Les Miserables... just for something different :)

Just 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<

Hello,

I guess you already know I'll be there....


The Review Master

The Review Master wrote:
-------------------------------
> I guess you already know I'll be there....

and a few people can probably guess why i won't be there...

Anyone care to have a guess at how much money someone stands to make off the backs of amateur performers at $44-$27 per ticket and an audience of 6,000?

Someone, somewhere is being ripped off, in my view. I intend that it will not be me.

:-/

Cheers
Grant

PS. Puh-lease don't anyone feed me the "oh-but-the-regal-is-so-expensive" line. I paid less to see a fully professional production of Les Mis at His Majesty's a few years back and if the ITA can afford to use the Regal and charge only $12-$6 a ticket... well, do your own math.

I fully appreciate your reservations Grant but it could go either way. Someone has put up the money to stage this production and while it may be a successful gamble, they also stand to lose it if the show fails to sell enough tickets.

Cheers,
Gill

Gill wrote:
-------------------------------
........Someone has put up the money to stage this production and while it may be a successful gamble, they also stand to lose it if the show fails to sell enough tickets.


At those bloody prices, it may well fail to sell enough tickets. Why would I pay $50 to see one amateur musical when I can see four for that price? Why on earth would I spend that much when the talent isn't even being paid? Why would I pay that much when I could spend the same amount and see a renowned and critically acclaimed Shakespeare company with a massive and intricate set (which they have paid huge amounts of money to cart around Australia or the world) perform at the Maj?

Why, why, why??? What am I paying for that the other four amateur musicals won't give me? (That's a genuine question by the way...)

I'll give you twenty bucks. And even then I'm paying more than I would for the usual amateur musical, in veiw of the larger venue.

Just playing Devil's Advocate....

I wouldn't have a clue, but I'd imagine that the royalties would add a hefty lump to the overall cost.

True, the Regal IS expensive, and seemed to increase in price annually - that's why the ITA went elsewhere.

Good to see that the Review Master will be there. Does this mean we might actually get one? Review, that is. True, it'll be Les Mis - again - but then, it doesn't seem like the Master goes to see anything else....

:-)

JB

I completely understand if some people are put off by the ticket prices. (You being a self confessed musical-hater Leah, I am suprised you'd be prepared to pay $20!)

I just hope that enough people WILL want to come and check this show out because the payment that I, and my fellow actors, will be receiving for our efforts is the applause and appreciation of an audience.

As well as being staged at the Regal, this production has a 20+ piece orchestra of professional musicians, a professional set, sound crew and lighting crew etc. These things could have alot to do with the ticket prices.

Hoping to see at least SOME of you there!

Cheers,
Gill
(PS: I will work my butt off to give you all my $44 performance).

Gill wrote:
-------------------------------
Cheers,
Gill
(PS: I will work my butt off to give you all my $44 performance).



There's going to be butts???!!! No-one said anything about butts!!! I'm there, front and centre opening night!! Cheque is in the mail!!

Hi all,

From what I've heard - this is going to be a brilliant production of Les Mis, and believe me I'd know..

Not to say I won't write an honest review. PLUS... I went to book a couple of seats last week and we had a limited choice of where to sit. We just scraped a seat in the centre! So, perhaps ticket sales are going better than some would think....I saw it with my own eyes..

The Review Master

Gill,
It sounds like you are saying that virtually everyone (orchestra, set-builders, light crew and sound crew) are being paid but not the performers.
Am I reading this correctly?
If so, on what basis are the performers considered unworthy?
Dean

NB The above was typed with my left hand because........you don't really need to know.

Dean Schulze wrote:
-------------------------------
>It sounds like you are saying that virtually everyone (orchestra, set-builders, light
>crew >and sound crew) are being paid but not the performers.
>
>Am I reading this correctly?

Yes.

>If so, on what basis are the performers considered unworthy?

Because we're insane schmucks who do what we do for the love of it, and the only reward we need is bums on seats and a little support from our mates for the three months of unpaid slog and personal finances we've put into this show.

Leah, I'd offer you my comps but we don't get any.

Review Master - when you write your review could you please make careful note of the performers that night? The only night when all of the principals are on is opening night - every other night is littered with swings and understudies, and with at least two principals as regulars on this website, we don't want our names besmirched if it ain't us you're seeing.

