|
|
Post by danb on Apr 13, 2021 13:03:34 GMT
Depends if you want to be militant about it, or want to eat. These are not normal times.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 13, 2021 13:25:53 GMT
Depends if you want to be militant about it, or want to eat. These are not normal times. I'm not sure I fully follow your point on this one, Dan! The individual risking his employability by deciding to go public is very much a decision made by the individual, and nobody else. If there are negative repercussions to his reputation, it has nothing to do with anyone except him. I think it was actually very brave to highlight exactly what happened publicly, and is actually a wider service to the art community in giving people the strength to speak out about appalling HR practices, which many face in silence for fear of being branded "difficult". Interestingly, the Musician's Union was one of the few unions with any actual sway in the arts in this country, and even they stand powerless before the behemoths of UK theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 13, 2021 13:53:22 GMT
Depends if you want to be militant about it, or want to eat. These are not normal times. I'm not sure I fully follow your point on this one, Dan! The individual risking his employability by deciding to go public is very much a decision made by the individual, and nobody else. If there are negative repercussions to his reputation, it has nothing to do with anyone except him. I think it was actually very brave to highlight exactly what happened publicly, and is actually a wider service to the art community in giving people the strength to speak out about appalling HR practices, which many face in silence for fear of being branded "difficult". Interestingly, the Musician's Union was one of the few unions with any actual sway in the arts in this country, and even they stand powerless before the behemoths of UK theatre. I’m not sure I understand yours in relation to mine. I was just saying that I wouldn’t rock the boat in such a niche job role with so few employers. I totally get how awful it is and how borderline illegal (but not) the treatment of the players is, but it is what it is and isn’t going to get better any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 15:13:19 GMT
I'm not sure I fully follow your point on this one, Dan! The individual risking his employability by deciding to go public is very much a decision made by the individual, and nobody else. If there are negative repercussions to his reputation, it has nothing to do with anyone except him. I think it was actually very brave to highlight exactly what happened publicly, and is actually a wider service to the art community in giving people the strength to speak out about appalling HR practices, which many face in silence for fear of being branded "difficult". Interestingly, the Musician's Union was one of the few unions with any actual sway in the arts in this country, and even they stand powerless before the behemoths of UK theatre. I’m not sure I understand yours in relation to mine. I was just saying that I wouldn’t rock the boat in such a niche job role with so few employers. I totally get how awful it is and how borderline illegal (but not) the treatment of the players is, but it is what it is and isn’t going to get better any time soon. I don't know how anyone can not support this man and his fellow musicians. And back up this reason by saying the man shouldn't speak out for fear of retaliation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 15:15:24 GMT
Also for those arguing that this is nothing that the changes will not be noticed look at the 'new' Christine Masquerade costume. theatreboard.co.uk/post/372985It's poor plagiarism which shouldn't be accepted by artists. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 13, 2021 15:20:43 GMT
I’m not sure I understand yours in relation to mine. I was just saying that I wouldn’t rock the boat in such a niche job role with so few employers. I totally get how awful it is and how borderline illegal (but not) the treatment of the players is, but it is what it is and isn’t going to get better any time soon. I don't know how anyone can not support this man and his fellow musicians. And back up this reason by saying the man shouldn't speak out for fear of retaliation. Nowhere have I said that I didn’t support him. You have made your feelings towards the changes abundantly clear. You’re aware that it’s a discussion board yes? |
|
98 posts
|
Post by paddy72 on Apr 13, 2021 15:36:04 GMT
Remember when M&S first did their Dine In for £10 and you couldn’t believe you could get a whole chicken, a large side, a profiterole tower and a real quality wine for a tenner. Now you’re lucky if you get a couple of fillets, a cheap salad, half a dozen profiteroles and a cheap wine you’ve never heard of for the same price. Cut price Phantom and Les Mis shows are what they are which is a a poor deal based on diminishing returns. Just a shame they’re still hanging on in there like a tired old meal deal. Maybe there’s another debate to be had now about the damage they have contributed to what should be a vibrant West End full of of new and exciting productions? Shame that all the money they’ve made over the years has been spent on restoring theatre buildings and not on investing in new product to fill them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 16:51:10 GMT
