A crying shame that with Broadway still working on recovering from 9/11, the musicians union and producers of musicals can’t come to terms over the number of musicians required for any given show.
The current situation stems from the fact that the musicians union has a mandated minimum of 26 musicians for a musical (although I’ve heard it also variously reported as 24.) The producers are saying, “Enough of that, we want to be able to have as few as 16 musicians” (also variously reported as low as 14.) Both sides can claim it’s a matter of artistic integrity (musicians want to protect the rights of audiences to the full rich sound of a full orchestra) and producers claim their musical directors should be free to mount the show as they see fit without having extraneous musicians. Of course, what it all comes down to really is money: The union wants to guarantee employment, the producers want to save money.
You can see both sides to it, I suppose, but several things come to my mind. First, to the best of my knowledge, actors unions don’t get guarantees of a minimal number of dancers or singers in a chorus. Tech unions, I don’t think, have minimum number of people for a lighting crew. If that’s so, I’m unclear as to why musicians should get special treatment. Second, when I was in a community theater production of “Man of La Mancha,” we had an eleven piece orchestra. I, accustomed to shows wth a pit consisting of a guy on a piano, a drummer, and a guitarist if we were lucky, was impressed by the number of musicians. And the music director told me that a full blown orchestra for a production of MOLM only required fourteen musicians, so we were actually pretty close to Broadway level. And it sounded just fine to me.
That’s the real problem the musicians union is faced with. As much as they claim they’re protecting audience rights, audiences *don’t* really know, *can’t* really tell. Most audience members aren’t going to sit there in a show and say, “Ðámņ, you can really tell they need at least two more violins.” As long as the singers stay in time with the orchestra, everyone’s happy.
The alternative is recorded music. Me, I hate that idea, not because of the sound, but because if something goes wrong on stage, you want a conductor who can make split-second adjustments. No conductor means the cast is working without a net every single night.
C’mon, guys. Let’s say, for sake of argument, that the producers are really saying 14 and the unions are saying 24. Let’s split the difference at 19 and move on, okay?
PAD
• 
Now that this is so public nationally, you can bet that at some point the tech and actor unions WILL try to put in minimums. Let’s get this straight: there’s no GUARANTEE OF WORK in this country – or at least there shouldn’t be. I’ve gone from supporting my family on a upper-lower class income to doing so on a upper-middle class income. I did it by working overtime and weekends and developing skills. No one guaranteed that I would have a job the next day. I did it without any union minimum. I did it myself.
Artististic Integrity? BS. I don’t mind unions in minimum wage shops (grocery stores, retail and such), but not in higher-end professions (airline pilots, actors, etc.).
In the airline industry the unions are so seniority-based that a 20-year veteran pilot can’t go from American to United without sacrificing his salary back to the minimum level and going back to co-pilot status for years. That’s just stupid! That’s someone an airline should kill to recruit and want to put in the pilot’s seat, but can’t.
Pad,
The minimums run anywhere from 4-24 based on the size of the theatre. I agree that they should work this out as soon as possible. I feel bad for the people (from out of town especially)who are not able to see the shows that they want. BTW, saw MOLM on Broadway about a month ago. What a show it was.
James
If the union wishes to have a guarantee minimum of musicians for every performance, then perhaps they should also guarantee the producers that their actions will bring in a minimum number of seats filled.
I think the analogies are equally as arguable.
<<<>>
I wouldn’t be so quick to put acting in the higher-end of professions. Sure if you’re a lead in a broadway show or a cast member of Friends you can make big bucks but most actors are not that lucky. Hëll I work for a retail chain (in a non union position) and generally speaking make more annually then my actor friends and my salary is by no means high end. (Lower Middle end possibly, but a long long way from high end). When most people think of actors they automatically think of stars, only about 1% of working actors are stars. The various actors unions do not exist for the stars who make a million dollars an episode/movie or show, they exist for the guy you never heard of, who works just as hard, probably even harder, making scale.
