# Ethics in Live Performances



## soundman (Nov 9, 2010)

The autotune thread was getting fairly derailed by a discussion of ethics when the question seemed more to be about the technical how-to rather than should I. This is an interesting issue and perhaps worthy of its own thread. 

Where is the line between cheating an audience and creating a spectacle? If an actress is blond and the costume designer wants them to have black hair no one would think twice about getting them a wig or getting them a dye job. If the show is booked into a venue where cuts have to be made no apology is made about the extra scenery or lights that got left in the truck. More than a few rock concerts have teleprompters out on the road with them and its not a big deal the artist can't remember the song. If a mic pack goes down or a cast member looses their voice and the A1 has to fade in the backing track there is no announcement after the fact. So where should the line be drawn for our technological steroids? 

Personally for me it depends on what the intent of the show. If the focus is on spectacle or pure entertainment like a rock show, musical, and production piece if you can get away with it let it all out. If the show is focused around the craft or talent of a particular group like a choir concert or string ensemble you are then cheating the audience.


----------



## Footer (Nov 9, 2010)

It really comes down to the phrase LIVE theatre. In a world that everything is airbrushed, computer generated, green screened, and all that fun stuff people come to the theatre or to a show to see a live performance. This is why when a person gets outed for using autotune or choke tracks the public goes up in arms. They paid to see a live show, not a pre-recorded one. Costume changes are one thing, making the performance fake is another. 

If the show is indeed a professional show, getting people that can hit the right pitch should not be an issue. If it is, its time to find a new cast member. I know backing tracks and choke tracks are pretty common in the cruise industry and vegas style shows. I have yet to hear anyone using either on Broadway. Because all Broadway music is performed live (how it should be) using a backing track would be nearly impossible without a click track system. Producers on Broadway would love to go canned music, it saves a ton of money. However, the unions has patrons in general have managed to keep it out. Equity does not like click tracks and backing vocals. They feel if the producer needs more sound, they should hire offstage singers. Many theatres do exactly that. However, no matter what everything is live, the way it should be.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 9, 2010)

I think it's about authenticity and expectations.

When the talent has a cold but still takes the stage, I've seen plenty still put on great performances that the audiences loved and no one in the crowd was about to walk up to the talent and say, "Wow, you kind of sucked tonight." They typically give standing ovations and afterwards we hear lots of comments to the tune of "It was a great performance, but it was also a real shame she wasn't feeling well." Nobody's at the ticket windows asking for their money back, because they don't expect someone with a cold to give the best performance of their career. However, if the performance really is unbearable because the talent is incredibly sick, then we should have cancelled the performance and should be refunding tickets and cutting our losses.

But what do you do if the person isn't capable of hitting the notes in the first place, regardless of health? You don't book them. They aren't talent -- not in a way that would make me proud to be selling their tickets to our patrons that come to our venue expecting a unique and exciting performance. The bar for authenticity is too low from the starting gate the day that they assume their role, and from there on out it's trickery. 

When tricks like autotune are used, there's no difference between the person at the microphone and the kid from down the block. Whoever is singing, the right notes will get hit at the right times. But my audience didn't pay to see the kid from down the block sing, they came to see a performance by someone who contributed genuine art to the musical community.

I asked Daniel Holter at The Burst Collective just outside of Milwaukee what his thoughts on the matter were from the perspective of a record producer:


> Do you believe autotune has a legitimate place in recording or live audio situations?




> Well, I think a definition of “legitimate” may be needed here, but… sure. Why not? I mean, there are forms of entertainment where such manipulations of reality are not only welcomed but expected. I only have a problem when deceit or a lack of authenticity is the explicit goal.
> 
> I’ve seen photographs that overuse Photoshop, and find many of them offensive to my eyes and the spirit of what it means to be human. But there’s a place for plastic and sugar and HDR and 3D and AutoTune, just as there’s a place for remarkably untrained vocalists and abstract painters and lo-fi photographs.
> 
> To each his/her own. I just want authentic experiences, whether such a moment is about being genuinely inauthentic (such as much of pop music) or if it’s about being real and heartfelt. There’s a place for all of it, I say.


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Nov 13, 2010)

I think there is a difference in expectations in what people want to see. I don't believe people go to broadway shows to see art, I think they go to be entertained. As my old tech director once told me "There is no such thing as cheating in theatre!" Whatever you can do to improve the performance is worth it. 

