Slashdot Mirror
Computers Replace Musicians In West End Musical
Albanach writes "The Scotsman newspaper is reporting that despite opposition from the Musician's Union, Sir Cameron Mackintosh will proceed with his plan to replace one half of the musicians in his musical Les Miserables with a computer synthesiser. The Times claims that using Sinfonia will allow the show, the third longest running musical in history, to replace 11 musicians saving 5,000 GBP ($9,450 US) per week. Sinfonia consisits of 2 PCs, one master and one backup, controlled by an trained operator using a musical keyboard."
What is the point in going to see live, but fake, music?
Just my 0.02$
DrkBr
The point of going to a live show is just that -- to hear live music from an orchestra of real musicians. Jean Michel Jarre, in particular, has already lost a lot of concert-goers when they found out he sometimes used pre-sequenced synths instead of using an army of keyboardists and playing the lead himself, live.
Sure, some people go to a musical just for the lights, costumes and action... but how many are there? Surely the majority go for the music?
>Art should be a form of expression, not an automated process
The average West End musical is a form of business. The main art involved is that of making a profit.
Although he can replace half, there are still jobs that he needs real musicians for. I wonder if those musicians would boycott or try to put him under pressure to use real musicians for everything? They must still have some leverage if they are needed for the parts that computers can't do...
If the show is not making enough money then that is because it is past it's "sell-by" date. If it's just to make more money by cutting costs then it's pretty disgusting really. Yeah, he might make more money but how about putting money back into the community of musicians who made LM possible when computerisation was not an option? Guess I'm just an old softie really...
I think they'll find that while samplers can recreate the basic acoustical sound of an instrument perfectly, it just can't handle the incredible detail and expression that comes from having a good musician play the instrument live. I guess I could understand it in a normal play, but in a musical?
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Basically, as an artist, unless you are a really famous poet, lauded painter, sought after comic book artist, best-selling writer, or a pop music star, you are broke.
I would gladly spend "full" price to see a performance which was originally meant to be done by machines. But if the spirit of a performance is changed solely to cut costs, the savings should be passed along to me, or I'd rather spend my money on the real thing.
I think, more than anything else, the salary of an orchestral musician reflects the fact that they're generally (a) highly replaceable, and (b) not a key component of the overall package. I'm not saying they're not highly skilled, but there's an awful lot of unemployed musicians out there prepared to work for peanuts.
Exceptions obviously exist, but how often would people fork out cash to go to a play or musical because a particular musician is involved?
How do you know it won't become obsolete? Is talent even a necessity to succeed financially? I prefer live music over Britney-pop, so I'll continue to support the bands I love, but they'll never make a killing at it. They KNOW their style of music isn't financially viable, they do it out of love for performance. Their choice.
Just because it is art doesn't mean that we as a society have to accept it -- the only things that really move forward are ones that can profit for the producer -- and profit does not have to mean financially. Some musicians profit by making their audience happy or by providing themselves with happiness.
The producers of this particular theater have decided (or gambled or risked) that their customers won't mind a mechanical reproduction. They're taking the risk. The musicians, if they are good and their product is desired by some consumer(s), will find other work. If they can't find work, then they should find a new job or talent -- the public shouldn't be taxed to save what may become a dead product (or may not).
Mackintosh says he's been forced to do this by moving to the smaller theatre because the pit can only accommodate 11 musicians. Where exactly does the Musicians' Union want to put the rest of the orchestra? Suspend them from the ceiling?
Reading the rather limited blurb about the Sinfonia on the manufacturer's site, it's not like the orchestra or conductor is playing to a click-track or anything, the Sinfonia is operated by someone, presumably playing along to a piano part or some other lead part under the control of the conductor, then the synths on it follow that. Which means the conductor still has overall control of the orchestra, and it seems that the Sinfonia operator can even repeat bars or whatever, in response to what's happening on stage (although in a professional musical, an actor forgetting their line is somewhat unlikely, those things run like clockwork).
Yes, there's no substitute for live musicians, but if it's a case between the show going ahead or not (such as this case on RMS's site), then the answer is obvious to me. It's rather amusing that the musicians' unions are worried, they should be comforted in the knowledge that they can do better than a synth. Indeed, RMS claim that the Sinfonia can free up room for more live musicians by reducing the need for seperate synth players.
