Amdram

[Just Some Bloke]

An amateur can be as good as a professional. Just because I choose not to do it for a career does not mean that I a) not trained and b) not of a high standard.

 

Absolutely right. And that is why I specifically said

It really isn't feasible to expect them all to be at the same standard as the pros, because if they were then most of them would be pros.

Note the use of the word "most". I used to work with a soprano with a fabulous voice and a beautiful acting ability who could easily have been a pro had she wanted but chose not to because she prefered being a midwife. But in a company of - what's the average number of members in an amateur company? let's say 50; many have fewer, many have more - OK 50 say, how many of them will be that good? So they have a choice: they either do shows that only involve the good ones and ignore the others which is hugely unfair and I would condemn totally, or they involve everyone (which is what amateur theatre should be doing, and indeed what it does well) and have the overall standard brought down by those who haven't trained and see amateur theatre as a hobby (and why not?).

 

While the formal definition of "amateur" vs "professional" relates purely to remuneration for the performers, it could be argued that at a practical level, the important difference relates to ability and attitide rather than whether you're getting paid. In other words, there is a difference between "professional" and "professionalism".

 

Discuss.

OK, I will. :blink:

I have worked with amatuer companies that have shown a huge amount of professionalism, and even with professional comanies who have shown very little of it (usually on "skin" shows for children where they think they can get away with anything - that's just WRONG).

 

To link these two comments together, I'd like to use the analogy of gardening.

 

There are many amateur gardeners who could probably make a go of working professionally, designing and maintaining other people's gardens. But there are many more who love working in their own gardens and have sorted out what works for them. They wouldn't have a clue about all the different soil types, plant genuses, viruses, composts, fungicides, standards, fertilisers and so on because they haven't been to college. No-one would suggest that we shouldn't let these people have gardens, but no-one would employ them as professionals because they're not.

 

It seems to me that amateur theatre is the same. It has a different raison d'etre to professional theatre. It's there for people to have fun and enjoy a hobby. If they want to put everything they've got into that hobby and produce a wonderful performance that loads of people will come and see then good for them. But it's not professional theatre and it's not meant to be.

 

One of the things I really hate is when professional actors who are "resting" take over an amateur society. One or two will join for one particular show then they'll bring their friends in for the next one. Clearly as they have had the training that others have not, the directors have to give them the parts. It would be silly not to cast the best performers in the roles. But this has two consequences:

Firstly, it takes away roles for the ordinary members for whom the society was set up. Secondly it means that when a professional role is offered, the pro actors are gone leaving someone else to learn their role in two weeks (or whatever). That's not fair either.

 

Professional theatre is a wonderful thing, but so is amateur theatre. The two are different but each have their place. Long live amateur theatre, but let's not confuse it with professional theatre - they are two different things and vive la difference! ;)

[Bobbsy]

It counts as amateur.

 

On balance I agree with you, at least in this case However, sometimes the lines ARE blurred.

 

The quality of any performance can be measured by the quality of the worst aspect of the production. Pro shows are performed and produced entirely by people who only got the job because someone made the decision they could do it well. Amateur shows are performed by mebers of the society (maybe with one or two guest principals). It really isn't feasible to expect them all to be at the same standard as the pros, because if they were then most of them would be pros.

 

In the case of the show I mentioned above, the best performers could probably compete in the professional market if they wanted but, for whatever reason, have chosen more secure, conventional careers. Certainly not everybody with talent wants to become a professional actress or singer. I must admit though that, lower down the ranks of the cast, there are some people who are there for fun, not because of talent. I agree with you that the show has to be judged on it's lowest standard.

 

However, I've done other amateur shows in the past that I'd put up against an awful lot of professional theatre. Indeed, a number of the people involved in one or two of the shows I'm thinking of have since turned pro and made a success of it.

 

I really love lighting amateur shows because everyone is enjoying themselves. Some of them have huge budgets and make £6K in profit (as one show I worked recently did) and others lose money every time they do a performance and then do fundraising for the rest of the year so they can do another. Whichever way they work they don't get paid for the performing and that makes them amateurs (literally "lovers"). It is different from professional and it's meant to be!

 

Couldn't agree more! I got into this industry because I enjoyed it...and still do. Yesterday I did a corporate gig in the morning then headed off to the local theatre for the amateur show in the evening. The corporate event helped pay the mortgage, but no prizes for guessing which production gave more more of a "buzz"!

 

And it doesn't matter! :blink:

 

How true!

 

Bob

[ojc123]

Another area that is reaching higher standards recently is youth theatre. I've seen a fair number of youth shows this year where it's easy to forget that the oldest of the cast you're watching is 18. Certainly in this area, there's a number of youth theatres with a healthy combination of competition and cooperation. There's always going to be the one or two cast members who have nothing but the "Ah Bless!" factor but most are very accomplished and increasingly professional.

 

Within the School environment we try to instill that same professional attitude to rehearsal, performance, backstage and front of house. Our technology is about 10 - 15 years behind professional theatre. It's generally of much better quality than we could have dreamed of 20 years ago when I started. (As an aside I'd worry if a show was judged as more or less professional on the basis of the technology used.)

 

I think that technology and practices common in the professional theatre have filtered down to some companies and have lead to the improvement in amateur theatre I think I've noticed over the last 20 years. The Blue Room is contributing to that process by allowing amateurs to learn from professionals and to seek advice. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to have my questions answered and to find out about things I didn't know existed. Thanks to all.

 

Most impressive Amateur production "Titanic - the Musical" by Halifax Amateur Operatic Society this year. Excellent performances, top sound, effective lighting. Impressive sinking ship set.

