Fourth, what you say about your clients and what is (partly) in that letter does not jibe. Allowing the DH to function as a union would not alter the dynamic; it just allows collective rather than individual bargaining but in no way suggests what you are saying. Moreover, what you say will come as news to anyone who reads the DG website or other materials that is clearly mindful of what is and is not possible and also of the bedrock primacy of copyright and authorial control. I encourage you to spend a little time when you can understanding the laws, the legislation, and the DG. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: sondheimobsessed7090 01:40 am EDT 06/03/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 12:56 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| As I said - in the countries that I referenced the author owns the copyright and they have a union collectively bargaining for them. You can look up the Union negotiated deals in Canada and the United Kingdom and see that property rights are included in them. The proposed legislation would not make DG a union, it would give Dramatists the ability to form a Union while retaining copyright, and/or for the DG to start a process to becoming a union. The situation with the APC being an outdated agreement is complicated, but I realize that there's just not enough room to explain it here, but as someone who has negotiated them, I can tell you that what you're saying is not accurate. I'm confused by you saying that something that I literally pulled from the DG's website, (and they release a letter like these basically every year, to revamp an argument about that legislation) doesn't jibe with what's on the DG website and other material.....that just doesn't make sense. Basically you're saying this comes as news to you, and because you hadn't noticed it on the DG website before it didn't exist? But whatever - you seem to just want to say you're right, if you want to continue to make points that contradict actual facts, I suppose I should give up on trying to communicate to you. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:10 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Singapore/Fling 10:22 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| This show will not go on without an agreement that the production can afford and that provides the union with agreed upon compensation. There is no precedent in the concept that recorded music and/or synths cannot be used and it is recognized in the collective bargaining agreement. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: student_rush 07:24 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Singapore/Fling 06:57 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| It’s genuinely ludicrous to value “union rules” over authorial intent in any entertainment medium. We aren’t talking about producers skirting regulations to save money, we are talking about the tone and language of a piece of theatre, and how design and performance stems from within to bring the text to life. Authors are part of the labor force — just ask the WGA. But everything starts with authorial intent. “Union rules” should be, I don’t know, the tenth most important thing when creating and critiquing art. For Christ’s sake, “union rules” are the things that so rapidly inflate line-item run costs for producers, most significantly load-in costs that can single-handedly make the difference between deciding to mount a show in NYC or in the UK. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:10 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - student_rush 07:24 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Thing is, the union rules you hate so much were the subject of a bargain between the League and AFM. There is no typical agreement between writers and a production that contemplates what you are proposing. It is also incorrect that load-in costs can single-handedly make the difference you describe. You don't mention, for instance, that successful productions can make significantly more money over here. Your rendition betrays anti-union animus which is your prerogative I guess. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:34 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - student_rush 07:24 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, ask the WGA why they are striking to ensure that they can make a living wage while producers (which I believe is how you identify) find ways to devalue them from the art form to which they are integral. And then insert “musicians” for “writers”. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: student_rush 07:40 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Singapore/Fling 07:34 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| If Sondheim wrote SWEENEY to be orchestrated and played by a 20+ orchestra pit, that’s how it should be produced and that’s how I want to see it. If David Byrne wrote HERE LIES LOVE to be electronically orchestrated and manipulated, that’s how it should be produced and that’s how I want to see it. No one is devaluing musicians, as they were never intended to be part of this process. Are you insulted when you see a straight play and it doesn’t feature live musicians? And why would it, as it’s not part of that storytelling. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 10:29 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:26 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - student_rush 07:40 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| If Sondheim wrote SWEENEY to be orchestrated and played by a 20+ orchestra pit, that’s how it should be produced and that’s how I want to see it. He didn't. He wrote the show on piano (and in fact, Sweeney was the first of Sondheim's vocal scores to be published with his original piano part, pre-orchestration, intact) and the size of the orchestration was not decided upon until the theatre and its musician minimums were settled upon - and that had to do with Prince's huge-scale vision for the show, which actually was NOT what Sondheim originally had in mind. (Sondheim originally saw it as a much smaller, more intimate piece.) Don't make assumptions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: selmerboy 08:55 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - student_rush 07:40 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Musicians were absolutely a part of the process: non-Union musicians were paid to record the music (I just learned this from a source very close to the Union). If musicians can record the music, musicians can perform the music. And if DB and FatBoy Slim want to layer on electronic sounds, samples, and effects, they can do that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 07:57 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:55 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - student_rush 07:40 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| Logic has left the building. The musicians are being devalued because they have been excised as an employee of the show, which is… a musical. You get that, right? And you get that this being a musical makes your argument about a play - which is not a musical - entirely extraneous. The better argument would be how would you feel if you saw a play that featured exclusively motion capture or pre-recorded actors, and thus didn’t employ actors, because it “was the concept”? Look, if Byrne wants prerecorded music, that’s great, so long as the show pays the original musicians a weekly fee for using their performance in the show. Otherwise, the producers have found a way around paying musicians for a musical, and if they do that, who knows what they will cut next. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: ablankpage 08:58 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Singapore/Fling 07:55 pm EDT 05/25/23 | |
|
|
|
| I feel like you haven't seen the show, right? It seems like you don't understand how it works. It's not live music, it's karaoke. It's not a musical, it's a karaoke musical, which is the entire concept/set up for the performance. The producers haven't found a way around anything, they're just producing the musical as it was written and performed in New York, London, Seattle. It's not like it's been on tour with an orchestra and they're sneakily trying to cut them for the Broadway run to save some cash. Musicians were never an employee of the show. So yeah, to your argument, if a play used motion capture or pre-recorded actors as part of their concept, that would make sense to produce it as such because that's the artistic vision for that play. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:56 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - ablankpage 08:58 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| Well, it’s not karaoke, and the show’s insistence to the contrary is neither conceptual coherent nor culturally competent. And no one has yet offered a clear, compelling argument why live musicians, unseen by the audience, can’t provide the same experience as a pre-recorded track. Every day, authors have to deal with the ways that the demands of live theater as an industrial medium compromises their intent. If Byrne and Slim can’t achieve their intent on Broadway, then they should not have brought the show to Broadway. There is a model, provided by Sleep No More, of how to do immersive installation theater outside of the normal system. They didn’t choose to go that route. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: ablankpage 03:22 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - Singapore/Fling 11:56 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure where you're getting the authority to decide if it is "conceptual coherent" since you've clearly never seen the show or "culturally competent" since you're white. But cool, thanks for your opinion! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: student_rush 09:35 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - ablankpage 08:58 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| This is exactly my point. I am not arguing that producers should be able to put musicals on Broadway with reduced orchestras and/or tracking simply as a means of reducing overhead costs. I would be appalled at a production of SWEENEY TODD that was performed to backing tracks. I even hate when smaller productions use prerecorded music as an obvious cost-cutting measure (SPACE DOGS at MCC literally sounded like karaoke -- it was abysmal). I am fiercely advocating for the author's intentions to become fully realized on our biggest stages in America. The authors specifically created a narrative and theatrical universe that doesn't involve any live musicians. I'm the bad guy for supporting artist intent? (Also, I love the ad hominem attacks -- I'm fiercely pro-labor and a member of both AEA and SDC.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:40 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - student_rush 09:35 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| My apologies, this is the first post you’ve written that’s given any indication that you’re pro-labor, so I didn’t know. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: This is the artistic choice of the authors | |
