Slog
News & ArtsThursday, July 7, 2011
Theater / Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz "They wonder why more people don't go to theater? I would go all the time if it weren't so expensive."
Posted by Brendan Kiley on Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:50 PM
So said Stranger copy chief Gillian Anderson just now. She had read the paper's glowing review of Pilgrims Sheri and Musa in the New World at ACT Theater and wanted to go. Then she checked the ticket prices.
"Fifty dollars!" she shouted (quietly—Gillian is a soft-spoken person so her shouts sound like the rest of us talking normally).
"That's just on Saturday, right?" I said. "What about a Tuesday?"
"Forty dollars!" she quietly shouted back.
I applaud Seattle theaters for embracing the TeenTix program, which gets the yutes into theaters for cheap. But they've got a whole constituency of middle-aged folks who, like Gillian, are neither young enough nor old-and-rich enough to afford tickets. Just in case you were wondering where all the 30- and 40-somethings (who haven't made a bundle off of the tech boom) were.
To be fair to ACT, I also heard someone a few days ago—not at all a regular theatergoer—say he was contemplating buying an ACT Pass because he likes to see things that he likes more than once. (The ACT pass is an all-you-bear-to-watch-at-our-theater membership for $25 a month, which might just replace subscriptions as an operating model.)
Still, Seattle theaters: If a person can't afford to see your shows, she sure as shit isn't going to give you any money during your next (inevitable) emergency-fundraising campaign.
UPDATE
A week after this post, ACT announced that it's going pay-what-you-can for all shows forevermore. Ask and you shall receive, Gillian!
1
I echo this sentiment regularly. For my birthday, I really REALLY wanted to see Les Mis at 5th Avenue. My birthday this year is on a Thursday. Do you have any idea how much the cheapest seat is, the ones in the very last row of the balcony?
$99, before fees and taxes. $99.
Guess who is not seeing Les Mis on his birthday this year?
$99, before fees and taxes. $99.
Guess who is not seeing Les Mis on his birthday this year?
2
ACT, as well as most other theaters in town, does sell rush tickets even for the 25+ crowd. I work for a theatre and unless we get some free tickets sent over (which usually only happens when a show isn't selling well, and often there's a reason for that) its the only way I can afford to see a show. Unfortunately each theatre has a different policy, it would e nice if they would standardize it.
3
Oh, I have a hard time paying more than $25 per ticket for a show, but luckily I've found several great deals around town:
ACT seems to be at the forefront of offering pricing options for folks. Lots of variety and you can almost always see a show for $25 or less (movies are $11 and sometimes $15 in 3D. A day at the zoo is $17 or $18 now, so anything $25 or less feels reasonable to me). If you go to their website they list the myriad of ways to save for each show (I WISH the other theatres in town were this flexible):
Adults: Single tickets start at $37.50
Students: $15
People 25 & under: $20
Teen Tix: $5
Groups (10+): Save up to 25% off! Call Ticket Office for reservations, (206) 292-7676
Day of Show Rush: 50% off. Use code RUSH (day of show only)
Happy Hour: 20% OFF adult price when you buy tickets between 4-6pm Tue-Fri. More details
Foursome Fridays: $20 adult price tickets to Friday night shows, for groups of 4+. More details
Pay-What-You-Will Performance:
June 30 at 2:00pm
Personally, I think the ACT pass is the WAY TO GO!! It's just $25 per month (and *hint, hint* you can cancel your membership after the month. Obviously, that's not what they hope you'll do, but it's an option). And they let you book in advance 1 ticket to every single show that's happening each month. And unlimited "day of" repeats if you just loved something. Also, they counted each performance of the 14/48 festival as a unique show, so it was a screaming deal in January. Also, I find that it gets me to see MORE theatre than I would normally, because each show I see makes it a better value, ya know?
For what it's worth, Seattle Rep (and others) offer the $20 tix for 25 yr old and under...AND the Rep will extend discounted tickets to subscribers aged 28 and under. If you're too old for this (as I am, now), the Rep has a "Today Pass" subscription option. It's for FOUR plays and is $98, so that's less than $25/ticket. (they also offer this in an eight play package that works out to be $22.25/ticket). You can use the tickets in any combination for "day of" tickets. Call at noon when the box office opens and they'll reserve a seat(s) for you, if any are available. I've only ever had trouble getting a seat once (we tend to go on weeknights, rather than weekends)...so if there's something in the smaller Leo K that intrigues you, try to see it early into its run...that way if there's a sell out, you can try again on a different day.
Seattle Shakespeare also has some great deals (the beloved Pay What You Can shows, and their Groundling "day of" tickets are just $10!!). http://www.seattleshakespeare.org/boxoff…
Sorry to turn this into a Questionland-style answer on Slog, but yeah, there are some programs out there to let you see lots of shows for $25 or less. And if you buy the ACT pass you'll see a BUNCH of theatre!
More...
ACT seems to be at the forefront of offering pricing options for folks. Lots of variety and you can almost always see a show for $25 or less (movies are $11 and sometimes $15 in 3D. A day at the zoo is $17 or $18 now, so anything $25 or less feels reasonable to me). If you go to their website they list the myriad of ways to save for each show (I WISH the other theatres in town were this flexible):
Adults: Single tickets start at $37.50
Students: $15
People 25 & under: $20
Teen Tix: $5
Groups (10+): Save up to 25% off! Call Ticket Office for reservations, (206) 292-7676
Day of Show Rush: 50% off. Use code RUSH (day of show only)
Happy Hour: 20% OFF adult price when you buy tickets between 4-6pm Tue-Fri. More details
Foursome Fridays: $20 adult price tickets to Friday night shows, for groups of 4+. More details
Pay-What-You-Will Performance:
June 30 at 2:00pm
Personally, I think the ACT pass is the WAY TO GO!! It's just $25 per month (and *hint, hint* you can cancel your membership after the month. Obviously, that's not what they hope you'll do, but it's an option). And they let you book in advance 1 ticket to every single show that's happening each month. And unlimited "day of" repeats if you just loved something. Also, they counted each performance of the 14/48 festival as a unique show, so it was a screaming deal in January. Also, I find that it gets me to see MORE theatre than I would normally, because each show I see makes it a better value, ya know?
For what it's worth, Seattle Rep (and others) offer the $20 tix for 25 yr old and under...AND the Rep will extend discounted tickets to subscribers aged 28 and under. If you're too old for this (as I am, now), the Rep has a "Today Pass" subscription option. It's for FOUR plays and is $98, so that's less than $25/ticket. (they also offer this in an eight play package that works out to be $22.25/ticket). You can use the tickets in any combination for "day of" tickets. Call at noon when the box office opens and they'll reserve a seat(s) for you, if any are available. I've only ever had trouble getting a seat once (we tend to go on weeknights, rather than weekends)...so if there's something in the smaller Leo K that intrigues you, try to see it early into its run...that way if there's a sell out, you can try again on a different day.
Seattle Shakespeare also has some great deals (the beloved Pay What You Can shows, and their Groundling "day of" tickets are just $10!!). http://www.seattleshakespeare.org/boxoff…
Sorry to turn this into a Questionland-style answer on Slog, but yeah, there are some programs out there to let you see lots of shows for $25 or less. And if you buy the ACT pass you'll see a BUNCH of theatre!
4
I wish theaters' costs weren't so high, and that they didn't have to recoup so much of those costs from the ticket price.
5
Same thing for concerts and comedy. Wants to see Chelsea Handler at the Paramount last month, but it was 60$ + Fees which made it 85$ per ticket and those were the cheap balcony seats.
85$ to see stand up comedy? Really!? And from what I hear, the Paramount cant function without people volunteering their time to work as ushers.
85$ to see stand up comedy? Really!? And from what I hear, the Paramount cant function without people volunteering their time to work as ushers.
6
(One more: 5th Avenue allows people aged 30 and younger to subscribe at $30 per show...with a minimum of a 4-play package. It's a bit more than I like to spend, and after some kind of fee, it ended up being $132 for the 4 plays, but considering how much 5th & Paramount charge for the musical shows, this was still a screaming deal)
7
I love live theater and would love to introduce my husband to live theater too. Unfortunately, when tickets for a show are almost a hundred bucks (and that doesn't include the babysitter), it's pretty darn unlikely that I can convince him to "try it." Even children's theater tickets are expensive-I'm puzzled as to how I'm supposed to raise my boys to love theater when tickets cost so much we can only go once a year. Sure the zoo and the aquarium are expensive but at least there you can by a membership for the whole gang for under $100.
8
on the other end of the spectrum, I find that the performing arts - with the exception of the top tier venues and certifiable hits - tend to underprice their tickets, contributing to the idea that the arts are not worth as much as, say, sports tickets. Or rock shows.
And really, when tickets to a fantastically reviewed show at one of the top 3 (now top 2 I guess) theaters at the city is only $50...? That's not bad. I'm not saying it's affordable to all - it would be a big fucking deal for me to spend $50 on a ticket. But I don't think the occasional $50 production at ACT is criminal (I think the shows I've gone to there have generalls been under $30), and unless they are hvaing problems filling the house - in which case I guess they'd be offering more deals - the price point probably isn't bad.
I do wish that Ticket/Ticket was still around, or that someone else would start a similar venture. It was a great way for theaters to fill seats last minute and for audiences to get to see performances they otherwise would not.
