Paying the Orchestra

Just 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.

I'm guessing there are several questions here (not very well explained)... 1. What should people involved in productions be paid? Answer: See MEAA for award rates on a variety of roles. 2. Should people be paid based on their level of experience? Answer: No. It's fine if you want to make payments based on the level of involvement (ie. a director will be more involved and therefore spend more time on a show, than say, someone who just comes to help bump in), like a percentage. This is done all the time. However, it's unfair to base payment on level of experience. 3. Should some people be paid, while others aren't? Answer: This is what's termed as pro-am performances, and is done on a regular basis. Again though, it depends on the level of involvement of the people... don't just pick and choose who's going to get paid. Some people are paid because they have special skills others won't - a rigging technician who will set up a fly system for example. This is more inline with question two; payment based on skill. However, in your situation, I don't see any difference between an untrained musician and a trained one, unless the trained one is specifically called in to do a solo role. (Ie. don't pay the chorus, but pay the solo soprano). And no, I would not consider paying people based on their instrument. They may be harder to find, but each person puts in their own time and effort to learn it; and shouldn't be treated differently. I would say that borders on discrimination. Without knowing the details of the show, it's hard to answer this. Are you performing with a group, are you the organiser, are you the organiser of a new group... etc.? Perhaps you should look further into threads about amateur vs. pro, as well as check out MEAA. Additionally, look into how pro-am theatres/orchestras/productions work; your answer will lie somewhere in there. Sticky Apple Legs www.thepromptcopy.com/sal Puppets in Melbourne www.puppetsinmelbourne.com.au My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

Thanks for the quick reply! Great to know there are resources out there (like the MEAA) to help with these questions! Sorry about the state of the questions, I guess they were really just a mishmash of the experiences I've had MDing shows on the amateur/community and pro-am levels. In terms of framing actual questions, I think you've narrowed the field a bit. I wasn't really expecting any exact answers - even now looking at the MEAA it doesn't really provide any sort of advice below the pro level - I was more looking for opinions and stories from those who have experienced similar difficulties in satisfying those they are coordinating when MDing shows or working/volunteering as a musician. But thanks again for pointing me in the right direction with the link to the MEAA - I wasn't even sure what to make my search terms on the old google today - I was trying to follow up on hearing that the standard now is $150 for a three hour call for musicians in WA. (Which I've now confirmed on the MEAA website :D)

No worries - some of these questions are hard to answer, especially when speaking about pro-am and profit-share stuff. There's almost no right or wrong answer, so long as you're upfront with everyone involved, and are very clear as to the terms and payments. I rarely do profit-share anymore, due to lack of time, and haven't done pro-am so I can't speak much from experience. Even when I do profit-share, it's always been equally shared amongst the group; no percentages based on involvement, etc. I guess it depends on what you're planning on doing, and how you're going to do it. Additionally, MEAA has (or had, they might not have it online anymore) an example contract for profit-share shows. If it's not on their site, email/call them and ask for a copy; they should send you one. It's an excellent example of how to set up a similar contract. Someone else here will have a better idea of how pro-am works. Sticky Apple Legs www.thepromptcopy.com/sal Puppets in Melbourne www.puppetsinmelbourne.com.au My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

You've hit on a sore point, for me personally. We are hoping to move our company from fully amateur towards becoming a co-operative company. Base funds need to build up a bit before we can swing into action properly and we explain this to everyone who wants to become involved in any of our productions. The standard model we want to use would mean anyone in a particular production would take a share of any profit, be they actor, musician, technician etc. However, when we were attempting to get a small cast musical up, we hit a snag. The MD we approached initially, an old friend and known quantity in terms of skills, etc. demanded to be paid a fee. They were not interested in anything else, said they would not be able to find musicians without paying them and seemed to think that only people studying at or graduated from, the local Con would do. Frankly this is rubbish. There are a number of societies and theatre groups who have managed to put on extremely high standard musicals in this city without any of the above. I personally was quite insulted at the attitude that "money=quality" which was stated. I guess what really got up my nose was that I have acquired many acting skills over the years, having started as an amateur, worked as a professional, etc. etc. and if co-operative or profit share is good enough for me it should be good enough for that person too. I was astonished at the arrogance. It may just be a personal gripe but I would rather everyone involved got paid something, or nothing at all. We all have skills and training, be they acting, music, tech. etc. etc. and they should be treated with the same consideration. Call me an idealist but ... By the way, we found an MD who was more than happy to consider the co-op model but the musical didn't get up due to casting. It's a murky world though, didn't solutions suit different folks/groups. If you have to pay people to get anyone at all, well...that's another story.

