Paying the Orchestra

Lol, there are definitely a range of musicians out there - between amateur (that is those with a day job) and professionals; and between professionals and other professionals. As mentioned by Linda above Tony's comment, the MD has a lot of responsibility in hiring/compiling the right players to reproduce the score as it should be. However, I do think the quality of amateur orchestras (since I've had mostly the opposite experience to Tony and have rarely hear a poor professional orchestra) is often affected by only a small number of instruments, the kind that need (in a lot of circumstances) to be substituted with professionals players (whose abilities should be known to the MD). More difficult instruments - particularly trumpet and oboe and even the elusive viola are simply not the sort one can tinker on once a week and still expect to be able to handle a broadway orchestra part - designed to be realised by a professional broadway musician. No broadway orchestra part can be taken for granted (let alone experience as an ensemble musician) however the fact remains - some instruments are not as difficult as others. I'm not saying that quality amateur players of these instruments do not exist, but as we've discussed, they're hard to find - and really if they're as good as professionals, they ought to be paid justly (and hence aren't really amateur despite their day job - unless we're taking up various other definitions of amateur proposed on this site in its defence). Certainly the same can be said of tertiary level musicians who can be difficult to secure due to their commitments but are worth their weight in gold for ability. However! My increasing thought is that amateur companies SHOULD be paying their orchestras. For a number of reasons: 1. They ARE making money on their productions, and while the majority MUST be reinjected into the companies funds for the next production, the outlay would be worth it for securing players capable of realising parts designed to be played by professional players. (AND for ensuring there is a full orchestra present. In my mind, nothing is worse than keyboard imitations of real instruments where it is not the composers intention) If they're not making money, then there are definitely other problems that need to be addressed first! 2. Cast and orchestra are a different breed. Very few orchestra members think of their contribution to a musical as part of 'creating' a 'work of art' - probably because they rarely see the show from the front, and they aren't the main focus, but think they spend majority of the show giving someone else the glory. (I'm not saying all musicians think this, but it's certainly a feeling I've gathered over the years...) They're simply there, doing what they do almost every day of the year, tooting or hitting their instrument in time to the beat of a little stick while people sing along. (I think it is up to the MD to ensure the musicians are aware of their importance to any production and that they take their role seriously, with pride, and be in awe [even just a little] of the glorious spectacle that is musical theatre - wow am I biased!) 3. Cast need the security of a solid orchestra. Too often I see/hear problems simply related to the relationship between calibre of orchestra and calibre of cast. If the music is solid and - dare I say it - recording-like, the cast have the best opportunity to shine and deliver the experience of the show that was intended by its creators.