And as my two cents in this whole debate, I consider myself a professional performer as I have been known to get paid for what I do, and fully intend to claim expenses incurred for this show on tax (oops...did I type that out loud?). The cast itself is also littered with pros - you can't walk 30cm in rehearsal without bumping into a WAAPA or a Con graduate with a swag of credits from TV commercials to the WA Opera under his or her belt.

Just because the producers are raking in the profits of this show doesn't, in my opinion, make them worthy of the 'professional' title. 'Nuff said on that score...at least til the show is over ;-)

MD, orchestra, techies - there's a lot less of them than there are of the cast. And when you consider that apart from the afore mentioned professional performers in the cast, there are a lot of highschool kids, first-timers, and uni students in the chorus. Do they really deserve to get paid as much/as well as the MD, orchestra, techies who have all had years of training? So where do you draw the line? How do you determine who gets paid, and how do you work out how much they get?

Yes, I think the ticket prices stink. No, I don't like the idea of everyone else getting paid, and some people making a lot of money off the work of 70 odd volunteers. But I don't see Cameron Mackintosh offering me Mme Thenardier. I don't see Gill doing Eponine on Broadway. So we're at the Regal in Perth, Western Australia, living out our childhood fantasies for, really, a relatively small sacrifice of time and money.

All we can expect is a little solidarity from our peers. If we don't even get that, why are we doing it? And why does that make you guys saying you won't come on principal any better than those people making the money? At least they'll be supporting us by applauding at the end of the night and buying us a drink at the cast party.

Amanda Chesterton

PS There is a student rush for $10 on the night of the preview, Weds 10 October. I think you can book these tickets in advance.

'Thou tottering beetle-headed giglet!'

Sorry... I really dig that button! :-)

Amanda Chesterson,


The Review Master writes with accuracy and will not besmirch someone else's name.

As for the debate about ticket prices....it's Les Miserables and from what I've seen in ticket sales- audiences in Perth obviously want to see it or are curious about it.

And also, yes, you are doing an amateur production of this musical at the Regal Theatre in Perth, Western Australia- but it's still Les Miserables and you can say you've been in it...

Good on you I say!

The Review Master

Tickets for Wednesday nights preview are;

$10 for students (with a valid students card!)
$24 dollars for adults

They can be purchased at the door or in advance through BOCS (however be aware you will page the $6 booking fee at BOCS)

Having been both paid and unpaid for my acting.(ok, I have been paid twice and done it for free lots of times) I can say I like being paid better! Who wouldn't? But the reason community theatre exists is because paid or unpaid. we love what we do. If we didn't we wouldn't spend hours in freezing cold or boiling hot reheasal venues. We wouldn't let our lives be schedlued around the whim of sometimes tyrantical directors! We wouldn't go on stage with pneumonia! As actors we love working with professional musicians, sound and light people and such, because they make US look and sound better. What it all boils down to is this. We are all as addicted to the applause as any other junky! We do what we can, for who we can, to play the roles we love and get on to a stage! If someone else is making money from that, then that is all right with me. Still, it would be nice if ticket prices remained somewhere reasonable!

Hi Amanda

> All we can expect is a little solidarity from our peers.

Who were probably expecting a little from theirs.

If i had the time, i'd audition for an amateur production of Les Mis tomorrow. But i wouldn't perform in a show financially structured like this because i believe it devalues the work of the performers and is depriving professional performing artists of a legitimate chance to make income - i include deserving members of the cast of Les Mis amongst this number.

If a few more people refused to support such practices, maybe the people operating in these areas would start to pay? Do you think the orchestra would be paid if the producers thought there was a ready supply of musos willing to do it for free?

But more than this, i won't support or attend a production that i consider a callous exercise in capitalising on the energy, ambitions, drive and determination of a talented company that deserve more opportunities to strut their stuff.

A profit for this production provides no guarantee of future opportunities. The cast has no say in what happens wth the profits.

Incorporated associations (the same structure used by our professional and amateur companies) are required by law to guarantee that all profits will be used to provide further opportunities in the performing arts. If they can't, they have to hand all their money over to a similar organisation that will. Check the "wind-up" section in any constitution.

What happened to profits from Omnibus' productions? This cannot happen with incorporated associations. What will happen with profits from Les Mis?

> If we
> don't even get that, why are we doing it? And why does that
> make you guys saying you won't come on principal any better
> than those people making the money? At least they'll be
> supporting us by applauding at the end of the night and buying
> us a drink at the cast party.

