Sour Note on Broadway

[+ Lucky]

This Op-Ed piece from the NY Times is distressing. With ticket prices at an all-time high, synthesizer music replaces live musicians. What's the solution? Does it really matter? I think so.

 

Op-Ed Contributor

 

Gee, Officer Krupke, I Need Those Violins

 

By PAUL WOODIEL

 

Published: July 9, 2010

 

IN 1983, as a young violinist, I had the rare luck to form a friendship with Leonard Bernstein. One summer evening the following year, during dinner, Bernstein uttered a sentence that changed my life, “Why don’t you play ‘West Side Story’ with me? I’m recording it in the fall.” I placed my soup spoon down carefully, for as you may imagine, he had secured my full attention at that particular moment. Three months later, I found myself in the legendary (now long-defunct) RCA Studio A in Midtown, in a state of sheer terror. I spent a week nestled in Lenny’s orchestra, recording the full score of “West Side Story.” It was the most exhilarating experience of my young life.

In the 25 years since, I have been fortunate enough to have had a rich and varied career as a theater musician. I’ve toured the world as the fiddle on the proverbial roof, sweltered in a marching band uniform in “The Music Man” and played a languid tango in Norma Desmond’s mansion on Sunset Boulevard. Last year, the stars aligned, allowing me to perform “West Side Story” again, this time at the Palace Theater on Broadway.

Now, after 500 performances, our producers have told us and our union that in order to cut costs they will chop our string section in half, releasing five musicians and “replacing” them with a synthesizer piped in from another room. I don’t think Lenny would have approved.

The sweeping grandeur of Broadway’s classic scores would be impossible without master orchestrations. I would argue that the orchestrator’s crafty magic is perhaps best appreciated from the pit below the stage — by musicians who thrill (or despair, as the case may well be) to a given score night after night. To my ear, the orchestration of “West Side Story” towers above all others, a masterwork of complexity and beauty that still reveals marvels to my colleagues and me.

The score’s eye-popping instrumental forces, too long to list here, involve everything from bass saxophone to slide whistle to three piccolos. Bernstein crafted 11 independent string parts to render his sublime love songs: “Maria,” “Tonight,” “Somewhere” and “One Hand, One Heart.”

Soon, though, if all goes according to plan, these songs will be produced by a skeletal string section accompanied by an inert, artificial, electronic device, which an engineer will try to manipulate, hoping to deceive audiences into thinking it’s the real thing. (I must note that I will still be there, lest this sound merely self-serving.) The producers are doubtless betting audiences won’t notice the difference. But if you happen to be listening, as Lenny would have suggested you do, you will notice.

Things aren’t great for Broadway musicians. There are fewer jobs than ever, as orchestras have increasingly become small bands. I’m O.K. with that; times change. Some shows need orchestras and violins; others don’t.

But “West Side Story” is one of those shows that does. The show is inseparable from its lush, sophisticated orchestration. So here’s my proposition: if the show is no longer profitable, the producers should simply close it with its dignity intact. Doing so might put me out of work, but it would honor (rather than demean) the legacy of Bernstein’s crown jewel.

Paul Woodiel is a violinist.

[uwsman2]

It really does matter....

 

Automation - or anything approaching it - is an abomination. It is bad enough that Broadway musicals tend to be overproduced in the sound department - too much electronic voice-processing and amplification - but to replace strings and winds with electronically synthesized sounds should be beyond the pale for an expensive Broadway production. I can see the need to use these substitutes for a low-priced road tour, but not for the big show.

[+ purplekow]

It seems they lost five jobs and kept 5 jobs. if it is not profitable with 10 would the 10 play for the salary of 5, i think not. Don't blame the producers, who had 10 there to start, blame the economy,

[bostonman]

I posted about Woodiel's letter on a theatre-related chat board (as you can imagine, the topic is a hot one over there) - and I'm copying it here (with some minor alterations). I'm speaking from my viewpoint as a professional musical director and keyboard player in Boston:

 

-----------------------

Paul Woodiel and I actually grew up in the same town and went to the same high school (a few years ahead of me), and he's done a lot of great work in Broadway pits (check his credits on ibdb.com). I'm glad he's speaking out.