There are a lot of musicians out there who play for the love of it. Heck, if you even think briefly about the number of kids who learn music and play in bands through to year 12 and then go on to other things, (like eaning money from a "real job") there's got to be even more who developed a love for it but couldn't commit to a community band every week for a whole year, but a show, they're out there - problem is, how do you find them?? On the other side of the discussion, went to see a show recently, heard the band(orchestra really) was "professional" but it was the most hideous bit of music I had heard in long time - when from the opening chord it was obvious they hadn't even tuned up correctly, I wondered what they were being paid for. thank god there was a well stocked bar! tempo fluctuations, mis-timed entries (I'll stop now) Next show with an orchestra ("amatuer") was amazing. Shows what a difference the MD makes rather than the money.

This is a can of worms. I have met a lot of people who claim to be professional musicians who certainly do not fit my definition. I too have sat in theatres where the band sounds as though they haven't even tuned together and found later that they have all been paid, often MEAA call out fees. If as a musician you want to be paid as a professional you must sight read competently. That is reproduce the music as written, tunefully, on minimal rehearsal, usually just one. If you cannot do that you are not a professional musician. I now expect to find out how many musicians regularly use this site. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

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.

Hi The way we cover off this (and have done for 43 years) is as follows: Cast is amateur, must be or become members of the Society (for insurance reasons - small joining fee only) and are selected by audition only. Orchestra is amateur, and must be or become members of the Society (for insurance reasons - small joining fee only), and are selected on an invited basis with 3 week trial / audition process. All players are normally 15+ and minimum grade 5 AMEB level. All members are NOT paid and give their time freely. We regularly field orchestra's of 22-26 people covering reasonably full strings, wood wind, brass, guitars, drums, percussion as needed. Mainly fielded from local areas around Maitland & lower Hunter in NSW. In last 2 years we have succeeded in staging Grease, South Pacific, Iolanthe, Oklahoma all needing different types of instrumentation and in each case we have raised the necessary people and standard of play. We occasionally will consider paying someone if a key instrumentalist cannot be found. We normally pay our pianist/repetiteur due to the amount of time they put in. I hope this helps your thinking.

This isn't a one off thread by any means. Various aspects have been covered before. I'm a MD, in WA, & the Band gets paid too. We try to get what we can, for 1/2 a doz reasons really... It's a personal goal of mine to build this industry within the community. Strong performances will go a long way in doing that so I'm starting this process from my department - music. Gently I crack the whip elsewhere to ensure that they're also doing the best they can... All benefit from this & I do hope that the future day comes when from some quarter there is a recuperation for the actor - who seems to be at the bottom of the chain currently. Maybe they'll get frequent TV spots or something. Who knows. Meanwhile it's creating a strong platform for those who go on in the industry... Many would agree that confidence is 80% of singing. A solid band underneath a cast helps them to really perform. It's only really an Australian thing that each band member gets the same. In Europe they negotiate their own fee and more power to them. Others realise this is the norm. I've worked with quotes that include semi-pro & pro players, are up-front with it all, and expect an honest acceptance from players if they agree. It's certainly easier to present a lower cost to a production company. As for different instruments. Harp players are rather hard to find so they charge more. Supply & demand really. They don't get many gigs though... Looking at level of experience. (The mystery factor is talent.) High school, Uni, Uni then pro, pro with no Uni. They is an absolute chasm between some people's abilities, and all Uni means is you've got a better chance. (And at Uni they teach you experience speaks volumns) A Pro orchestra would hopefully raise the level of music that could be achieved (And nicely cover up mistakes up top). You soon make mental notes if that's the last time you work with someone... Multi-Instumentalists in the Pro world are paid more for "doubling". Never been too much of a fan for this. Percussionist have so much more, & expensive gear. A bass player never stops playing. For keyboards to work well they really need to know how each instrument they're trying to copy behaves in the real world. Piccolo takes a long time to master on top of their flute playing. I reckon it's fairly even. Will we do it for free? If I supply 2000 bricks will you find a labourer to build me a carport for nothing? Should local Con students do the gigs for little or free? Only if they want the same to happen to them 10 yrs down the track when they have a family to feed... Many support people in theatre grew up with it and have a natural love for it all. They volunteer their time coz it's recreation for them. Unfortunatety I find they tend to believe all involved should do so freely. They have their job or means of existance. I respect that. But ask them to respect my position as I try to get paid for what I do so I can live. Yes, it's what they do for fun. I do it for fun too, and get paid. More power to me I suppose. But to ask me to work for free or very little - I simply need work that will sustain me. No hard feelings. In many cases there actually isn't a market for anyone to be paid. :shrug:

 

 

... dance lightly my friend, but carry a big stick...

Luke

So, are rock musicians who get paid a great deal for their work and concerts, even if they aren't technically good, professional musicians? Being technically proficient is not the key signifier for a professional musician. Making a living out of playing and writing music makes a professional musician. If you are talking solely orchestral work then yes usually these players have a music degree behind them but not always, you touch on a very very grey area but you only interpret it as black and white.

I suspect that you didn;t read the thread properly. We are talking about paying the musicians who play in pit bands for Musicals. Also these days I wouldn't write off rock musicians skills. A great many young musicians working in the rock field are talented and well trained. It is no longer a matter of learning six chords on a guitar and hiring session players to record the albums. (Unless you intend to appear on Idol.) If you intend to make a living as a musician you need to sight read competemtly on at least your principal instrument and frankly it is preferable if you can do the same on at least one other. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

There is very defined line in the sand as far I am concerned. A show is either amateur or professional, in one case nobody gets paid in other everybody gets paid. All this toe dipping pro-am work confuses the issue. If you want to put a professional show together then get the money together first. Profit Share is an oxymoron. Decide which path you want to tread and stick to your guns. There are any number of "entrepreneurs" out there willing to fund a show on a pro-am basis simply because they can get the lions share of the work done for free and pocket the lions share of the profits. The fact of the matter should be pure and simple amateur or professional. That way we well end up an industry in Perth that can support its self and not rely on handouts and crumbs from pro-am productions. If you think I am out of touch with reality, then see how many bands earn good money around the traps playing covers.

I'm intrigued. In what way is the phrase Profit Share an Oxymoron. I fail to see the contradiction in terms. Anyway I always thought an Oxymoron was an idiot with a welding torch. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

When have you seen Profit being Shared. In all the so called Profit Share Projects I have been involved with over many years the box office always equals the costs, in most cases because the exorbitant cost of venues, the hidden staff costs of venues and the strange fact that employees in a theatre venue get paid normal time between 8am & 5pm and penalty rates after 5pmm in an industry that works at night and at weekends. On top of that you have to employ the staff the venue gives you whether you want to not, plus you have to pay minimum number of hours. An example of this is being forced to pay a program seller for 4 hours works for 30 minutes work each night of performance, for a 6 performance week, at $100 per night or $600 per week for 3 hours work equals $200 per hour for selling programs, nice work if you can get it. In my opinion the cost of venues and associated hidden costs are crippling theatre in this state(WA).