I think if we let the market decide instead of unions if people should be off stage singing instead of tracks or the orchestra isn't 100% live, you would see a lot more tracked shows. But that isn't to say all shows would be that way. I was working for an opera company who used a prominent symphony orchestra as their pit and every seat ($50 for obstructed view up to $300) sold out. But not everyone wants to pay that much for a good show, and not everything values that.

Back to my original point, when you put on a show, you are trying to sell the audience fiction to start with, why not do everything in your power to make it better?

Should we no longer have people flying in Peter Pan because you can't do that in real life?
Should every musical in a small space only use a piano because they can't fit anything else?

Should I admit that I've made mistakes?
Should I remind you I've done this before?
What should I do?
Should I really believe I ruined my legacy? 
What should I do?
Should I have my tattoo removed? 
Or should I tell you I am not a role model?
What should I do?

What should I do?


//sorry couldn't help myself


----------



## DuckJordan (Nov 13, 2010)

I think one of the biggest thing thats controversial in this isn't the use of live musicians vs. track musicians. People expect people not to fly, that doesn't mean they want to see the harness on them. People also expect to be in a safe environment. This also doesn't mean we can't use a prop gun to enhance the effect.

My view on this is that using an auto-tuner on a live voice (to create a better sounding vocal set) is almost as bad as those late night commercials talking about the knife you never have to sharpen. To me there is a big difference in selling fiction and making better and blatantly denying your audience their moneys worth by putting a sub par actor on stage and attempting to make their voice sound like its worthy of Broadway is to me fraud.


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Nov 13, 2010)

DuckJordan said:


> blatantly denying your audience their moneys worth by putting a sub par actor on stage and attempting to make their voice sound like its worthy of Broadway is to me fraud.



If they can't tell the difference, is there one?


----------



## Les (Nov 13, 2010)

I feel like the show needs to stay true to itself. If the writer calls for flying, then you hire a company to come fly the actors. It's what the playwright wants and the audience expects. I have not read any plays or musicals which call for Autotune to be used where the performer can't cut the mustard. However, they DO call for capable bass, tenor and soprano voices. Again, it's what the playwright wants and the audience expects. Give them that.


----------



## soundman (Nov 13, 2010)

Pie4Weebl said:


> If they can't tell the difference, is there one?


 
Shouldn't it be our job to make sure they don't know the difference? Is it wrong to hire an older actress but send her to wardrobe to get enough make up to make her look 15 years younger?


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 13, 2010)

Pie4Weebl said:


> If they can't tell the difference, is there one?



There is when I, as an audience member, walk up to the performer afterwards and congratulate them for a superb performance.

There also is when at the end of the performance, we stand up and clap in celebration of how talented the performers are and how great their performance was.


----------



## Grog12 (Nov 13, 2010)

Pie4Weebl said:


> I think there is a difference in expectations in what people want to see. I don't believe people go to broadway shows to see art, I think they go to be entertained. As my old tech director once told me "There is no such thing as cheating in theatre!" Whatever you can do to improve the performance is worth it.



So I can't be entertained by art?


People keep bringing up makeup and fly-rigs. As an audience member I have a willing suspension of disbelief that there will be these things, that you can't fly that Annie is 21 years old ect. But I'm paying money to hear their voice, their *talent*. If their talent is fake then they're taking my money under false pretenes.

If I go to a ballet, you can't autocorrect a missed Pirouet.


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Nov 13, 2010)

Grog12 said:


> So I can't be entertained by art?
> 
> 
> People keep bringing up makeup and fly-rigs. As an audience member I have a willing suspension of disbelief that there will be these things, that you can't fly that Annie is 21 years old ect. But I'm paying money to hear their voice, their *talent*. If their talent is fake then they're taking my money under false pretenes.
> ...



I never said you can't be entertained by art, I'm saying your average ticket buyer isn't going for the "art", they are going to see a show. People go to shows for everything as a whole. They are going for entertainment, especially with musicals. 

Theatre is about story telling, the job of everyone involved with the production is do to their part for the story to be told as well as it can be. Actors leave themselves to become someone else for a few hours, perhaps that person is younger, perhaps they have a different personality, perhaps they can fly, or perhaps they can sing better. Just because they may be sick that day doesn't mean there character is. 