 

There's nothing new here, unfortunately - this "cut list" situation is a sad fact of life, as is the problem of synths replacing players (and I, as a keyboard player, hate to have to often be put in the position of "compensating" for players we can't hire). And, of course, for the last 25 years or so, it's become very common for orchestrators to have a "trick" string section - you hire a small number of "real" strings" and "pad" their sound with synth. Les Mis did it (and on the road, often did without the "real" strings entirely) and most shows of that ilk are written that way. Tunick won the Tony (deservedly) for his orchestration of Titanic, but even there, the Broadway pit had a small number of real string players, with the "Keyboard 2" player playing mostly with them all the way through.

 

But yes, in the case of a show like this one, where one of the selling points of the production was the full orchestra (like South Pacific - and didn't the same thing happen there? And I even want to say a similar thing happened in Wonderful Town), it's a horrible thing to say that getting rid of the body of the string section is an "acceptable loss."

 

There is, unfortunately, a general mentality out there, by non-musicians, that you can always "make it work" so to speak, whatever the slim budget given to the musicians. (I did, once, have a producer metaphorically give me a patronizing pat on the head in an email, telling me "we know you're talented enough to make the music work with less players." I got incredibly angry, but frankly I realized my anger was wasted, because THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.) But when I've offered a counter argument of "say you told the lighting designer he could only use 5 instruments, or only one color gel" - and the response I get is, "well, that's not the same." But of course it is. Loss of color and richness and detail is loss of color and richness and detail, no matter where it's missing.

 

I hope Paul's letter gets more people more aware of the situation - maybe somehow it will do some good. Maybe, at least, people going to see West Side Story in the near future will realize what they're missing.

 

And, I'm frustrated on top of it all because at least Paul does get to play in full pits. Unfortunately, there is rarely such a thing in Boston theatre at all, unless the show is orchestrated very small to begin with. And the last two major professional theatres to be built in this area (the Calderwood and New Repertory spaces) DON'T HAVE ORCHESTRA PITS!!!! (i.e. clearly no one thought it was an important thing to include in the design.)

[body2body]

I have noticed the reduced orchestras in some of the touring productions that come here to Los Angeles. The use of keyboards to augment (and in some cases replace) the strings in quite noticeable in some scores. When a revival is done, can the composer, or his estate require that some notice of the altered orchestration be given in the program? As a an audience member (who now has to pay over $125.00 for an orchestra seat), I think I am entitled to some kind of notice. Am I going to hear what the composer intended, or what the producer could afford?

 

That being said, it is also true that in the original production of "West Side Story" none of the cast were amplified (nor did any of them sing in Spanish). I do not know how Mr. Bernstein would have felt about that. Musical Theater is a commercial proposition, and if the producers and investors are not going to make money there will be no musical theater. Composers do not always oppose changes, think of Mr. Sondheim's blessing of the recent productions of "Sweeney Todd" and "Company" in which the cast became the orchestra.

 

Two years ago I was in London, saw "Candide" at the English National Opera. That production was done with a full orchrestra and sung by singers who were not amplified, just as in the original production. In Europe (and on occasion in American Opera companies like New York City Opera) perform the classics of American Musical Comedy in their original form ( I also saw a fine production of "My Fair Lady" in english in Hanover Germany). Opera companies never make a profit, and do not have consider investors. They have to hope to God they can find underwriters and donors, who do not care if they make a profit. This is where we will have to go to see the classics in their "original" form.

[+ bigjoey]

Yes, it is sad they way things have changed. Us older types can remember Broadway before amplification when you actually heard real voices.

 

But let us put part of the problem on the unions and their work rules and salaries. It is good for their members but bad for the producer who must make a profit to not only keep a show open but to even open it in the first place. There are ticket price limits and to be honest, some shows really make their profits on the road shows and merchandising!!

 

For example, stage hands in New York can not only make $300,000 per year (sorry, but to someone from Kansas, that is REAL money) but have work rules that require more persons than needed and minimum hours that are not needed for the work done.

 

People are entitled to a living wage but the unions have long gone over that and the work rules have a producer paying for persons and hours not needed. The unions have one "customer" and that is their members and they have done a good job for them but they are killing the golden goose.

 

With the high costs, producers must cut back someplace. With the high costs, producers will only open shows with a low risk of failure so we get revivals and shows based on movies or a character where a "brand" and special effects carry the day (did we really need a "Tarzan" and do we need a "Spiderman" or "Superman")?

