I had not read the piece you link, and I appreciate your providing it.
I have no problem with your second paragraph. My issue is with "the hypocrisy of the 'it can’t possibly be done with live musicians!' argument" because (and yes I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, no pun intended) it is in fact not possible to replicate a fully "produced" recording [which is what the substance of the show calls for, except for the end piece] with live musicians performing in the theatre. Now folks can say the didn't notice and don't care, but that's no different than someone saying the score of South Pacific can be played on a synth and that they wouldn't notice the difference or wouldn't care.
Now you say that "the waiver has already been denied." Unless you know something that no one else does, that's not true. My understanding is that the procedure in the CBA is in process. By the way, at a bare minimum, musicians covered under the CBA would be required for the end piece I mention above. And if the production is stuck on zero musicians (and I don't think it is), then the options are (more or less as your article says) to move, to pay 19 musicians or such lesser number as determined by the committee) not to play, or to cancel the production. |