I don't know how anyone can not support this man and his fellow musicians. And back up this reason by saying the man shouldn't speak out for fear of retaliation. Nowhere have I said that I didn’t support him. You have made your feelings towards the changes abundantly clear. You’re aware that it’s a discussion board yes? No need to be rude even if what you say is contradictory. You called someone militant for speaking out when let go from a job and scaremongering that it will result in retaliation. These are completely outrageous charges and should be countered. I’m sure the musicians will have support from empathetic professionals across the industry. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 16:53:49 GMT
Remember when M&S first did their Dine In for £10 and you couldn’t believe you could get a whole chicken, a large side, a profiterole tower and a real quality wine for a tenner. Now you’re lucky if you get a couple of fillets, a cheap salad, half a dozen profiteroles and a cheap wine you’ve never heard of for the same price. Cut price Phantom and Les Mis shows are what they are which is a a poor deal based on diminishing returns. Just a shame they’re still hanging on in there like a tired old meal deal. Maybe there’s another debate to be had now about the damage they have contributed to what should be a vibrant West End full of of new and exciting productions? Shame that all the money they’ve made over the years has been spent on restoring theatre buildings and not on investing in new product to fill them. Save the west end by letting the theatres fall into ruin and invest in new shows? Which will go where? Seems an odd plan. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 13, 2021 17:06:23 GMT
Nowhere have I said that I didn’t support him. You have made your feelings towards the changes abundantly clear. You’re aware that it’s a discussion board yes? No need to be rude even if what you say is contradictory. You called someone militant for speaking out when let go from a job and scaremongering that it will result in retaliation. These are completely outrageous charges and should be countered. I’m sure the musicians will have support from empathetic professionals across the industry. Ok Shirley I’ll stop discussing. I find pushing you’re blinkered ‘how dare they change my show’ attitude incredibly naive & frustrating. “Showbiz” isn’t fair. Very often it isn’t their own money they are playing with. If you want it to survive, this might be the only way. |
|
5,025 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 13, 2021 17:20:47 GMT
If the London Les Mis went to New York, they would laugh it out of town. Errr, it did, in 2014. And received three Tony nominations. It also ran a lot longer than the 2006 Broadway revival of the original production. I saw that New York production and also saw the try out in Toronto, it was not stripped back as much as the current London production. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 17:22:54 GMT
No need to be rude even if what you say is contradictory. You called someone militant for speaking out when let go from a job and scaremongering that it will result in retaliation. These are completely outrageous charges and should be countered. I’m sure the musicians will have support from empathetic professionals across the industry. Ok Shirley I’ll stop discussing. I find pushing you’re blinkered ‘how dare they change my show’ attitude incredibly blinkered & frustrating. If you want it to survive, this might be the only way. You are absolutely right Dan. There is so much charged emotion when people talk about changes to long runners that people completely fail to understand how musicals are made viable in 2021 and indeed in a post pandemic world. I also feel the discussion doesn't need to be so polarised. You can be sad that the orchestra is being reduced AND understand the logical (and I am afraid inevitable) reasons behind this. |
|
19,730 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 13, 2021 17:25:26 GMT
⬆️ Voice of reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 17:25:29 GMT
Part of Phantom's unique appeal and selling point was the size of the orchestra and it's sound. To purists perhaps, but not to most tourists or probably 9/10 theatre goers. If people want to hear a full orchestra they go to the Proms, not the West End. As a musician I would rather hear a larger orchestra but I am a realist and understand that commercially there is no place for a large orchestra in the West End anymore, if there ever really was (who knows, Phantom could have been as much of a success if it had opened with a 14 piece orchestra - it hasn't hurt Wicked or Hamilton or many others!). People can of course be sad at the change, but you have to be realistic rather than wearing the rose-tinted spectacles that many on this thread seem to have on. Completely agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 17:26:46 GMT
Also for those arguing that this is nothing that the changes will not be noticed look at the 'new' Christine Masquerade costume. theatreboard.co.uk/post/372985It's poor plagiarism which shouldn't be accepted by artists. This is from the Laurence Connor production, which is not what's going into Her Majesty's. |
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Apr 13, 2021 17:51:27 GMT
Whether it’s “inevitable” or not, why not just be open about it? Stop claiming the “Brilliant Original” will be back when it very clearly won’t. It’s insulting to fans, let alone the devastating effect it has on those losing their jobs.
|
|
1,740 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Apr 13, 2021 18:31:01 GMT
Like it or not The Phantom of the Opera which was playing has closed. We are getting a revival, the waters are muddied because it is in the same theatre with no other shows in between.