How does this cynical attempt at emotional blackmail differ from the approach to performers undertaken by the producers of Les Mis?

Amanda, you know i love your work - how many more time do i have to cast you to prove it? Gill, i'd give my right arm to see you perform again. And Anthony and all the other people whose work i know and love. You know i'm there, whether i sit and watch or not.

But i won't give my soul.

Cheers
Grant



Thou paunchy tardy-gaited lout!

Orchestral muso's stand out among the performing arts in that they realise their collective bargaining power and are almost uniformly solid in the muso's union. This means they don't stand for any crap and they get paid appropriately. The orchestra is always the first group to be paid, on time, and management listens to what they want.

Strange to observe that actors, who are outwardly so confident and self assured, seem to always shy away from standing up for themselves in a business situation (amateur or professional). It seems we must also be very needy for performance opportunites, and frightened of being replaced if we disagree with working conditions. And of course there is the paradox that usually we enjoy the working conditions, even when they are terrible.

From an amateur performer's point of view, yes, a gig like this is fun and doesn't come along too often; there is little to lose other than the time and energy put in, and many things to enjoy from being part of the show.

From an audience point of view, there will be some who go to see friends and colleagues and will enjoy it from that perspective. There will be afficionados who love the musical and will see it over and over regardless. There will be average punters who missed it last time and so will be introduced to a good show. And others who may compare it to the professional production, and I hope they will be appreciative. All of them will be paying significant prices, and hopefully, they will consider they got their money's worth.

But from the professional actor's point of view, shows like this worry me. Perhaps not this particular show, but what they represent to the industry. The fact that Perth audiences are queuing to spend their viewing dollars on this show means less of the pie is going to other productions. High profile shows like this compete with the few professional companies that are struggling to get audiences; they are already struggling with problems of their own doing, this doesn't help.

Most professional actors in Perth are putting themselves in a similar situation anyway, in cooperative productions like at the BlueRoom or Rechabites. But at least they enter in with the understanding that they will be in part rewarded for their efforts. But this relies on ticket sales, and it's very hard to compete with companies like Omnibus. Audiences aren't very discerning about where a production comes from, only if they like it or not. If Les Mis is a great show, it's going to hurt our grassroots industry by comparison. And if it's a poor show, it will still hurt, by association (and the ticket money can't be respent.) I don't think the "amateur" status is going to register with the general audience as an excuse, because of the ticket prices and the profile of the company. So for the good of everyone, I hope it is a good show, but this is still not going to help the local industry.

And to be a good show, it needs good performers, which it exploits by not paying them (and even charging for the right to audition, did I hear???!) so it can put money into areas which will impress the audience and disguise the "amateur" status, in as small a print as it does in its advertising. Also, the amateur status conveniently means it pays very little for the performance rights, so will recoup more from the ticket prices.
This industry rides on the back of it's artists in so many ways already (most of us also make up a significant proportion of the theatre-going audience anyway, putting our dollars back into watching productions). I find it awkward to realise that we are also undercutting our own industry anytime we allow ourselves to be exploited.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to be part of this production or to watch it. The nice thing about being an amateur is that by definition you have an alternative source of income, and so the concept of exploitation probably doesn't really carry much significance.
My main concern is that this casual attitude often continues when amateurs progress into the professional industry, meaning professional actors are already in the habit of being exploited, taking any conditions without complaint, just happy to be performing. It just makes things much harder for those of us who do make a living from this industry. We don't seem to be able to follow the example of our colleagues in the Musicians' Union, and hold out for better conditions. As soon as one artist accepts their exploitation, they lower the mark for everyone.

This company is here now, with an attractive opportunity, and it will probably all turn out very well for them. Good luck to all concerned.
But I am here for the long term, and so am choosing to invest my scarce dollars in a local industry production with some integrity.

Cheers
crgwllms


<8>-/======/-------------


PS: While I'm on this rant: if you're ever in the privileged position of getting paid for a gig, even if it appears to be a one-off and you can't see the immediate benefits; do your bit to support the union. If everyone did this, there would be a stronger industry in the long term, and the likelihood of more paid gigs. Wouldn't it be so much better to be doing this for the love of it AND receiving fair payment in recognition?

crg
(Equity 6672051 since 1988)

Amanda
I find it interesting that you believe that because some of the cast members in Les Mis are uni or school students or first time performers that they are not worthy of being paid the same amountas others. How do you differentiate between classifying people as professional or amatuer simply on their current form of employment.

