Mackintosh Speaks About Musicians' Union Controversy - playbill.com

[Rob]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 1:35pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/l.cfm?id=19213

The latest comments from Cameron who gave a snippet to Playbill on his way into more union meetings...

[sparky310]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 1:59pm

its so unfortunate that unions have gone so far as they have..as much good as they do..they do nearly as much harm..particularly when it comes to stifling the growth of theatre..if unions would stay out of shows housed in say houses 50 seats or less..i think more new stuff would get done..there needs to be a breeding ground without 9million rules...now i will climb down off my soap box..sorry

[TG4802]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 2:49pm

How is trying to prevent 13 live musicians from being replaced by a machine stifling the growth of theatre? In my opinion the stifling of theatre comes from the number crunchers trying to find ways to increase profits and in the process, unfortunately, cheapening the product. As far as the Union staying out of houses 50 seats or less (do they even exist?), new musicals generally evolve in workshop, where the production is nurtured and allowed to grow. In case you're wondering, the Palace seats about 1400, and the Queens is in the area of 1000.

[Shawk]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 4:50pm

I'm not getting how Mama Mia really compares to Les Miz as far as instrumentation.

[TG4802]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 4:54pm

Les Miz in London is at the Palace (The West End)

[Shawk]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 5:13pm

I know. I've been there.

I was also in NY for the musicians' strike. While I wouldn't want to see shows close because of union musician requirements, I honestly think that would rarely if ever happen. I'm much more frightened of paying big money (even if it is less in London) to get an inferior product. Musicians can alter what they are doing to compensate for or enhance what is happening on stage. I'm not seeing that happen with reduced musicians and more machines.

[TG4802]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 5:48pm

Removing the human factor (adding machines) from a performance is limiting the singers ability to express themselves to the degree necessary for their art. As you said, there is a relationship between the soloist and the accompianment, without one playing off the other, what we end up with is rather stale and unmusical. The beauty of a live show is that no two performances are alike; from what's happening on stage, to what's happening in the pit. This really isn't about union musician requirements. In London there are no orchestra "minimums" from theatre to theatre, as on Broadway. The musicians are in a struggle to preserve the quality of their product against what is seemingly an endless barrage against their craft, all in the name of saving a few bucks (or pounds in this case). By the way, I'm not getting the "Mama Mia" connection.

[Shawk]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 5:55pm

I agree with what you've said.

Mackintosh mentioned several musicals that he said were not harmed by reducing the number of musicans, and Mama Mia was among them. However, Mama Mia is a vastly different show than Les Miz, so I think his comparison is just a tad flawed.

I understand that producers and theaters want to make as much money as possible. But with a show like Les Miz that has been around forever and has a reputation, and also has fans who come back time and time again to see different performers and whatnot, this seems like an especially bad move. And if it works for Mackintosh, one can only assume others will follow.

[TG4802]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 6:15pm

Amen. This is only the beginning......

I dismissed Mac's comments on the reductions as rhetoric and readily dismissed them. Sorry

Updated On: 1/22/04 at 06:15 PM

[Shawk]

Posted: 1/22/04 at 6:25pm

"Know thy enemy." I always like to know what people are saying, even if it's flawed PR-type natter.

[Belter]

Posted: 1/23/04 at 7:33am

For a show that's been around as long as Les Miserables, the producer just keeping it running is enough for me to give him some lee-way. The more money he makes, the more he has to spend, and the more he is apt to spend it, on new shows, bringing new employement and new enjoyment to everyone else.

People who say "it must be done this way" don't like to face reality. Would you all prefer that the show close because it can't fit as many musicians as you'd like?

Then again, I'm not a Taurus and am not that picky. And if Unions were really about protection of artists, then I'd be more pro-Union. But they're really about protecting themselves. They won't argue with Macintosh because he's got the money and the ability to employ or not to employ ... they'd rather have 10 working musicians than none. And that's just good business.

[TG4802]

Posted: 1/23/04 at 8:35am

Let's not cloud the issue. The heart of the contoversy is the replacement of 12 live, creative people with a computer operator that taps the time on a computer keyboard. Mac knows the score requires a rich full sound and is banking on the audience not being saavy enough to tell the difference between man or machine, calling the end result "satisfactory", thus justifying not cutting ticket prices.

I don't understand why you said that the unions are protecting themselves and not the artists when the unions are the artists. When a musician, actor, singer or dancer performs, they present themselves as the product, heart and soul. Not exactly like punching a time clock. I think the musicians in this case are fighting to hold on to a standard of quality the audience has come to expect. If the venue isn't appropriate for a show of that size, maybe Mac should let it go and leave the small, short-cut type productions to the regional theatres that are trying to provide entertainment within their means. Theatre Producers do it for the money, not the art. This saddens me, because it wasn't always like this. Shows are for the most part backed financially by corporations with rooms full of accountants instead of creative teams. If Les Miz closes, surely they will find another to take it's place.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 1/23/04 at 9:02am

"Theatre Producers do it for the money, not the art. This saddens me, because it wasn't always like this."

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Oh, that's rich!

[leeinlondon]

Posted: 1/23/04 at 9:08am

I would argue with his case about the Queens being the only possible venue....An example off the top of my head, The Piccadilly is nearly always dark and would have made a much more suitable Venue..

The venue was chosen because he "gave up" the Palace Theatre without a fight to Andrew Lloyd Webber for The Woman in White, in return for taking back the lease of The Queens two years early from ALW.

And calling a computer programme an instrument is an insult to musicians.

Just because you can site tours that have made do with 9 people rather than 20 does not make that right.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/23/04 at 9:26am

This is the most sensitive subject I could ever participate in. So I'm gonna sit back and observe for a while.

[sparky310]

Posted: 1/23/04 at 12:20pm

i was making a general comment no need to be so agressive..maybe you should read more closely what i said before you attack...i was giving them credit and not just the musicians union..it was unions overall...take that into account before you serve my head on a silver platter..and by the way..take a moment to look at the whole picture