"Hidden staff costs"... would you care to define that? As for the "strange fact that employees.." etc, I think you'll find that to work as a full-time tech, $20 p/hour is a decent wage, given that it equals roughly the same amount paid to a full-time chorus member on an operatic performance. "Nice work if you can get it" - that's the point. It's not that easy to find steady, paying work, even if you are a tech. I'm not sure what experiences you've had in the industry, but it's clear you've not had good ones when it's come to profit-share. I have had experiences both good and bad - I've worked on a show that did go into profit, and was paid my fair share; I've worked on a profit-share show that lost money, and got paid anyway; and I've worked on shows that didn't make money and didn't get paid. If you ever think there are issues doing a profit-share show, when you're not confident that the production can either make a profit, or pay off the costs of producing it, then don't do it. Sticky Apple Legs www.thepromptcopy.com/sal Puppets in Melbourne www.puppetsinmelbourne.com.au My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

Yeah regardless it's still not an oxymoron. OK so I'm grammar police but it's not. Military Intelligence (thats a joke) Opaquely Clear Stupidly intelligent They are Oxymorons I've worked on Profit share that has'nt paid out. My partner once did 6 weeks in Shakespeare in London on the Fringe and got a cheque for two pounds. I've also been paid more than I would have got if I was paid a salary. Think twice about the project. Ask to see the books if you think you are being ripped off, if it's a genuine profit share they have to show you. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Yes I know I am not using oxymoron in the literal sense of "Honest Politician", but the general line of thought is abundantly clear. You're partner was lucky to get two quid in London, you normally get sent a bill, profit share can be a two-way street. I still think being forced to pay somebody $600 per week to sell programs, when the cast and crew get nothing is a bit steep.

Yes I know I am not using oxymoron in the literal sense of "Honest Politician", but the general line of thought is abundantly clear. You're partner was lucky to get two quid in London, you normally get sent a bill, profit share can be a two-way street. I still think being forced to pay somebody $600 per week for three hours work to sell programs, when the cast and crew get nothing is a bit steep.

Yes I know I am not using oxymoron in the literal sense of "Honest Politician", but the general line of thought is abundantly clear. You're partner was lucky to get two quid in London, you normally get sent a bill, profit share can be a two-way street. I still think being forced to pay somebody $600 per week for three hours work to sell programs, when the cast and crew get nothing is a bit steep.

This is all dependent on how the venue is run, not the production. Ie. If I hire out a professional venue (one specifically used only for theatre), I will usually have to hire out a venue tech as well. This is for safety reasons. Some larger venues also insist on you hiring a FOH person as well, again for safety reasons. I've worked for a community arts centre which was 100+ seater, where I was the only venue person there and FOH wasn't supplied. I can tell you that safety is the biggest issue, as local hirers do not understand all the issues of safety, fire hazards, emergency exits, etc. Other venues, that are smaller, often hire out a tech person only for bump-in and/or tech runs. Still others have no tech support at all. It's entirely dependent on which venue - and the venue's policies - the production hires. So the blame isn't all the production's. If you're not happy that a production will hire a program-seller and not pay you, don't work with that group. ... By the way... you're doing profit-share shows, where the company has enough money to pay for the venue (etc.), as well as a $600 program-seller? Maybe they should rethink how they spend their budget. Sticky Apple Legs www.thepromptcopy.com/sal Puppets in Melbourne www.puppetsinmelbourne.com.au My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

I suggest you are working with the wrong people or not reading your contract. Look, I know there are a lot of unscrupulous people out there who talk about profit share and then manage to "lose" money on shows and of course you are rarely if ever going to be paid the amount that you would be paid if the company had real money but as I said, you have to pick who you are going to work with and have a pretty close look at what venues they are using. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Alrighty... 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.

It is valid to the issue of pro am and profit share because musicians expect to get paid even in profit share productions. Actually I should rephrase that. Many musicians expect to get paid even if it's a profit share production, there are some who will do profit share as part of the co-op. I guess my other point is still valid too. I have experienced a number of poor musicians who expect to get paid as pro's when clearly they are not. This will continue for an eternity as there is no answer. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

It is very simple everybody gets paid or no one gets paid, or the argument has no conclusion. There will myriad grey areas for people to mull over for years. A show does not have to cost millions, only big shows. Start small and work up. Sure its risky but we know that before we start. My main concern is the cost of venues and associated staff. If Pro-Am is here to stay then it is up to the individual to decide if their time is valuable or free. I have no idea why some people value themselves beneath others or above others, if you feel your Talent, Skill, Ability, Knowledge or Business acumen is valuable then charge for it, if you wish to work for free then that is your decision. I for one will not work unless I get paid.