PAD: musicians want to protect the rights of audiences to the full rich sound of a full orchestra
Luigi Novi: What an utter bunch of horseshit. The idea that the audience has “rights” to make decisions for the production is ludicrous. It is the ARTIST (or artists) who create the production, not the audience, and certainly not unions. The idea that the audience is being deprived of a right is just bûllšhìŧ, when it’s the union who basically wants the power to arbitrarily say to the producers, “You want this guy for your orchestra? You gotta pay these other two guys two, even if you don’t need them.”
This why unions have lost so much of their credibility over the decades especially in the entertainment industry. It used to be about securing basic working rights, and now it’s about a feeling of entitlement, which in this case, is for guys who can’t seem to get a job. Just force producers to hire musicians they don’t need, and then claim it’s a matter of “audience rights,” when it’s the musicians the unions are supposed to represent, not the audience. What a bunch of fascist crooks.
Say, if the audience has “rights” to make decisions for a production, does that mean I can edit a movie I didn’t like to give it a better ending? Can I tell a theater chain not to play any more Adam Sandler or Pauly Shore movies? What a great idea!
Mark Lindsey: I don’t mind unions in minimum wage shops (grocery stores, retail and such), but not in higher-end professions (airline pilots, actors, etc.).
Luigi Novi: I don’t think it’s a matter of what the industry is, but what the purpose of the union is for. Unions should exist to guarantee things like minimum basic wages, benefits, a safe working environment, etc. It used to be that’s what they were for. The idea that an airline pilot doesn’t deserve to be safe in his job, or get paid well (when many pilots are so underpaid right now, and many may feel unsafe after 9/11), is false. I also don’t see why actors are mentioned as a “high-end” job. Those rich and famous stars you see only account for about 10% of SAG. The other 90% can’t get consistent work.
Inflating the number of musicians required artificially is ridiculous. Unions do themselves a disservice by insisting on creating unnecesary make-work.
My personal favorite silly union story (well, at least the one I wasn’t personally involved with; being forced to be a member of the UMichigan TA union and seeing their complete silliness up close and personal were several great stories right there) came up during an election for mayor of Philadelphia a while back. One candidate used as a centerpiece of his campaign that, per union regs, it took three people to change a light bulb at the airport. Not a special bulb, or one 100 feet up, but just your standard twist out the old bulb, twist in the new bulb.
I wish I knew a bit more about how orchestras worked, but sadly, I just don’t know enough about them in order to give an analysis on how they could manage things.
As a college trumpet player and sound tech, I can say that this idea is pretty ridiculous. In the instances where parts are doubled up (you have two people playing the part rather than just a single trumpeter), the need is usually to enhance the volume, which with professional shows with microphones and incredible sound systems, is mostly unnecessary. In contrast, in shows where they are not miked (like Marching Bands, etc.) there are always at least 5 people per part to make sure that the volume is there. However, even with tons of practise, there are usually very minor differences between the ways that the two people play the part, and can actually lower the quality of music. While volume is more important in marching bands, in broadway shows, quality is more important. While I recently saw a production of Sondheim’s “Company,” with only a drum set and piano, and I craved a full orchestra sound, I felt that the production is entirely up to the director’s discretion. And if the musicians’ union is correct, then it will show in the reviews and the profits: if a show without a full orchestra is less popular and sells fewer tickets than a show with a full orchestra, profit-demand will cause the directors and producers to adopt full orchestras for their musicals. Luigi is right that the artists have the right to the type of orchestration, but PAD is also correct that the audience will indirectly determine the size of the orchestra depending on what shows they pay money to see. However, I think that the real way to decide the issue is for the show to be scored accoring to the music composed, which has an outlined number of parts, as intended by the composer. But that’s just my $.02′ worth.
Chris
PAD sez:As long as the singers stay in time with the orchestra, everyone’s happy.
And as long as each musician is in time with the rest of the orchestra, because while they are *supposed* to be consummate professionals, a musician can make a mistake, or go flat or sharp when he or she isn’t supposed to. I played Clarinet in Junior High and High School, and I went from awful to… well, I think the word “potential” was bandied, but with some indecision. 🙂 I was often flat or sharp, or not in time with everybody else, so I had to fake it to catch, fortunately the audience didn’t notice… well, I think there was a squeak, here or there, but it could have been the oboe player on key and just a little too loud. 🙂 But I do think you’re right that if the musicians perform well, it’s not going to matter how many there are, as long as there is a good cross section.