 

The public is paying a high price for the high costs of Broadway.

 

Before I am assulted for attacking the unions, there are other costs that are out of control as well such as the high costs of advertising in the New York Times, taxes, etc.

 

Today, producers are taking risks and creating great theater outside of New York where the costs are lower and the cost of failure is less. I recently went to Chicago specifically to see some great theater (OK, to see one of my favorite escorts as well).

[bostonman]

With the high costs, producers must cut back someplace. With the high costs, producers will only open shows with a low risk of failure so we get revivals and shows based on movies or a character where a "brand" and special effects carry the day (did we really need a "Tarzan" and do we need a "Spiderman" or "Superman")?

 

Tarzan was a notorious flop, and Spiderman - Turn Off The Dark has had notorious problems even making it to the first day of rehearsal, lol - but I think It's A Bird...It's A Plane...It's Superman belongs in an entirely different category, as (if the current reworking of the show in Dallas really finds its way to New York) it's a rewrite of the famed 1966 flop musical, and it might be interesting to see if they can make the show work. But I don't think the raison d'etre for this "revival" would be the "brand" or the special effects (if it has many at all) or the movie connection (as it's really not based on the movie version at all).

 

But yes, I agree that we have way too many attempts at Broadway shows these days based on name recognition alone. Too many of what I'd call the Famous Title: The Musical syndrome. Since the 60's, writers have been using movies as inspirations for musicals, but it seems to me the projects were often more writer-driven than producer-driven, coming from a writer's honest desire to musicalize a great story instead of anyone's "sure-fire" belief that a recognizable film title will bring in the audience. I mean, would Smiles Of A Summer Night: The Musical or Nights Of Cabiria: The Musical have worked today, if titled as such and seen for the first time? (Both classic shows, of course, have been recently revived under their original musical titles - A Little Night Music and Sweet Charity.)

 

Though certainly not all movie-to-musical adaptations in the last decade have been knee-jerk or unworthy. I happen to think that composer/lyricist David Yazbek has done marvelous work with The Full Monty and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. I do think that Mel Brooks (and his musical ghostwriter, Glen Kelly) deserve credit for The Producers (though Young Frankenstein was a disappointment). Hairspray was a deserved hit. Also, Sister Act in London has been getting a lot of good buzz.

[bostonman]

...it is also true that in the original production of "West Side Story" none of the cast were amplified (nor did any of them sing in Spanish).

 

Two years ago I was in London, saw "Candide" at the English National Opera. That production was done with a full orchrestra and sung by singers who were not amplified, just as in the original production.

 

We can quibble here just a bit. I don't know for sure that the original Candide and West Side Story were not amplified - certainly, obviously the technology wouldn't have been at all the same (or extensive) as today, but there may have been area mikes onstage to generally amplify the sound from the stage. Body mikes, as we know their use today, would of course not have been involved, though I do believe that such technology was possible then in some form.

 

Amplification was certainly happening to some extent in the orchestra pit - the electric guitar would have been hooked up to an amp (and though I don't know for sure, I would think that even the acoustic guitar and some of the other, quieter instruments might also have been given some amplification). Also, by this time, pre-recorded music in musicals was becoming a more common possibility (the effect of the "Mambo" music in the drugstore jukebox in the Anita "rape" scene was done by recording). In fact, only 3 years before West Side Story came the first example of a prerecorded vocal in a musical, to my knowledge - "Hey There" from The Pajama Game, where John Raitt sang a duet with his own recorded voice (as if it were coming from a dictaphone machine).

 

As for that "full orchestra" in the ENO Candide - undoubtedly it was a much bigger ensemble than was heard on Broadway in 1956 - the 1956 orchestra was a mere 25 players (which by Broadway standards is a standard-to-large orchestra for the time, lol). By contrast, consider that the 1974 Harold Prince revival had an orchestra around half the original size (either 13 or 11, depending on sources I've checked). And of course, we've all been wonderfully spoiled over the years by hearing the famous Candide Overture being played by large symphony and pops orchestras, in a much larger configuration than audiences in 1956 heard it.

