Do you trust your tech?

[ratliff]

Roy may be quoting Johnstone in a different context, but when KJ said the thing about mistakes in the intensive, he was talking about the tech people in his Maestro crew. Meaning, presumably, that even the inexperienced people are part of a larger ensemble that has been doing the same type of show every week for some time. I would think that "mistakes" in this context would mean "errors of judgment" (or, more accurately, "differences of opinion"), as opposed to technical mistakes like, say, an unexpected blast of music occurring mid-scene, which nobody intends to do and which nobody thinks improves the show.

Trusting tech people (or anyone) actually means two things: trusting their intention and trusting their execution. Once someone has mastered the basics of the tech booth, you should be able to trust her execution -- that is, she can do what she means to do -- even if you don't agree with her intention.

It seems to me like the anything-goes aesthetic should only be encouraged once people have completely mastered the mechanics of the tech booth. I may be hypersensitive to the distinction between intention and execution, since I recently played an entire show under lights that changed abruptly and repeatedly during scenes throughout. We hadn't asked for light cues, but even if we had, it would have been impossible to respond meaningfully to these, because they weren't really cues at all. They were someone learning how to work the lights during my group's show.

Technically adept offers are less obviously distracting, but they can have a similar, if subtler, effect. It may seem like a logical decision to bring up music when someone onstage turns on a radio, but if we're in the middle of a scene trying to integrate everything that happens into a larger whole, the effect is much the same as if you'd thrown a Spider-Man piñata onstage and said, "Deal with that." You're generating important information that can't be ignored but did not arise organically from the scene and that has no connection to the players. Should we be able to deal with it? Sure. And it's not like the offer is wrong. It's certainly not a "mistake." But it makes unwarranted assumptions about what kind of show we're trying to do.

I agree that good light and sound can add wonderfully to a performance, and I enjoy playing in runs where the tech people are involved in rehearsal. And I am ALWAYS grateful to the people in the tech booth, no matter what happens during the show. But please understand that when a group says "no light cues, no sound cues," (a) they may have good reasons for that and (b) they really mean it.

[Roy Janik]

But please understand that when a group says "no light cues, no sound cues," (a) they may have good reasons for that and (b) they really mean it.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that point.

If someone says "no light cues, no sound cues", that what you should get, absolutely.

When I was watching the Threefer this past week, I noticed the lights changing color in pretty subtle ways sometimes... from bluish white to a warmer white and back again.

I didn't ask the booth, but I think that was them getting paranoid about the brightness or mix of colors rather than trying to make offers.

It seems to me like the anything-goes aesthetic should only be encouraged once people have completely mastered the mechanics of the tech booth.

I disagree with that. I like giving the booth a chance to master the mechanics by giving them the opportunity to play around. Improv's gonna survive some strange music queues. If I don't like it, I'll just "turn the radio off". But again, I'm not gonna begrudge anyone for what they want for their own show. I just don't think there are any universal shoulds in this case.

[ratliff]

It seems to me like the anything-goes aesthetic should only be encouraged once people have completely mastered the mechanics of the tech booth.

I disagree with that. I like giving the booth a chance to master the mechanics by giving them the opportunity to play around. Improv's gonna survive some strange music queues. If I don't like it, I'll just "turn the radio off". But again, I'm not gonna begrudge anyone for what they want for their own show. I just don't think there are any universal shoulds in this case.

Well, sure, improv's going to survive. And so is the show. I understand that point of view, and I celebrate it. I'm trying to play more shows that are free and open-ended in that way, because they're fun and because I want to get better at that.

But there does seem to be an underlying assumption here that any show that doesn't have a predetermined tone and style is therefore devoid of tone and style, or rather that the tone and style are up for grabs and any offer from any quarter is fine.

(By the way, Roy, it wasn't this week's Threefer I was referring to with the lights.)

Of course I can turn off the radio. Similarly, the Dickens cast is skilled enough that you could easily deal with a siren going off. But you can't tell me that it wouldn't affect what you were trying to do in the show.

