being a stage manager

[Bryson]

"<Object> is Special. Special stand-bye. ... Special .... Go.

 

I do hope you mean "Stand-by Special....Special...Go" Because you just asking for mistaken cues that way round.

[gareth]

What's the point of calling sound cues as "S D Q"? It has an extra syllable so it takes longer to say, and it simply isn't as clear and obvious as calling it as "Sound Q". LX is a commonly understood abbreviation for electrics - "What department are you in?" "I work in LX", etc. It's quicker to write, and quicker to say if you've got a rapid cueing sequence. But "I work in the SD department"?? I don't think so.

[Bryson]

Sound Design, perhaps? As opposed to Music cues, I suppose. I agree it seems a bit redundant.

[mac.calder]

What's the point of calling sound cues as "S D Q"? It has an extra syllable so it takes longer to say, and it simply isn't as clear and obvious as calling it as "Sound Q". LX is a commonly understood abbreviation for electrics - "What department are you in?" "I work in LX", etc. It's quicker to write, and quicker to say if you've got a rapid cueing sequence. But "I work in the SD department"?? I don't think so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can still say Stand by SD1, SD1 Go... I just like adding the Q to them... personal preference.

[gareth]

What's the point of calling sound cues as "S D Q"? It has an extra syllable so it takes longer to say, and it simply isn't as clear and obvious as calling it as "Sound Q". LX is a commonly understood abbreviation for electrics - "What department are you in?" "I work in LX", etc. It's quicker to write, and quicker to say if you've got a rapid cueing sequence. But "I work in the SD department"?? I don't think so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can still say Stand by SD1, SD1 Go... I just like adding the Q to them... personal preference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It wasn't the addition of Q that I was querying - it was the whole practice of referring to sound as "SD" ... read the post again ...

[mac.calder]

Sound Design, perhaps?  As opposed to Music cues, I suppose.  I agree it seems a bit redundant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Whoops .. should have added this in the last ... SounD

 

From the few other Aussie SM's I have worked with this seems to be another aussy thing. It seems that an Aussie SM (or anyone who works in Aussy theatre) cannot talk to a person in the industry in another country without confusing them... my favorite

 

Me: "Bump In's on Tuesday. Will I see you there?"

 

Person from OS: "Huh?"

 

Me: "You know? Load in? Get In?"

 

I even looked in a book filled with a glossery of 'Theatrical Lingo'.... right there under B: Bump In: Australian term for load in.

 

It must be the issolation thing. Although we do still use a lot of the same terms like bubble.

[Bryson]

"Bump in" sounds like the crew aren't terribly careful with the set!

 

Actually, I've met some Aussie stage crew, and that may be exactly that reason...:)

[lucy_ironside]

Regarding standbys: I always seperate the standbys by department so that I can get an acknowledgement from each deparment in turn and I add a thank you for each acknowledgement. So for a sequence involving lighting cues, pyros, fly and automation cues:

 

DSM: "Standby please LXQs 7 to 15"

 

Op: "Standing By"

 

DSM: "Thank you. Standby please Pyro cues 1 and 2"

 

Op: "Standing By"

 

DSM: "Thank you. Standby please Fly Qs 3 and 4"

 

Op: "standing by"

 

DSM: "Thank you. Standby please automation cue 10."

 

Op: "standing by."

 

DSM: "Thank you."

 

I have been calling large scale commercial productions for years and this is very common and indeed expected. Most of my fellow DSMs on similar productions do this too. I do appreciate, however, that this is not common outside of the UK - having transferred shows abroad and having received foreign shows here I know there are significant differences in style. In particular I have noticed that we favour longer standbys anyway. And the difference between our cuelights and american ones is nothing short of hilarious...

[Just Some Bloke]

My standard Calls.

 

SDQ - Sound

EFQ - Effects

Dome - Spot light

Special - Things that are unusual and do not fit into another category

 

With Specials, I will often say pre call "<Object> is Special. Special stand-bye. ... Special .... Go."

 

And of course the last q of the night "Stand down guy's, good work. Party at <Insert the name of the tightest person>'s house straight after!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personally, I wouldn't use any of these.

 

Sound cues are just called "sound Q" (written SQ in the book)

Effects cues are FXQ

Follow spot cues are called "follow-spot Q" or spotQ"

Anything that doesn't fit into another category I'd call by it's name (e.g. "off-stage clapping go")

Last call of the night is normally just "thank you everyone".

 

Aussies seems to have everything upside down, if you ask me!

 

JSB

[sam.henderson]

Do people use VT or AV for projection stuff. I know that VT stands for Video Tape but even other projection stuff like powerpoint or slides seems to get called VT by a lot of DSM's. I use AV because thats just what I have always done!

 

I normally just finish a show with; "Thanks Everyone, Call tomorrow is for 6.20 please. Sam off Cans."

 

That reminds me, another Cans gripe is when people don't say they are going off cans or don't respond to their call light!!

 

Sam

[mr techie]

hi evryone I use the same calls as everyone else, just a quickie has anyone ever hear 'pan que' for a sound que. a dsm I know uses this for sound ques I personally just use 'sound q' for music and sfx for an effect

[gareth]

just a quickie has anyone ever hear 'pan que' for a sound que. a dsm I know uses this for sound ques

A rather old DSM, by any chance? :D

 

"Pan" in the context of calling a sound cue is short for "Panatrope" (a close cousin of the old gramophone).

[David Buffham]

Something that interests me is how lighting designers should best communicate lighting cue points to DSMs such that they're called accurately every time, such that the board-op triggers the cue at exactly the right moment?

 

This is particulary the case with snap cues in music where timing is very important if the cues are to look right. For example if the cue should go ON the 5th beat of the underscore, or ON the 1st note of the vamp or ON the musical button, how do we achieve that reliably without being a beat either side? - which can look rubbish!