Oh and My clarinet has gathered dust for the past 8 years thank you very much. The people of Salt Lake City have thanked me… or not. 🙂
Erik sez: If the union wishes to have a guarantee minimum of musicians for every performance, then perhaps they should also guarantee the producers that their actions will bring in a minimum number of seats filled.
I think the analogies are equally as arguable.
Point!
I think it’s ridiculous for the union to try and impose a minimal number of musicians… what if, and this is a big IF, i were to write a musical which only requires a guitar, a cello and a drum? I would have to hire 21 extra musicians ? C’mon, how realisitic is that?!
My personal favorite silly union story (well, at least the one I wasn’t personally involved with; being forced to be a member of the UMichigan TA union and seeing their complete silliness up close and personal were several great stories right there) came up during an election for mayor of Philadelphia a while back. One candidate used as a centerpiece of his campaign that, per union regs, it took three people to change a light bulb at the airport. Not a special bulb, or one 100 feet up, but just your standard twist out the old bulb, twist in the new bulb
This is not unusual. A friend of mine used to run his own video company. Using his own equiptment to film corportate confrences and shows, that sort of thing. A small company who he did a lot of work for wanted to to hire him to film a presentation at the Jacob Javits Center in NYC and he just coundn’t do it. His company was one man operation, occasionally he would hire a friend to work a second camera if needed and that was about it. When he researched filming at the Javits center he discovered to his horror he would have to have hired a dozen union guys at high salarys. 2 qualified electricians to plug the lights in, several lighting guys to set up his two lights, 4 guys to carry in the equitment, (which consisted of a camera, tripod and some lighting and sound equitment that he normally carried in himself), etc, etc. And yes it is stuff like this that gives unions a bad name.
Here’s an excerpt from the New York Times to perhaps give some perspective:
“The producers have argued that the
minimums take the control out of the hands of the creative team. At the same time, most composers, orchestrators and music directors seem to favor maintaining the minimums. More than 40 prominent music people recently signed a petition in support of the union, including John Kander, the composer of “Chicago” and “Cabaret,” and Don Sebesky,
who orchestrated “Kiss Me, Kate,” among other shows.
In this contract negotiation, the musicians are also seeking a wage increase of 5 percent; their current base salary is $1,350 per week.”
Now. See that bottom sentence? I’m no high-level employee, but even *I* make more than that–and I work for a cash-strapped government agency, not in the glittering capital of a billion-dollar industry such as Broadway.
But look at the paragraph above that one.
The people who CREATE the shows have been vocal in their desire that the minimums be retained (said minimums being 3 to 26, depending on the size of the theater)–are they somehow less privy to the controls needed by “the creative team”–that is, THEMSELVES–than the producers?
You look at it in that light, and it seems a little more greed-motivated on the part of the producers.
Take a moment. Max Bialystock aside, go take a look at what Broadway producers make a week.
Contrast that with the above average sum for the musicians. Beginning to see a different shade of grey here?
And though the temptation is there to blame strikers in any given union dispute situation–“After all, there’d be SHOWS now if they hadn’t gone on strike!”–let’s also remember that the Musician’s Union has for a long time been open to negotiation. Since 1993, there’s beena standing committee to decide when exceptions to the minimums should be approved, said committee composed of two union members, two producers and up to three people from an agreed-upon list of music directors and arrangers.
Shows that GOT those exceptions include “Chicago,” “Aida,” “Mamma Mia,” “Movin’ Out,” and “Urban Cowboy.”
That’s five (well, maybe four) of the hit shows of the last two years.
Somehow, I can’t see the Musicians’ Union as stiff-necked, and I can’t see the producers as really looking out for the interests of all concerned.