But regarding ticket fees - I wish TicketMaster would just die. 28% ticketing fees is beyind offensive. There have been shows I would have gone to except the only way to get tix was through TM. It wasn't the cost of the ticket - or even the overall cost after fees - that gave me pause, it was how much of it was going to TM.
And really, when tickets to a fantastically reviewed show at one of the top 3 (now top 2 I guess) theaters at the city is only $50...? That's not bad. I'm not saying it's affordable to all - it would be a big fucking deal for me to spend $50 on a ticket. But I don't think the occasional $50 production at ACT is criminal (I think the shows I've gone to there have generalls been under $30), and unless they are hvaing problems filling the house - in which case I guess they'd be offering more deals - the price point probably isn't bad.
I do wish that Ticket/Ticket was still around, or that someone else would start a similar venture. It was a great way for theaters to fill seats last minute and for audiences to get to see performances they otherwise would not.
But regarding ticket fees - I wish TicketMaster would just die. 28% ticketing fees is beyind offensive. There have been shows I would have gone to except the only way to get tix was through TM. It wasn't the cost of the ticket - or even the overall cost after fees - that gave me pause, it was how much of it was going to TM.
9
Not sure how to word this respectfully... but, er, I just find theater in general kinda embarrassing. All that yelling from stage. Ugh. I appreciate the craft in general—set design, writing, the freedom smaller companies have to play with new ideas... all that. I just can't watch it. I can't be the only one.
I'm sure price is a determent to theater fans wishing to attend more shows though.
I'm sure price is a determent to theater fans wishing to attend more shows though.
10
Where do you suggest the money come from, then? You won't pay a high ticket price, and you won't donate to their fundraising. Stuff costs money. A play isn't three friends hauling their own amplifiers in.
Unless you think maybe actors and set designers and playwrights and so on should be working for free.
It's ridiculous to expect to see professional productions for the price of a local band at a bar. $40? That's not very much. That's what, four cocktails on Capitol Hill? Requiring a total of four minutes to assemble? How many articles do we see here about how expensive the bars are?
If there was a cheaper way to put on the production they'd be doing it already, and the tickets would maybe cost less. I say maybe, because prices are set by the market, not by what a Stranger writer thinks is a good price. What does she want, $5? Get real.
Look above: Chelsea Handler, $85. Neko Case costs more than ACT after fees are added. Gillian Welch, ditto. Eddie Vedder, $90. These are musical acts with a fraction of the staff needed to put on a play.
Unless you think maybe actors and set designers and playwrights and so on should be working for free.
It's ridiculous to expect to see professional productions for the price of a local band at a bar. $40? That's not very much. That's what, four cocktails on Capitol Hill? Requiring a total of four minutes to assemble? How many articles do we see here about how expensive the bars are?
If there was a cheaper way to put on the production they'd be doing it already, and the tickets would maybe cost less. I say maybe, because prices are set by the market, not by what a Stranger writer thinks is a good price. What does she want, $5? Get real.
Look above: Chelsea Handler, $85. Neko Case costs more than ACT after fees are added. Gillian Welch, ditto. Eddie Vedder, $90. These are musical acts with a fraction of the staff needed to put on a play.
11
I wonder if ticket prices scaled over time would be a functional model for theaters: Cheaper tickets when they first go on sale, and which then become gradually more expensive as the opening date looms. It works well for other events I know of. Ya gotta find the sweet spot, and get those seats filled. It's no fun to play to half a house even though the rent is fully paid.
Hell, even the venerable Comédie-Française sells 10F ($2) tickets the day of. Anyone can see a show there if they really want to.
Hell, even the venerable Comédie-Française sells 10F ($2) tickets the day of. Anyone can see a show there if they really want to.
12
@ 10 Here, here. The constant grousing about the cost of theatre tickets on this blog is asinine and annoying. $50 is nowhere near outrageous for the quality of the performances routinely showcased at ACT.
PS ACT offers rush tickets for 50% off the original ticket price. Simply enter the code "RUSH" into the discount field when purchasing online. You can buy a ticket for tonight's show for $27.50.
PPS Perhaps Ms. Anderson should ask for a raise.
PS ACT offers rush tickets for 50% off the original ticket price. Simply enter the code "RUSH" into the discount field when purchasing online. You can buy a ticket for tonight's show for $27.50.
PPS Perhaps Ms. Anderson should ask for a raise.
13
I don't buy this argument. People buy stupid shit they can't afford all the time; they simply aren't willing to spend money on the theater.
15
@13, cont. I'm sure the commenters here and the people Kiley talked to are genuinely sorry that they can't afford the theater, but many people cite the cost as an excuse to avoid admitting that they don't like the theater. I know people who spend 80 bucks a month on cable and people who buy expensive clothes or eat at overpriced restaurants who claim that they'd love to go to the opera/symphony/theater, but it's too expensive.
16
@11 The delightful Strawberry Theatre Workshop is doing something like that. According to the emails, they routinely sell 75% of their tickets during the final two weeks, when positive word-of-mouth and reviews have circulated. Last August they offered a limited 50% off deal (just $15/ticket) for the first two weeks of shows. And they just finished offering that deal again for their newest play, Cloud Nine. It seems folks need an incentive to buy tickets early, and this seems to be working. It's a win/win. It helps fill the theatre during traditionally more empty performances, and gives a discount to patrons. And then all of the late-comers can still see the show the final two weeks at full price.
17
I would just like to say that it's a little fucked up to tell a stranger, who you know nothing about, what she can and cannot afford.
If someone says "I would like to do X, but I don't have the money," it's wise (and polite) to take her at her word.
If someone says "I would like to do X, but I don't have the money," it's wise (and polite) to take her at her word.
19
Last night, I went to Chop Suey to see Andy Kindler at Laff*Hole. Andy's a friend of mine and I haven't been to a Laff*Hole in awhile.
As I walked in, I was prepared to pay $10. Turns out, it was $15. I turned around and walked out.
Sad that I've now defined how much my friendship with Andy is worth: At least ten bucks but not as much as fifteen.
Hope it was a good show...but I went home and watched a couple of MST3Ks on Netflix Instant instead.
And that's the thing...we've all got nearly unlimited options for entertainment, and the economy sucks while everything seems to be getting more and more expensive. We all make choices--not always based on logic but on how something feels, worth it or not, at the moment. (Thus, the value of advertising/promotion.)
Andy and Laff*Hole probably deserved fifteen bucks but, to borrow a line from "Unforgiven", "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
As I walked in, I was prepared to pay $10. Turns out, it was $15. I turned around and walked out.
Sad that I've now defined how much my friendship with Andy is worth: At least ten bucks but not as much as fifteen.
Hope it was a good show...but I went home and watched a couple of MST3Ks on Netflix Instant instead.
And that's the thing...we've all got nearly unlimited options for entertainment, and the economy sucks while everything seems to be getting more and more expensive. We all make choices--not always based on logic but on how something feels, worth it or not, at the moment. (Thus, the value of advertising/promotion.)
Andy and Laff*Hole probably deserved fifteen bucks but, to borrow a line from "Unforgiven", "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
20
@17, it's more fucked up to take that person's random anecdote as proof of some much larger point about the horrors of the modern world without thinking it through.
Your larger point was "theater is too expensive". This is absurdly not true, as a dozen people have pointed out to you. If Ms. Anderson says she can't afford it, that tells us one thing about her financial priorities, but it doesn't tell us ANYTHING about theater ticket pricing. Especially since a bunch of people here have pointed out ways for her to pay less.
You know what would really make theater cheaper? Make it shittier. Lights? Who needs lights? Costumes? Make 'em wear their street clothes. Forget having sets. Actors? There are tons of people who would act for free. They're no good, but they exist. Here, I'll write a script for you for $100; it's about six people sitting around drinking and farting and watching sports on TV. You'll love it.
This is the Walmart option: dumb it down, make it cheap. You'll get your cheap tickets, but you'll also destroy an art form.
You know what I like? The opera. It's expensive as hell, and I don't go very often. But when I do go I get a program that lists about 200 people who work there making it happen, and I don't bitch about it.
Your larger point was "theater is too expensive". This is absurdly not true, as a dozen people have pointed out to you. If Ms. Anderson says she can't afford it, that tells us one thing about her financial priorities, but it doesn't tell us ANYTHING about theater ticket pricing. Especially since a bunch of people here have pointed out ways for her to pay less.
You know what would really make theater cheaper? Make it shittier. Lights? Who needs lights? Costumes? Make 'em wear their street clothes. Forget having sets. Actors? There are tons of people who would act for free. They're no good, but they exist. Here, I'll write a script for you for $100; it's about six people sitting around drinking and farting and watching sports on TV. You'll love it.
This is the Walmart option: dumb it down, make it cheap. You'll get your cheap tickets, but you'll also destroy an art form.
You know what I like? The opera. It's expensive as hell, and I don't go very often. But when I do go I get a program that lists about 200 people who work there making it happen, and I don't bitch about it.
22
Since we're on this tangent: while touring has become significantly more expensive, shows at the local bar have been charging the same cover for 20 years. Booze is the main attraction—the band is there to fill the place with people. It's a totally different model than theater, where you're actually paying for what you came to see.
Surcharges are insane to me, but it isn't that hard to see why theater ticket prices are what they are.
Surcharges are insane to me, but it isn't that hard to see why theater ticket prices are what they are.