I don't see the ethical issue around making them sound better if it improves the show. Unlike a dancer in a ballet, a cast member does more than just one thing. Singing is just one part of their role in telling the story. I'd rather see a good performance than a "genuine" one that wasn't as good, as would most of the ticket buying public.


----------



## soundman (Nov 13, 2010)

Grog12 said:


> If I go to a ballet, you can't autocorrect a missed Pirouet.


 
I would rather chuckle at a fallen ballerina than hold my ears over a sour note any day of the week.


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Nov 13, 2010)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 13, 2010)

That's a very different application of autotune. That's prefaced by the audience knowing they're not hearing the authentic voice because a very deliberate attempt is made at using a very obvious effect. It's being used as a mastering effect and not as an attempt to deceive the audience into thinking the talent is capable of singing a piece that they actually aren't.

I'll refer you back to Daniel Holter's statement:

> Well, I think a definition of “legitimate” may be needed here, but… sure. Why not? I mean, *there are forms of entertainment where such manipulations of reality are not only welcomed but expected.* I only have a problem when deceit or a lack of authenticity is the explicit goal.
> 
> I’ve seen photographs that overuse Photoshop, and find many of them offensive to my eyes and the spirit of what it means to be human. But there’s a place for plastic and sugar and HDR and 3D and AutoTune, just as there’s a place for remarkably untrained vocalists and abstract painters and lo-fi photographs.
> 
> To each his/her own. *I just want authentic experiences, whether such a moment is about being genuinely inauthentic* (such as much of pop music) *or if it’s about being real and heartfelt.* There’s a place for all of it, I say.



Some artists use autotune in ways that actually are artful and in ways I consider to be a valid use. But that's not really what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is autotune when it's used to actively deceive the audience into thinking a performer is much better at singing than they are -- when it's used because a performer is secretly incapable of singing their part.


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Nov 13, 2010)

MNicolai said:


> That's a very different application of autotune. That's prefaced by the audience knowing they're not hearing the authentic voice because a very deliberate attempt is made at using a very obvious effect. It's being used as a mastering effect and not as an attempt to deceive the audience into thinking the talent is capable of singing a piece that they actually aren't.
> 
> I'll refer you back to Daniel Holter's statement:
> 
> ...


 
I posted that as a joke. But still, I think you guys are all picking and choosing what needs to be authentic over what doesn't. 

Let's say its a play, and there was a car crash in the play, and the car pins down the girlfriend. Perhaps in real life the boyfriend actually did have the strength to lift the car up and free her. Do we need to cast a character who can actually lift a car with out any stage magic for it to be authentic? Pick the best person for the role, and if there are things that need to be fixed to create the best combination, and can be, why not?

Should we start hanging trees in front of lights to create gobo effects and make things "more authentic"? 

Can you really perform The Man Who Came to Supper with out using live penguins and still be "authentic"? 

Where is the line? 

Are people just bitter over casting choices? 

Don't you just want to do the best show with the tools available? Or are you not interested in doing your best and just blaming the casting choices?


----------



## Les (Nov 14, 2010)

This is getting a bit ridiculous. 

A person cast for a singing role in a musical should be capable of fulfilling the needs of the libretto. If they can't do that, this is a casting error and correcting the issue shouldn't fall on the shoulders of the sound guy or girl.

An audience doesn't expect us to place tree branches in front of lights any more than they expect to see a real house on stage rather than a set. These are expected limitations in theatre, a necessary evil if you want to call it that. But, an audience does expect that the person on stage can sing. They do not expect that we, as technicians, will 'correct' their voice to fool them in to thinking they can sing when actually, they can't. If they are sick, well, should have had an understudy.

If you want the show to sound perfect every night, you're in the wrong part of the business.

I also don't feel like we should take responsibility for others' shortcomings as technicians. If the singer sucks, that's their problem. Maybe the humiliation of sounding awful will encourage them to take some voice lessons or find something else to occupy their free time. Sometimes you just gotta know when to accept that it isn't your problem, step back, and say "it is what it is".


Pie4Weebl said:


> Or are you not interested in doing your best and just blaming the casting choices?



I'm interested in doing my best, but not when it involves covering someone else' azz because they can't do their job correctly. Would you hire a lighting designer who can't design? As a result, would you expect the cast to come help you hang lights and run cable? Probably not.


