I got this notice from the American Federation of Musicians:

New York, NY—After 17 hit seasons performing on one of the world's most popular TV programs, Dancing with the Stars (DWTS), the 28 men and women of the show's live backing band—the Harold Wheeler Orchestra and Singers—have been fired. Producers say the group will be replaced with pre-existing sound recordings and a "small electric band" to "attract a younger demographic."

American Federation of Musicians International President Ray Hair blasted ABC-TV for its decision, asking supporters to e-mail Candace.a.ashton@abc.com to demand the orchestra's return or risk viewer retaliation. "People who love Dancing with the Stars also love the superb performances of the orchestra because it is such an integral part of the show," says Hair. "The tight, elaborate musical productions that catapulted the show into the top 10 in 17 countries can't be duplicated by recordings and a small combo. Viewers, whether they are young or old, will reject that as artistic fraud."

Network sources say that a recent shift in ABC/Disney's executive staff in charge of primetime reality series programming led to pressure on DWTS producer BBC America to cut corners and pander to a younger viewing audience. "It's not like ABC and Disney don't have any money and can't afford an orchestra. It's about the insatiable thirst for profits at the expense of music, art, and those who create it," says Hair. "Firing the band, using recordings, and hiring fewer musicians won't boost ratings. It will kill the show."

They have been gunning for that show for a while. They cut it from two days a week to one day which lead to a very strange season where folks were kicked off right after delivering a perfect score performance. And the comedian couldn't even move by the end and yet was still sent through. They wouldn't be doing that if the ratings / demographic were good, I would imagine. X factor is gone, idol is shrinking. Perhaps the days of amateur talent contest tv is finally ending.

Just took a look at tv by the numbers and you can see what is going on. While DWTS draws twice and sometimes 3 times the audience of any other show it goes against but is always in 3rd or 4th place for the 18-49 demographic. Which means a ton of old folks like me watch it but not enough of the folks that count as far as the advertisers are concerned

Makes sense.

I don't think that changing the orchestra is going to bring in the 18-49 demographic. It IS a show for older folks. It's ballroom dancing! Just not compelling for 18-49.

"I don't think that changing the orchestra is going to bring in the 18-49 demographic"

Right, but it makes it much cheaper to produce.

Demographics have nothing to do with it. It's about profit, and as long as management can get away with it, they will try to do it on the cheap no matter who is watching.

This is actually an old kind of issue--the musician's union in NYC has been fighting precisely this same battle literally for decades in the Broadway theatres. Producers would try and cut the musicians in the pit for a Broadway musical and the union would fight back. For the most part, the union has been successful--the musicians' union since its inception has been a very strong union protective of its members' rights. There have been lots of cases of producers wanting to replace musicians with recordings; the producers, however, have never been able to do so completely.

I agree with Landmark for the most part but I think demographics do have something to do with it. You can't compare TV with Broadway because advertising is much more important in TV than in theatre. In fact the only reason a show like Dancing With The Stars exists is to sell products.

Most people think TV is a collection of shows with some commercials put in to foot the bills. It's just the opposite. It's a series of commercials with programs wrapped around them. Network/commercial TV exists only as a venue for advertising. It's the programs that are of no consequence other than how many people they can capture and hold, to (hopefully) watch the commercials. The cheaper to produce the better of course, but in the end it's all about the commercials. One good 30 second commercial is much more valueable than any television program, by far.

Landmark, I appreciate the AFM (American Federation of Musicians) because they collect my recording checks for me. But actually, the union is not as strong as it seems. For example, once an employer who owed me several thousand dollars refused to pay up. I made several attempts to collect what was owed to me, in writing as well as in person. But he would not budge. Finally I reported the company to the AFM. The union reps there basically gave me a choice: (a) If I ever wanted to work for that person again, then forget about the money. Or (b) they would put pressure on the employer to pay me, but then I'd never work for them again. In this case I opted to get part of the money ... but in so doing lost what had up until then been a good source of income for me. What's worse, is that there was no further union action taken against this employer ... which allowed him to continue the same trend with other composers and instrumentalists.

Another example goes back to when digital synthesizers became all the rage. The AFM rightly felt that employers weren't hiring live musicians anymore, because composers and arrangers could now play many instrumental parts on keyboard. The union's solution was to offer employers a new, lower demo rate for musicians. Instead of $135 an hour, they could now book players for only $50 per hour for a demo date. The end result: employers simply took advantage of paying musicians less, but still continued the trend of substituting keyboards for live players. So due to this ludicrous union decision, all the active performing union musicians lost out twice: (a) They still got less bookings, and (b) earned far less money for the same amount of work.