One candidate used as a centerpiece of his campaign that, per union regs, it took three people to change a light bulb at the airport. Not a special bulb, or one 100 feet up, but just your standard twist out the old bulb, twist in the new bulb.
And we all know that the campaign claims of politicians, particularly those with an axe to grind, can be taken 100% at face value…
>>One candidate used as a centerpiece of his campaign that, per union regs, it took three people to change a light bulb at the airport. Not a special bulb, or one 100 feet up, but just your standard twist out the old bulb, twist in the new bulb.
And we all know that the campaign claims of politicians, particularly those with an axe to grind, can be taken 100% at face value…<<
If it’s the campaign I’m thinking of, the candidate did win and DID put the figurative screws to the unions, which nearly cost him a second term – he got it, though and he also managed to get himself elected governor…
Now if Peter wants to see real Union Idiocy in action, he should take a look around the Pennsylvania Convention Center the next time he’s in Philly…
And we all know that the campaign claims of politicians, particularly those with an axe to grind, can be taken 100% at face value…
As so we should the words of those who obviously haven’t the faintest, most remote semblance of a clue what they’re talking about?
Please at least try to know what you’re talking about before you shoot your mouth off.
The story about unions and light-bulb changing at PHL is entirely true. Ed Rendell did his best to curb the growing union insanity in Philadelphia, work that his successor (intellectual giant John Street) has rather unsurprisingly completely cocked up, which puts us in the situation we have now; union chicanery in this city has driven things to the point where not only has convention center expansion been halted, there is talk of having to close it entirely – SOLELY for the reason that the union workers who operate it make it almost impossible to work there.
Just this past summer there was an attempt at restructuring the management of the Convention Center that might have saved the facility – a plan that was derailed because the ONLY involved party that would not sign off on the new changes was the construction union, who refused to go along with such outrageous changes as changing the current requirement that workers from THREE DIFFERENT UNIONS are required to put down a tablecloth to the more reasonable one.
If I am remembering correctly, repeat convention business at the PA Convention Center is something like 13%, far and away the lowest of similarly-sized and equipped facilities in the US.
Find someone who helped organize WizardWorld East last year, I’m sure the horror stories they can tell you will turn you white. The fact that they are coming back suggests that whoever is organizing it has serious masochistic tendencies.
Or a cousin in one of the unions.
JLK
A Base salary of $1350? That’s $70,200 per year. Now, I know the cost of living is high in New York, but that’s still more than 75% of American household income and 65% of New York state and city households (see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet). That’s assuming year-round work though – and I’ll confess I don’t know how many weeks out of the year they are employed.
>>However, even with tons of practise, there are usually very minor differences between the ways that the two people play the part, and can actually lower the quality of music.<<
Excuse me, sorry, but I have problems with this sentence. More musicians means worse music? Sorry, but no. In fact, music engineering has developed this funky process called “Chorusing” to make it sound like two violins are a full section – a full section of violin players making ever-so-slight errors – because humans (generally speaking) like to hear a whole section of musicians instead of a pair. Unless there’s a bunch of second-year Suzuki violinists filling out the section, it’s not “lower quality”.
So there is some basis in reality when the musicians’ union demand more people in the orchestra, but ultimately, it’s something for the music director to decide, not a union.
And yes, the $70,000 figure is a bit bloated, because they only make that salary while they’re playing the show, not year-round. But most musicians I know who play in professional orchestras supplement their income by giving lessons.
I *never* object to paying someone a fair wage for skilled labor that I actually need. I ran the Exhibits Division for the Worldcon in Chicago in 2000 and had *no* problem paying the forklift drivers, because they were providing a skill that I sorely needed.
It was paying $75 / hour and up for union members to cut cable ties that was really starting to frost me. (And I’m not kidding…)
Now, before I begin my discussion on the topic, I do have to make my nitpicky fanboy comment of the day. The Lyric from Les Miz that PAD is using goes: *Do* you hear the people sing?
And I do have to say that digital music isn’t an answer at all. I’ve been in enough plays where various things happened during songs that a human orchestra could work around but a digital player wouldn’t be capable of dealing with.
And coming soon: Les Miz Saigon!
