[deleted] t1_j2mwpdy wrote
tenemu t1_j2mxzrv wrote
What if it’s not that simple. What if people stopped attending because of the price, so the producers needed to find a way to cut cost. Either drop the show entirely and pay no one, or limit/drop the live band?
DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2myvil wrote
Reducing live music on Broadway shows started happening a long time ago, like a decade or more. It's not a recent cost cutting measure.
Edit for clariry: Thought I was pretty clear on this. The cost cutting by reducing live musicians on Broadway, trying to replace them with recorded music has been going on for decades. This is not new. Musicians are always fighting this.
FerricDonkey t1_j2n1icy wrote
Right now isn't the only time people have wanted to cut costs.
DreadPirateGriswold t1_j2n3jwt wrote
That's what I said. We're saying the same thing.
[deleted] t1_j2n8exf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2nbby1 wrote
[removed]
monkeybeast55 t1_j2n4nxj wrote
To kind of echo what @tenemu said, making something economically viable (i.e. "pay the rent") is not (necessarily) to "fill their own pockets". Broadway shows are already pretty expensive, and I doubt that most of those that are involved are living in mansions as it is.
Zinjifrah t1_j2nzmpo wrote
Aren't you literally making the same argument as the musicians for movies?
kevronwithTechron t1_j2o74y4 wrote
I think that's a little different. With video technology there's no need to go buy theater tickets for a show. The entire industry is already obsolete to begin with.
Zinjifrah t1_j2of622 wrote
I'm no expert on whether theater is obsolete. They seem to do well enough in NYC. Can't speak to the industry though. Doesn't really change the fact that op was literally saying the same thing about theater shows that live musicians were saying about movies without a hint of irony.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments