Schools Will Rock You

[propsman]

 

There is nothing wrong with technical support for performers being high quality or even expensive as long as it is appropriate. In 99.999% of cases it isn't.

 

 

Im really sorry but again I find myself disagreeing with a statement .....it is my belief that Technical support should always be of a high quality, that is always appropriate.

 

Yes there are people whose budget allows them to hire in some effect they have just seen on X factor and think it would be good in their schools production of Phantom, with out the knowledge or skills to work it, which I think is not appropriate.

 

Im simply stating that there should be no discrimination because of the status of the talent or ability of those performing on stage.

 

Some of the shows Im most proud to be associated with have had one actor basic set and lighting etc or a cast that is mentally or physically disabled so not greatly "Talented" but I have given them the same high quality tech support and strived for the same production standards/values that I would if it was a west end show.

 

If your providing Tech support for a show, any show it should be of the highest standard you can make it.

[Jevans]

I think people are using the word "support" in different ways here - there's no reason a small dry hire customer should not receive the same support as a West End show in the sense of support of giving advice, going the extra mile, being nice, giving groups the freedom to try and push their envelope etc. etc. - customer service, if you will. Then there's support as in the actual, physical technical rig that supports the performance - clearly it's going to be difficult to light the Apollo with 24 Strand fixtures you found in the back of a cupboard, and equally it's going to be difficult to light the local church hall with a truck full of the latest and greatest from Martin/Robe/CP/VL etc. - both for solid practical reasons. However, there's no reason that you can't try to achieve a high standard of design in both, which for each venue, performance and group is going to involve a different selection of equipment.

 

As a real example, I have seen many times when crewing a smaller fringe venue, or looking at student shows where the sound effects/design are being run off iTunes, fades being done by dragging the volume slider up and down on screen - it's very tempting to rubbish this, boot up QLab, show them the "proper' mixing desk etc. because it's "better". Yes, of course, it's technically better and at any higher level doing sound effects by the modern version of the CD player isn't going to cut it. Do I, though? No, because they've become familiar with the way their system works and are happy realising their design using it. Yes, at some point if they want to go further they're going to have to learn new ways of doing things, but for the show, right there, right then, it's not the better choice because you'll be back to square one on their ability to actually use the kit to realise a design.

 

That, to me, is what is actually "high standard tech support" - it's not about having the best kit that you can possibly have, it's about having kit that works, that the user can work, and can realise a design, however basic, with.

[propsman]

I think people are using the word "support" in different ways here - there's no reason a small dry hire customer should not receive the same support as a West End show in the sense of support of giving advice, going the extra mile, being nice, giving groups the freedom to try and push their envelope etc. etc. - customer service, if you will. Then there's support as in the actual, physical technical rig that supports the performance - clearly it's going to be difficult to light the Apollo with 24 Strand fixtures you found in the back of a cupboard, and equally it's going to be difficult to light the local church hall with a truck full of the latest and greatest from Martin/Robe/CP/VL etc. - both for solid practical reasons. However, there's no reason that you can't try to achieve a high standard of design in both, which for each venue, performance and group is going to involve a different selection of equipment.

 

As a real example, I have seen many times when crewing a smaller fringe venue, or looking at student shows where the sound effects/design are being run off iTunes, fades being done by dragging the volume slider up and down on screen - it's very tempting to rubbish this, boot up QLab, show them the "proper' mixing desk etc. because it's "better". Yes, of course, it's technically better and at any higher level doing sound effects by the modern version of the CD player isn't going to cut it. Do I, though? No, because they've become familiar with the way their system works and are happy realising their design using it. Yes, at some point if they want to go further they're going to have to learn new ways of doing things, but for the show, right there, right then, it's not the better choice because you'll be back to square one on their ability to actually use the kit to realise a design.

 

That, to me, is what is actually "high standard tech support" - it's not about having the best kit that you can possibly have, it's about having kit that works, that the user can work, and can realise a design, however basic, with.

 

 

I agree... no matter what we think of "the quality of the cast"

[paulears]

I don't agree. The level of technical input should be proportionate to the ability of the cast. It is called technical support, so it is linked to what is going on, on the stage. We see it on X factor all the time. Lower ability performers being jazzed up by wobbly lights, flames, dancers, and video walls. If the performers are advanced then diverting budget to wow effects is matched by the ability level on stage.

 

Are we really saying it's best educationally to spend money on lily gilding, when perhaps this money would be better spent on more direct educational support? Especially when the funding is often public derived.

 

We seem to use technical equipment as a diversion. I have seen school shows downgraded and then scrapped because the kids were rubbish, and I think this is correct.

 

The G cSE and A Level 'technical' options are a joke really, just designed for the people who perhaps shouldn't be doing drama? Anyone with a real interest in backstage won't find the physics teacher leading the lighting, or the textiles teacher designing costumes any more. The 22 year old drama graduate does everything. Lights are essential in a drama class. They MUST be on for drama to happen. YouTube MUST be playing music totally inappropriate to the subject and the props box MUST be in use at all times? Drama is done very badly at GCSE, probably putting the good ones off, and sixteen is the starting point for proper work, so no real wonder that the level is lower than it was a few years ago.

 

For most of these cult school shows, a three colour wash, a few specials and maybe a mirror ball might be as far as it needs to go.

[JBeatMF]

Wow,

 

what a response!

 

well at this place it doesn't count towards anything for the young people and we do two big shows each year & generally they do it because they love it and it helps improve them whether be it musically, personally etc.

 

We do many other shows throughout the year which do count towards grades etc but I think the crew, cast and performers would always try and do their best at making it as professional as possible no matter what the show and/or budget and whether it counts towards anything.

