Can anyone become a good improvisor?

[Spaztique]

Like all skills, I believe improv must be both learned and practiced. If someone has been through classes and still isn't very good at improv, they either didn't learn right or they don't get enough practice. Luckilly, improv is one of those skills where it's easy to retain knowledge because it teaches you to embrace failure and make mistakes if it furthers your craft, so I'd say it mostly boils down to the atrophy of skill. Unfortunately, while anyone can simply practice piano at home, improv requires bouncing ideas off others and gauging audience reactions, and that is impossible to do alone.

I am a good example of improv skill atrophy: I have long periods when I'm taking classes and doing good at improv, and then periods where I either finish a set of classes or I miss a class and my skills plummet. All of you have the lucky privilege of being in a troupe, meaning you get rehearsal time, hanging out time, and stage time, but I only get three hours a week from my one class. This creates it's own endless cycle: I can't sharpen my improv skills to their fullest because I'm not in a troupe, and I can't get into a troupe because my improv skills aren't their sharpest. This may not be a problem for people who have charm or likability, since they can easily ask their friends to let them into a troupe, but I am not charming nor likable, so I have to rely entirely on skill, which I cannot attain very easily.

Contrast this to my teching skills: I am guaranteed two hours a week to practice in the Hideout tech booth, and I have been up there for nearly every week. I know the playlists like the back of my hand, I know how to make quick lighting changes, I can reprogram the sound sampler on the fly, and so on. And unlike improv, tech can be learned alone: unlike humans, a lighting board or sound board has very predictable reactions depending on what you do, and they will have the same reactions each time you do it. This is why I'm a way, way, way, waaaay better tech guy than an improviser.

In short, improv can be taught, but it's a skill that requires application in order to improve upon it.

[B. Tribe]

Could it be (gasp!) that improv is something a reasonably mentally and emotionally healthy person might have no interest in participating in or getting "good" at?

There's a bunch of (apparently) mentally and emotionally stable people I've seen who've taken levels 1-6 who drop out because improv just isn't for them. I think we're talking about people who try, try, try to get good but can't.

I'm still the lone voice that says some people aren't ever going to be good improvisers (I'd define a good improviser as someone who engages the audience and plays well with others). There's people I call 'code unlockers' who seem to think there's a certain 'code' to comedy and if they just figure it out, what the steps are and what adds and subtracts to make things successful then they'll be 'funny'. I haven't seen too many people like this. What I've noticed is they do get better at recognizing why things are funny but they don't get much better at actually performing. People like that might become good comedic writers or critics but they'll most likely never make that transition to performer.

Some people are fast runners, some people are mathematical geniuses, some people are excellent visual artists. There is a certain amount of skill to all these vocations but it's not going to be enough to get them to be good or excellent in that field.

There's been a lot of talk about how if 'you just put your mind to it' or if you have enough self-confidence that you can achieve anything. It's the whole 'anybody can be President' mindset that we feed to children so that they'll feel good about themselves. Well, no, not anybody can be President. It's not true, and I think that applies to just about every vocation that exists.

[Spots]

Analytic-minded folks can develop their intuition and learn to let go of control in scenes.

That's definitely a skill that can be developed if you nurture them & encourage the right habits. It's a grind and it takes time but people who "try to write their scenes" can learn to trust their subconscious mind (and their scene partners) and stop thinking their way through scenes.

I mean... I've seen it.

[B. Tribe]

I mean... I've seen it.

I've seen it with most people, but not all.

[shando]

I'm a firm believer that everyone has their own improv journey to take. I've been around long enough that I've seen people stalled at the not very good phase for seven or eight years then blossom into accomplished performers. I'm with Brett that I don't necessarily think everyone can get good just by trying, but I've seen it happen enough that I never want to write anyone's chances off. We're in it for the long haul and I don't think you can ever tell from outside observance who's gonna click with improv relatively late in their journey.

[Tim Traini]

There's been a lot of talk about how if 'you just put your mind to it' or if you have enough self-confidence that you can achieve anything. It's the whole 'anybody can be President' mindset that we feed to children so that they'll feel good about themselves. Well, no, not anybody can be President. It's not true, and I think that applies to just about every vocation that exists.

But being President requires a lot different and more focused detailed work and study. Anyone can be an improviser while they go to college and focus on their career. It's not like improvising is a full-time career to 99.999999% of people (or anyone, cause I'd imagine theater owners spend a good bit of time running the place as a job), even if it feels like one. It is probably easier for someone who is working towards or for another goal to finish that goal than to devote enough time to comedy, and always #2 to most people and the easiest thing to drop. We talk a lot about commitment and staying true to oneself on stage, but the moment I have to stay late at work, improv vanishes into the ether for the night. I'm sure the same applies to everyone else, even if it doesn't affect their level of dedication.

