coach or no coach?

[beardedlamb]

consider too, that not everyone can teach. it is a special skill that takes time to develop and may not exist in every improviser. however, in some cases, a coach is just a good performer or someone who has been in the community long enough to earn cred, or even just someone who says they're an awesome coach having no experience whatsoever.

[mcnichol]

Check it out. The problem stems from coaches silencing the open dialog which is necessary for people to learn to play with each other. It wrecks ensemble by forcing everyone to try and conform to one style rather than allowing them to use their different styles together to summon Captain Planet.

I wouldn't go with a coach that rules with some iron fist, or silences open dialog. That seems opposite of why a team would get a coach.

When I've had a coach long-term for a team, we usually tell the coach what we want to do and then have him or her help us get their through their outside-the-group perspective. And if it doesn't work out, let 'em go and get another.

In my mind, not selecting an ideal coach doesn't mean coaches are a bad thing. The onus is on the team to tell the coach what they want, not the other way around.

[vine311]

If I'm wrong about this, pardon my ignorance. But, don't they assign you a coach in Chicago (at I.O. at least). Do you even have the option of getting a different coach? You can't even put together your own team/troupe there can you?

[mcnichol]

If I'm wrong about this, pardon my ignorance. But, don't they assign you a coach in Chicago (at I.O. at least). Do you even have the option of getting a different coach? You can't even put together your own team/troupe there can you?

This is how it had been for the years I was there -- this may have changed since 2005.

IO puts together the Harold teams, removes people, adds people, breaks it up, etc. It can stink if you're really into a groove with a specific group of people and it gets chopped up or removed entirely. But it can also be good if there's personality/artistic conflicts and they move that person to another team. Ultimately they're trying to make the best for the team and they usually do. Though, with as many teams/players as they have at a given time (right now 25 teams, and betw 250-300 players), the decisions they make sometimes don't make sense (ie. see the post about cutting Bill's team).

They also assign you a coach. If that coach isn't working out, the team can go to someone and say "Hey, we'd like a new coach and here's why." And I guess if it's valid, they'll give you a new coach. I know people who've done this and it's gone just fine and they've gotten a new coach -- this had to do with a coach just not having enough time to really dedicate to weekly rehearsals and shows (at IO the Harold coach is also at every show, doing lights and giving notes). I'm not sure I can think of an example where someone was assgned to coach a Harold team and the coach/team clash was such that the team just couldn't work with the coach.

Now, outside of IO, it's no different than here or anywhere else. You can form a team, get a coach, book a show (at IO upstairs, at the Playground, at WNEP, at another theater, etc.). I was in more than a few shows (non-Harold teams) that we put together ourselves, got a coach, rehearsed, and got a slot at IO upstairs. They only manage the Harold teams that perform downstairs.

[DollarBill]

Yeah, you get to pick your coach if you put a team together. You can feel free to request a different coach from an organized system if your coach is not someone with high status that you're afraid to piss off.

[Jastroch]

consider too, that not everyone can teach. it is a special skill that takes time to develop and may not exist in every improviser. however, in some cases, a coach is just a good performer or someone who has been in the community long enough to earn cred, or even just someone who says they're an awesome coach having no experience whatsoever.

Very good point.

[nadine]

I've seen a ton of troupes where the experience is the exact opposite from what you described. Giving each other notes leads to defensive posturing and bruised egos and actually hurts the ensemble. I think that if a troupe can't get to a point where they can talk about these things without egos, it's probably a lost cause, but in the short view of things, having a coach can help facilitate that.

I was just thinking about this!

For example, 3 For All apparently don't do notes for each other, according to Rafe.
I'm not sure if they bring in coaches though.. and I've heard of a really good troupe in Austin that do very litte notes (I'm assuming because of the interpersonal issues it may cause) but they bring in coaches.

Maybe it just depends on the troupe, it's not necessarily a bad thing if a troupe can't give each other notes?

[DollarBill]

Yes, of course it depends on the troupe. Everyone is different. I enjoy mayonnaise on my sandwiches while Ace is a retard . If the shoe fits... Ace will try to eat it. It's just that the whole coach system is so institutionalized here that nobody questions it. It's just odd. As with most issues, I'll take my standard viewpoint of "To each their own."

[kaci_beeler]

As with most issues, I'll take my standard viewpoint of "To each their own."

Amen to that!

[ratliff]

A group deciding that it's okay to give each other notes without benefit of a coach is assuming that

(1) everyone in the group is qualified to give notes,

(2) everyone in the group can give and take notes without inserting personal agendas,

(3) everyone in the group is capable of committing fully to being in a scene and then immediately turning around and commenting on it objectively,

(4) none of the notes will seriously contradict each other, and that

(5) the group won't miss anything obvious, even though any creative collective inevitably develops tendencies and taboos its members are not aware of.

Obviously, it's not impossible, because some of the best groups in town do without a coach. I 'm just saying that for most groups, and particularly inexperienced groups, it's much easier to find a coach you trust than try to navigate all these pylons. Coachlessness is not some goal to be achieved but rather a side effect of developing all these other skills.

[mcnichol]

Bill, maybe I don't understand... who's insisting you have to get a coach? Can't you just not have a coach for a team yr doing? Like down here?

"To each their own."

Totally man, always. To be clear, I don't think it's always "Coaches are bad" or always "Coaches are the shit!" Different situations, teams, people, etc. call for different stuff. I've had coaches and not had coaches and both situations were just great.

[DollarBill]

Bill, maybe I don't understand... who's insisting you have to get a coach? Can't you just not have a coach for a team yr doing? Like down here?

Well you know the drill with the coaches assigned by the theaters. But I'm finding that even when I talk to other improvisors about starting something on our own, I always get "Who are you thinking of getting for a coach?" Then I bring up the stuff we've discussed in this thread, and I usually get looks like I've said something blasphemous.
It's just weird to me that anyone would be against trying something different when it comes to improv. Ace's playground team is trying to come up with a new format. Ace brought up narrative and everyone was just silent. They didn't even say, "I don't like that because..." The most he got out of them after explaining all the various ways that just rehearsing it could improve their skills and their ensemble was "Narrative?" and "Hm."
So, I guess, to actually answer you question, no one and everyone is really forcing me to do anything. It's just they send some pretty clear messages that they like the way things are here.

[mcnichol]

Well that stinks -- I'm sorry to hear it. Hopefully you can find more like-minded people to work with.

[Jeff]

Coachlessness is not some goal to be achieved but rather a side effect of developing all these other skills.

I think that's an excellent point, Ratliff. I liken that to putting on a scripted play: if I wanted to produce a play, I wouldn't be asking myself if I'm "good enough" to put on the play without a director. I'd be asking myself whether or not the duties that are traditionally allocated to a director are taken care of by the rest of the people in the production. Most likely those functions would in fact not be covered without a director, but my point is that I wouldn't want to waste my time worrying about things like whether the talent of the actors merit having a director or not. It's more a matter of, how do we make this production work.

[Frank]

/deleted/