23
@ 17 Granted, but the fact remains that $50 for a theater ticket is not outrageous. It is unfortunate that some people that would like to attend a show cannot because of cost but local theaters offer multiple discounts: Preview pricing, pay what you can nights, youth/senior citizen/student discounts, rush tickets, etc., etc. What more would you have them do?
24
My failure to convince my superiors of this very fact was one of my final acts as a FT arts admin. For which I bear great shame, because telling a family of four they have to shell out over $150 to see a play about dogs just ain't right.
25
I thought I wasn't going to go to the recent Mike Daisey at Seattle Rep since tickets were kinda costly in my mind. But luckily I snagged a great 3rd row seat during the "50% off tickets in the 30 minutes prior to showtime" deal that they have.
And I'm not saying that his performance didn't require much behind the scenes, but it's a fact that there was just one person on stage (him), one set design piece, etc. It seems that would have reduced the overall total cost of putting on the show. But I'm not a theater person so I don't know how prices are determined.
And I'm not saying that his performance didn't require much behind the scenes, but it's a fact that there was just one person on stage (him), one set design piece, etc. It seems that would have reduced the overall total cost of putting on the show. But I'm not a theater person so I don't know how prices are determined.
26
God damned. Americans are so fucking entitled it's ridiculous.
You know what? Nearly everything but housing and healthcare should cost more. Including most food. (especially meat).
You want to solve a significant number of world's problems? Make nearly everything but food staples, housing, and healthcare expensive.
The consumptive habit is killing the planet and our political system.
What you say? Ohes noes. Only rich people will be able to have ipods and Xboxes! OMG! NOOOOO!
Or maybe wages could then stabilize and people will buy things when they need them, after saving for them, rather than with credit or out of some sort of reflexive spasm of entitlement.
Nobody want's to pay for what things really cost. From petroleum to beef. From roads to iPods. We all want to either defer the REAL costs of things to another generation or we hire abused children in Indonesia to make our shit cheap.
But somehow everybody here wants to be paid. Oh. Yeah. You better pay me. Fuck all those other people. Those actors, musicians and technicians. Fuck them and thier unions. But PAY ME!! I'm so special.
You know what? Nearly everything but housing and healthcare should cost more. Including most food. (especially meat).
You want to solve a significant number of world's problems? Make nearly everything but food staples, housing, and healthcare expensive.
The consumptive habit is killing the planet and our political system.
What you say? Ohes noes. Only rich people will be able to have ipods and Xboxes! OMG! NOOOOO!
Or maybe wages could then stabilize and people will buy things when they need them, after saving for them, rather than with credit or out of some sort of reflexive spasm of entitlement.
Nobody want's to pay for what things really cost. From petroleum to beef. From roads to iPods. We all want to either defer the REAL costs of things to another generation or we hire abused children in Indonesia to make our shit cheap.
But somehow everybody here wants to be paid. Oh. Yeah. You better pay me. Fuck all those other people. Those actors, musicians and technicians. Fuck them and thier unions. But PAY ME!! I'm so special.
27
I'm so glad I have so many friends who are actors. They let us know about their inexpensive local shows (often with a discounted matinee), a bunch of us go together, we get to enjoy theater, and we get to support our friends. And we drink afterwards. It's great.
If you don't have theater friends - use your resources! Sign up for newsletters for the symphony, the opera, goldstar, and all your favorite theater companies. Follow them on facebook too. They post last minute deals, matinee times, happy hours, early bird specials, etc.
And of course, make sure to budget aside some money to make it happen. You never know when an amazing deal may fall across your lap and you want to make sure you have the cash to grab it.
Also: http://www.greenstage.org/2011/shakespea… FREE!
If you don't have theater friends - use your resources! Sign up for newsletters for the symphony, the opera, goldstar, and all your favorite theater companies. Follow them on facebook too. They post last minute deals, matinee times, happy hours, early bird specials, etc.
And of course, make sure to budget aside some money to make it happen. You never know when an amazing deal may fall across your lap and you want to make sure you have the cash to grab it.
Also: http://www.greenstage.org/2011/shakespea… FREE!
28
Just a note that it's not just theater. I took my wife to the Pacific Northwest Ballet to see Cinderella--amazing time and venue, my first ever ballet and I honestly enjoyed it a lot more than I guessed I would--but when they called to offer me a pack of tickets to see three more shows, I begged off. The cost was comparable to a season ticket for the Sounders.
2 seats x3 shows vs 1 seat at 18-19 sports events = where is my entertainment money going to stretch further?
2 seats x3 shows vs 1 seat at 18-19 sports events = where is my entertainment money going to stretch further?
29
@8:
The issue of value-versus-affordability is one small companies in particular struggle with constantly. Members of my own company, Annex Theatre, have over the years gotten into near bare-knuckled donnybrooks about whether or not to raise our ticket prices by a mere dollar. But, in the end we've come to the consensus that keeping theatre affordable for people is a core-value of our organization, and we strive to live within our means in the process. True, you are not going to see the sorts of lavish production values at Annex that you would at The Rep or ACT, but poverty is also a driver of innovation, and our designers and production team always amaze me with what they're able to accomplish on a veritable shoe-string budget.
And although other commentors have mentioned all sorts of great ways to save a buck on seeing theatre productions, let me add one more heretofore not cited: if you have a particularly favorite theatre you'd like to attend, but simply cannot afford, call them up (or email them) and ask to volunteer. Even the professional houses will trade a shift of ushering or working concessions for a free ticket; plus it's a terrific way to meet other theatre aficionados, get more of an inside look at how theatres operate, and occasionally even results in getting to hang out with the actors, crew and staff.
The issue of value-versus-affordability is one small companies in particular struggle with constantly. Members of my own company, Annex Theatre, have over the years gotten into near bare-knuckled donnybrooks about whether or not to raise our ticket prices by a mere dollar. But, in the end we've come to the consensus that keeping theatre affordable for people is a core-value of our organization, and we strive to live within our means in the process. True, you are not going to see the sorts of lavish production values at Annex that you would at The Rep or ACT, but poverty is also a driver of innovation, and our designers and production team always amaze me with what they're able to accomplish on a veritable shoe-string budget.
And although other commentors have mentioned all sorts of great ways to save a buck on seeing theatre productions, let me add one more heretofore not cited: if you have a particularly favorite theatre you'd like to attend, but simply cannot afford, call them up (or email them) and ask to volunteer. Even the professional houses will trade a shift of ushering or working concessions for a free ticket; plus it's a terrific way to meet other theatre aficionados, get more of an inside look at how theatres operate, and occasionally even results in getting to hang out with the actors, crew and staff.
30
@20 If theater tickets were not overpriced, as you claim, then I think we would not see the institutions closing and having calls for emergency fundraising efforts for the remaining to continue to survive.
31
Ya. I hear you @27. I'm not much for, say, slam poetry. Doesn't mean I don't respect slam poets skill, time, or need to acquire a living. And there's just no point in taking an anecdote about the Brendan's friend dealing with live theatre's high barrier to entry and making it about EVERYTHING that constitutes the makeup of contemporary political society. But the reason I think @27 resonates is that if you're ACTUALLY looking for a cheap gateway drug into live theatre, you couldn't be living in a better city. And if you just don't like theatre or don't care much or just go when your friends are in it, then you probably aren't going to buy a $5 ticket any sooner than a $50 ticket. But if you have budgetary concerns or want a low-stakes way to browse, you've got options, and there are tons of reliable places to get that information. Starting with Mr. Kiley himself.
32
Goldstar has 50% tickets for many shows in Seattle...including "Pilgrims Sheri".
Theater Puget Sound members also get discounts to nearly every theater in town.
Eating at a not particularly fancy restaurant can easily cost $30-$50 (esp. if you order booze) and people who fairly frequently shell out $40 to bar hop on a weekend night don't have a problem with paying that kind of money but balk at paying the same amount for a professional stage performance.
Everything is more expensive. It's called inflation.
Theater Puget Sound members also get discounts to nearly every theater in town.
Eating at a not particularly fancy restaurant can easily cost $30-$50 (esp. if you order booze) and people who fairly frequently shell out $40 to bar hop on a weekend night don't have a problem with paying that kind of money but balk at paying the same amount for a professional stage performance.
Everything is more expensive. It's called inflation.
34
@30, explain to me again how theaters would be better off financially if they took in less money.
35
@34 No, they can't take in less money, but live theater's are basically the last brick and mortar service industry businesses (setting aside the "charity" aspect here) that haven't figured out differential pricing, which is why basically every business has reduced the price of their core product and found ways to generate revenue based on people's preferences to better customize the experience. A ticket from Seattle to Chicago is much cheaper as a percentage of wages than it used to be, but you dont get a free meal, you dont get free bags onflight, and I kind of like that. Why? Because I've always packed my food and packed in carry-on and my ticket price used to subsidize people who had 9 bags and ate a second bag of peanuts. Theater COULD find a way to do this. It starts with booze, and the recognition that some people just want to see a cheap show, some people want a show with an atmosphere after including talking and boozing, and some want to be patrons. You have to price those people differently, no?
36
Ok, this has gotten into a bigger discussion, and I swear that I'm not connected to ACT in any way (in fact, while I love Kurt, I've found their last few seasons tepid. LOVED The Pillowman (and their production of Albee's The Goat still haunts my brain). I'd been very excited for The Lieutenant of Inishmore but was so underwhelmed by the actual production. Ah well. I digress). But I have even ONE MORE DEAL to let y'all know about.
