Is a Possible Musicians' Strike in the Offing?

[ERinVA]

The question of how many musicians a Broadway production must hire is coming around again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/05/theat ... adway.html

[BEtourfan]

Here's a link to the Facebook site, "Save Live Music on Broadway."
https://www.facebook.com/SaveLiveMusicOnBroadway

[angelenroute]

Here's a link to the Facebook site, "Save Live Music on Broadway."
https://www.facebook.com/SaveLiveMusicOnBroadway

Have just gone and liked the page, thanks!

[kport]

Here's a link to the Facebook site, "Save Live Music on Broadway."
https://www.facebook.com/SaveLiveMusicOnBroadway

As a member of the Musicians Union, I have to support this, although I acknowledge that it is expensive. So much will be lost if the electronic age prevails at the expense of live musicians.

[LiamM]

I doubt that would happen. People want live music and I think any Broadway show without it would be panned. In addition, live music allows for adjusting the timing in real-time to respond to issues on-stage. For example, an extra bar of music can be inserted when needed.

I also think it is silly to force a minimum number of musicians. Directors should be able to hire whatever number of musicians, actors, stage hands, etc. that they need for what they are doing. Restrictions just make it more difficult and expensive to mount shows and reduce the possibilities for the creative process to develop new ideas.

For example, when I saw Chess the Musical in Toronto, the "orchestra" danced around the stage while playing their instruments (only a drum kit and the music director on piano where off-stage). It was very impressive. But where they considered actors or musicians? I don't know how the contracts figured it out, but too restrictive contracts could prevent a show like that.

If shows cost less to mount, tickets would be cheaper, that would mean more people coming to the theatre, and that would eventually mean more theatres, more shows, and more jobs for musicians.

[kport]

I doubt that would happen. People want live music and I think any Broadway show without it would be panned. In addition, live music allows for adjusting the timing in real-time to respond to issues on-stage. For example, an extra bar of music can be inserted when needed.

I also think it is silly to force a minimum number of musicians. Directors should be able to hire whatever number of musicians, actors, stage hands, etc. that they need for what they are doing. Restrictions just make it more difficult and expensive to mount shows and reduce the possibilities for the creative process to develop new ideas.

For example, when I saw Chess the Musical in Toronto, the "orchestra" danced around the stage while playing their instruments (only a drum kit and the music director on piano where off-stage). It was very impressive. But where they considered actors or musicians? I don't know how the contracts figured it out, but too restrictive contracts could prevent a show like that.

If shows cost less to mount, tickets would be cheaper, that would mean more people coming to the theatre, and that would eventually mean more theatres, more shows, and more jobs for musicians.

Your informative post indicates the difficulty in finding a balance. I can assure you that performers who are union members are well aware of the difficult balance that must be achieved. There is no government bailout for the Arts.

[ERinVA]

The musicians have struck before, and the actors honored the picket lines, so Broadway shut down.

It should be noted that the number of musicians required by the union is dependent on the size of the theatre, so the minimum number differs. Also, the article notes that exceptions have been applied for and granted in the past--again, depending.

[kport]

Also, the SETA contract allows for more flexibility that the standard Actors' Equity contract for stationary productions.

[ERinVA]

This article is about Broadway only, I believe.