I agree that there is a heightened level of "you can do anything" that society at large has fostered slightly too much, but this is a vocation where you can literally do anything. It's nebulous enough that we can point out what's wrong with it and what we like/don't like about it and refine it, but unlike a documented, focused profession you'd go to school for, it requires incredibly vague toolsets that aren't quantifiable in any physical way, ignoring when people say "you were awesome up there." Word of mouth is the only way we know we're getting better, and if no one tells you what the problem is you can only assume what it is. Hell, you could boil down every workshop every done to "the magic was inside you all along" due to vague terminology and trying to express an abstract idea to a room of people with completely different (but similar) brain patterns and modes of understanding these odd concepts. (Some would call this weird concept Trust I imagine)

In a way improv is teaching the art of lying except it's a positive gain. When you deliberately lie you take a huge risk and have no idea if the other person bought it until their reaction to what you said and feed off that (and like scamming the same person repeatedly over time or rehearsing with troupes, you can read them better unconsciously over time), and for improv that indication is laughter for many people. You can document and study how people shyster others out of money or possessions, but you don't get good at it until you keep practicing it on other people. I guess a better way is saying the difference is in improv you have to lie to yourself that this is all real and that you're not who you say you are, and you're in the company of liars, so everyone's sticking to their character because if they don't, they get found out for lying and no one laughs. And no one likes a tattle-tale unless you're fucking dynamite with meta jokes.

But getting back on topic and what I'm leading to, looking at the individual improviser we can deconstruct every aspect of that person's humor, actions, mannerisms, and how they relate and apply to that person's unique style of comedy and what they should be doing to improve. But that person isn't going to do a one-man show or standup anytime soon usually (yes I know plenty of people mix and match). And for how much improv is 100% dependent on having other people there, it almost seems unfair to judge an individual improviser, but that's the only way to do so since not everyone who goes to class is in troupes.

At the end of the day it's about how much more comfortable you are just doing it, and that applies to everything. If you look at improv like a college course where you have to show some sort of improvement or learning just because you took a bunch of classes, then maybe you're focusing too much on the desire to achieve being funny that you're blocking out and shutting away things that you should have been Yes, Anding.

[B. Tribe]

Would we be saying the same things about becoming an actor, a painter, a writer, a filmmaker or a musician? I don't think so. We all know of people who just can't do these things with any level of appreciable skill no matter how much time they put in.

That certainly doesn't preclude monetary success, though.

[Brad Hawkins]

Would we be saying the same things about becoming an actor, a painter, a writer, a filmmaker or a musician? I don't think so. We all know of people who just can't do these things with any level of appreciable skill no matter how much time they put in.

That certainly doesn't preclude monetary success, though.

I think there's a natural tendency to assume everyone can do the things you can do. I get frustrated with people who don't grasp computer concepts I give them -- what I forget is that people's brains are just wired differently. I'm OK at drawing -- but no matter how much work I put in I just don't have it in me to paint the Sistine Chapel. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

improv is such an interesting beast as well, that calls upon a variety of skill sets, not all of which have to necessarily be in abundance to be a "great" improvisor. Sarah Marie and i were talking the other day about the difference between improv talent and acting talent. they naturally feed into each other, but they're not necessarily the same thing and i know a lot of amazing improvisors who aren't necessarily good actors. and of course vice versa.

i don't know, i go back and forth on this. i think there are definitely traits you can practice and train and work at that make for better improv...but there is also an inherent talent or knack for it that some people have and others don't. it doesn't make us better or worse. i can't draw a coherent stick figure. numbers make my head hurt. the finer points of economic theory elude me completely. i could never grasp chemistry and i don't think i'll ever quite master the harpsichord. we all have our natural gifts. and we can all develop them. and there are certainly aspects we can study and train and get better over time, but my ability to strum three chords on a guitar is never going to make me Jimi Hendrix. but damn it, i have FUN strumming those three chords!

likewise, there's still value in someone doing improv even if they might never be "great"...and as others have said, if they stick with it and have fun doing it and don't worry about "becoming" great, they can often unlock greatness. i won't name names, but i was talking with a friend of mine in Los Angeles late last year who used to do improv in Austin, and the topic of a particular current Austin improvisor came up. he said they weren't very good, having not seen them perform in four or five years, and was rather surprised to learn that (at least in my opinion) that person had become a masterful improvisor and one of my favorites to both watch and play with.

some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them.

[sara farr]

Would we be saying the same things about becoming an actor, a painter, a writer, a filmmaker or a musician?

Hm. I think "GREAT" and "GOOD" are different. Speaking from the perspective of a 10 year veteran 3D Animation Instructor, I think MOST people can be taught everything they need to be GOOD at 3D modeling. I get 2 years with my students, and there is only so far I can take them in that time if they are not working on their own outside of class.

