..or recorded music for stage dance;is this a travesty to anyone??? Or just poor judgement(something could go wrong w/the equipment).

I think it is travesty, that companies are force to use taped music, canned as we call it. Companies are not able to afford the orchestra anymore, in lieu of letting go dancers the orchestra is cut. <BR>The RWB will perform to live music at home and abroad in the bigger cities. However, we used to tour with our own orchestra which gave us something extra, we can no longer afford to tour that way.<BR>Live music is far better from audience and artist point of view, regardless of equipment breaking down.

Angela,<BR>From what I understand, a big part of the problem is that the musicians' (orchestra)union is so much stronger than the dancers' union-- the musicians hourly pay is generally much higher and can be very cost-prohibitive, and so, like River said, the companies would rather perform with taped music than not at all.<P>Does anyone know if this is true of ABT where the dancers have their own union?<P>On the other hand, I imagine many choreographers fall in love with a piece of music that would be extraordinarily expensive to reproudce live, so they consciously choose to perform to tape because they love that piece so much.

I agree, live music beats taped any day. It makes such a huge difference for the dancers, and for the audience.<P>I've often thought that the fact that the musicians union is so strong compared to dancers is very representative of how (some) administrators, and many in the audience, view dancers as being expendable. Even some dancers have that kind of thinking about what a dancer is "worth". How many of us have done stuff for free over the years or worked unpaid overtime, etc. I know community spirt is strong, and that's great, but when it comes down to it, there's somewhat of a disparity between admin. salaries, musicians and dancers. Sorry, I know I'm off the music topic...<P>(Btw, River, how did Giselle go?)

I tend to agree w/all of you--I LOVE live Music.Its so much more beautiful I think to perform to, and for an audience member.The only exception I suppose is when a co. like Joffrey chooses to dance off of sometime contemporary,like rock(they used Prince's music in a piece I understand).<BR> I'd imagine it was the same for San Jose Ballet's Blue Suede Shoes ballet(okay Azlan -watch yourself ...)

Well, not unless they were able to get ELVIS himself(all those Elvis sightings you know....)

I think we all agree that live music is preferable in most circumstances, but when do you think it is ok to use canned music?<P>I think using the original recordings of popular songs is appropriate for pieces such as "Blue Suede Shoes" and "Company B" and "Billborads" etc. Like you said angela, it might be hard to get Elvis to do it live.

Hmm, good question. For popular music with lyrics I would usually rather hear musicians sans vocals. Unless it's supposed to be campy. Then go with a recording with lyrics or live with lyrics. <P>Obviously electronic music is canned, but you can also do what Rosas is doing right now with <I>I Said I</I> which has a DJ scratching on top of recordings, but there are also live musicians for other sections. <P>If the music is canned then it really helps if the recording is high quality. Old worn out recordings sound awful, no matter how good the PA is in the venue. It also helps if someone checks the levels and knows a little something about sound beyond 'this is the setting we always use here.'

Absolutely, on all counts. Though I don't object to lyrics in songs. But I think I am in a minority.

Last spring I finally got my musician boyfriend to go to a ballet. He was so disappointed to find that the music was taped. I was afraid that this would really turn him off to the performance. He liked it all right anyway, but it makes me wonder if the overall use of canned music might affect audience appreciation, and therefore attendance, in the long run. Just a thought.

For a small company, or even a large company on tour, using live music might attract more audience members, but not enough to offset the cost of the orchestra.<P>------------------<BR>Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer<BR>"Shang-a-lang, feel the <I>sturm und drang</I> in the air!"<BR>Online portfolio: <A HREF="http://www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg" TARGET=_blank>http://www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg</A> <P><BR>

There can be something magical about dance with live music. However, I have heard spectacular soundscapes that work very well. For instance, Ballett Frankfurt usually work to taped music. I wouldn't want to genaralise that - live is good, canned is bad.<P>As Jeff points out, for the smaller companies there is little choice if they want to perform. In these circumstances I'd rather see the money spent on the pay and conditions of the dancers. <P>For the record, with some orchestras who prefer to play for opera, I'd rather have canned music.

Hey Marie...thanks for asking about Giselle. It was wonderful...it is nice to be home. By the way, we danced to live orchestra as always in the "big city".<BR>Definitely with the classics live orchestra is a must. Doing the pre-recorded thing is more feasible with modern works.

There has been some controversy over the fact that the Cubans didn't have live music for their gig at Zellerbach Hall in Berkeley. CalPerformances has gotten a lot flak for it. But I understood that it was also the choice of the dance company to use canned music, not just the presenters.

LMCtech, the version I heard was that Alicia Alonso was very unhappy that the presenters used canned music for her company a couple years ago. So they promised her that they would give the company a live orchestra this year but as we know that didn't happen either.