Down here in Houston right now, the SYMPHONY orchestra (technically contract labor) has gone on strike over local wages, not in support of New York musicians. The city is trying to tighten its collective belt where and however possible.
But no matter how you slice it, we the AUDIENCE are the ones left out in the cold until this is settled.
Meanwhile, I’m sure Broadway will not go completely dark. After all, some productions (comedies/dramas) are only missing background/mood music. Right?
“It was paying $75 / hour and up for union members to cut cable ties that was really starting to frost me. (And I’m not kidding…) “
How long did it take to perform the work you mentioned? And how many employees were performing this work?
You don’t truly think the union member saw most of this? There is a least a 25% to 50% markup on labour costs from the contractor.
Also, in a number of union agreements (or state/provincial law) require a minimum callout time (anywhere between 2 and 4 hours). It’s to ensure an employee isn’t dragged 1/2 hour to 1 hour (depending on where he or she lives) to work and find only 15 minutes of work or worse no work at all.
“Also, in a number of union agreements (or state/provincial law) require a minimum callout time (anywhere between 2 and 4 hours). It’s to ensure an employee isn’t dragged 1/2 hour to 1 hour (depending on where he or she lives) to work and find only 15 minutes of work or worse no work at all. “
Wah wah wah…
Unions are slowly killing this country (and the corporations they work under aren’t much better).
Wow, the number of virulently anti-union comments on this board is pretty shocking. Yeah, some unions are run by scummy people, and sometimes they go overboard (although, I suspect, not nearly as often as management), but I shudder to think what kind of a country we’d have without them. Much more of a Third World one, I’ll bet.
Let’s get this straight: there’s no GUARANTEE OF WORK in this country – or at least there shouldn’t be.
I categorically and without hesitation disagree. I think work that pays a living wage, like clean air and water and free education and a roof over one’s head, should absolutely be guaranteed to every citizen by any civilized nation.
I can see both points of view about this strike. I have been on both ends as a Producer and as a member of Actors Equity. There is probably some sort of middle ground but right now tempers have flaired and no one is seeing straight. I will respect the picket lines as my union has requested.
As to the pay, well Broadway is where any union member would want to work since the minumum are a living wage. Most of my stage management gigs paid me enough to survive, but I never got ahead. My good years were under a LORT contract and an LOA in which the producers of the theater wanted to pay their employees a living wage. I never became wealthy in the money sense while I was stage managing, I gained a wealth of knowledge and some good stories to tell. That and I can build just about anything.
Kathleen
Elayne Riggs wrote:
“I categorically and without hesitation disagree. I think work that pays a living wage, like clean air and water and free education and a roof over one’s head, should absolutely be guaranteed to every citizen”
Ah yes. One of the basic tenets of communism.
Larry
Michael, I don’t really *care* how much the union workers actually received. What I *care* about is how much I was paying.
I didn’t *need* union labor to perform this operation. Cutting plastic cable ties and placing commercial grid (2×7 foot sections) in stacks (which was the other part of the operation) isn’t skilled labor by any stretch of the imagination.
If what you’re saying is that the whole thing is a racket and that there are lots of people making money off of it, I’ll happily agree with you.
As I recall, we had three union employees (and a shop steward) who took several hours to do this, just to answer your other question.
Ah yes. One of the basic tenets of communism.
I find it interesting how someone who demands the right to to blow smoke in my face, pollute my air and water supplies, waste resources, and misrepresent or lie about my views is a Fine American, while demanding the right to basic necessities like shelter, clean air and water, a decent meal, and an education turns a person into a Dreaded Commie.
Got news for you, fella … the Constitution was drawn up for all citizens of this nation, not just the ones who feel entitled to be self-centered prìçkš.
And if you check the constitution Malvito, you’ll see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a “Right to Work” and NOTHING about UNIONS and MINIMUM WAGES….
Posted by Lee Houston, Junior:
Meanwhile, I’m sure Broadway will not go completely dark. After all, some productions (comedies/dramas) are only missing background/mood music. Right?