I'm excited to see it, as I would be if the tour came around again. I know it is a shame for the people involved (except the ones at the top getting the profit) but it is happening. Other shows won't be back.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 13, 2021 18:44:12 GMT
Ok Shirley I’ll stop discussing. I find pushing you’re blinkered ‘how dare they change my show’ attitude incredibly blinkered & frustrating. If you want it to survive, this might be the only way. You are absolutely right Dan. There is so much charged emotion when people talk about changes to long runners that people completely fail to understand how musicals are made viable in 2021 and indeed in a post pandemic world. I also feel the discussion doesn't need to be so polarised. You can be sad that the orchestra is being reduced AND understand the logical (and I am afraid inevitable) reasons behind this. Then close the show and put something else in. Rather than pretending nothing's changed and charging higher prices for a lesser product. There is just no truth in the charge that the original production wasn't viable. If anything it played to smaller audiences (in a bigger house) on Broadway...and that will reopen at full scale. I'm not saying it would have always been viable. But what they've done is prematurely end its run and then replace it with an inferior substitute and gaslight the audience. |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Apr 13, 2021 19:27:06 GMT
|
|
3,466 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 13, 2021 19:32:31 GMT
I'll still go to see it. If its crap, we'll all know.
|
|
271 posts
|
Post by gmoneyoutlaw on Apr 13, 2021 20:02:20 GMT
The musicians' union in New York would not allow them to reduce the orchestra ... and not pay the musicians. Which means they could probably reduce the labor to 14 but have to pay for 27 whether they play or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 13, 2021 20:40:23 GMT
The musicians' union in New York would not allow them to reduce the orchestra ... and not pay the musicians. Which means they could probably reduce the labor to 14 but have to pay for 27 whether they play or not. As I understand it, the only way around that is (assuming the contracts are for "run of show") to shut down the entire production and then reopen. Which is what they've done in London, though maybe doing that on Broadway would jeopardise the longest-running title. Also I know for a fact Cameron's share on Broadway is 40%; perhaps it is higher in London. A Broadway musician also told me that there is a minimum number of players required for any show that plays each house. If that's true, then not sure that 14 would fit the requirements of the Majestic. This was the statement re the decision in London by the President of the American Federation of Musicians: Is Thatcher to blame here for the lack of similar clout on the side of the pond? |
|
61 posts
|
Post by TheatreTwittic on Apr 13, 2021 22:35:01 GMT
Surely those who argue people won't know the difference, can't listen to the above and go yeah people are going to hear that and go yes that was £100 well spent?
Sure, that may be an extreme example, but at the same time I feel it shows you can, very easily tell the difference between brass and a keyboard setting.
Seating plans across the board are sparse at the moment and you certainly won't lure back the returners to fill the void by cheaping a production.
Probably the best example of this, the reaction by the mega fans of Ghost when star casting in the second tour went so so wrong, as well as an overall design that was so different to the original.
They're going to need one heck of a production design to distract from the no doubt smaller company as well as the smaller orchestra.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 23:34:59 GMT
No need to be rude even if what you say is contradictory. You called someone militant for speaking out when let go from a job and scaremongering that it will result in retaliation. These are completely outrageous charges and should be countered. I’m sure the musicians will have support from empathetic professionals across the industry. Ok Shirley I’ll stop discussing. I find pushing you’re blinkered ‘how dare they change my show’ attitude incredibly naive & frustrating. “Showbiz” isn’t fair. Very often it isn’t their own money they are playing with. If you want it to survive, this might be the only way. Don’t make things up. I’ve travelled the world for non-replica productions. All I ask is don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. It’s not the original Phantom and ‘showbiz isn’t fair’ is blinkered? It takes brave people to speak up, look at what happened with Hamilton Broadway, how many of them have been blacklisted? Calling out the sham of the cheapened Maria Bjornson design isn’t blinkered or against change, I would prefer the show to close and bring in the revival reimagined Connor version if they can stand by it. The fact is the original creative team were artists and they’ve got in accountants to direct the new versions. Being involved in the industry I love change but change without improvement is pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 23:42:47 GMT
You are absolutely right Dan. There is so much charged emotion when people talk about changes to long runners that people completely fail to understand how musicals are made viable in 2021 and indeed in a post pandemic world. I also feel the discussion doesn't need to be so polarised. You can be sad that the orchestra is being reduced AND understand the logical (and I am afraid inevitable) reasons behind this. Then close the show and put something else in. Rather than pretending nothing's changed and charging higher prices for a lesser product. There is just no truth in the charge that the original production wasn't viable. If anything it played to smaller audiences (in a bigger house) on Broadway...and that will reopen at full scale. I'm not saying it would have always been viable. But what they've done is prematurely end its run and then replace it with an inferior substitute and gaslight the audience. I couldn’t agree more. Les Miserables viability was declining and they downgraded theatres a decade or more ago I believe to save money by 400 approx seats a performance. They then further changed the show to reduce running costs. Phantom hasn’t changed theatres, of course a difficult move but no now after ripping it out. Phantom can has around 70k more seats a year than Les Mis. The show toured the world for nearly three decades and then suddenly it became too ‘difficult’ to tour because of the theatres. The reason I’m frustrated is the lies. Just say I want to make more money and be done with it. |
|