Still, I'd like to have a play with it before I'm fully convinced :).
The Sinfonia site mentions that the operator can alter how it plays the music, presumably by skipping back by a few bars. Anyhow, as I mention in my comment further down, such slipups are very rare in a long-running professional production.
Having said that, last time I went to see Les Mis, with full orchestra, it was actually fairly poor musically. So maybe that'll improve, who knows.
Playing from a score requires a hell of a lot of creativity. If you don't think so, you should try it sometime. You can't bring the music to life by simply playing the right notes at the right time. Interpreting a piece requires all kinds of choices on the part of the performer. It is not possible to indicate every aspect of the music in a score. That's why you need musicians. A program, no matter how sophisticated, will never replace real live musicians.
The musicians that are missing out on these jobs are just being put out of their misery. Playing the same part in the same musical night after night after night is enough to drive anyone insane.
Les Miserables is a musical, not a play. The music is vital for setting the mood of the piece. Each character has his or her own motif which lets gives you insight into the characters. For Wagner, this was almost more important for character development than the libretto (lyrics) itself. When I go to a musical, I pay for the best seats so I can sit close to the pit. I want to see the conductor carefully watching the actors on stage and communicating with the musicians so that everything stays together. It is truly an amazing thing to see a large group of people perform together in sync.
When I was in high school, I got to see a touring company of Les Miserables. One of the parts I looked forward to seeing the most was after the barricades fall and Jean Valjean looks through the bodies for Marius. There is a huge oboe solo that plays the melody to Jean Valjean's song, "Bring Him Home." This music conveys to the audience that although Jean Valjean knows he will lose his daughter to Marius by saving him, he knows that is what he should do. As an oboe student, I listened carefully how the musician interpreted the solo. It was a rare opportunity for me to get to hear someone else besides my teachers, and a machine simply would not have been the same.
Once in college as a music major, I got to experience the musicians' union's pettiness. Many times we had to sit in rehearsal for several minutes not allowed to rehearse because our morning rehearsal had gone over several minutes and the union members' lunch break had to be exactly sixty minutes. However when it came time to play, people would get over their egos and make music. (Musicians have always been difficult to deal with - Bach stabbed a bassoonist and Handel tried to throw a soprano out a window!).
Next month, my elementary school music students are going to get a great opportunity. The Nashville Opera company is travelling to our rural mining town and performing The Barber of Seville. The school had a choice whether to watch the performance on a live internet broadcast or have a scaled down version of the opera travel to the school. We chose to have the opera come to the school because seeing it live will engage the students better and just be more exciting for them. The children are prettty pumped about it, too.
It saddens me to think that Les Mis has to move to a smaller theater because of declining ticket sales. Perhaps it would be better to let it close with a little dignity instead of letting go on forever like Cats. But Cameron Macintosh was responsible for Cats lingering on forever too!
Les Miserables has to move out of its current theater because of renovations, and the theater they're moving into is the only one currently available. But, as it's quite a bit smaller, there's not enough room for the orchestra. But I find it odd, then, that the stage is big enough for the show (which, itself, is quite big) or the cast (which is also quite big), but the pit isn't big enough for the orchestra. And, of course, by ripping out a row or two of seats, the orchestra pit could easily be expanded. But no one wants to do that, because it would cut into the profits. The easiest thing to do for audiences who mostly don't know or care about the difference between virtual music and live music is to replace musicians. But at what point does reducing Les Miserables or any show make it no longer the same show? At a certain point during the Broadway run of the show, they just cut 15 minutes out of it to get it to run under three hours so they would have to stop paying the cast overtime. But the ticket prices, of course, didn't go down. Rest assured that audiences paying to see Les Miserables in London will not be paying less for fewer live musicians. The difference will go right into Cameron Mackintosh's pocket, as is always the case.
Personally, I think when it comes time to start cheating the audience out of the full experience of the show, as in either the current London case or the Broadway one I mentioned above, it might be best to just close the show and move on. But that's speaking from an audience member's perspective--from the perspective of someone who is something of an industry insider, sure, take the customers who don't know the difference for as much money as you can. The ones who do know the difference probably have already seen Les Miserables one or more times and have no desire to go back to see a reduced version of the show.