The AFM also let me down when it came to re-releases of albums I had played on. One example is when some of Peter Frampton's earlier albums became available on CD. My understanding had always been that since I had played keyboards on the original recordings, I would receive a percentage of my original fee. But the union said no. So I argued that since the original recordings had been released on vinyl, whereas the re-release was on CD, it now constituted a new medium. But the union still disagreed, and refused to pay me.

Also, in the face of politics, the Musician's Union seems to be pretty powerless. Years ago, when I still lived in New York City, congress was trying to pass a bill to change the rights of music copyright holders. If it passed, songwriting royalties would have been drastically reduced. And thus, this proposed new law would have affected the livelihood of thousands of songwriters. Including me.

So the AFM sent out a circular to all its members, requesting them to write to their state representatives and ask them to vote against this bill. With guidance from the AFM, I drafted a letter which made quite a compelling case. It stated quite clearly why I did not support the bill, and why I believed it should not be passed. I addressed my letter to senator Alfonse D'Amato.

A few weeks later, I received a reply, signed by D'Amato himself. To my utter amazement, he thanked me profusely for my SUPPORT of the bill! I was so shocked, I didn't even bother to reply. But I did phone my AFM union reps to draw their attention to this kind of slanted politics. I mean, how many other letters had also been conveniently "misinterpreted?" You won't believe the AFM rep's response: he simply laughed and said there's nothing we can do about it.

Fortunately, at that time, the bill was defeated. But the battle to usurp the earnings of composers and songwriters is still ongoing. Sometimes emerging, and at other times bubbling just under the surface. I have a nasty feeling that when the time comes, the Musicians Union won't have much clout.

Finally Landmark, as you rightly pointed out, the AFM is doing its best to insist that Broadway shows hire a minimum number of musicians for their orchestras. But that requirement is being fiercely contested, and they've already lost a lot of ground. Unfortunately, it seems to be another battle they are gradually losing.

Arthur, thanks very much for the extensive reply regarding the musician's union. From what you say, it seems the AFM is suffering from the general trend in unionism in the past two decades--less militancy and more accommodation with management in the interest of labor "peace." There is a similar problem with the union that I have belonged to for many years, the United Federation of Teachers. Union leaders in the recent past have made some very bad decisions, giving away the store to management. Fortunately, at least with teachers, there are strong insurgent challenges to the entrenched union leaders. Of course, some will point to this as a reason to get rid of unions. Just the opposite! It only shows just how important a strong union is.

To be fair to the unions, we are in a time of anti-union propaganda and money that is basically unprecedented within the last fifty years, and that combined with high unemployment and a large pool of surplus labor, makes the job of a union guaranteeing fair wages and working conditions to its members difficult. But it is extremely frustrating when the people who are supposed to be representing you in negotiations give up before even trying. It needs to be recognized that issues like live orchestra playing will always be a point of contention and that power concedes nothing without a struggle.

Your argument is inherently inconsistent. "Profit" is revenue minus expenses; demographics have a great deal to do with the revenue.

Not inconsistent at all. When I say demographics have nothing to do with it, the word "it" refers to the attempt to fire musicians. It is my contention that that attempt would have happened no matter what the demographics were. Demographics and the attempt to fire musicians are independent variables.

Now, I'll attempt to anticipate your objection. One might argue that ABC has decided that the amount of profit for the show must be X; if the profit falls below X, then fire musicians. Bad demographics might cause profits to fall below X, thus cause and effect.

My answer:

1) The drive for profits in a capitalist world is ongoing and will be pursued at all times if there is an opening, regardless of previous profit. It doesn't need a trip wire to set off a search for it.

2) Even if you don't accept #1, it still doesn't mean that my argument is inconsistent; you may disagree with it, but my argument is quite consistent.

3) I must say I enjoy busting your chops at least as much as you enjoy busting mine.

"It is my contention that that attempt would have happened no matter what the demographics were."

Except in shows that are hits, they spare no expense. Actors earn many times what they earned when the show was a pilot, sets get fancier, graphics get fancier, bands get fancier....it is a show after all.

But shows are not making enough money... they start cutting. You don't stay in 4th place, behind NBC, CBS, and FOX and not have that effect your operating budget. the biggest expenses are personnel. You cut where you can cut: you can't cut the dancers, you can't cut the judges or host...you cut the musicians.

The unfortunate part of DWTS is that it is both a hit (audience numbers wise) and not a hit (audience that matters wise).

To say that "profit will be pursued" implies that revenue is relevant, and demographics and ratings directly affect revenue. If a live orchestra adds 10% to the expense of producing the show but affects the demographics in such a way that they can charge advertisers 15% more, then the more expensive option increases profit. Alternatively, saving on the expense of musicians only increases profit if it doesn't result in a drop in revenue that exceeds the savings, and that equation, again, is dependent on the demographics.