| Posted by: selmerboy 04:54 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - student_rush 09:35 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| Forgive, me, but I think you’re naive to think that this decision is about “artistic intent.” In cases where that argument can legitimately be made, the Union has been willing to negotiate a special situations agreement. This production seeks to use zero musicians and instead use a recording made by real musicians - lots of them, in fact, in addition to orchestrators and arrangers, were needed to create the recordings - so the sound of a large band is absolutely a part of the show. Playing a recording rather than using and paying musicians can only be seen as an economic end-run around the CBA. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A point that you may be missing. | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 03:38 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: This is the artistic choice of the authors - student_rush 09:35 am EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| Until 1993 or so, every Broadway theatre had a minimum number of musicians that had to be hired - no exceptions. This harks back to the days when every theatre had an orchestra. Overtires and incidental music for plays was always played live (a rule that you will still see followed in London at the NT, and at the RSC) So, up until the 1990s, if you produced a play in a theatre with an 8 musician minimum, you had to hire 8 musicians to not play. The first workaround in a contract was that theatres decided whether they were playhouses or musical houses. Playhouses became exempt from a minimum number of musicians at all. But then if a musical went into a 'playhouse', they would have to pay a penalty, since that theatre was exempted from a musician minimum because it was a 'playhouse' only. I believe this rule is gone now, as there are almost no plays, and traditional playhouses like The Booth, the Schoenfeld, the JAcobs, the Golden, The Belasco, the Longacre, the Cort/Jones, the Atkinson/Horne, the Barrymore now frequently house musicals. Its about jobs. This is live theatre. Live theatres have orchestras. In the rest of the world rules may be different, but on Broadway the rules are clear - all producers know his - to wilfully ignore the rules as if they don't affect you is a form of madness. As I pointed out elsewhere, the tracks employ up to 19 musicians each. A simple solution would be to say one has to pay each of those musicians on the tracks a weekly salary as if they were playing in the pit. And they all have to join AFM 801 which i am willing to wager very few of them do. Broadway is a business with 17 Labor Unions. Some have rules which are difficult. They don't disappear because you don't like the rules. Rule changes are negotiated and arbitrated. David Byrne knows this. Hal Luftig knows this. The Public knows this. A compromise will be reached, some musicians will be put on contract. If you produce a musical under some contract, you dont need swings. If you come to Broadway you do. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A point that you may be missing. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:51 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
| In reply to: re: A point that you may be missing. - NewtonUK 03:38 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| NewtonUK, I think that's not altogether correct. For decades, the minimum for nonmusicals was four. If a play had more than a certain amount of live music, the union might decide that it should be classified as a musical and might demand that the minimum for musicals be hired, but that happened very rarely. An example would be The Tempest, way back in 1945. Later, if the rule was still in place, I imagine Marat/Sade would have been classified as a musical according to the union. But otherwise, even in the biggest houses (and the Broadway, the Uris/Gershwin, and the Majestic have all sometimes housed plays), the minimum was four for nonmusicals. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A point that you may be missing. | |
| Posted by: ablankpage 03:27 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
| In reply to: re: A point that you may be missing. - AlanScott 03:51 pm EDT 05/26/23 | |
|
|
|
| Totally off topic, but I'm curious if you know the answer. How did it work for John Doyle's Sweeney Todd and Company? Did the producers have to pay for a minimum of musicians, or did the cast join the musicians' union? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A point that you may be missing. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:29 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
| In reply to: re: A point that you may be missing. - ablankpage 03:27 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
|
|
|
| If memory serves, the casts of Sweeney and Company had to join the musicians union. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A point that you may be missing. | |
| Posted by: mikem 11:02 am EDT 05/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: A point that you may be missing. - AlanScott 07:29 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm pretty sure they had to join the musicians union. IIRC, I believe the minimum salary at the time of Sweeney at least was higher for musicians than for actors, so that may have benefited some of them (although they had to pay union dues twice, so it may not have helped in the end, and they may all have been paid more than minimum anyway). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A point that you may be missing. | |
| Posted by: simbo 05:48 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
| In reply to: re: A point that you may be missing. - ablankpage 03:27 pm EDT 05/27/23 | |
|
|
|
| Similar query for "Once" and anythign else that's used cast as musicians (e.g. "I love my Wife" and "Pump Boys and Dinettes") | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.518090 seconds.