 

As a lighting designer you will 'feel' when a cue should Go, but how do you translate that into a concrete point for the DSM to recognise, with enough pre-emption to allow for the operator to respond and for the cue to hit the mark? It must be hard on touring shows where there's different operators each week, or every night in some venues! One of the touring shows I've operated had a lot of fast cueing, and the DSM asked me to slow down on my Go responses as she had the cues pre-empted for a slower operator. As an operator is there a standard point at which you hit the button after getting the Go? i.e. should you hit it as they're saying Go or after they've said Go? Surely it can make the difference between getting the cue ON the beat or too early or too late, depending on what the DSM is doing??

 

Should musical snap cues be avoided by designers because of the difficulty of getting them right, or are there methods to handle them reliably? If you trust the operator, is it acceptable to ask a DSM to give 'standbys' for certain cues and ask them to take it as an 'audible' cue at a certain point? (similar concept to 'visual')

 

The reason I'm asking is that most of the shows we do are only running for a couple of nights so I tend to operate the console myself. However if we're doing lots of performances I'll hand over cues to the DSM to let the other guys take a turn at operating and watch the show from the stalls or take a turn at followspot for a change. But it doesn't always work out on the snap cues and that doesn't make me very happy... So I would like to find ideas for improving on this! ;)

 

Thanks

David

[gareth]

Something that interests me is how lighting designers should best communicate lighting cue points to DSMs such that they're called accurately every time, such that the board-op triggers the cue at exactly the right moment?

I reckon the two key elements here are clear communication between the LD and the DSM at the time of marking up the cues in the prompt copy, and a DSM who knows the show and (in the case of having to call musical cues) can read music well enough to call the cues accurately and consistently.

 

This is particulary the case with snap cues in music where timing is very important if the cues are to look right. For example if the cue should go ON the 5th beat of the underscore, or ON the 1st note of the vamp or ON the musical button, how do we achieve that reliably without being a beat either side? - which can look rubbish!

As above, the DSM needs to have a suitable level of proficiency at reading music such that they can anticipate cues coming up, compensate for things like variations in tempo, and call the cues such that they happen exactly where they should. Pace is very important - it's essential to articulate the calling of a cue sufficiently early so that the instruction can be given at a measured, intelligible pace, but not so early that there's a long pause between the instruction and the "Go".

 

As a lighting designer you will 'feel' when a cue should Go, but how do you translate that into a concrete point for the DSM to recognise, with enough pre-emption to allow for the operator to respond and for the cue to hit the mark? It must be hard on touring shows where there's different operators each week, or every night in some venues! One of the touring shows I've operated had a lot of fast cueing, and the DSM asked me to slow down on my Go responses as she had the cues pre-empted for a slower operator. As an operator is there a standard point at which you hit the button after getting the Go? i.e. should you hit it as they're saying Go or after they've said Go? Surely it can make the difference between getting the cue ON the beat or too early or too late, depending on what the DSM is doing??

I think there's a balance to be found. If the desk op is too 'keen' and hits cues as soon as he hears the DSM begin to say "Go", there's always the danger that the anticipation and sense of 'edginess' as they wait for the cue will get the better of them and they'll hit the cue too soon. On the other hand, it's no good being too laid back about it either! Everything should 'flow', without being too panicky or too relaxed. One thing which I tell people who are new to board op'ing (which works for some, but not for others) is to try and get into a bit of a 'routine' when running cues. At the standby, get your button-pushing finger in the vicinity of the Go button, but not actually on it. As the DSM is actually calling the cue (before getting to the "Go") move your finger to over the button, but again not actually resting on it. When you actually hear the "Go", give the button a good, positive push - don't just tickle it, don't stab at it, and don't hold it down - just a nice, firm push, release straight away, then move your finger away. Like I say, it works for some people but not for others.

 

Any cueing sequences which are particularly fast and furious, which might need a different way of calling (e.g. "Go" only, or "LX Go" only, without cue numbers) should be discussed beforehand, and the DSM should make it clear to the board op what will be happening, what they'll hear on cans, and what they need to do when.

 

Should musical snap cues be avoided by designers because of the difficulty of getting them right, or are there methods to handle them reliably? If you trust the operator, is it acceptable to ask a DSM to give 'standbys' for certain cues and ask them to take it as an 'audible' cue at a certain point? (similar concept to 'visual')

I think that very much depends on the situation. If it's a show which is sitting in a venue for a long while where there will be the same two or three operators who each get to know the show rather well, or if a production is touring its own board op, then it'll probably work quite nicely (as long as the operators have some sort of a sense of rhythm and timing!). But in a touring situation where you might get one or two different operators per week, then it's just too risky to rely on operators of unknown and (speaking from the point of view of someone who's toured into a lot of venues and worked with a lot of local board ops!) hugely variable levels of skill and experience.

[Just Some Bloke]

Should musical snap cues be avoided by designers because of the difficulty of getting them right,

 

Thanks

David

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The idea of lighting a modern musical or pantomime without snap cues seems somehow alien to me! They have to be there or you're selling the show short. The DSM needs to know exactly where the cues come and how fast or slow the reactions of the board-op are. Given these two things a good, experienced DSM should be able to make it all work like clockwork. Also, a good technical manager wouldn't put someone on the board for such a show who wasn't sufficiently musical: someone who plays an instrument (especially keyboards) is ideal, but someone who can clap along with the beat is the bare minimum required.

 

So you see, everyone has to play their part. The Tech Manager has to put the right board-op(s) on the show, the DSM has to be experienced at knowing where the cues go and when to call them, the board op has to be concentrating and the designer just has to ensure the DSM knows exactly where the cues are meant to happen. If all that is in place then nothing can go wrong! ;)