----------



## Grog12 (Nov 14, 2010)

Pie4Weebl said:


> I'd rather see a good performance than a "genuine" one that wasn't as good, as would most of the ticket buying public.



History would disagree with you. Look at Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson. Both put on great live performances, both were lip synchers. Both's careers went down in flames when the public found out they were lip synching (and if you think Ashlee wasn't autotunned in the studio you're fooling yourself).

If a cast member can't sing, they shouldn't be singing onstage. If a cast member cant act, they shouldn't be acting onstage. By autotuning you're doing nothing to improve the person as a whole. You're giving them the right to be a crappy singer because the guys in the booth will fix it. Proffesionals give their all and their life to performance, those who get onstage and can't carry a tune don't deserve to be onstage. They haven't earned the right to take my money.


----------



## derekleffew (Nov 14, 2010)

Grog12 said:


> ...If a cast member can't sing, they shouldn't be singing onstage. ...


Seems like someone made a whole movie about this.


Does one think any less of these actresses' performances? Deborah Kerr in _The King and I_. Natalie Wood in _West Side Story_. Audrey Hepburn in _My Fair Lady_.


----------



## mstaylor (Nov 14, 2010)

You make a point about dubbing in some major musicals (movies) but it has always been more accepted to dub voices. It is similar to overtracking in the recording industry. When you go to live theatre the audience expects to hear a singer sing for themselves. I played music in school but I can't sing or dance so I don't. If an actor wants to do live theatre but can't sing then don't do musicals, stay with straight shows and comedies.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm on the fence here. I do not plan in taking sides on this discussion but want to chime in that we need to make sure that we keep this civil. I believe that there are very valid points for both sides of the arguement. However, the discussion seems to be apples and oranges often in this thread. We are bringing up professional singers and comparing them to community musical theater. Milli Vanilli were not only lip synching, but they were completely different people (the actual singers were not the ones on stage/MTV/album covers). In the community theater that was originally what prompted this discussion, they may have still cast the best person with the best vocal talent and are actively working on their vocal abilities. In community theater, you don't always have the same range of talent to choose from that you do in regional or professional theater (and they don't have a clue what they'll get before choosing the musical). However, I do agree that if the director had talent that could have sung the role and fit the part, then that's their fault. But if you have accepted a contract to be a sound designer and you have been requested to use Autotune, you have the choice of doing so (even if you have expressed objections) or walking off the job. It is your reputation to uphold as you see fit. The sound designer's job is to make sure that the performance sounds the way that the director intends it to sound. Just as it is the lighting designer's job to make the show "look" the way the director intends. Are we now going to complain when an actor mimics turning on a practical (which should be in the actor's ability to turn on a light switch)? Are we going to complain that the orchestra is using a synthesizer instead of all the individual instruments? Are we going to complain that costume designer uses Velcro or zippers in period costumes (I was paying to see an authentic production)? Or, is it that we as technicians sometimes have disdain for actors and those working with them? We have all had issues with Prima Donnas and clueless directors, but does that give us the freedom to not do what we have been contracted to do (make the best performance with the tools provided, and the actors are one of our tools)? We can all hope for the perfect world (I'm sure the community theater would prefer VariLite to Chauvet, etc), but in reality, it isn't. 

So, in a nutshell, I agree that in an educational setting, we are trying to help to train the actor and too much correction would be hampering that goal. In a professional setting the director should have enough talent to choose the performer who has the appropriate talent and this would be moot. In community theater, you have to make the best with what you have and your responsibility is to the audience.


----------



## Grog12 (Nov 14, 2010)

ruinexplorer said:


> Are we now going to complain when an actor mimics turning on a practical (which should be in the actor's ability to turn on a light switch)? Are we going to complain that the orchestra is using a synthesizer instead of all the individual instruments? Are we going to complain that costume designer uses Velcro or zippers in period costumes (I was paying to see an authentic production)? Or, is it that we as technicians sometimes have disdain for actors and those working with them? We have all had issues with Prima Donnas and clueless directors, but does that give us the freedom to not do what we have been contracted to do (make the best performance with the tools provided, and the actors are one of our tools)? We can all hope for the perfect world (I'm sure the community theater would prefer VariLite to Chauvet, etc), but in reality, it isn't.