[+ Lucky]

$300,000 a year for a stagehand sounded high to me. I found this info at wikipedia, discussing the 2007 stagehand strike:

 

The collective bargaining agreement between Local One and the League expired in the summer of 2007. Members of Local One agreed to work without a contract and promised other unions in the entertainment industry that they would not strike until an agreement was reached. In late summer, Local One and the League, representing the Shubert and Jujamcyn theaters with the Nederlander Organization observing, entered into negotiations.[6]

[edit] Contract issues

 

Contract negotiations generally focused on work rules. Broadway shows offer a standard eight performances per week ("performance calls"), each of which lasts three to four hours. Additionally, there are "load-ins" (periods during which a show moves into a theater), rehearsals, "maintenance calls" (during which scenery, lighting and sound equipment are serviced, repaired and maintained), and opportunities for overtime. The League has accused the union of using its contract to secure featherbedding, a practice made illegal by the federal Taft-Hartley Act. Among the work rule changes sought by the League were:

 

• Loosening load-in rules: The load-in period may last several weeks and cost $1 million or more. Current work rules require producers to determine ahead of time how many stagehands are needed on each given day. These numbers cannot change once load-in begins, requiring produers to pay salaries even if no work occurs. The rule ensures that workers will not be on call (and unpaid for it) during the load-in period. The producers proposed essentially eliminating the rule. The union agreed to loosen the rule, but sought to keep a minimum number of stagehands at work each day.
  
• Overtime: The existing contract stated that if any stagehand is required to work overtime during a load-in, all workers must stay and be paid overtime. The producers proposed loosening the rule so that producers determined how many stagehands would stay and earn overtime. The union agreed to discuss modifying the contract, but only if the League agreed to strengthen other parts of the contract.
  
• Performance and continuity calls: The existing contract stated that stagehands could only perform work related to the performance during a performance call. If the producer wishes the stagehand to perform other duties, the producer must issue a one-hour "continuity call," even if the stagehand has no more work to do. If the one-hour continuity call is not long enough, producers are required to pay for a four-hour shift. Producers call the rule wasteful, but the union claimed the rule discouraged theaters from forcing employees to work past midnight. The union also noted that many stagehands supplement their income with daytime jobs, and late nights significantly interfere with these arrangements.[1] Producers proposed widening the tasks stagehands may perform during performance calls and reducing the required four hours of pay. The union had agreed to discuss reducing the required four hours of pay in exchange for improving other benefits.
  
• Wages: There are four classes of stagehands. Head carpenters and electricians, who are in the top category, made about $1,600 a week. Most stagehands (riggers, winch-workers and operators) were in the lowest class, making about $1,200 a week. The union claimed that the proposed rule changes would cut workers salaries by 38 percent. The League offered different pay raises for different classes of workers, but the union argued these did not make up for the lost income.[4]
  

Many labor relations experts said that the negotiations were not about work rules or economics, but the relative power of the two sides. Producers, who pay the theater owners, are also part of the League, and for the first time they took a vocal and active role in pushing for contract changes in order to break the union's control over theater management. Subsequently the League established a $20 million "defense fund" to help theaters weather a strike.[1] In response, the union established a $4 million fund to help its members during a possible job action.[6]

***

 

And this, from the NY Times:

 

Currently the highest-paid stagehands, like head carpenters and head electricians, earn a minimum $1,600 weekly wage on a running show; stagehands in the lowest-paid, and most populous, category make a minimum wage of around $1,225 a week. But with overtime, additional work assignments and certain premium payments added in, wages can end up being quite a bit higher. (Figures provided by the league put the average stagehand salary at around $115,000 annually.) — Oct. 10, 2007

[+ honcho]

$1,600 per week vs. $115K per year

 

As they used to say in the doublemint commercials "Stop, you're both right!" (at least potentially).

 

In the Bay Area Rapid Transit strike, the management side was touting the average

wage of train drive *including benefits* like medical and retirement, and when the

workers called up the talk shows, they cited their pay-stub salary.

 

Being a member of musicians union local 6 myself (although my day gig is at

one of the local universities doing computers), I totally endorse what the violinist wrote.

 

I can't help wondering what fraction of the costs of a broadway show actually go to working musicians (even including benefits). Anybody know?

[+ bigjoey]

Try:

http://www.gothamist.com/2009/10/20/stagehands.php

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/arts/music/28hand.html

 

These stories refer to Carnegie Hall; I assumed that Broadway stagehands could not be far behind. $500,00 PLUS!!!!