If you mention Yelp when calling to get your ACTPASS, it's just $20/month instead of $25. If the lovely Gillian can come up with $20, I think she'll love being able to see Pilgrims as well as some other shows this month. Good luck!!
If you mention Yelp when calling to get your ACTPASS, it's just $20/month instead of $25. If the lovely Gillian can come up with $20, I think she'll love being able to see Pilgrims as well as some other shows this month. Good luck!!
37
@35 You're seriously comparing Theater to Airlines?
You do realize that the airline industry is federally subsidized and has been bailed out, like, how many times?
C'mon. And Theaters already have differential pricing. Ever been to a Broadway show? Nose bleeds for $50. Decent seats for $150.
Not differential enough? If you want $15 theater tickets there's regional/community and amateur productions out there in the burbs.
I'm not privy to the scoop on Seattle Theater mis-management and don't know how much that has to do with pricing, if anything. But the fact is it's expensive to run a professional in-city theater company.
You know what would make theater cheaper. Corporate sponsorships and product placement.
Holy shit. Not that. Right?
You do realize that the airline industry is federally subsidized and has been bailed out, like, how many times?
C'mon. And Theaters already have differential pricing. Ever been to a Broadway show? Nose bleeds for $50. Decent seats for $150.
Not differential enough? If you want $15 theater tickets there's regional/community and amateur productions out there in the burbs.
I'm not privy to the scoop on Seattle Theater mis-management and don't know how much that has to do with pricing, if anything. But the fact is it's expensive to run a professional in-city theater company.
You know what would make theater cheaper. Corporate sponsorships and product placement.
Holy shit. Not that. Right?
38
@24, I hear you on that one. Wanted to see Go Dog, Go! But after I saw the price I stayed home and read the book instead.
39
@34 I didn't claim bringing in less money is a good idea. I'm merely suggesting that altering their price structure could lead to more patrons and more money. It's economics.
But I still think you are inferring it's a healthy and thriving industry, which is sadly not the case. And thus, something needs to change.
@36 Thank you Tracy! All of the information you have provided in this thread is both awesome and completely new to me. Seriously, thank you for that. If this was Questionland I'd give you a mushroom. Now, if only I can find a way to get those Les Mis tickets on the cheap...
But I still think you are inferring it's a healthy and thriving industry, which is sadly not the case. And thus, something needs to change.
@36 Thank you Tracy! All of the information you have provided in this thread is both awesome and completely new to me. Seriously, thank you for that. If this was Questionland I'd give you a mushroom. Now, if only I can find a way to get those Les Mis tickets on the cheap...
40
In some ways, it IS like the airline industry. Most theaters do receive some form of help, ie 4Culture and city/state money. And, bargains can be had, if you nose around. You don't always have to pay "full fare".
And, every smaller theater in town has PWYC or Industry nights.
Bitching about a $50 full price theater ticket w/o doing a little grunt work to find discounts is silly. People on budgets seldom pay full price on anything, unless they have no alternative. (Sorry Gillian)
And, every smaller theater in town has PWYC or Industry nights.
Bitching about a $50 full price theater ticket w/o doing a little grunt work to find discounts is silly. People on budgets seldom pay full price on anything, unless they have no alternative. (Sorry Gillian)
41
@37 My comparison of theaters to airlines wasn't meant to be literal but analogous. If you'd prefer, you could replace airlines with almost any other service or content provider. And the comparison wasn't meant to be direct but rather to highlight the fact that live theater does seem to find it difficult to provide tiered experiences for different levels of interest. It's just an idea that you could use differential pricing a tiny bit to lower the barrier to entry and then, yes, truly capitalize on people who are willing to pay more. The difference you pay between nose bleeds and orchestra seats is doing this to a certain extent, and baseball stadiums take it even farther with dynamic pricing that drops the cost of a ticket as you get closer to the event based on the rate of sales. They're all good ideas. I'm also not above corporate sponsorship or product placement if it allows cool art to be financed and seen by people who want to see it but otherwise couldn't afford it.
So save your venom for someone else. I'm willing to try it all. But try something. Don't let brendan's friend walk out because a $40 dollar ticket was all she could find advertised.
So save your venom for someone else. I'm willing to try it all. But try something. Don't let brendan's friend walk out because a $40 dollar ticket was all she could find advertised.
42
@39 I do so enjoy getting a mushroom on Q-land *laughs* As to this production of Les Mis, I doubt there will be any discounted tickets available. 5th Ave is banking HARD on this show's popularity (which is selling out across the nation, according to 5th's website) and they seem to require a subscription in order to even buy tickets to it, right now. (A decade or so ago, whenever Rent was coming to town, they'd offer tickets to subscribers first). However, I noticed something as a subscriber this season, and I think it's new (it was my last year in the 30 yr and younger for $30 pricing): After I'd see a show, they'd send me an email offering me to see a show for a second time for only $20. These were 1 hour before curtain $20 cash only and you had to bring your previous ticket stub. It was great, and I got to see In The Heights a second time (yay!). So maybe you'll feel better spending the big bucks and see the show early in its run, and then save your ticket stub to see it again for $20? Then the average ticket price will be less. *shrug* It's not the greatest deal, and it might only be available to subscribers. Also, as this is a season "bonus" show, this $20 repeat deal might not be offered at all.
43
How many of these whiners think nothing of dropping serious coin for a show at the Gorge? I spend four figures on Seattle Opera each year, and it's the best entertainment value I know.
Stuff costs money. Get over it.
Stuff costs money. Get over it.
44
@41
Sorry if that was snarky. It wasn't venom at you. But the sense of entitlement in the original article was overwhelming. I was snidely implying that the often anti-corporate default position of Stranger staff writers was thick with irony. A bit of strawman, I admit.
The fact is not everybody can afford things they want all the time. And theater CAN stay in business and prosper without going Walmart with their pricing or products.
Things worthwhile are often not cheap. So people need to prioritize. The idea that The Stranger is complaining about theater prices - forgoing attending and yet decrying the death of theater is incongruous (seriously, The Stranger is writing about, and depending on, the local professional arts culture but they don't go?). Hey man. Tim Keck should be buying his staff seasons tickets at all the local venues for fuck sake.
We live in an age where the average American has literally every entertainment option instantly at his/her fingertips for incredibly cheap historically speaking. We live better than kings and maharajas once did.
And the one thing worth paying for, live performance that provide a good living for artists, we complain about how much it costs?
Sorry if that was snarky. It wasn't venom at you. But the sense of entitlement in the original article was overwhelming. I was snidely implying that the often anti-corporate default position of Stranger staff writers was thick with irony. A bit of strawman, I admit.
The fact is not everybody can afford things they want all the time. And theater CAN stay in business and prosper without going Walmart with their pricing or products.
Things worthwhile are often not cheap. So people need to prioritize. The idea that The Stranger is complaining about theater prices - forgoing attending and yet decrying the death of theater is incongruous (seriously, The Stranger is writing about, and depending on, the local professional arts culture but they don't go?). Hey man. Tim Keck should be buying his staff seasons tickets at all the local venues for fuck sake.
We live in an age where the average American has literally every entertainment option instantly at his/her fingertips for incredibly cheap historically speaking. We live better than kings and maharajas once did.
And the one thing worth paying for, live performance that provide a good living for artists, we complain about how much it costs?
45
fnarf gets it. as someone who has worked marketing and fundraising in the arts community, it's understood that barely half of revenue comes from ticket sales alone. the rest of the revenue that is needed to put a QUALITY produciton on stage comes from people actually donating their money and time.
46
I'm not globalizing and saying all theater is overpriced, Fnarf. I'm saying that there are some people who feel they cannot afford to attend some theater, even though they would like to.
But if this comments thread is any indication, Slog is packed with Daddy Warbuckses who can't imagine such a thing.
But if this comments thread is any indication, Slog is packed with Daddy Warbuckses who can't imagine such a thing.
47
If you want to "go to theater all the time" and you want that professional type quality but don't want to pay the price for ACT / Rep there are tons of fine theater to be had. Book-It, Strawberry Theater Workshop, Seattle Public Theater Seattle Shakes do really great work (all around $30), WET ($20 - $25); then there are some fine fringe companies doing some fine professional level work with tiny budgets such as Theater Schmeater, Annex and Balagan (all around $15 - $20). PLUS throw a stone this summer and you will find professional outdoor park shows for free presented by Wooden O, GreenStage, Theater Schmeater, Balagan and more.
Tickets being too expensive is a poor excuse to not see interesting live theater.
Tickets being too expensive is a poor excuse to not see interesting live theater.
48
(And, to be fair, it's also packed with some serious coupon-clippers. I applaud your collective resourcefulness.)