--Matthew
"If the lights of Broadway blind me, I won't mind..."
To address a few of the concerns raised here:
Les Mis is not a play, it is a musical. In fact, there is little to no spoken word in Les Mis making it almost an opera, which would make the music quite important.
Many people seem to think that if all the musicians are doing is playing from the score, then a machine may as well be doing it. To me, that's like saying, "if all the actors are doing is reading from the script, then we may as well replace them with robots." The fact is, despite the mess of markings that is a classical score, there are many more things not on that page that musicians are expected to fill in. There is a passion and subtlety of emotion, expression, articualtion, and sound that no machine can reproduce.
As a classicaly trained musician soon to graduate with my Master's in performance, I may be a bit biased, but the majority of my training hinges on those very points. Playing the music on the page is a given, you just have to be able to do at least that. What gets you a job and makes the music worth listening to, is doing more than what's on the page.
Now admittedly, that's hard to do for a show that's been running for so long. Many people have pointed out the business end of this decission. So, lets look at this from a business point of view...If the market demand for performance of this show no longer supports it being preformed in a space big enough, then the market has no more need for this show. Maybe it's time to learn a new show.
I think that all adds up to about $.04. Thanks for reading
Expression and interpretation are impossible to obtain out of a computer (and always will be, i feel).
Garbage in, garbage out. Expression in, expression out. You can get expression out of what is in essence a recording, albeit the same expression every time. More sophisticated software can receive cues from a performer in the pit, as you mention next:
Imagine going to a concert where a guy is playing his keyboard on stage emulating the sound of a great symphony orchestra.
Seeing a live performance of a musical drama is like seeing a performance by a boy band. The median viewer doesn't care much about the performers he doesn't see; he just wants their performance to match those of the performers he does see on the stage.
There's a musician's union for the West End. Union rules specifically state how many musicians need to be hired for any musical specifically to STOP this from happening, ie, to keep Broadway musicians employed. Believe me, if they could get away with it, pit bands would've been replaced by a CD player a long, long time ago. Broadway is exactly the same way.
McIntosh wants to replace half the orchestra, not because of artistic reasons per se, but because of practical ones - Les Mis is moving to a theater with a much, much smaller pit that simply can't accompany the number of musicians hired by the current production.
It's ALL business. Don't think art has anything to do with it. THey'd replace the actors with robots if they thought it'd make a buck and save a few more.
Triv
I mean, people go and see some DJ at a club. They use terms like "he's one of the best DJ's in the country". I mean...um...he spins records. How is that a musical talent? Also, I still think that hip-hop, or rap or whatever they're calling it this week is basically a bunch of guys with a rhyme dictionary and a drum machine. Perhaps that's a generalization, but it does seem to be people wanting to get into music with little to no musical knowledge and not really wanting to take the time nor the effort to learn an instrument. But I digress.
So, what are we in store for in the future. Going to see Synth programmers in concert? He'll come out on stage, take a bow and go and click a mouse, as the computer starts it's sequence. Afterwards the crowd goes wild! "He's the best synth programmer in the country, no one can beat his sequences!"
Sorry, I like my music live and for the most part acoustic. I grew up as a nerd, liking all of these things, computers doing music and artwork, digital photography and the rest. But now my tastes are going more and more ludite it seems. I keep thinking that the mindset these days seems to be if it's older than 30 years, it's outdated and everything now is better. Also many think that a computer could do everything better. Is this the case?
Yes, it's a cost thing for orchestra pit musicians being replaced by a synth. I get that. But is it "better" or are we now shooting for "just as good"?
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
As someone who has more than 5 musicals in a pit playing trombone, and another one working crew including: (...)
Call me a nut, but some of the best moments I've ever felt in music were when things weren't going 100% the way they were rehersed. The combined human factor of 10 pit musicians relizing that Mr. Hyde was going crazy with his stuff tonight made something come alive.
Now call me a nut, but unless you're really into a specific show (like, go see it multiple times) you won't notice if it's a bit off - only if it's a big screw-up. That's just you that's rehearsed it a thousand times and played it a dozen.
To you, delivering the same piece each night is routine. But to most of the audience, it's a unique experience. They won't be talking about how Mr. Hyde missed his que - they'll be talking about the entire performance of Mr. Hyde in the show, because it was all new to them.
