Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 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: 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: 0.234136 seconds.