49
@44 I suppose we all tend to simplify are positions for the sake of argument when the problem at hand is nothing if not complicated. I don't want to minimize the fact that live performance is competing in the same arena with entertainment thats free and virtually on demand from our living rooms. But the 1 thing live performance has going for it is that it has people together in a room for an extende period of time. And I'm not saying that theater should act like google or facebook and give away the content for free but capitalize on your attention. That said it seems to me that everytime I show up to performance and then go somewhere else to a bar to discuss it with friends, the theater has lost some additional revenue that I would gladly give to them. Putting on a live show is expensive so it's a good thing that in order for me to see it I have to getting a room with a lot of people where you've got my attention and you can capitalize on it beyond what you put on stage. Sometimes I think it's just a little tone deaf to have it ticket prices alone reflect the production costs. That said I just wanna make sure that it doesn't sound like I'm dissing every theater in town. The ACT model really does seem to get it,
50
@46 Look. When I adopted that little zero-eyed ingrate, Annie, I did so specifically so I'd have live show-folk to entertain me when I lit my $100 Cubans with a $500 bill and NOT have to go to a stinky theater and sit next to you revolting liberal plebes with your tight trousers and unwashed wool caps. Why else would also offer free rent and board to that magical negro fellow?
Remember we rich people really are different than you. Both in smell and taste. Now if you'll excuse me I have an Orphan and her dog that wish to sing to me about Tomorrow.
Remember we rich people really are different than you. Both in smell and taste. Now if you'll excuse me I have an Orphan and her dog that wish to sing to me about Tomorrow.
51
BTW, Brendan, that last silly post was my smart ass way of attempting to point out the contradiction of you demanding Sloggers take Gillian at her word (that she just can't afford it) — then you turn around and assume everybody that points out the actual real costs of professional theater— why, they must be rich!
52
When buying tickets online, make doubly-extra-super sure you are not on the website of a ticket scalper. They are able to craft some extremely convincing sites and their markup is, and should actually be, criminal. And they succeed all the time, too.
54
I haven't been seeing shows since my younger (and sadly now ex) girlfriend grew too old to pull off the Under 25 $10 ticket subscription.
55
I get it, tkc, I get it.
What frustrates me is to see all the arguments that a) assume Gillian (or whomever) is doing something wrong: not budgeting properly, not committed enough to the arts, whatever, and b) that the current model works just fine and we shouldn't question the way theaters finance themselves and structure their ticket pricing because the status quo is just the way things have to be.
Both of those presuppositions are goofy.
What frustrates me is to see all the arguments that a) assume Gillian (or whomever) is doing something wrong: not budgeting properly, not committed enough to the arts, whatever, and b) that the current model works just fine and we shouldn't question the way theaters finance themselves and structure their ticket pricing because the status quo is just the way things have to be.
Both of those presuppositions are goofy.
56
Most local companies, besides having PWYC nights and/or rush tickets, also have either free or low-cost preview performances. That can be a great way to see a show you really can't justify the cost of.
I'm wondering how many people here ever go see shows at any of the smaller professional companies. We have literally dozens, and the quality of performance is no less. The sets won't be as fancy, the music might be off a CD, the bathroom might be practically on stage (Stone Soup, I'm looking at you) and the seats might be old bleachers, but you'll see professional-level performances at most of them for under $15.
I'm wondering how many people here ever go see shows at any of the smaller professional companies. We have literally dozens, and the quality of performance is no less. The sets won't be as fancy, the music might be off a CD, the bathroom might be practically on stage (Stone Soup, I'm looking at you) and the seats might be old bleachers, but you'll see professional-level performances at most of them for under $15.
57
@39, theaters are already well aware of their maximal ticket revenue. If lowering prices would bring in enough more people to cover the lower revenue per ticket, THEY WOULD ALREADY BEING DOING SO. I also said nothing about "healthy and thriving"; theater is obviously starving, but cheaper tickets isn't the answer, and the original explanation that this is caused by high ticket prices doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
@46, I'm not a Daddy Warbucks. I even said I can't get to the opera nearly as often as I wish I could. But I understand WHY it costs as much as it does, and I don't go whining about it. Anyone who is seriously shocked at ACT ticket prices is not, whatever his or her claims, a fan of theater. You don't go to Canlis expecting to get a burger for four dollars.
This argument reminds me of the people who think that the Mariners would cut their prices to 1970s levels if they'd just stop paying all those players so much money. It ain't so. And ACT is a pretty reasonable ticket for what you get.
@46, I'm not a Daddy Warbucks. I even said I can't get to the opera nearly as often as I wish I could. But I understand WHY it costs as much as it does, and I don't go whining about it. Anyone who is seriously shocked at ACT ticket prices is not, whatever his or her claims, a fan of theater. You don't go to Canlis expecting to get a burger for four dollars.
This argument reminds me of the people who think that the Mariners would cut their prices to 1970s levels if they'd just stop paying all those players so much money. It ain't so. And ACT is a pretty reasonable ticket for what you get.
58
I don't think she's doing anything wrong. Wrong is a value judgement. She's living in a capitalist economy. That's our only collective sin here. By all mean question how theaters finance themselves. I know next nothing about that. But. Let's deal with the state of things right now. I'm a business owner so I do know about capitalism.
The fact is right now tickets to professional theater are expensive. They are that way so theaters can meet all sorts of obligations, many that we all agree are important. Ethical union wages, etc. Some of that might be some kind of unfair profit taking, somewhere. Well. Once again— capitalism.
So. Prices high. You don't go. Theaters go out of business. The few well compensated artists in our community lose their jobs. The greedy capitalist? He goes back to hitting Faberge eggs into his swimming pool with his polo mallet. He doesn't care.
Or. They lower prices. Either go out of business or alter the business model and become Walmart Theater... and suck. Artists get paid shit. Critics hate them. Capitalist still makes money.
Or. Corporate sponsorship scheme that that compromises the integrity of the art. Artists get mocked by critics for selling out. Capitalist still makes money.
Or. Some other pie-in-the-sky scheme that involves public subsidies during a de facto depression. Tea party goes crazy. Capitalist still makes money.
Or... what? Rework the entire economic model of western civilization? I'm all for it. Let me know when you got that handled.
Yeah. It stinks not getting to do everything you want because of cash. I'm no exception. But if The Stranger wants to be thought of as a cultural leader of some sort I would assume some extra collective effort would be made to get you all tickets to shows, expensive or not. Not going and merely complaining doesn't cut it.
More...
The fact is right now tickets to professional theater are expensive. They are that way so theaters can meet all sorts of obligations, many that we all agree are important. Ethical union wages, etc. Some of that might be some kind of unfair profit taking, somewhere. Well. Once again— capitalism.
So. Prices high. You don't go. Theaters go out of business. The few well compensated artists in our community lose their jobs. The greedy capitalist? He goes back to hitting Faberge eggs into his swimming pool with his polo mallet. He doesn't care.
Or. They lower prices. Either go out of business or alter the business model and become Walmart Theater... and suck. Artists get paid shit. Critics hate them. Capitalist still makes money.
Or. Corporate sponsorship scheme that that compromises the integrity of the art. Artists get mocked by critics for selling out. Capitalist still makes money.
Or. Some other pie-in-the-sky scheme that involves public subsidies during a de facto depression. Tea party goes crazy. Capitalist still makes money.
Or... what? Rework the entire economic model of western civilization? I'm all for it. Let me know when you got that handled.
Yeah. It stinks not getting to do everything you want because of cash. I'm no exception. But if The Stranger wants to be thought of as a cultural leader of some sort I would assume some extra collective effort would be made to get you all tickets to shows, expensive or not. Not going and merely complaining doesn't cut it.
59
People wouldn't go see a band that they'd never heard for $40, particularly if there was no option to buy a recording of the songs afterwards. But, theatre wants the audience to make that leap of faith for something which has, at best, positive word of mouth.
I know that theatre costs are high, and that ticket prices aren't expected to cover all the expenses of staging a show (hello patrons!), but it's not like The Olden Days: people have plenty of cheaper, more convenient options for having someone tell them a story for 90 minutes on any given evening.
I know that theatre costs are high, and that ticket prices aren't expected to cover all the expenses of staging a show (hello patrons!), but it's not like The Olden Days: people have plenty of cheaper, more convenient options for having someone tell them a story for 90 minutes on any given evening.
60
@58:
Or (for the sake of argument) run a scrappy little fringe theatre that doesn't overly rely on corporate/governmental largesse, do the kind of work that's interesting and challenging to the people doing the work, do the best job you can, do it big and cheap, take risks, make it affordable to the masses, and then market the holy fucking shit out of it in the hopes that enough people will see it, or hear about it and want to see it, that you can cover your already meager production costs while still managing to pay the rent each month.
Annex has been doing exactly that for 25 years (and Dionysus willing, we'll being doing it for 25 more), so we must be doing SOMETHING right...
Or (for the sake of argument) run a scrappy little fringe theatre that doesn't overly rely on corporate/governmental largesse, do the kind of work that's interesting and challenging to the people doing the work, do the best job you can, do it big and cheap, take risks, make it affordable to the masses, and then market the holy fucking shit out of it in the hopes that enough people will see it, or hear about it and want to see it, that you can cover your already meager production costs while still managing to pay the rent each month.
Annex has been doing exactly that for 25 years (and Dionysus willing, we'll being doing it for 25 more), so we must be doing SOMETHING right...
62
For deals at ACT, see http://www.acttheatre.org/Tickets/DealsP…
Use code RUSH when you buy online, day of show, for 50% off. Pilgrims Sheri and Musa is worth it.
Use code RUSH when you buy online, day of show, for 50% off. Pilgrims Sheri and Musa is worth it.
63
The elephant in the fucking room is cable TV. People drop over $100 monthly on this capacious conduit of crap. Puts them in a proper trance for consumption of Doritos on the couch. Comcast speaks: You Must Obey. Toss your fucking televisions and you'll have plenty of time and money for a real life, including 'expensive' theatre.