The primary reason people go out and watch a live performance, is that it feel more "real" - you know you're watching real people, not images on a cinema screen. Same with live music vs. stereo (now I'm not talking about rock concerts where you jump with the crowd, that's a different story, but the kind of concerts where you sit in your seat and listen...)
As long as there are actors on the scene, giving you that "real" feel, I don't think most people will care about or even notice if part of it is artificial. Hell, just look at how many go to concerts with playback - it's all artifical, but still popular. It merely gives the impression of "live".
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
(FYI, the most useful definition I've heard is that rap refers to the musical form, hip hop to the culture, which also includes breakdance and grafiti art)
Rap is a drum machine and a rhyme dictionary in the same way that blues is four chords and a gravelly voice, or jazz is hitting the wrong keys and pretending you did it on purpose, or rock is two power chords and a stage show, or classical is machine-like repetition of a score. There are recordings that fit those descriptions, and before you get used to the form it might all sound like that. There's also a hell of a lot more to it -- but if you don't care to learn, more power to you, it's probably not for you anyway.
If you like rock, or blues, or jazz, or classical, though, you are hereby prohibited from making stupid generalizations about rap.
Personally, I think this is the wrong fight. If they're using synths to provide part of the music, as long as they're open about it, it's no big deal. Let the market decide if it's important. About a year and a half ago, I saw Rush in concert. They use a variety of synths, sequencers and samples on stage, and it allows the 3 of them to do amazing things. It was a fantastic and wekk-attended show, and people got exactly what they paid for.
Similarly, DJ shows can be fantastic and worthwhile as well. There's a lot more to it than "just spinning records", and again, people know exactly what they are getting.
The practice I have a problem with is pop "concerts" that are simply a choreographed show to a recording of the performer in question. It blurs the line, and people are often not aware of what they are actually seeing. That's where the real tragedy is.
I mean, people go and see some DJ at a club. They use terms like "he's one of the best DJ's in the country". I mean...um...he spins records. How is that a musical talent?
I mean...um...because he's not a DJ like you hire for your eight-year-old's skate party. He doesn't cue up pre-recorded tracks and let them play; otherwise an iPod would do just as well. Famous DJ's, whether they're playing trance, house, jungle or stright-up old-school techno, spend years perfecting their timing running multiple sound/effects tracks simultaneously, anticipating breaks before they happen, interleaving harmonious lines and a lot of other things people outside the scene know nothing about. And, if it's not obvious, only a few can do this really well, and yes, it requires talent. At least as much as "my music live and for the most part acoustic," whatever that means.
Also, I still think that hip-hop, or rap or whatever they're calling it this week is basically a bunch of guys with a rhyme dictionary and a drum machine. Perhaps that's a generalization, but it does seem to be people wanting to get into music with little to no musical knowledge and not really wanting to take the time nor the effort to learn an instrument.
You cannot be serious. First of all, rap and hip-hop are only "wahetever they're calling it this week" if you're an idiot and willfully withdrawn from popular culture. Hip-hop has been around under a variety of names, e.g. hard bop and bounce, for many years, but rap is a very fresh, very youthful music genre, and it's got a hell of a lot more vitality than American jazz, regular pop, new punk, alt-country or whatever else you're probably listening to. Your comment stinks of laughably provincial white-culture elitism.
If you haven't tried - and clearly you haven't - you cannot pick up a "rhyme dictionary and a drum machine" and produce creditable music, of any kind. Rapping requires imagination, flexible diction, a great sense of rhythm and, certainly not least, some kind of message. If you haven't noticed, rap artists become public figures, free-speech advocates in some cases, politically controversial figures and idols in their communities. And they make shitloads of money. Sounds kind of like your "real" musicians, doesn't it?
It seems to me you're compartmentalizing "music" in an eighth-grade-school-band kind of way, and making the (ridiculous and offensive) generalization that anything non-conventional is simply some new-fangled, lower-quality imitation of everything you've heard before. News flash: you're walking around in an opaque bubble just barely larger than your head.
Enough of putting down your trollish denigration of today's music. Similar to the way you apparently reject anything newer than 30 years old, you reject the possibility that new artistry is introduced and new nuances born when Sinfonia replaces some pit musicians. I don't know if that's possible or not, but other posters have indicated that may be true.
