Les Miserables... just for something different :)
Tue, 2 Oct 2001, 07:26 pmWalter Plinge35 posts in thread
Les Miserables... just for something different :)
Tue, 2 Oct 2001, 07:26 pmJust a quick reminder that Les Miserables previews at the Regal Theatre on Wednesday October 10th then opens officially on Thursday.
Come to enjoy, come to review, come to have a bitch, just come!
For more info. check out the new website: >http://imagine.unlimited.com.au/lesmis<
Come to enjoy, come to review, come to have a bitch, just come!
For more info. check out the new website: >http://imagine.unlimited.com.au/lesmis<
RE: Incorporation .....I hope.
Wed, 17 Oct 2001, 04:40 pmHi Alex
Thanks for your considered contribution.
Alex M wrote:
-------------------------------
> Having read this long train of exchanged thoughts what is
> evident is that people who are not involved in the show have
> no idea what we were told when we first auditioned.
Really?
> It was
> clear from the outset that we were not to be paid
I'm not aware that anyone here has suggested anything else. Sparring with your own shadow?
;-)
> As for ticket prices - they are not $50 - there have always
> been cheaper tickets....
Correct and i'd considered correcting this earlier error myself. It doesn't help in a debate like this when figures or facts are inflated, misrepresented or unsupported.
> The question is whether the quality of
> the show warrants the price.
I don't believe that is the question at all. The question is how and who accounts for the money.
> As for incorporation
Now you're talking!
:-)
> An incorporated association must be established for charitable
> purposes.
Not entirely correct. Charities and incorporated associations are not the same thing and exist for different reasons.
> You will not find in this world enough people who
> would go through the pain that the production team has gone
> through to get the show on for free!
Both wrong and misleading.
Wrong as there are dozens of companies around the state that have produced and will continue to produce both more work and work on a similar or larger scale with volunteer production teams. This site lists more than 1,300 productions around Australia and the vast majority of them are done with voluntary production teams.
Misleading as incorporated associations can and do pay people to undertake tasks. Whether people are paid or not is not the central issue. Who decides who will be paid and how these decisions are made is.
Accountability is the key. A private, "for-profit" company doesn't have to consult with anyone about who they do or don't pay. Incorporated associations, on the other hand, are publicly accountable through the requirements of the relevant Act and accountable to their members through their own constitutional obligations.
> As for the suggestion that the funds should be injected back
> into the arts [...] I agree.
So the groups that you are associated with put all their profits back into fulfilling their objectives - basically providing further and better opportunities in the performing arts. They're incorporated, great!
How would you feel if a couple of key people in the organisation decided to take all the money from the accounts and buy themselves a holiday?
In the first place they can't - incorporation protects your interests and those of the other members.
In the second, would you and other members feel so keen to support the organisation if you believed this could happen at any moment?
> There should not be any criticism to someone establishing a
> company to put on a good quality show and hope to make a
> buck from it in the end.
Perhaps you'd care to explain then why every peak volunteer organisation in the country and the federal government exclude private, "for-profit" companies from using volunteers?
While there is nothing enshrined in law (yet) that restricts or prohibits private companies profiting from the work of volunteers, the standard practice in this area is that it is at best inappropriate.
> If anyone is not in the musical and is seeking to comment on
> it - come to the show - see what you are discussing before
> attempting to pass judgment.
I'm yet to see anything on this site but the most fulsome praise for the show and generous warm wishes to the cast and crew.
Boxing at more shadows? Please don't throw up straw man arguments and expect people to argue against things that haven't been said or even hinted at.
I've a number of old and not so old dear friends in the show that would flay me alive if they thought for a moment i was passing judgement on their performances without seeing the show!
> And if you still have a point to make , make it to our faces at
> the Attic Bar afterwards.
Thanks very much, but I've had a prior offer.
;-)
I'd be happy to catch up with you and anyone else from the company for a chat. My email address is above, make a date. But i hope that by holding this debate in a public arena that others will be better informed about precisely what is at stake when "volunteering" to work with a private, for-profit theatre company.
Cheers
Grant
Thanks for your considered contribution.
Alex M wrote:
-------------------------------
> Having read this long train of exchanged thoughts what is
> evident is that people who are not involved in the show have
> no idea what we were told when we first auditioned.
Really?
> It was
> clear from the outset that we were not to be paid
I'm not aware that anyone here has suggested anything else. Sparring with your own shadow?
;-)
> As for ticket prices - they are not $50 - there have always
> been cheaper tickets....
Correct and i'd considered correcting this earlier error myself. It doesn't help in a debate like this when figures or facts are inflated, misrepresented or unsupported.
> The question is whether the quality of
> the show warrants the price.
I don't believe that is the question at all. The question is how and who accounts for the money.
> As for incorporation
Now you're talking!
:-)
> An incorporated association must be established for charitable
> purposes.
Not entirely correct. Charities and incorporated associations are not the same thing and exist for different reasons.
> You will not find in this world enough people who
> would go through the pain that the production team has gone
> through to get the show on for free!
Both wrong and misleading.
Wrong as there are dozens of companies around the state that have produced and will continue to produce both more work and work on a similar or larger scale with volunteer production teams. This site lists more than 1,300 productions around Australia and the vast majority of them are done with voluntary production teams.
Misleading as incorporated associations can and do pay people to undertake tasks. Whether people are paid or not is not the central issue. Who decides who will be paid and how these decisions are made is.
Accountability is the key. A private, "for-profit" company doesn't have to consult with anyone about who they do or don't pay. Incorporated associations, on the other hand, are publicly accountable through the requirements of the relevant Act and accountable to their members through their own constitutional obligations.
> As for the suggestion that the funds should be injected back
> into the arts [...] I agree.
So the groups that you are associated with put all their profits back into fulfilling their objectives - basically providing further and better opportunities in the performing arts. They're incorporated, great!
How would you feel if a couple of key people in the organisation decided to take all the money from the accounts and buy themselves a holiday?
In the first place they can't - incorporation protects your interests and those of the other members.
In the second, would you and other members feel so keen to support the organisation if you believed this could happen at any moment?
> There should not be any criticism to someone establishing a
> company to put on a good quality show and hope to make a
> buck from it in the end.
Perhaps you'd care to explain then why every peak volunteer organisation in the country and the federal government exclude private, "for-profit" companies from using volunteers?
While there is nothing enshrined in law (yet) that restricts or prohibits private companies profiting from the work of volunteers, the standard practice in this area is that it is at best inappropriate.
> If anyone is not in the musical and is seeking to comment on
> it - come to the show - see what you are discussing before
> attempting to pass judgment.
I'm yet to see anything on this site but the most fulsome praise for the show and generous warm wishes to the cast and crew.
Boxing at more shadows? Please don't throw up straw man arguments and expect people to argue against things that haven't been said or even hinted at.
I've a number of old and not so old dear friends in the show that would flay me alive if they thought for a moment i was passing judgement on their performances without seeing the show!
> And if you still have a point to make , make it to our faces at
> the Attic Bar afterwards.
Thanks very much, but I've had a prior offer.
;-)
I'd be happy to catch up with you and anyone else from the company for a chat. My email address is above, make a date. But i hope that by holding this debate in a public arena that others will be better informed about precisely what is at stake when "volunteering" to work with a private, for-profit theatre company.
Cheers
Grant
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···