What kills me [user]ruinexplorer[/user] is that fundementally everything you've described here has nothing to do with the actor's talent. As an audience member I came to hear their voice, their tool. When you autotune their voice so they can stay on pitch you might as well have stayed home and rented the movie. Using a synth in the pit still requires someone talented to play it.

When I go to live theatre I"m there for the people, to be entertained by what they *can* do. I didn't pay to see someone who couldn't sing, couldn't dance, couldnt act. When I go to community theatre I expect there to be a few off key notes its not perfect its part of the wonder of theatre.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Nov 14, 2010)

Grog12 said:


> What kills me ruinexplorer is that fundementally everything you've described here has nothing to do with the actor's talent. As an audience member I came to hear their voice, their tool. When you autotune their voice so they can stay on pitch you might as well have stayed home and rented the movie. Using a synth in the pit still requires someone talented to play it.
> 
> When I go to live theatre I"m there for the people, to be entertained by what they *can* do. I didn't pay to see someone who couldn't sing, couldn't dance, couldnt act. When I go to community theatre I expect there to be a few off key notes its not perfect its part of the wonder of theatre.



I understand your point. Really I do. I think that you missed mine, especially with the synthesizer. Sure it takes talent to play one, but not nearly the talent required to play a stringed instrument that it mimics. Nor does it sound exactly the same (though pretty close on the very high end models, which the community theater probably wouldn't have anyway). And I don't think cheating on a few things in live theater has anything to compare to watching a movie.

How about this, should we mic actors at all? After all, shouldn't they be able to project? If I'm hearing their voice come, amplified, from a speaker cluster, that's not being there for the actor's talent. If I was there to hear the actor, they wouldn't need to have a mic. When I was in college, we used a mic only in one performance, and that was only for when we were doing a vocal effect (which obviously no actor would be able to do with their own voice). Every single performer was able to be heard over the orchestra. Does that mean that my college was better than all the Broadway actors? I don't think so.


----------



## Grog12 (Nov 14, 2010)

Depends on the house and the accoustics of the house.

Should I substitute a recording of a stringed instrument because the gentleman in the pit can't play the piece?


----------



## ruinexplorer (Nov 14, 2010)

Grog12 said:


> Depends on the house and the accoustics of the house.
> 
> Should I substitute a recording of a stringed instrument because the gentleman in the pit can't play the piece?


 
I think apples and oranges again. Autotune adjusts the vocals of the performer, not a substitution (lip synch) for the performer. 

In reality, I have never had experience using autotune and am not sure if I have ever gone to a performance where it was used. So, I don't know how much it helps or if it is very noticeable (if it even depends on the technician). That's why I said that I'm on the fence as to whether or not it should be used. I just think that we as technicians have come to expect a certain amount of tools to be acceptable and have problems with things outside our realm. As a projectionist, I know of quite a few people who believe that video has no place in live theater, yet it is becoming more and more prevalent. The arguement could be made, why should we ever use media servers, why not just watch a movie. What about the talent of the technician? Should there be flying faders? Should we have computerized lighting consoles? 

The reality is that more and more people prefer to go see a movie as opposed to going to see a live performance. I'd say that because of the lack of quality theater, more and more people are going to be moving in that direction, which won't help our lifestyles. If we can't ensure a quality performance, are we really doing our job? I personally don't like to hear sour notes, but that is a reality of live theater. Does autotune fix that, I don't know. I do know that there are some wonderful singers out there who can't project, even in an accoustically sound room, and I appreciate the fact that they can be amplified so that I can hear their voice without needing the orchestra to play so quiet that I can't hear all the nuances of the instrumentation.


----------



## Grog12 (Nov 14, 2010)

But its not apples to oranges. Autotunning is substituting the actor's natural voice and control for a machine.


----------



## wolf825 (Nov 14, 2010)

Interesting thread and I think a lot of valid points have been made. But one point I think folks are dancing around is whether the audience is there to hear a specific actor/actress or are they there to hear the story and show and character....that IMO determines an expectation to whether a voice is live or (hopefully not) tuned.. What is the REASON people or you go to that show? 

Someone mentioned Milli Vanilli and others--those were 'names' you expected them to sing and they did not and this is cheating and fraud IMO...where as if you had a *show character*--like Grizabella from Cats--if the girl couldn't hit that note on Memory with all that heart and feeling then I know I would be grumpy and disappointed... 