Sure some people have studied music etc and do deserve to be paid but what about those people who havent been at the con or WAAPA but perhaps have studied for years in some other field but have a natural talent for performing. Why should these people not be rewarded for all the hard work that they have put into the show the same as past WAAPA and Con graduates.

Also,I think that if maybe you put a little more effort into getting to know your fellow cast members instead of ignoring them you may find that most of them have a little more experience than you think.

Annabel wrote:
-------------------------------
>I find it interesting that you believe that because some of the cast members in Les
>Mis are uni or school students or first time performers that they are not worthy of
>being paid the same amountas others. How do you differentiate between classifying
>people as professional or amatuer simply on their current form of employment.

OK - I'll use a 'real life' example. I am an occupational therapist - I don't get paid as much as my senior OT because she has more experience than I do. The students we have on prac get paid nothing because they have no experience. That doesn't mean that my senior puts more into the job than I or the student do, she is reimbursed for the years of other work and skills she has brought to the current job.

But that is beside the point.

I think everyone in the cast should be paid, if the techies, production team, and management are going to be singled out for payment. But someone, I can't recall who, mentioned paying SOME of the actors, as some were labelled 'professionals' and some were not. My point was, how do you decide who gets paid if you are only going to pay some. To spell it out more clearly, I THINK ALL OF THE PERFORMERS SHOULD GET PAID, as they all have as much to contribute to the show.

>Also,I think that if maybe you put a little more effort into getting to know your fellow
>cast members instead of ignoring them you may find that most of them have a little
>more experience than you think.

Huh? OK - I'll stop going up to the chorus dressing room between scenes to chat to people from now on, since you obviously think I'm just doing it to ignore them.

Harsh, dude...

Amanda Chesterton

I can't believe what I inadvertently started by posting a little ad for the show, but boy has it been interesting. Can I conclude that:

Some of us are already in agreement with Grant and Craig. Some of us will have read Grant and Craig's posts very carefully and, in the future, will think twice about becoming involved in a production where any profits may not necessarily be put back into the arts. Some of us will be perfectly happy with the way things are and will go on doing whatever shows we want to do and not worry about where the money goes.

Some of the cast are perfectly happy with Music Spectrum and will definately be auditioning for their next show. Some of the cast would like Music Spectrum to consider the thoughts/feelings of the cast and crew so that they will be a better company to work with next time and some of the cast will never work with them again.

There isn't too much more that can be said.... is there?

Cheers
Gill (alias "Thou spongy common-kissing bugbear!")

:)

Hi Gill

Gill wrote:
-------------------------------
> I can't believe what I inadvertently started by posting a little ad
> for the show, but boy has it been interesting.

I wouldn't be too quick to accept the blame... er credit

;-)

Given the inappropriate company structure, the production was always going to spark this kind of debate.

> Can I conclude...

Probably not.

:-)

> Some of us are already in agreement with Grant and Craig.
> Some of us will have read Grant and Craig's posts very
> carefully and, in the future, will think twice about becoming
> involved in a production where any profits may not necessarily
> be put back into the arts. Some of us will be perfectly happy
> with the way things are and will go on doing whatever shows
> we want to do and not worry about where the money goes.

Some of us may also argue that the latter group is possibly either ill informed or failing to appreciate that companies structured like this damage our chances at future performance opportunities. They're probably the very same group that will complain in a couple of years that there aren't the chances to perform that there used to be.

I wonder if they share a similar lack of foresight with regard to old growth forests?

Or perhaps there's another group of people who, when this show is over, would never like to do another show again and can't wait for the destruction of the amazonian rainforest?

;-)

Incorporation - investing in and protecting our future. A couple of forms and a measly $100. Why would anyone choose not to incorporate? Think about it.



Cheers
Grant

Mainly to the cast & crew of Les Mis

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. It was clear from the outset that we were not to be paid - it was clear from the outset we were doing the show because we wanted to do Les Mis - or people wanted to play a lead in Les Mis for the benefit of their cv and ongoing music career.