Right. Only Broadway musicals are affected, with the exception of “Cabaret” which operates under a different union contract (likely stemming from its unique venue, the former Studio 54 site.)
‘Straight’ Broadway plays (few, if any, of which use live musicians for their interstitial musical needs) still continue, and of course Off- and Off-Off Broadway plays and musicals are still as up and running as ever. (There are those who hope that the strike might cause some would-be theatre-goers to get more experimental by sampling off-Broadway wares, but I haven’t heard even any anecdotal comments as to whether or not that’s happening…)
Interesting as to how this conversation, started by PAD as a question about the need for musicians, turned into a run of union bashing.
You can fairly argue that this instance is a bad example of union “featherbedding.” Okay. For the longest time, unions did this stuff to insure full employment. However, union people are just trying to insure some rights, in a time when the rich and powerful (namely Bush and his buddies) are trying to remove all worker rights.
I am a union member in a non-union “right to work” state. I’m slowly seeing my benefits and rights eroded by the big corporation who took over my company. Right now they’re talking about eliminating people from the possibility of joining the union, eliminating overtime (in TV where overtime is demanded) and the guarantee of minimal raises for long-time employees.
Those of you who “work at Wal-Mart and make no money” are accepting that situation, because the bosses say you must. Maybe if you’d get over some of the anti-union prejudice, start joining unions and demand some basic rights, you’d be able to work at a job with less fear and some assurance that your work was were something. Oh, I’m sorry, taking pride in your work and your own values isn’t very Libertarian. My apologies for mentioning it.
“Cabaret” is being done under the Cabaret contract due to the venue. Which makes a twisted amount of sense.
KOD
And instead of your bosses taking away money and benfits, the union would take those same wages, and then some, and still lose ground on benefits. And of course, even if you’re in a union and happy with your job, if the union says “Strike” then you’re effectively out of work unless you want to cross the picket lines and draw the ire of your “Oh-so-honest” union folks who continue to draw full paychecks while you aren’t allowed to work…
Elayne Riggs: I categorically and without hesitation disagree. I think work that pays a living wage, like clean air and water and free education and a roof over one’s head, should absolutely be guaranteed to every citizen by any civilized nation.
Luigi Novi: Including the ones who can’t work, don’t want to work, have no skills or talents, or who are just plain lazy and unmotivated to get a good one on their own? Shouldn’t the citizens at least be partially responsible for guaranteeing themselves a job? I do not so much object to your suggestion, Elayne, as I do to its lack of qualifiers. I would be very impressed with a president or other activist who thinks that “the opportunity for work that pays a living wage, like clean air and water and a roof over one’s head, should be made available to every citizen in a civilized nation that wants one and works hard for it, and the free education should be made available for those who make the grade.
I’m all for minimum wage, for example. I’m all against being paid more than what one deserves for changing a light bulb, I’m against an arbitrary minimum of employees that an employer doesn’t need, and I’m against the idea that the state should “guarantee” jobs. The government should focus on making sure that education and the economy is healthy, and perhaps helping those who need and deserve a job to get one.
<>
Our Constitution guarantees the “pursuit” of happiness not happiness wrapped up in a shiny package and delivered by a leather-clad Eliza Duskhu… uh… what was I talking about again? Oh right.
A civilized nation will guarantee *opportunity* for every citizen. Beyond that, it shouldn’t guarantee a way of life — mostly because human nature for some people is not to work hard unless it’s necessary. This sort of entitlement would result in more grasshoppers than ants.
I don’t want to *bash* unions. My father and grandfather were both members of the United Mine Workers in southern Illinois, ok?
A union exists to help equalize power between labor and management. As such, that’s a good thing for society.
But just as there is stupid management around (see Dilbert: Pointy-Haired Boss), there are stupid unions which spend more time looking out for the welfare of the union management than they do for the welfare of the union members.
The unions at McCormick Place (the big convention center here in Chicago) have had to make substantial concessions to avoid having trade shows flee to other venues, just *because* of the amount of excessive featherbedding and absurd charges that they’ve managed to accumulate through negotiation over the years. Management doesn’t care, because someone *else* is paying the bills in this sort of case.