And ... that's not going to happen in Dickens, because you have a tech crew you've worked with to establish parameters and a tone for the show. My point is that some of us are aspiring to that same level of stagecraft, except that we're treating each show as its own distinct entity. We want to find the specific feeling and tone of that show as it emerges. We're trying to achieve in the moment what is achieved in other shows by careful preparation, and that can be undone by an unsympathetic tech cue as easily as it can by a poorly executed one.

Ruby, to answer your question: I would love to make fuller use of the possibilities of the Hideout board. But given that every tech booth in town has inexperienced people in it from time to time, and given the admirable try-anything spirit Roy describes, we can't afford to do that without jeopardizing what we're trying to do. So we go with nothing it all, and it's fine. After all, I come from ColdTowne, where we can barely light the entire stage. We're not being deprived when we play at The Hideout, and neither is the audience. And I guess from your comment that other groups have come to the same conclusion. From where I'm standing, it's not a problem.

This is not meant as a critique of this approach to teching. I really do get it, and I understand its value in certain shows. I'm merely pointing out that rehearsed runs are not the only shows with certain stylistic parameters. Just because the style and tone of completely improvised shows get set up in the moment doesn't make them less important to the people playing within them. (And yes, I know, nobody was explicitly saying this; it just seemed like it might be an unexamined assumption on the back burner. If not, no worries.)

Also, humbug.

[jillybee72]

What I like to do is talk to the tech for five to ten minutes and describe the style and tone of my show to them so that they know. I am experienced in describing my show's qualities so it is not really a problem. If I get there early enough, they'll often show me the specials and effects they have available so we can get an even better understanding of each other.

Also, Ruby, I love your post, you're such a good mentor.

[sara farr]

I have a great fondness for good technical improv, and I'm grateful for Jill initiating this conversation.

A) I don't like the "wave the lights" thing to end a set. It's okay, but I don't like it. I'd much prefer a tech to call a good out on the show and pull the lights from the booth. As an audience member, I appreciate feeling the link of the tech booth to the guys on stage. Of course, its jarring when it comes at a weird moment. I appreciate the effort of the actors giving the booth a cue that's more subtle. I was in a show where the performers told me "when we say this, that's your cue to hit the lights and end the show". It was a planned cue, but so is waving your hand, and that looks weird to a naive audience.

B) I agree with Jordan about the "when the lights come up" thing. In my mind, it's always been a device for the audience -- a visual divider between the "suggestion taking" part of the show, and the "scene" part of the show. Shakespeare used a preface in his plays, but I can live with or without it. I prefer the suggestion-taking to be a PART of the show. I used this in-show-suggestion-taking method in "Elf Employment". There were a few snags, but we worked it out, and I thought it worked well enough to do it again.

C) It's a lot easier to trust your tech if you know them, know their skill level, their willingness to get better, and can adjust your expectations accordingly. I'm of the school that LIKES tech and is willing to help the tech-improviser grow through experience... but only if they want to get better. I avoid interacting with techs who are just there to earn time on stage watching the show, or worse, texting or doing their homework. But even with those trying to improve their skill, I may have a few very unexpected offers from the booth in my set. I should also say that I much prefer to work with a tech-imp in the rehearsal process, and give them mentored training on their role in the show.

... and here are some other thoughts of mine that already seem to be resonating in this thread. They are probably more relevant to those who WANT good tech in their shows.

TOOLS
A good technical-improviser knows their tool (light board, sound effects library, scoring library, keyboard, guitar, violin, video library, puppet, props, etc.) as well as a good actor-improviser knows their own tool (their body, mind and voice?). They both have to learn their tool, then learn the skill of improvisation, then learn the tricks of improvisation with their chosen tool. Most improv performers in Austin are schooled that anyone can just jump up and improvise. That is a big part of the FUN of improv -- all you need is YOU! However, I've always felt that the BEST actor-improvisers are those who studied their tool (body, voice) whether they went to school, or made it a point to study these things on their own, outside the experience of improvising with them.