 

we want it to be the best it can be given x y z parameters in both design and run and isn't that what we all want?

 

Anyway after having some interesting personal responses and my own research into hiring in (very expensive and set is generally built for the original space it was performed in ) We are now making our own set in the style of periaktos, have changed some props to other items that will work for the theatre we are in e.g motorbike is now a BMX and hospital beds is now two wheelchairs due to wing space and will generally use what lighting equipment we have due to the nature of the show being more geared to sound. we are making our own projection also and would like to thank everyone for the responses.

 

please don't argue ' make love not war! '

J

[paulears]

Doing it because they love it is great. If everyone is keen, then it's more like a young people's amateur society than school.

Don't worry - this isn't argument, it's normal discussion on things members don't agree on. We get bitten, remember it, and it impacts on your opinion next time.

 

At some places staff are mega keen, at others. In my first year teaching, I was having a great time and suggested to the guy who taught A Level Theatre studies (with Myleene Klass in the group) that maybe we could put on a proper show, as they were only doing extracts for their exam. He was furious and told me never to suggest this again. He didn't work extra hours, and did not want me rocking his very pleasant boat. Odd thing was he was a nice guy - just not interested in productions. Next year we started Performing Arts, and wiped his class out! When I left ten years later, the new technician didn't do shows, leaving it in the hands of a single teacher. Budgets cut each year, and now he does his college shows at an external venue that he raises the funds for himself. The college don't see it as a priority any longer - simply because the senior management come from 'art', not 'performing arts'.

 

Shows can go up and down in quality so much as the balance of students change. You are in a good position, and if the cast and crew are really good, then spending the money is good use of resources. Next year, it could be a turd polishing experiment? Do you still throw the same money at it?

[propsman]

I don't agree. The level of technical input should be proportionate to the ability of the cast. It is called technical support, so it is linked to what is going on, on the stage. We see it on X factor all the time. Lower ability performers being jazzed up by wobbly lights, flames, dancers, and video walls. If the performers are advanced then diverting budget to wow effects is matched by the ability level on stage.

 

Are we really saying it's best educationally to spend money on lily gilding, when perhaps this money would be better spent on more direct educational support? Especially when the funding is often public derived.

 

We seem to use technical equipment as a diversion. I have seen school shows downgraded and then scrapped because the kids were rubbish, and I think this is correct.

 

The G cSE and A Level 'technical' options are a joke really, just designed for the people who perhaps shouldn't be doing drama? Anyone with a real interest in backstage won't find the physics teacher leading the lighting, or the textiles teacher designing costumes any more. The 22 year old drama graduate does everything. Lights are essential in a drama class. They MUST be on for drama to happen. YouTube MUST be playing music totally inappropriate to the subject and the props box MUST be in use at all times? Drama is done very badly at GCSE, probably putting the good ones off, and sixteen is the starting point for proper work, so no real wonder that the level is lower than it was a few years ago.

 

For most of these cult school shows, a three colour wash, a few specials and maybe a mirror ball might be as far as it needs to go.

 

Just out of curiosity Paul, what would your level of technical input be in this case....?

[kerry davies]

I think you may be confusing "production values" with high tech and thinking that appropriate means "don't care".

 

Paul has worked college theatre as I did and probably had the most fun working with "demanding" groups. Flashing lights, strobes, dry ice, snap blackouts, ramps and stairways are not appropriate or even safe in most cases. Whoever did the Palladium show had their wits about them since the house lights were up so the performers could wave at mam, dad and great aunt Ethel. That is important, technology is not.

 

Hiring in expensive kit means less can be spent on costume, glitter curtains and all the pampering of the performer that makes those shows worthwhile. I used to spend most time onstage at rehearsals making them comfortable, walking them through their starring slots and generally helping them realise their imaginations.

[paulears]

Sounds great - but as Kerry says, what is important to the people taking part - is the fun excitement and satisfaction of doing it. Spend the budget on experience enhancement - and keeping in mind that 90% of the lighting experience for the audience can't be seen by the performers, my call would be that blowing the budget on the technical side of things that don;t really matter is a waste.

 

I am NOT saying they don't have a place - clearly if the production needs radio mics, then hire them, but make sure the budget also covers somebody to work them. Quite a lot of school and college shows need to bring in musicians from outside. Too much budget is, in my view, directed to non-productive areas. Kerry mentioned costume - surely hiring in costumes is much better for the kids than hiring in a pile of sharpies, or hiring in a wonderful set.

 

 

I went to a college once where a show was being put on by people who had suffered catastrophic brain injuries, most by being involved in accidents. Many could not speak, some had almost no movement. They all had brilliant costumes, makeup designed by somebody who knew their stuff - and they had a brilliant time. Educational Level wise - some would not achieve Level 1, but they tried. What would have been the point in wasting their limited budget on pointless components?

[Junior8]

We do many other shows throughout the year which do count towards grades etc but I think the crew, cast and performers would always try and do their best at making it as professional as possible no matter what the show and/or budget and whether it counts towards anything.

 

Not picking on you specifically J but I do hate to see the word professional bandied about as if it was a synonym for the best quality. A professional show simply means that everyone is being paid and does it for a living - I have seen a few professional shows over the years that could not even aspire to the best amateur work. It might seem a minor point but towards the end of my time in arts education what was, in my opinion, too much money was being thrown away on buying or hiring gear that some misguided folk thought was needed to add this 'professional gloss' to quite mediocre work. (Some of those would have done well to be taken to see Howard Harrison's spare but highly effective lighting design for the recent CFT A Damsel in Distress.) I wouldn't go all the way with the rabid 'anti-performance' views of some of the Ed Drama figures of my youth but I do wonder, sometimes, if it's all got a bit out of hand...