Or, at least, management doesn’t care until the consumers wise up and go somewhere more reasonable.
As I said much earlier, I have *no* problem paying a union wage for skilled services that I actually require.
Getting back to PAD’s original post that started the thread, it sounds like some of the producers want to pay for the skilled services that *they* actually require. The musicians’ union would like the producers to take *more* musicians than the producers believe that they need.
Overall, I’d favor the producers in this case.
This post is being done just to cancel out the Italics. Nothing to see here. Keep going. And remember, the show must go on…
The number of workers covered by union agreements have been declining over the past 20 years. And with it, the standard of living that existed prior to that time.
They may not be tied together. All I know is that both my wife and I have to work to afford the lifestyle my parents had with only one breadwinner.
“Getting back to PAD’s original post that started the thread, it sounds like some of the producers want to pay for the skilled services that *they* actually require. The musicians’ union would like the producers to take *more* musicians than the producers believe that they need.
Overall, I’d favor the producers in this case.”
I can’t judge who is right or wrong in this case as I don’t have all the imformation before me. The two real question are why the numbers were originally agreed to and what has changed since then? But I’m sure this will be settled with a compromise (as someone else mentioned splitting the difference).
All I know is that both my wife and I have to work to afford the lifestyle my parents had with only one breadwinner.
Not necessarily. How big is your house/condo compared with your parents’ (assuming the same town; no fair comparing small town NC for the parentals to Boston/Silicon Valley for you)? How many cars do you have and of what relative (i.e. years old) vintage? How often do you eat out? How often do you travel, particularly by air and staying in hotels and at what distance? Got cable? Internet access? Large screen TV? Hi-fi system? Etc.
Many folk these days eat out a lot more than their parents ever did. They replace cars every few years instead of driving ’em until they fall apart. They travel frequently, not maybe once a year. Houses are averaging bigger too. It’s not obvious that middle-class lifestyle now is equivalent to middle-class lifestyle then in terms of the sheer amount of consumerism done today.
I still live in the same city where I was raised. Housing prices have increased sevenfold from when my father bought the house roughly 25 years ago.
My wife and I rent a 2 bedroom townhome. We can’t afford to enter the real estate market.
Our car (singular) is 8 years old and will probably have it for another 2 years. My father got a new car every 3 years.
Granted we do eat out more often than my parents did.
As for all the other items you mentioned most would be comparable to either times (ie. the colour TV my father bought would be in a similar price range to the TV+DVD I have, where I have a computer my father had season tickets for hockey).
Don’t get me wrong, we have a good life. But the worst thing about the need for dual income is time spent with family and friends is at a premium.
According to the radio this morning, they’ve reached an agreement to end the strike.
Posted by Bill Roper
According to the radio this morning, they’ve reached an agreement to end the strike.
Looks that way…
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/03/11/broadway.strike/index.html
Let the shows go on!
Mandy,
I agree that it is for the music director to decide, not the union. However, your points about chorusing need clarification. I did not say that “More musicians means worse music?” but rather that there will be slight differences between what is being played and that fewer instruments would make a cleaner sound. The more players you add, the more variations and the articulation will not be as clean, the dynamic changes not quite as together. And yes, Chorusing does make it sound like two violins are a full section, however, these two musicians are not making the errors because they are the same people and thus playing the music with the same slight variances that personalize it to their particular playing style. They will begin their crescendos at the same place in the music every time, and the same is true for their articulation and phrasing. And your comments about “[audiences] like to hear a whole section of musicians instead of a pair” are correct to a point, if you agree that audiences wish to hear a full orchestra, which is what the unions are arguing. However, in many cases the orchestration does not call for this, and it is up to the composer to decide what that should be.
Chris
It’s an old post, but I’m a new comer, and even though the topic is null and void, I find it hard to resist… all I can do is imagine
“I am I, Peter David
The writer from New York
My publisher calls, and I go
For the wild winds of I-CON
Shall carry be onward
Withersoever they blow.
Withersoever they blow
Onward to madness I go.”