There are not many people born being good improvisers. The same is true of technical improvisers. Usually good improv comes from a strong base in experience. MOST good technical improvisers learn to improvise through a performance/notes process of working with an ensemble, or an established show (ie. Maestro or Comedy Sportz that encourage technical improvisers to make offers and improvise with the show), or through inclusion in a genre show's rehearsal process (ie. Start Trekkin, Ka-Baam, Dickens, Dusk, etc).

In Austin, the only improv theater that actively trains improvisers to improvise in the tech booth these days is the Hideout. Additionally, the Hideout is the only theater with a robust computer database of music and sound effects, and a light board with lighting options. All the other theaters (unless the Institution is getting a good lighting rig) just have enough lights to cover the stage, and an iPod or house-computer with a few playlists of upbeat music on it. And when shows look for good techs, they look to those trained at the Hideout.

I was introduced to my first theatrical light and sound board in the tech booth at the Hideout. I learned to use them during shows like the "Tuesday Night Jam," the "Cagematch," the "Threefer," the "Blank Show," and "Maestro". However, most of those shows only wanted the tech to "bookends" to scenes. Maestro was the only show that encouraged their technicians to improvise in the booth -- and that was mostly lighting bc the techs were doing "bookends" with the music, so they had more time to focus on the lights during scenes.

It has ALWAYS been very difficult for me to improvise with both lights and musical-scoring at the same time. I'd be like asking your keyboardist to also improvise with a drum-kit. They can do both, switching back and forth, but it's very difficult to do them at the same time.

IMPROVISED SCORING
I only learned improv-scoring when I was lucky enough to start working closely with Shana and Shannon in their rehearsal process as part of their troupe, "Get Up". I should also say that I fell into this position because I was a Film Score fanatic as a kid and had a pretty good understanding of the role of film scores and a deep library of instrumental film-score music. However, I started out with very few musical choices that were well marked, and only under-scored the very base emotions. I had to learn to find the emotional beat in the scene without derailing Shana and Shannon's own process on stage. It was very hard not to want to try to derail them -- just to see if I could -- bc they are both so quick-witted and can catch most anything thrown at them. However, as a member of the troupe, we discussed what worked, what they wanted from the music, and how I could best underscore the emotion they were building their scenes. It was very good training for me as a young improviser to learn by FIRST looking to understand what was going on in the scenes emotionally, break it down into one of 4 base emotions, THEN support it with underscoring. As we got more experience with each other, I was able to grown my library of emotional tones and we started exploring how the music could not only support the scene, but become an offer -- setting the emotional tone, the location, or the genre of the show. All of this came with time, trial & error, and a pair of actors who were willing to work on this technical aspect of their show.

Having that experience gave me the skills to start scoring other narrative shows. In playing in these shows, I'd always start by discussing the emotional and narrative beats that the director(s) wanted in their show. I'd then go find the best music to fit those beats. I participated in the show's rehearsal process, so the cast and I got used to how to work with each other.

INVISIBILITY
However... in my experience, the basic rule of any good tech is to be invisible. People who don't work with improvised tech, rarely want it. It can very easily be distracting -- even if it fits the scene. And that's MOST of Austin.

Yet, there IS a lot of bad tech in Austin. In a trial-and-error experiential style learning situation (unless you are heavily mentored), and the techs are learning by taking risks, and (more often than not) failing. Also, I am guessing that most tech imps will agree, there is a GREAT feeling of power once you are confident in the tech tools. At that point, tech-imps begin to want to show off, but being hidden, in the dark and off stage (basically invisible), the tech-imp's ego can start to cry out for attention. After all, most tech-imps are improviser interns, and a big reason they started doing improv tech was that they wanted to do more improv, -- where other people would notice/interact/play-with/love them -- right? Anyway, like a lot of beginning improvisers, tech-imps may make wild offers to the players on stage just because they know they HAVE to interact with them -- which often leads to laughter from the audience. Which is not necessarily good for a tech-in-training. It can reinforce this ego-maniacal behavior, which inevitably the imp will take with them on stage. And disrupting the show with tech is like going "meta" and often breaks the established rhythm and pacing of the scene. This can be good for a scene that is stalled out, but it can also REALLY piss off the actors if they were headed somewhere with intention. And then the notice you get is more infamy, rather than the fame the invisible tech-imp probably craves.