64
@57 - I'm glad you have such faith in theatre administrations, but what you say is not necessarily the case. Because, to find out whether lowering prices could bring more people in, to find out if there is some better supply/demand point that could produce more overall revenue, requires a risk.
Yes, there is always and already risk. But cash-strapped orgs are more willing to settle on the devil they know than to take a leap toward one they don't. I produced evidence that lowering prices could mean more people in without lowering revenue projections, but the more people would mean more ticketing fees, more concessions, more people impacted when we apply for grants.
It is simply easier for admins to accept a death that results from the status quo than it is to take a risk that might mean a death based on their decision, even if it brings with it a greater possibility of success.
Yes, there is always and already risk. But cash-strapped orgs are more willing to settle on the devil they know than to take a leap toward one they don't. I produced evidence that lowering prices could mean more people in without lowering revenue projections, but the more people would mean more ticketing fees, more concessions, more people impacted when we apply for grants.
It is simply easier for admins to accept a death that results from the status quo than it is to take a risk that might mean a death based on their decision, even if it brings with it a greater possibility of success.
65
Fukin finally! Theater is shit, It's shitty to charge people that much for art. I live in NYC, I would be SO HAPPY to see book of mormon and I know I never will. NEVER. Because the tickets will always be in the three hundreds, if available.
THAT IS NOT A GOOD OR SUSTAINABLE MODEL.
The art shouldn't need all the trappings of the vehicle. If the theater is too expensive and you have to support too large of a staff and if your sets require huge mechanical components, THEN YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE YOUR ART IN THAT WAY. There are better ways to express art and there are better ways to make money.
So death to theater! Destroy it so it can be reborn in a real way. This needs to happen to lots of stubborn artistic assholes out there (COMICS).
THAT IS NOT A GOOD OR SUSTAINABLE MODEL.
The art shouldn't need all the trappings of the vehicle. If the theater is too expensive and you have to support too large of a staff and if your sets require huge mechanical components, THEN YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE YOUR ART IN THAT WAY. There are better ways to express art and there are better ways to make money.
So death to theater! Destroy it so it can be reborn in a real way. This needs to happen to lots of stubborn artistic assholes out there (COMICS).
66
Jesus Christ, Kiley.
The theater community in Seattle has been doing nothing but questioning the way theater is financed in this town for years. Like hey, remember when Matt got fired from Con Works, and wrote that big long essay in the Stranger about how the nonprofit model and how it's failing artists? Remember when we had the same conversation after Empty Space shut down? And after Giant Magnet shut down? And after Intiman imploded?
You're not adding anything to the dialogue. You're just being a douche and pretending you're somehow being edgy by being a theater critic who hates theater and the people who make it. These battles are constantly being fought in board meetings, and in the legislature, and in grant applications, and the people involved have been working hard on these questions for decades.
You want to stop the flood? Get a job as an engineer, or a planner, or run for office. Because you're not doing anyone any favors -- or saying anything useful or interesting -- standing next to the gaping hole in the dam saying, "Duh-huh! Look everyone! There's water come'n outta this hole!" Saying stupid shit that everyone knows isn't somehow ennobled just because it's stupid shit about "the status quo."
b) that the current model works just fine and we shouldn't question the way theaters finance themselves and structure their ticket pricing because the status quo is just the way things have to be.
The theater community in Seattle has been doing nothing but questioning the way theater is financed in this town for years. Like hey, remember when Matt got fired from Con Works, and wrote that big long essay in the Stranger about how the nonprofit model and how it's failing artists? Remember when we had the same conversation after Empty Space shut down? And after Giant Magnet shut down? And after Intiman imploded?
You're not adding anything to the dialogue. You're just being a douche and pretending you're somehow being edgy by being a theater critic who hates theater and the people who make it. These battles are constantly being fought in board meetings, and in the legislature, and in grant applications, and the people involved have been working hard on these questions for decades.
You want to stop the flood? Get a job as an engineer, or a planner, or run for office. Because you're not doing anyone any favors -- or saying anything useful or interesting -- standing next to the gaping hole in the dam saying, "Duh-huh! Look everyone! There's water come'n outta this hole!" Saying stupid shit that everyone knows isn't somehow ennobled just because it's stupid shit about "the status quo."
67
@65:
While art and commerce aren't entirely mutually-exclusive, the reason tickets to "Book of Mormon" (or "Spider-man", or any other Broadway show) cost a gazillion dollars is because the people producing those shows have come to understand that audiences - for the most part - are willing to pay upwards of $100 per seat to see big, bright spectacle; which is really what the American Musical has devolved into (thanks Cameron!) over the past quarter-century.
Broadway shows are just as much about making money as they are about furthering the "artform", perhaps even more so. That was one of the things the non-profit model was supposed to address: take the profit-motive out of the equation, so that "Art" would become the primary focus. Of course, it hasn't worked out that way in the long-haul, at least not at the top-tier regional theatres, which have now simply become the minor-league farm teams of the industry, feeding new product and talent back to the for-profit meat-grinder around Times Square.
While art and commerce aren't entirely mutually-exclusive, the reason tickets to "Book of Mormon" (or "Spider-man", or any other Broadway show) cost a gazillion dollars is because the people producing those shows have come to understand that audiences - for the most part - are willing to pay upwards of $100 per seat to see big, bright spectacle; which is really what the American Musical has devolved into (thanks Cameron!) over the past quarter-century.
Broadway shows are just as much about making money as they are about furthering the "artform", perhaps even more so. That was one of the things the non-profit model was supposed to address: take the profit-motive out of the equation, so that "Art" would become the primary focus. Of course, it hasn't worked out that way in the long-haul, at least not at the top-tier regional theatres, which have now simply become the minor-league farm teams of the industry, feeding new product and talent back to the for-profit meat-grinder around Times Square.
69
@60 I agree. Annex is AWESOME. I love them.
But there are still people who say even they charge too much.
But there are still people who say even they charge too much.
70
They should fill the back of the theater programs with escort ads and hire less talented actors and production staff at lower salaries. I have seen that model work in certain other businesses.
71
@69 / tkc
Annex is now adding pay-what-you-can Thursdays and PWYC "Industry Night" Monday performances to the entire next year of plays. This is in addition to our "A-List" $25 all-you-can-see monthly subscription ($10 a month for students).
Annex is now adding pay-what-you-can Thursdays and PWYC "Industry Night" Monday performances to the entire next year of plays. This is in addition to our "A-List" $25 all-you-can-see monthly subscription ($10 a month for students).
72
@71
That's great. Though I wonder. Does Annex compensate it's actors, technicians and staff with livable incomes? If I was employed by Annex would I beable to afford to send my kids to college? Do I get health insurance?
If the answers are yes then it's definitely a model worth emulating.
That's great. Though I wonder. Does Annex compensate it's actors, technicians and staff with livable incomes? If I was employed by Annex would I beable to afford to send my kids to college? Do I get health insurance?
If the answers are yes then it's definitely a model worth emulating.
73
@68
Your overarching point, from your initial post, seems to be that you think the Seattle theater industry is making bad decisions about their price policies. You're a little vague on which decisions you think are bad (you're criticizing ticket price, but you also have that crack about the inevitable emergency fundraising campaign), but your general point is that the status quo is broken and that Seattle theaters are missing this obvious point that you're illuminating for them when you address your note to "Seattle theaters:".
So everything I said in @66 still applies. Seattle theaters know they have a problem with price point. They know it's getting worse, as art generally -- theater, live music, film production and everything else -- follows economic trends that push them farther and farther from relevancy. They know that. They talk about it constantly. They try various tricks to try to work around it. The price signal is doing what it's supposed to do, and the theaters are trying to modify their strategy accordingly. The answer, someday, might just be that there's no fixing this. But they're trying. THEY are trying.
But, like I said -- you're not contributing anything here. You're standing on the sidelines, talking smack. I don't know if you actually believe what you're saying matters, but you act like you think it does. You act like you think you're making points that Seattle theaters need to hear. I think you're not. I think your grasp of these issues is shallow, and that you've yet to propose a single productive solution to the problems you're doing such a poor job of explaining. But if you're really so sure you've got the world's address, get in the game.
Or, you know, just be the subject of ridicule and irritation from everyone who actually knows something about the things you talk about constantly.
More...
Still, Seattle theaters: If a person can't afford to see your shows, she sure as shit isn't going to give you any money during your next (inevitable) emergency-fundraising campaign.
Your overarching point, from your initial post, seems to be that you think the Seattle theater industry is making bad decisions about their price policies. You're a little vague on which decisions you think are bad (you're criticizing ticket price, but you also have that crack about the inevitable emergency fundraising campaign), but your general point is that the status quo is broken and that Seattle theaters are missing this obvious point that you're illuminating for them when you address your note to "Seattle theaters:".
So everything I said in @66 still applies. Seattle theaters know they have a problem with price point. They know it's getting worse, as art generally -- theater, live music, film production and everything else -- follows economic trends that push them farther and farther from relevancy. They know that. They talk about it constantly. They try various tricks to try to work around it. The price signal is doing what it's supposed to do, and the theaters are trying to modify their strategy accordingly. The answer, someday, might just be that there's no fixing this. But they're trying. THEY are trying.
