Paying the Orchestra
Wed, 26 Dec 2007, 05:49 pmfunklizard88828 posts in thread
Paying the Orchestra
Wed, 26 Dec 2007, 05:49 pmJust wondering what opinions are out there in regard to the payment (or lack of) for orchestra/band members involved in semi-professional, amateur and community productions of works of music theatre?
In particular I am interested in whether others think there is cause for distinction to be made between different levels of instrumental ability (particularly within a single production - ie. student or 'formally untrained' musicians being paid differently [or not at all] in comparison to professional musicians brought in to 'boost ranks' or cover more difficult parts - as for example happens in school productions)?
And whether distinction can be made by instrument? (as in my experience finding reliable string, harp, oboe, bassoon and 'woodwind' [multi-instrumental] players is quite difficult without serious funding).
If one member of the orchestra is paid, do all the musicians deserve to be paid?
If the Music Director is paid, should the musicians also be paid?
All relevant thoughts, anecdotes, experiences, and opinions are welcome.
Alrighty...Getting a
Sat, 19 Jan 2008, 09:06 amAlrighty...
Getting a little off track here.
While all things are interrelated, this topic is specifically about "Paying the Orchestra" which in a lot of ways I believe exists (or ought to exist) entirely separate to the other theatrical aspects. Hence why in pro-am/profit share (please consider these different [but similar - oxymoron!] terms complementary in this post) the orchestra is usually the next paid after the production team.
Pro-am is here to stay though - what company legitimately has the millions of dollars required to put on shows 'properly' across the board and pay everyone MEAA (and other) rates? It's just too expensive! This is why pro-am (and I guess for smaller productions: profit share) exists - to give the audiences the shows/experience they demand without having the backing actually required. It's not as though the public is going to boycott pro-am shows on principle if they knew how things are most of the time operating! (Whether or not untrained actors who want to be on stage, but are doing so for free is legit, is a bit out of our scope here - and I'm sure there are dozens of other forums on the issue).
But I do agree about this line in the sand business, certainly on the issue of the orchestra. Either you pay well, and properly, or you don't. Unfortunately, as Luke remarked (a very fine post by the way), if you can't pay at all - it means your MD may walk away or turn down gigs (no matter how wonderful the show itself) since they know deep down having to convince 20 mates to show up for free 5-6 nights a week for no return is quite an ask (not to mention all the preparation beforehand). Or they know the amateur musicians who will play for free (often for the 'experience' of theatre) will not be able to sufficiently carry a show.
Furthermore, without this line, we create a situation where amateur players (of lesser capability) are recognised/paid alongside professionals. Which like the other aspects of pro-am continue to deepen the thorn in the side of local theatre production by creating a situation where no one thinks they need to pay for anyone's legitimate skills.