In both cases, just because you don't like it and don't know anything about it - and I really mean it, based on your post you're so in the clouds you don't know what shit smells like - doesn't mean it's only "just as good."
I call DJs musicians like I call drummers musicians. And I am a drummer. It takes skill, but what is produced is pure accompaniment, and will not stand up on its own as actual music. Sure a DJ can mix together some tracks and make a "song," but it's all stuff that other people, ACTUAL musicians created and put on a record for him to mix together. Sit a drummer down at an unfamiliar kit and he can jam along with whatever group he's with. I'd love to see a DJ sit in on someone else's equipment and unfamiliar records and jam with a rap/hiphop group.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
Get out of town, dood.
At the end of the day, a good dj picks songs, and a good musician makes them. The difference between DJs and rappers versus good classically trained musicians is the same difference between VB wizard boys and fluent systems programmers.
Both can make entertaining works, but the latter invested more to get more skill, and they need to be taken more seriously because they have earned it.
If you want to see someone be good at making rhymes and picking songs for you, rap is good. But if you want someone that really understands music, then, you need someone who actually knows how to play a real musical instrument.
This is my sig.
replacing actors with automatons? if i wanted to see something computer generated and not performed by real people i would not go to a theatre (performance), i would go to a theater (movies).
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
"The Sinfonia is a device that stores samples of every instrument involved in the orchestral score and permits an operator to provide the instrumental performances to represent the missing conventional instrumentalists. The Union understands there are no trained operators in the UK at present."
Well hell, its not like there isn't room for any of those musicians to learn the Sinfonia and get what is likely a higher paying gig than they were getting. If you don't think other musicals aren't going to follow suit, you're crazy.
Often unions will stand up for members who are going to lose benefits (like here in the NE, where Stop and Shop is trying to take away benefits and stop paying time and a half on Sundays and holidays) but then you have the musician's union trying hard to not let progress follow through. If the audience doesn't like it, the situation will be reverted. If the audience doesn't care, then it is natural progression for Sinfonia to have a roll.
I liken it to how the american baseball union stepped in and stopped a trade that would send Arod (highest paid player in history) to be traded to the Red Sox because he and the team wanted to restructure his contract so that he'd get *over*paid only if the team were sucessful. The union stoped the trade because they didn't want a precident to show that baseball contracts for the best players that started in the past couple of years were, frankly, horribly overpaid and poorly structured. Most teams today can't and wont pay out contracts like that much to the chagrin of players who weren't lucky enough to sign a contract durring baseball's "dot com" era.
If the audience doesn't mind Sinfonia, it makes no sense that shows wouldn't use it. The end user should (and likely will) decide how this proceeds.
I'm all for DJs getting their due, but what about the projectionists in movie theatres? They have to operate a complicated machine, their work is enjoyed by hundreds of people at a time, they help inspire a wide range of emotions in the audience. When will they be celebrated? Reviewed? Make more money? Let's stand up for the projectionists!
I wasn't trying to troll, I'm sorry that you became so defensive in your love of hip-hop. I was voicing my opinion.
But let's face it. The Emperor has no clothes. Hip-hop is here today, gone tomorrow. If you were as in touch as you claim to be, you would notice that hip-hop artists have zero staying power. Zero. In fact, there was a special documentory about how fleeting hip-hop artists are. You say they become public figures, and idols in their communities. Yet that only lasts about a year, perhaps more. Then they're gone. Also, I guess I'm not as shallow to think that making "shitloads of money" is a measurment of talent.
Yes, I was being general in my sweeping remarks on this genre, but that's how I feel. It's an opinion. Also, you yourself are making sweeping denigrations of what I was talking about. YOU are the one that is walking around in an opaque bubble if you think that hip-hop is "today's music". Today's music covers a very very broad spectrum and hip-hop is a small part of it. A vocal minority. Also, I wasn't rejecting anything newer than 30 years old, I was mearly pointing out that "some" people "seem" to not like anything older than 30 years old.
But your post was really defensive, if you wish to actually argue the points I would be happy to, but you need to learn a little more about today's music and get out of just one small part of it.
But I guess in your world others can't have contrasting opinions.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.