As for ticket prices - they are not $50 - there have always been cheaper tickets. Anyway, if you saw the show it is worth the admission price. I have paid considerably more than that to see Royal Shakespeare at the Maj (in fact my firm is one of the sponsors) - it certainly was not $20 per ticket. I have many associates who paid more than $50 to see Les Mis at the Maj and the Ent Centre and you couldn't see the cast entirely or hear the sound properly. Equally I have seen shows for less that I enjoyed thoruoughly. It is neither here nor there. The question is whether the quality of the show warrants the price. Everyone who has gone says yes. If you haven't gone who cares what you think. Your opinion is really meaningless if you have no basis upon which to base your view.

As for incorporation - that is not the answer. An incorporated association must be established for charitable purposes. 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! We as the cast were aware we would not be paid so don't even try to say "well the cast does it free". We may experience the pressure of performing but that is nothing compared to the strain of the production team. They arrive well before us and leave well after we are in the bar drinking. As for the suggestion that the funds should be injected back into the arts(and by the way I run a charitable association through a dancing group and am on the Board of Ausdance so know how they operate extremely well before someone tries to argue about this!) I agree. But the arts are also assisted by allowing young talented people to play roles they may not otherwise get the chance to play, and the arts includes our musicians and technical crew. Every time a production is put on it contributes to the arts. The show on the other hand would not be able to be performed if there were also 80 cast to be paid. Or do we just pay the leads? Well that would be a great way to build harmony within the cast......

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. With the expenses in this production (notwithstanding what is seen as high ticket prices) I would be surprised if there was even a marginal profit.

I personally think the leads are fantastic - the cast is fun - the crew are professional and that enough has been said on this page.

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. And if you still have a point to make , make it to our faces at the Attic Bar afterwards. If you are too cheap to pay for a ticket, come afterwards anyway - the show finishes at 11.15pm. I will gladly debate with you the costs and benefits of incorporated associations , limited companies, charitable funds, tax exemption requirements, GST requirements and the myriad of other issues that confront a company and its Directors or an association and its Committee.

To those in Les Mis - see you tonight....... I think you are all talented lovely people and the only thing I regret is that we only have 2 more weeks to go!

Best wishes

Alex Mc

To the cast, crew and muzos of les mis

You are FABULOUS!!!!!!!!!

i attended the sunday matinee, and was absolutely blow away by the performance. i could not believe this was an amateur production! After seeing the show at the entertainment centre a few years ago, i wasn't expecting much. But i have to say, in all honestly, this show not only exceeded my expectations, but was even better than the previous one i had seen. I enjoyed it immensley- i even cried. It completely touched my heart- the actors sang with so much conviction and were supported by an amazing orchestra!

It is remarkable to know the extent of the talent that lies in our little city called 'perth'. The singers were something out of broadway. I don't know... i am just in disbelief and their profoundly beautiful voices.

The ticket prices cannot be compared to the quality of the show. It is truly great value for money. I am so impressed with the professionalism of the entire show. I would strongly urge everyone not to miss it as it IS a once in a lifetime opportunity.

So to all the dicks bitching about the show, get a life! It is obvious you are insanely jealous of the popularity of the show! Yeah, i mean, what the hell? Did you even go to the show?

GO AND SEE IT!!!!!!!!!!

Hi 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

Hi Elise

elise wrote:
-------------------------------
> So to all the dicks bitching about the show, get a life! It is
> obvious you are insanely jealous of the popularity of the show!

It's also obvious that you've not spent much time reading this thread.

Glad you enjoyed the show. I'm sure it is brilliant.

:-)

Cheers
Grant

elise wrote:
-------------------------------
>>"So to all the dicks bitching about the show, get a life! It is obvious you are insanely jealous of the popularity of the show! Yeah, i mean, what the hell? Did you even go to the show?



Hi Elise.
The immense number of posts on this topic do make it difficult to follow the salient points. It's easy to pick up the tail end of a slanging match and assume that is what the argument has been about. The many tangents that have spun off into other arguments certainly don't help either (and I'm guilty of prolonging several of those).

I have read and often re-read ALL of these posts in the process of constructing my arguments. And I don't believe I've seen anyone who HAS "bitched about the show", apart from people who were actually IN the cast..!


Grant started this whole counteragument, and I supported him, by explaining why he would NOT be going to the show. Nothing to do with the quality of cast, crew, or performance (and so we have been very careful NOT to comment on such elements) - but a matter of principle.

I'm glad you enjoyed the show. By all means tell everyone what you think. But please don't jump to what is "obvious" when your statement plainly shows that it is not.


Have another read of what has been said. You don't have to AGREE with anyone, but I would hope you would try to UNDERSTAND them before interpreting what they are "insane" about.

Cheers,
Craig

~<8>-/====/----------

Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth!

I've found this debate really really intriguing... And this last email (from Alex M) made me laugh a lot.
I just love the line: "We may experience the pressure of performing but that is nothing compared to the strain of the production team." I mean if I was in the cast of Les Mis and someone told me that I'd just want to... Is that patronising or what??
I've noticed that Music Spectrum claims to be "Pro-Am"... What does that mean?? Exactly. Is it like a bet each way?

Isn't it wonderful that we live a Country where we can freely debate issues like this?

Nath
and now for the obligatory:
Thou gleeking flap-mouthed hugger-mugger!

Nath wrote:
-------------------------------
>>I just love the line: "We may experience the pressure of performing but that is nothing compared to the strain of the production team."



Yes, I wondered how to interpret that syntax, too.

When performers have to experience the strain of the production team, it makes me imagine that Glynn must be whinging to them about the agonies of administration again.



& ~~~<8>-/====/----------

Cheers,
Craig

A few comments in this chain.

a) There was never any complaining done to what I imagine is the majority of the cast by the production team. I am sure they have experienced countless sleepless nights getting things done and put together. This is their job! Why is it so that you feel it your right...no, you seem to feel it your moral obligation to crush them! Why? Because they aren't putting money into your pockets? Because they have the good sense to put on a show, make a few dollars and let a whole lot of actors get some experience and have a lot of fun. I've read many of the posts on here and you have achieved some of what you intended to achieve, but in all honesty, the feeling I get back from people in the cast is that you guys are just bitter about something and looking for something to complain about. No offence is intended in that, that's just a fact about the feeling I get back from people in the cast.

b) If you haven't "heard the people sing" by now, I'm starting to get the feeling you've lost the ability to hear. I have seen your points written, rewritten, rephrased, semi-retracted and then posted again. And they still don't make sense to me. Maybe that's because I'm young and naive...... I've yet to see anything that has convinced me that MS could be damaging the industry in any real way. I've considered the possibility of how that might be so....but when I think about it...it just gives me the feeling that certain people are bitter because folk who aren't performers are earning some money from the theatre industry....

c) I think everyone's priorities are very different and several different issues have been identified. But no-one questions that it has been a great show. I really have difficulty in finding how it can truly be a bad thing. Bring life and recognition to the industry (granted, through a high profile show rather than something smaller and original) but isn't that what healthy competition is about? You can't just sit idle and point and say "Well that's not fair because they didn't let me win!" and that seems to be a lot of what this is about.....or so the feeling takes me.

d) I resent the fact that it has been said we (as a cast) are being or were taken advantage of. That implies we are foolish for not seeing "the truth" as some people call it. That's not fair. I know there has not been any direct criticism of the cast, but it resounds. It's never a nice feeling to have someone slagging off about something that you're very proud of, regardless of the fashion in which they do it.

e) I see no resolution on the issue really. Grant and Craig both hold steady to their viewpoint, as do many other people. I guess that is what makes the world go around eh? How boring would this discussion have been if it started

- "Hey, Les Mis was great"
- "Yup, sure was."
- "So.....how bout this weather we're having?"

Variety is the spice of life. But I still reckon you guys are wrong. ;) hehehehehe.

*will try and refrain from posting on this issue in future - but makes no promises*

Gill wrote:
-------------------------------
"There isn't too much more that can be said.... is there? "

Josh wrote:

>> "So.....how bout this weather we're having?"



Thanks to all who have battled through all this, and especially thanks to those who have been vocal in this argument, singing the songs of angry men. I admit to being fairly one sided, critical of opposing arguments, and unwilling to back down in my convictions. I notice many others who are the same. Which is well and fine.
Debates like this never end; Les Mis just happens to be the current example. I hope no personal offense was taken by anyone; none was intended. I don't know very many of you personally, if at all; so if I attack, I am merely attacking the words I see on this public forum...which is the risk anyone takes in expressing an opinion.

Whether I agreed with you or was able to convince you or amused you or earnt your scorn or your yawns is secondary...I respect the fact that you have an OPINION, and were willing to express it. The only poor critic is the one with nothing to say.

Giving our convictions a public voice is perhaps what unites us as artists.



Peace, Love & Applause.

Craig

~<8>-/====/------------

"straw man". I sat through oh so many painful philosophy lectures at uni and never once did I think that the various forms of fallacies identified by luminaries across the ages would ever come back into my life - let alone the only one I remember. Thank you Grant for once again making the straw man a part of my life. I missed him.