With enough time and patience and effort from both the instructor and the student, I can teach you to be a HIREABLE 3D artist. I can also set you down the road to being GOOD, and if you're especially inspired, GREAT. But there are hurdles and limits on time, resources, and opportunities that everyone faces.

I also have a lot of students from the office of students with disabilities. Many are drawn to the career bc they like to play computer games. However, playing games and making games require different skills. Often these guys have some degree of autism or a social disorder that makes it hard for them to work in teams. They are drawn to the games because of their knack for repetitive tasks and the freedom from having to socialize with others. They may also have problems with CREATIVITY due to the wiring in their brain. When asked to problem solve and think outside the box, they can't. This doesn't mean that they won't excel in areas that make them hire-able by a game dev studio, its just that without these abilities, they won't get hired into certain positions.

Also, this didn't use to be true, but over the past few years, I've noticed a lack of a good WORK ETHIC in my students. The students who come into my classroom may WANT to be good, but many don't have the focus or desire to put in the work and critical reflection to BECOME good. I don't know if its due to their parents, but the latest generation is usually unwilling to try something that is hard, and many quit when the going gets rough. This is a generalization and may only be true of those going to a community college. There are more ambitious ppl out there... just maybe not at my school.

To me, these ideas seem to be transferable to this discussion. The act of creating and being creative in a fun and generous way may be teachable for MOST students, but unless they want it and are willing to work on it, it won't happen.

[Pdyx]

I don't mean to harp on this, and this is really only based on reading a few articles a couple years back of which I'm admittedly no expert, but I tried to track down the Scientific American article I recall that basically says that people become experts through rigorous practice and not innate talent. I tracked it down, here's a key couple of quotes:

The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born.

Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence

Teachers in sports, music and other fields tend to believe that talent matters and that they know it when they see it. In fact, they appear to be confusing ability with precocity.

Not trying to start a big argument, especially since I'm not an expert, but I really *DO* think anyone can become president or a painter or what have you. Unfortunately, you need to get a good early start and have good mentors, classes, trainers and push yourself and have a drive. But there isn't an innate talent required for expertise. You have to be bitten by the bug. I think what you take for innate talent in prospective/new improvisers are developed skills from other aspects of their past or they're early learners.

Here's the article:

http://www.cerebyte.com/articles/Scient ... ticity.pdf

Here's a more scientific article by the same guys:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u8 ... _2007_.pdf

Commentary refuting some of these claims:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u8 ... taries.pdf

[valetoile]

I think to get good at something, you have to both like it and have enough feeling of success early on that you are encouraged to keep challenging yourself. I think that teachers and coaches who pick out "gifted" students and mentor them while not giving attention to the "less talented" ones do children a disservice. I played both soccer and softball in elementary school, but never got any actual coaching in the sports because I wasn't very "good" at them.

[hujhax]

I think that teachers and coaches who pick out "gifted" students and mentor them while not giving attention to the "less talented" ones do children a disservice.

I think there was at least one study where some sociologists took a class, had them take a standardized test, and gave them scores on the test that were (unbeknownst to them) *random*.  They then shared the students' scores with their teachers.  Lo and behold, at the end of the year, the 'good-scoring' students were doing much better, presumably because the teachers had decided that those were the students worth their attention. :-/



--
peter rogers @ netbook | http://hujhax.livejournal.com

If the human mind was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it.
      -- Emerson Pugh

[Chuy!]

I just think a better question is, "Can someone develop into a good improviser in a troupe/community?"... I have always said that a SOLID troupe of folks needs someone who's not willing to look good at improv to an audience. Audiences expect a laugh or someone who speaks to them as a star. They want entertainment. That's why they pay. As long as the common goal of your troupe is achieved, whether it be for your benefit or the audience, and I hope for shit's sake both, then you AND a troupe should be proud of every member. Be proud of those that take a bullet for your dick joke. Love the fact that you can ALWAYS deny your partners and they will set you up for the laugh. I would also ask how many of you think you are "good" enough improvisors to pass judgement on others? We should all be learning always. Think what you will about my silly ramblings, but there should be more structure over laughs in improv... (This is my semi-Jerry Maguire moment)

[DollarBill]

It's such an interesting topic, and one that I think about a lot.

I really think we need to define "good" in order for this conversation to be worth while, but here're my thoughts anyway:

I'm currently of the mind that improv is no different from anything else. Anyone without severe mental disability can learn and get better to the point of being "good" at anything. Everyone has their genetic/hormonal/biological advantages and disadvantages. But practice with the intent of improvement is key. The more of that you get, the better you'll be.