[robloxley]

Of my own experience I've done one student show that sold >98% capacity for a week in a >600 seat venue, making about £8000 profit on a £14000 budget; and another on a £500 budget selling on average 20 seats in an 80 seat venue.

 

The answer is probably that there is no typical answer - it varies so much.

[Brian]

I personally loathe the word 'amateur', and the phrase 'amateur dramatics' even more, which I why I always use the phrase 'community theatre'.

[Ellis]

In this area the vast majority of the amateur companies are on a relatively tight budget. In particular the majority of the budgets on musicals tend to get spent on wardrobe and paying the Director, Musical Director and band (who are bleeding societies dry). One local society has an annual subscription, door subs for rehearsals (payable even if you miss the rehearsal) and a sizeable contribution for costumes.

 

5 years ago, at another local amateur-run 176 seat theatre, their 14 performance pantomime had a set budget of £250, costume budget of £2500 and paid the band 50% MU rates! The lighting budget was Nil. There were complaints about so much being spent on the set!

[robloxley]

Maybe an interesting poll would be: how many amateur shows pay (out of choice or necessity?) the musos?

[paulears]

The snag with the musos, isn't really that the MU get involved, it's usually because historically in some societies they always got paid - but in truth, it's really because in most cases the musos are not members of the society and don't have much real interest in the show - just the music element. after all, when I do it, I never see the show, I've always got my head down reading the dots - the turns could fall flat on their face and I'dnever notice. So when the MD asks them to play, they usually say how much because it really isn't likely they want to do all that rehearsing and playing music they may well hate for 'fun'. If they get - as in my area about £80-100 a week, in many cases that's less than minimum wage - especially if they have to work grim hours, buy their own new strings, reeds etc and pay their own transport costs. If you join a society you do it because you want to.

[J Pearce]

As Paul says most musicians aren't part of the society, and therefore should be considered in the same way as a hire company. You'd consider asking for a discount, but wouldn't expect it for free.

 

If I were to charge MU rates and insist MU hours, then I could see you having need to complain about paying musicians. As it is if I play for a show, I get between £60 and £200. Those being extremes. I normally receive around £120 for a 6 night show.

 

Now that is 6 nights, 2 rehearsals and a band call. So at 4 hours each night, 4 hours for each rehearsal, and a 4 hour band call, that works out to 36 hours, not including the time I put in prior to the show learning the show, checking what I need and booking equipment.

 

£60/36 hours = £1.66/hr

£200/36 hours = £5.55/hr

 

Now, for anyone over 22, minimum wage is £5.05. For me at 18 it is £4.25.

 

See my point. And as a percussionist I often have to hire a van to move equipment (timpani etc). I have to pay for that out of my fee.You also have to consider insurance, I have to leave my equipment on-site overnight. This means I need insurance on my drum kit, and it means I couldn't do any work during the day on my drum kit. Also I manage to beg equipment from the local music service which I play for. If I had to pay for hiring gear I don't own then I'd have nothing from the show.

 

Now I hope you see some of the reasons us musicians get paid.

[Andrew C]

As Paul says most musicians aren't part of the society, and therefore should be considered in the same way as a hire company.

I fully appreciate the point you go on to make, and see it as being quite fair (in a way), however, some groups DO have tame musos. So, again, it depends!

[J Pearce]

An interesting link for you. Watch out dialup users it's a pdf.

 

Its the musicians union rate guide for accompanying amateur operatic societies.

[Ellis]

I often get asked to work shows (Flyman, Stage Crew, Follow Spot) for societies that I am not a member of - unpaid.

 

A couple of times I almost walked out when a committee member suggested that all crew needed to join the society for insurance reasons both times, common sense prevailed - no way would I pay £50 for the privilege of helping someone else out. They never think of suggesting that they make musos join!

[dbuckley]

In the gerneral area I practice in there is generally no requirement for crew to join a society to do a show. Crew are generally the resource most in demand, particularly in urban Christchurch, where I dont work, but where I know some crew roam like a pack from production to production.

 

This whole money side of this thread is just an illustration of what I like to call the "Balance of Desperation". If the producion is in great need of people (either cast, crew or musos) then they are more likely to offer money to get people. On the other hand, if they have adequate resources or people who want to do a particular show or work with that society, then money may be payable from that person to the society, unusally in the form of subs.

[tbjhilton]

But... (and here's the rub) tbj is wrong:

 

I think the boundary between Very Good AmDram and Poor Professional is becoming a bit blurred!

 

My comment referred to having seen a professional show the previous night in which the cast performed at a level below that which I have seen attained by a particular amateur group - and I stand by it, in terms of the fact that when I compare those two performances, in many ways I would be hard-pressed to correctly identify the professional production if I didn't know.

 

Re. the musos, we give our pianist a 'gift' in the form of vouchers or money, as to officially pay him/her would break the conditions of our insurance and therefore they would not be insured. Any pianist also has to be a member (again to comply with the insurance policy), but usually unless he/she is already a member, we pay their membership for them. We have never really used other musicians unless they are members doing it for pleasure.

[paulears]

You have very strange insurance. Most amateur societies 'buy in' service they don't have within their own ranks - insurance cover has never been an issue. In fact, buying in usually means you don't have to worry about the insurance as the freelancer is usually covered themselves. I guess if they are just helping out, then their could be an issue - but the venue itself also have to have insurance, and as far as I'm aware they can't duck out of being liable as they take the hire on, complete with the pains that sometimes comes along with.