But, like I said -- you're not contributing anything here. You're standing on the sidelines, talking smack. I don't know if you actually believe what you're saying matters, but you act like you think it does. You act like you think you're making points that Seattle theaters need to hear. I think you're not. I think your grasp of these issues is shallow, and that you've yet to propose a single productive solution to the problems you're doing such a poor job of explaining. But if you're really so sure you've got the world's address, get in the game.
Or, you know, just be the subject of ridicule and irritation from everyone who actually knows something about the things you talk about constantly.
74
It's just a different world than it was even a decade ago. You used to be able to almost count on the idea of working really hard with your natural talent, and getting really really good at what you did through lots of perseverance, a strong spine, and tons of focus, and then getting that little dash of luck you would end up in the cream rising to the top. In a collaboration, you could *almost* count on success if you got all the right collaborators doing their best. But now you need to be at least as (or preferably more) competent at marketing as you are at whatever it is you do. Or be able to afford someone who is. A good production of anything has to include brilliant and creative marketing agents, or it's a lost cause, that ordinary folks won't pay a high ticket price for and/or that just won't attract enough folks, period. I agree with the commenters like @35 who are essentially urging the arts sect to catch up with the times, if they want quality assurance. It's not the way I'd ideally like it to be, but it's the way it is.
75
It's just a different world than it was even a decade ago. You used to be able to almost count on the idea of working really hard with your natural talent, and getting really really good at what you did through lots of perseverance, a strong spine, and tons of focus, and then getting that little dash of luck you would end up in the cream rising to the top. In a collaboration, you could *almost* count on success if you got all the right collaborators doing their best. But now you need to be at least as (or preferably more) competent at marketing as you are at whatever it is you do. Or be able to afford someone who is. A good production of anything has to include brilliant and creative marketing agents, or it's a lost cause, that ordinary folks won't pay a high ticket price for and/or that just won't attract enough folks, period. I agree with the commenters like @35 who are essentially urging the arts sect to catch up with the times, if they want quality assurance. It's not the way I'd ideally like it to be, but it's the way it is.
76
@71 / tkc
You're kidding, right? No, no it doesn't. There's no way it could. Your post @69 quoted "some people" as saying our $5-$15 dollar ticket price with pay-what-you-can evenings sprinkled in was "charg(ing) too much".
You can "emulate" the model if you want to produce new work. If you want to eat or feed, clothe or educate someone else, get out of theatre.
That's great. Though I wonder. Does Annex compensate it's actors, technicians and staff with livable incomes? If I was employed by Annex would I beable to afford to send my kids to college? Do I get health insurance?
If the answers are yes then it's definitely a model worth emulating.
You're kidding, right? No, no it doesn't. There's no way it could. Your post @69 quoted "some people" as saying our $5-$15 dollar ticket price with pay-what-you-can evenings sprinkled in was "charg(ing) too much".
You can "emulate" the model if you want to produce new work. If you want to eat or feed, clothe or educate someone else, get out of theatre.
77
@76
Thats what I thought. And damn thats depressing. BTW, I was thinking many people would say the $25 subscription price would be too much (somebody will ALWAYS complain about price). However, if a theater can't actually provide livable wages to its employees then can it, by definition, be really professional?
I love Annex. I'm glad theaters like it exist. I imagine though that the goal of a career theater artist would be to at some point no longer exist in poverty. So Annex would not be a model for that.
The larger more mainstream theaters charge $40+ for tickets so artists may have (relatively) sustainable careers. But Brendan is either against decent living standards for artists or is hoping for some magical systemic change to occur where prices are cheap AND artists get paid livable wages. What this magical system is nobody seems capable of defining and implementing. Even Annex, which by all accounts is doing everything else right.
Thats what I thought. And damn thats depressing. BTW, I was thinking many people would say the $25 subscription price would be too much (somebody will ALWAYS complain about price). However, if a theater can't actually provide livable wages to its employees then can it, by definition, be really professional?
I love Annex. I'm glad theaters like it exist. I imagine though that the goal of a career theater artist would be to at some point no longer exist in poverty. So Annex would not be a model for that.
The larger more mainstream theaters charge $40+ for tickets so artists may have (relatively) sustainable careers. But Brendan is either against decent living standards for artists or is hoping for some magical systemic change to occur where prices are cheap AND artists get paid livable wages. What this magical system is nobody seems capable of defining and implementing. Even Annex, which by all accounts is doing everything else right.
78
I love Les Miz. I want JonnyH to see Les Miz for his birthday this year. Can we start a Slog collection and buy that balcony ticket?
I don't know anything about Seattle arts or theater, but I've lived in Minneapolis and Denver, and have managed to get some good deals on theater tickets by simply signing up to be emailed offers with the various theaters. Also, try donating even a small amount when the theater is doing a fund raising drive, that generally puts you on the list for some deals as well. It's usually possible to enjoy culture without having to invest huge amounts of money.
I don't know anything about Seattle arts or theater, but I've lived in Minneapolis and Denver, and have managed to get some good deals on theater tickets by simply signing up to be emailed offers with the various theaters. Also, try donating even a small amount when the theater is doing a fund raising drive, that generally puts you on the list for some deals as well. It's usually possible to enjoy culture without having to invest huge amounts of money.
79
LOL at Fnarf and Danindowntown trolling this thread. Seriously, guys, most people don't have the means that allow you both to say *Hurr $50 is a totally acceptable ticket price and fuck you if you can't pay it*.
Top end theatre has priced itself out of relevance. Whether they do so to sustain an unsustainable reality or because there are enough idiots with disposable income out there that they can actually make money doing so is besides the point.
Top end theatre has priced itself out of relevance. Whether they do so to sustain an unsustainable reality or because there are enough idiots with disposable income out there that they can actually make money doing so is besides the point.
82
46/Brendan: I'm not globalizing and saying all theater is overpriced, Fnarf. I'm saying that there are some people who feel they cannot afford to attend some theater, even though they would like to.
I'd like to know what their monthly take-home pay is and what their monthly fixed expenses are. Or, more specifically, what they have available after those monthly fixed expenses are deducted from their monthly take-home pay. If they have even a couple hundred bucks available for variable expenses they could afford to attend a theater show once in a while. It's just a matter of priorities. I'm not saying that a $50 ticket is "as affordable" to a person who has $300 a month to spend on variable expenses compared to someone who has $3,000 to spend. Obviously the latter person can more easily afford it. Way more easily. But the former person can still afford it, if it's a top priority to them.
I'd like to know what their monthly take-home pay is and what their monthly fixed expenses are. Or, more specifically, what they have available after those monthly fixed expenses are deducted from their monthly take-home pay. If they have even a couple hundred bucks available for variable expenses they could afford to attend a theater show once in a while. It's just a matter of priorities. I'm not saying that a $50 ticket is "as affordable" to a person who has $300 a month to spend on variable expenses compared to someone who has $3,000 to spend. Obviously the latter person can more easily afford it. Way more easily. But the former person can still afford it, if it's a top priority to them.
83
@ 82. Ditto.
Hey Gillian, can you get on that? As this thread clearly shows, we can't take your word for it that a $50 theater ticket ($100 if you bring your guy) is too pricey for your particular financial situation. To even suggest such a thing is "asinine," "annoying," "unreasonable," "shallow," and "irritating."
We'll need to see some pay stubs, a household budget, how much you spend on booze each week (for Fnarf @ 10), and a loyalty oath to the arts to ensure that your spending priorities are in order.
Until we pry into your personal finances, we'll just have to assume that you are a fool, a poor manager of your own money, or a straight-up liar.
Hey Gillian, can you get on that? As this thread clearly shows, we can't take your word for it that a $50 theater ticket ($100 if you bring your guy) is too pricey for your particular financial situation. To even suggest such a thing is "asinine," "annoying," "unreasonable," "shallow," and "irritating."
We'll need to see some pay stubs, a household budget, how much you spend on booze each week (for Fnarf @ 10), and a loyalty oath to the arts to ensure that your spending priorities are in order.
Until we pry into your personal finances, we'll just have to assume that you are a fool, a poor manager of your own money, or a straight-up liar.
84
@83
Brendan, you brought it up. You said she couldn't afford it. I think what people are reacting to is the distinction between not being able to afford it and not being willing to pay for it. Saying "I can't afford it," is often a nice way of saying, "I wouldn't pay that much for it." One theater ticket is about the same price as three full price movie tickets. Unless she's dead broke, I think most readers just have a hard time imagining that she actually CANNOT AFFORD three full-price movie tickets. On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable not to be willing to pay that money for that product. And, if she actually can't afford movie tickets, then even if she COULD afford theater tickets -- she probably wouldn't spend her money on them. And rightfully so.
I think the thing that's pissing people off is that you're saying she can't afford them, when what you mean is that she just doesn't want to pay for them. It sounds disingenuous.
Brendan, you brought it up. You said she couldn't afford it. I think what people are reacting to is the distinction between not being able to afford it and not being willing to pay for it. Saying "I can't afford it," is often a nice way of saying, "I wouldn't pay that much for it." One theater ticket is about the same price as three full price movie tickets. Unless she's dead broke, I think most readers just have a hard time imagining that she actually CANNOT AFFORD three full-price movie tickets. On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable not to be willing to pay that money for that product. And, if she actually can't afford movie tickets, then even if she COULD afford theater tickets -- she probably wouldn't spend her money on them. And rightfully so.
I think the thing that's pissing people off is that you're saying she can't afford them, when what you mean is that she just doesn't want to pay for them. It sounds disingenuous.