Probably the wrong forum, but worth a shot....
Craig, call us at the Hayman, quickly, there is cash!

Hi Josh

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I've been out of town for a week with no internet access.

:-)

Josh Newton wrote:
-------------------------------
> a) There was never any complaining done to what I imagine is
> the majority of the cast by the production team. I am sure they
> have experienced countless sleepless nights getting things done
> and put together. This is their job!

I don't believe this is in question. A straw man argument, Josh. I'm not going to argue for assertions that i've not made.

> Why is it so that you feel it your right...no, you seem to feel it
> your moral obligation to crush them! Why?

Again, you're attempting to put words into people's mouths.

I've criticised this company's decision not to incorporate to protect the interests of the volunteers who contribute the vast majority of the work in this production. I think some pretty good reasons have been outlined in this debate. Why don't you respond directly to some of them?

> Because they aren't putting money into your pockets?

This is ad hominem argument, Josh. Maybe you've not been able to refute the arguments that have been put up here, but resorting to attacks on the character of the people you oppose does nothing to further your own case.

> I've read many of the posts on here and you have achieved
> some of what you intended to achieve, but in all honesty, the
> feeling I get back from people in the cast is that you guys are
> just bitter about something and looking for something to
> complain about.

I'd encourage you to examine closely the distinction you've just made. You've read the arguments. You believe we've achieved some of what we've argued for but you don't find all your fellow cast members feel the same. Having your own infomed opinion is not always easy. How some of the cast may feel about this issue doesn't change the facts. Who's fibbing here, Josh? Craig, myself, the others that have carefully and compassionately criticised the structure adopted to produce this show? Or the people who claim to have read our comments and say we're just "just bitter about something and looking for something to complain about"?

:-)

> b) If you haven't "heard the people sing" by now, I'm starting to
> get the feeling you've lost the ability to hear.

The cast of Les Mis is only one tiny section of a huge community of actors, directors, stage managers, designers, technicians, administrators and companies in this state.

Perhaps you're listening to the wrong people?

;-)

> I have seen your
> points written, rewritten, rephrased, semi-retracted and then
> posted again. And they still don't make sense to me.

Really? You wrote only a few lines earlier:

> you have achieved
> some of what you intended to achieve

Is it that what is written makes no sense, or is it just that the sense doesn't match with the emotive views being expressed by others? Which would you then discount?

> Maybe
> that's because I'm young and naive...... I've yet to see anything
> that has convinced me that MS could be damaging the industry
> in any real way. I've considered the possibility of how that might
> be so....but when I think about it...it just gives me the feeling
> that certain people are bitter because folk who aren't
> performers are earning some money from the theatre
> industry....

Bitterness again? Is that what you're reading here? Or is that what others are reading into it?

> I really have difficulty in finding how it
> can truly be a bad thing.

What happens next? When this show is over? When you're looking for another chance to do this all over again?

If this show makes a profit, what guarantees do you have that there will be a next time?

None. Zip. Nada. Diddly squat.

Is this a bad thing?

Compare the situation if this company were incorporated like other amateur companies, like our major professional companies. You would be guaranteed the profits would be used to provide you with future opportunities.

Is this a good thing?

:-)

> You can't just sit idle and point and
> say "Well that's not fair because they didn't let me win!" and
> that seems to be a lot of what this is about.....or so the feeling
> takes me.

"I'll huff and i'll puff and i'll blow your straw man...." whoops. He fell over.

;-)

> d) I resent the fact that it has been said we (as a cast) are
> being or were taken advantage of. That implies we are foolish
> for not seeing "the truth" as some people call it.

Not foolish. I just believe that your faith is misplaced. I hope this company incorporates. I hope... correction, i know, a few people in the cast will carefully check the structure of companies they work with in future.

> It's never a nice feeling to have someone slagging off
> about something that you're very proud of, regardless of the
> fashion in which they do it.

I don't believe anyone has been "slagging off". I can't apologise when people take offence at things that haven't been said.

:-)

> e) I see no resolution on the issue really. Grant and Craig both
> hold steady to their viewpoint, as do many other people.

There may yet be a resolution. I know the people involved. I hold firm to a hope for incorporation.

Maybe my faith will be misplaced?

:-)

Cheers
Grant

bravo! Craig