The differentiation between school budgets for the performing arts
In schools we have a certain amount of money set aside to pay the royalties for the shows we perform to the paying public. In some schools they set aside a lot more money than others. I suppose it depends on how seriously the performing arts are taken within the school.
I have seen shows at my own schools, all individual and all interpreted as our own. Then when I go to my cousin’s school the ones we put on seem mediocre and as if they are performed by mere amateurs - I know this to be untrue because I know most of the people who perform in my school’s productions and they are all exceptionally good. So I guess what I’m saying is why do shows seem better than others due to how much money is set aside for them?
I just don’t understand it. I’ve seen productions of Les Miserables, Disco Inferno and Back to the 80’s at my cousins school, each one of these were absolutely amazing and I wish they were performed many more times because of the sheer brilliance I saw when watching. At my own school I’ve seen the pantomime Cinderella, been involved in the shows of The Roses of Eyam and Midsummer Night’s Dream. Each of the shows my own school performed seem to be on a small budget, yet the ones performed by my cousin’s school were defiantly on the bigger scale of the budget. Les Miserables alone cost ten thousand pounds in royalties.
What I don’t understand is why can’t every school aspire to give the best? I know that they give the best that they can on their current budget, but why can’t every school be given the same budget to do their shows and any shows that cost over the budget they have fundraise for them? I mean they don’t have to go to the magnitude I have explained but it’d close the gap between schools like mine and my cousin’s who both contain talented pupils who need to get the recognition they deserve.