Going back to CATS--there are different 'variations' of how each actor has played key parts to their own twist or interpretation to bring that character to life--but the common requirement has been that they all be able to musically accomplish the songs as scored. Autotuning IMO is best left for the studio recorders & not for Live...and yet I have mixed many a band who HAS used an autotuner live..not in theater but in concert. But concerts are different from Theater--concerts no one expects them to be more then what they are...but in a show or theater play you expect higher because you are there for the SHOW--for characters and for a story...but--what happens when a 'name' is in the cast of a Show?

Unlike some 'older' performers in the music industry who are touring again---many not always or just cannot hit those big notes like they did in the 1980's or before--people who go to those shows are a bit more forgiving in the aspect and most concert singers will play it off to the audience and many forget it. So lets put a 'name' to the character discussion of hypotheticals--would you expect a Julie Andrews in such a key part in a show on broadway to 'need help' or would you be more forgiving just to hear her as she is or be forgiving IF she had to have a little help--I would probably be happy as she is simply to see her on stage and hopefully it would not be so obvious if she was 'helped'. But--If the part is played by a known name IMO the expectations in some performance can be forgiving....I'm there to see a great performer in a role but understandably they did not achieve that greatness yesterday and may not be as great as they once were...but if the show and the part is played for character--I'm going to see a performance of that show and its done by a professional actor/actres who can do the part...but who has perhaps not achieved that reknown Elaine Page level of greatness yet--then I expect the actor/actress to be cast and to be able to play and sing that character as fully expected..notes and all. If she sucks--it was bad casting and the director will never live it down.. Nice part about Live Theater is folks are hired for TALENT--not for looks or popularity like the movies & TV where 'talent' can be added or dubbed later in Post... Generally speaking for Live Theater--if they can't act or sing the part they don't do the part..leave the autotuners at the studio....


JMO..FWIW.....

-w


----------



## mixmaster (Nov 16, 2010)

Grog12 said:


> But its not apples to oranges. Autotunning is substituting the actor's natural voice and control for a machine.


 
Grog12, 
I wonder if this is maybe the true point of discussion here. Some people would agree that by using autotune, you are substituting the actors voice with the instrument. In an extreme case, I suppose I can see that happening. Under normal use, just touching up a few missed notes, I suggest that we are not substituting anything, simply enhancing the original voice. Still the original singers dynamics, vibrato, overall style, and acting technique. As such using autotune as an enhancement is really no different than adding a touch of EQ or FX.


----------



## jeffsw6 (Nov 22, 2010)

soundman said:


> Where is the line between cheating an audience and creating a spectacle?


If there are people waiting outside to buy tickets, it's called entertainment. If they are mobbing the box office demanding a refund, they've been cheated. Arguments about what is too much technological assistance are just academic. The only line that matters is the ticket line.


----------



## mstaylor (Nov 22, 2010)

jeffsw6 said:


> If there are people waiting outside to buy tickets, it's called entertainment. If they are mobbing the box office demanding a refund, they've been cheated. Arguments about what is too much technological assistance are just academic. The only line that matters is the ticket line.


That is just plain cynical. I don't entirely understand how it works. I do think it shouldn't be used in live preformance. As I said above, if you can't sing the role, don't take it. Using mics to help actors or media to enhance a show is fine, faking a voice is not.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 22, 2010)

jeffsw6 said:


> If there are people waiting outside to buy tickets, it's called entertainment. If they are mobbing the box office demanding a refund, they've been cheated. Arguments about what is too much technological assistance are just academic. The only line that matters is the ticket line.



That's a good trick...once.

So you're producing a full U2 tour. All of the shows are sold out long before you get to the venue. So why not just put the band in arenas with fluorescent lighting and skip all of the hassles of touring with truss and ML's if you've already got the butts in the seats? Why not just put them through the loudest but also most unintelligible sound system while you're at it? What's it matter if you don't offer refunds on tickets and they're all sold out -- you've made your money so why put any extra effort in past that?

You can only fool people once. If you're in any sort of business where you rely on reputation and an audience base that keeps coming back to see your shows, you're not going to last long if you alienate your audience one year and wonder why you can't sell out a single venue the next year you come through that city again.

And that's if you're someone important -- if you're just a community theatre, you're talking about alienating a crowd that you rely on to come and see a performance of every single production you put on.


----------