I do not work for others unless I get paid or unless I am working in a Profit share that has a reasonable chance to pay out. As a Producer I pay me last so unless I make enough money I'm stuffed. But this is because this is not a hobby for me but my living. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Hey guys! Never in my life did I dream that Pro/Am or Profit Share shows from Amateur companies have anything at all to do with giving the Audience the shows that they 'demand'! Didn't it all come about because the average joe wanna'd to be on stage & act. And then if they really think they're god they'll do some directing too! (yes, the godship issues that actors develop) So in order for them to do all the shows in the world that they want to play in they organize theatre groups. And then realize that they need to pay venues, techs & musicians to do so. Venues gotta keep their doors open & musicians gotta eat. They must find it a little tiresome when Am companies want to use their services for sweet nothing when they can just keep themselves booked with Pro acts. I suspect this forum can only be targeted at musicians coz the venues just don't offer lower prices. And the Am companies have to wear that or don't go on. If actor/directors wanna get paid then they can just jolly well audition for Pro shows, TV dramas, Adverts & wearing stupid cartoon costumes like Brad Pitt did when he was starting out. If they don't 'get in' then that's a fair indication that they are not 'there' yet, and keep working with their local company if 'acting' is really their hearts desire. The sports & arts is not a skill-less industry. Employment within is not based upon sentimentality. ('I just want to sing father...') People who are not good enough simply wont get work - no matter how much they want to! So pay all but the actors. I believe its currently this way in the industry because they ARE amateur. And if you can't do what 'mgasams' posted by organizing a pool of Am musicians ready to play your shows then you gotta pay people to play. Yes the Broadway shows were designed to be played by Pro musicians, but so were the actors parts too! So maybe the am theatre companies should hook up with a concert band around town and make a small donation to them to play along in their shows. But musicians, MD's, AD's, Choreographers, Lighting Techs etc generally bring necessary experience to a production so that it doesn't suck. Now what do the Theatre Companies really want to put on stage! Craig the Great.

There may be some who have wondered where I was, on this my favourite topic- getting paid. Well I have resisted till now, but I'm off to foreign climes again, and have work to avoid before I go! :-) Couple of points- 1. most am shows- the theatre tech is "doing their job" the crew are "doing their job" and usually, the musicians are "doing their job" VERY often the entire cast (or close to) are made up of -students, mums and dads, and other asst 'amateurs' or simply people indulging a hobby. Sometimes, but not often, they are professional actors "doing their job". In this final case, the actor can, as I indeed do as a musoe, choose to do a free (monetarily) show. They might do it because they really love the show, or they're helping out a friend, doing a role that will really push them and develop them as an actor. This is a form of payment. However, to expect myself or any other professional musician to 'do their job' for free is simply short sighted. Not to ask, but to expect. It would be like expecting an accountant to do your books for free, or having having a lawyer draw up your theatre companies books for free. You can ask, and some will out of interest in the arts, or wanting to help. You can't expect. If you do, you risk getting someone who bodges the job, or when you are desperate to get something finished they have an unfortunate busy time at their firm. You end up second in line. Or third. Why a skilled musician, and I'm sure this is not a forum where I need to explain the vast time and effort that goes into learning the skills required (certainly more than becoming an accountant or lawyer, with far less guarantee of work/income) should be expected to work for free is beyond me. 2. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. I recently did a show where as usual they paid the band. However, also as usual, they paid an insultingly low fee. I think the entire band were currently-studying music students. The regular problems arose with people turning up when they could/wanted. Deps who'd never even seen the score or even knew the show were brought into do perform some shows. Of course,the pay rate dictated that no self-respecting 'professional' was around. So more students. This caused regular problems for those of us onstage, as we had no idea if the band would be doing the same thing it did in the last show. Unlike the cast, the band had not rehearsed for 3 months to iron out any potential problems in advance, and it in my opinion insulted the audience who had all paid well over $30 to be there. I have been to many shows where it was obvious that the band was there almost under protest, often because they were either desperate for work that paid anything at all, or too young/inexperienced to have yet gained awareness of their personal value. 3. Often, not anyone can turn up and play these scores. Someone above discussed their completely am band, and that they played Grease, South Pacific, Iolanthe, Oklahoma. With respect to the players involved none of these are particularly difficult scores. I'd like to hear the am band play West side or something similar...but that's beside the point unless your co. does that production. Congrats to having a system that works. I note you're in a country region. Anyone who wants to be a pro muso does not hang around in their country town. Many perfectly serviceable musoes will get some other training/job, but will still desire the experience they had of making music at school or similar. Thus these shows provide the outlet. I have always found this far more difficult to make happen in cities. I am also sure that you rehearse them far more than the average pro-am does in the city. 4. Musicals run at night and weekends. Funnily enough, that is often when us professional musoes make money. We need to eat and pay bills too. Why should any talented artist agree to starve for their art, simply because another artist does? Just because the acting industry is not nearly where the musicians are in terms of locking down rights, does that mean us musicians should drop our rights and standards? I say this not to throw up friction, but merely because I believe that if we all starve together, we all starve... Let's not begin to think about the dancers either, because that industry makes actors look like well-paid royalty. 5. A good band will clean up much mess. When the band rocks, the cast play better. The audience is more forgiving. The show is simply far better. If you want your musical to succeed, deal with the fact that your band will have to sound good. This means finding people with the skills to do it. Sorry folks, but the vast majority of musicians at best don't care about musicals, at worst they hate them with a passion. This means you don't have the same base of goodwill upon which to draw to fill your band as you do have for your cast. If you have not budgeted for the necessary professional expertise to pull off your show, you haven't done your job properly. If you can't afford the expertise, you can't do your show. This has me itching to go into a lateral thread about Australians and their desire to spend money they don't have, and the coming economic disaster that will result, but I resist. Pick a show you can manage with the skills and professional base available to you, resource it properly, and then bust your balls doing it well. This in the long run will do far more to aid us all in our dreams of a viable and thriving theatre industry than anything else. I finish with my real-life experience of this very issue. I MD'd a production of Les Mis in Mt Isa, a city in the middle of the north-western deserts of Queensland. This was my first MD job, and I took it reluctantly, as I had wanted to be onstage. Unfortunately I could not commit fully to the entire rehearsal period, and so was asked (with my conducting background) to at least prep the band and conduct the performances. I took on the full MD role. I chose to do this unpaid, as the experience was incredibly valuable. I also, for good measure, spent a fair amount of money flying to and from Perth, which was my home base, to make as much of the rehearsal period as I could. (My wife had a job in Mt Isa, thus I was already doing a fair amount of travel between the two!) The cast was incredible, many of the principals of incredibly high quality both as actors and singers, and the chorus produced a sound as good as or better than most of the pro-ams I have heard in the big city... However, my band was a collection of students, hobby players, and various music teachers from around the town and region. My repiteur drove regularly hundreds of kms for rehearsals. But I could not get close to filling all the required instrument spots, and apart from a couple of very strong players (including an ex-concertmaster on violin and a former fullbright scholar on reeds) it was a very inexperienced, though eager, band. In hindsight I needed to spend the amount of time on the band that I did on the cast. I had foolishly presumed that the band would, like all musicians I'd worked with to that point, be good enough players to put it together themselves. They weren't. This in my opinion almost crippled an incredible cast and significantly hindered the show's impact for audiences. It also made my experience of conducting this 3+ hours show very difficult, as I was expending so much energy keeping the band intact whilst trying to keep the cast comfortable. It is the only regret I have about the show. A pro band wasn't possible in that town. However, if I couldn't have those skillsets that were so necessary, I needed to be able to work the band as long and hard as I had the cast. I don't know many MD's out there with the skills, time and desire to do this work. I also don't know if this time and work would have made these musicians good enough to pull the show off anyway. A horrible but true cliche involving sow's ears and purses comes to mind. Anyways, as usual I have been too long-winded. Nev It's the simple things stupid...