85
@84
No. What's pissing people off is the implication of the original post was that Gillian was just entitled to cheap theater tickets. Without actually putting in any sort of effort to find tickets she could afford—and as Tracy up thread pointed out with a little elbow grease you can find discounted tickets.
Secondarily, this sense of entitlement was all the responsibility of the Theaters in question. And by god, if those theaters didn't just offer her up some cheap tickets, why they could just go fuck themselves at fundraising time. Go out of business, you theaters that we write about about and advocate for! That'll show you!
The irony and logical inconsistency in this point of view is staggering. The Stranger is always lamenting the loss of good theater, the lack of living-wages for artists, and the value of good art.
But heaven forbid they have to do anything to pay for these things themselves! It's like the Liberal Arts equivalent of the Tea Party in here.
Seems to me Brenden and Gillian, rather than bitching at Theaters barely getting by, should be lobbying Tim Keck for a god damned raise.
No. What's pissing people off is the implication of the original post was that Gillian was just entitled to cheap theater tickets. Without actually putting in any sort of effort to find tickets she could afford—and as Tracy up thread pointed out with a little elbow grease you can find discounted tickets.
Secondarily, this sense of entitlement was all the responsibility of the Theaters in question. And by god, if those theaters didn't just offer her up some cheap tickets, why they could just go fuck themselves at fundraising time. Go out of business, you theaters that we write about about and advocate for! That'll show you!
The irony and logical inconsistency in this point of view is staggering. The Stranger is always lamenting the loss of good theater, the lack of living-wages for artists, and the value of good art.
But heaven forbid they have to do anything to pay for these things themselves! It's like the Liberal Arts equivalent of the Tea Party in here.
Seems to me Brenden and Gillian, rather than bitching at Theaters barely getting by, should be lobbying Tim Keck for a god damned raise.
86
With respect TKC, I think you're slightly off the mark there.
What's pissing people off is Brendan uses a context-free anecdote to justify a broad accusation about the affordability of theatre. In spite of the fact that he can come up with two different examples (teentix and the ActPass) that run counter to his point, he feels free to quote the accusation in the headline and close with it - throwing in the additional insult of "your next (inevitable) emergency-fundraising campaign" for good measure.
That the Theater Editor hates theater is routinely insulting isn't news. What's FUNNY, is that Gillian might very well have expected that the Theater Editor have a better-than-passing knowledge of all of the different ways that Seattle theaters have tried to promote their shows to non-traditional audiences at discounted prices.
But he doesn't - because HE DOESN'T PAY FOR THEATRE.
And when Tracy points out a host of different ways that she knows of to score discounted tickets - he's not embarassed at all, he just calls her a 'coupon-clipper' and doesn't acknowlege that 'her' posts completely undermine his assertion.
But the kicker, the real kicker to all of this? Not only is Brendan ignorant of the actual costs of a theater ticket, not only does he feel free to lambast UNION theater's for the cost of a theater ticket that employees of his NON-UNION paper can't afford (nothing to examine there Brendan) but this final grace-note.
Advertising on the SLOG is expensive Deciding to run an advertisement alongside these daily posts is costly. But Brendan can drop these poorly-reasoned attacks at will, for free. Just one more thing for an organization to overcome when trying to sell their heavily-discounted tickets. But let's not see those advertising costs show up in the price of a ticket.
More...
What's pissing people off is Brendan uses a context-free anecdote to justify a broad accusation about the affordability of theatre. In spite of the fact that he can come up with two different examples (teentix and the ActPass) that run counter to his point, he feels free to quote the accusation in the headline and close with it - throwing in the additional insult of "your next (inevitable) emergency-fundraising campaign" for good measure.
That the Theater Editor hates theater is routinely insulting isn't news. What's FUNNY, is that Gillian might very well have expected that the Theater Editor have a better-than-passing knowledge of all of the different ways that Seattle theaters have tried to promote their shows to non-traditional audiences at discounted prices.
But he doesn't - because HE DOESN'T PAY FOR THEATRE.
And when Tracy points out a host of different ways that she knows of to score discounted tickets - he's not embarassed at all, he just calls her a 'coupon-clipper' and doesn't acknowlege that 'her' posts completely undermine his assertion.
But the kicker, the real kicker to all of this? Not only is Brendan ignorant of the actual costs of a theater ticket, not only does he feel free to lambast UNION theater's for the cost of a theater ticket that employees of his NON-UNION paper can't afford (nothing to examine there Brendan) but this final grace-note.
Advertising on the SLOG is expensive Deciding to run an advertisement alongside these daily posts is costly. But Brendan can drop these poorly-reasoned attacks at will, for free. Just one more thing for an organization to overcome when trying to sell their heavily-discounted tickets. But let's not see those advertising costs show up in the price of a ticket.
88
I know a lot of you know this already, but it's worth stating: Theaters (at least, non-profit ones) don't cover the costs of their production through ticket sales--not even close. If you're lucky, you can cover about 50% of your expenses through tickets, but the percentage is usually much lower. This is because theater is expensive. It's not just the people you see on stage--there are tons of people working behind the scenes to make it happen, from crew to staff in administrative offices. And it's not as if these people are getting rich (trust me...it's a labor of love).
The rest of the money largely comes through donations, grants, etc. If you really want lower ticket prices, what you need to do is get in touch with organizations that give charitable dollars, and explain to them why donating to the arts is important. Tell your philanthropic friends, too. A lot of those ticket programs that offer inexpensive seats happen solely because another person/company/organization has agreed to fund such an endeavor. Non-profits have entire departments devoted to applying for grants, working on landing donations, etc., to subsidize your inexpensive tickets (relatively, compared to cost of production)--and they would love your help.
As an arts-lover with very limited funds, it breaks my heart I can't attend as many events as I'd like. But just as I can't have a new TV if I can't pay its price, I can't attend a performance if I can't pay what it costs for a ticket (and this isn't even a great comparison, because the TV supplier is trying to make a nice profit, while the arts org is working like crazy to expose people to art for the minimum cost possible).
Unfortunately (or fortunately), something like live local theater can't be outsourced to another part of the world for rock-bottom prices.
More...
The rest of the money largely comes through donations, grants, etc. If you really want lower ticket prices, what you need to do is get in touch with organizations that give charitable dollars, and explain to them why donating to the arts is important. Tell your philanthropic friends, too. A lot of those ticket programs that offer inexpensive seats happen solely because another person/company/organization has agreed to fund such an endeavor. Non-profits have entire departments devoted to applying for grants, working on landing donations, etc., to subsidize your inexpensive tickets (relatively, compared to cost of production)--and they would love your help.
As an arts-lover with very limited funds, it breaks my heart I can't attend as many events as I'd like. But just as I can't have a new TV if I can't pay its price, I can't attend a performance if I can't pay what it costs for a ticket (and this isn't even a great comparison, because the TV supplier is trying to make a nice profit, while the arts org is working like crazy to expose people to art for the minimum cost possible).
Unfortunately (or fortunately), something like live local theater can't be outsourced to another part of the world for rock-bottom prices.
89
http://www.facebook.com/ACTtheatre/posts… Jumping back into the fray with ONE MORE DEAL! ACT has just announced yet another discount pricing scheme, now offering PAY WHAT YOU CAN prices for day of tickets, after 1pm.
At this point, noone has a financial excuse to miss out on an ACT show, at least. It'll be interesting to see how these all work out for them, as a theatre. It seems they're throwing everything at the wall, to see what sticks. They've got a bit more flexibility, with multiple stages and year-round programming, than Rep (or Intiman, if it ever returns), to try some more non-traditional stuff. Between their Happy Hour purchasing discount, 50% off online Rush tickets, 4 tickets at $20/each, the amazing ACT pass, and now PWYC day of tickets. I wish them the best of luck!!
At this point, noone has a financial excuse to miss out on an ACT show, at least. It'll be interesting to see how these all work out for them, as a theatre. It seems they're throwing everything at the wall, to see what sticks. They've got a bit more flexibility, with multiple stages and year-round programming, than Rep (or Intiman, if it ever returns), to try some more non-traditional stuff. Between their Happy Hour purchasing discount, 50% off online Rush tickets, 4 tickets at $20/each, the amazing ACT pass, and now PWYC day of tickets. I wish them the best of luck!!
90
Tickets at the Bellevue Youth Theatre are rarely more than $10. I won't pretend it's the same quality as ACT or 5th Avenue, but you'll have a good time with your family.
91
Respectfully, I don't think anyone can make the assertion that Seattle theater companies only earn 50% of their budget through ticket sales unless y'all are moonlighting all over town to know how each company is structored. As a member of one of the scrappy theaters mentioned above, I can tell you we are heavily reliant on ticket sales. It can be nerve-wracking, but in the spirit of pulling a constructive theme from this thread, I offer that up as evidence that there is no One Way to Run Theater. Kiley may be ruffling feathers, but the point we theater practitioners can focus on is this: Shit's broken. Time to stop looking the other way, point out what's broken, and think of new, weird, innovative, out of the box solutions. Bravo to Alex @49 (etc) for starting that dialogue.
92
This story is a year old, but I was just looking at Beauty and the Beast tickets for this weekend in Boston thinking they might have them at a discount to fill the theater. Wrong. Tickets are $150 to $185 per ticket!! $40-50 bucks is a bargain.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (92) RSS