In a good show, just like you don't want ONE person in the ensemble to dominating the show, you don't want people to notice light changes, scoring and sound fx offers. Good tech, like in a good movie, should feel such a part of the show that NO ONE pays any attention to it -- neither the actors or the audience.

To this day, the greatest compliment I can get as a technical improviser is anonymity.

[KathyRose]

. . . [all of it, actually] . . .

Beautifully said.

My only experience as Sound Improviser was improvised scoring for the last run of After School Improv, a couple of years ago. I took the assignment seriously, attended rehearsals, and - most importantly - prepared the iTunes library on The Hideout's computer for the show. This was my first exposure to iTunes, and I wanted to make sure that I was familiar with the tracks and could find the one I wanted, quickly.

Several weeks before the show, Kareem gave me a CD containing 70 tracks of instrumental music from a free online source. I was really delighted to learn that iTunes let me add descriptive columns of data about each track, so I listened to them repeatedly and documented things like the pace (beats per minute) and instrumentation (piano, oboe, strings, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, etc). Later on, those notes, more so than the titles, helped me quickly remember which track was which.

The most useful data column for me during the show was Groupings by Significant Moment (thinking in terms of classic story structure), with subgroups for different emotional tones or musical styles. For example:
Awakening - Frenzied / Gentle / Sweet / Rock, etc.
Digging into Trouble - Rock / Techno / Latin / Rumble, etc.
Groovin' - Cool Jazz / R&B / Cheesy Jazz / Cheesy Jive.
Romance - Beautiful / Sweet / Yearning / Latin, etc.
Suspenseful - Menacing / Sad / Ominous / Waiting / Trouble / Spooky, etc.
Sad - Bittersweet / Tragic / Cheesy (Godfather) / Mournful, etc.
Quiet Reflection - Gentle / Happy Memory / Troubled / Regret, etc.
Rising to the Challenge - Jazzy / Happy / Gentle / Rock / Tense, etc.
Heartwarming - Gentle / Relief / Cheerful / Folksy, etc.
Endings - Happy / Jazz / Rock.
... all based on how each track sounded to me. Subjective, I know.

There was also a group for "Montage" tracks (Carefree / Neutral / Time Passing / Folksy, etc.) that I used for early scenes and scene transitions, and a group for the Preshow music & theme song. I actually purchased a couple of tracks myself for the preshow music, since I didn't find enough songs on the Hideout's computer that epitomized the era or the "school" theme. I also organized a separate folder for sound effects.

The point is this: improvised scoring isn't something that you can do well "on the fly." One way or another, you need to acquire an intimate familiarity with the material (the music) and have a sense of what reaction the music will invoke, to ensure that it supports the story being created. But all that preparation work pays off by making the doing of the show a joy. It was almost as much fun as being on stage.

[jillybee72]

Why aren't the theaters training their techs?

[AllisonAsher]

Why aren't the theaters training their techs?

Amen.

Paging David Zimmerman for class patrol...

[vine311]

Why aren't the theaters training their techs?

I think it should be a required part of the curriculum.

Every single improviser that plays on stays should spend some time in the booth. It makes you a better improviser and makes you a better contributor to the community.

[Ryan Hill]

Why aren't the theaters training their techs?

I think it should be a required part of the curriculum.

Every single improviser that plays on stays should spend some time in the booth. It makes you a better improviser and makes you a better contributor to the community.

Um...uh...I'll get right on that Mr. Director. *gulp*

[lizardcatking]

Why aren't the theaters training their techs?

Ha! My first tech training was 5 minutes before a show and included how to turn the lights on and off and make music loud and xx minutes per set.

I think I misunderstood one troupes directions to leave the lights down when they started (because - who does that? I mean I had seen 3 improv shows before that) and I think they hated me. Yay. At least they didn't yell at me.

Agree with Jason that this should be part of improv curriculum. It has, in the long run, made me a better improviser. And I appreciate all the folks who have trained me directly or indirectly (Farr, Zimmerman, Vines, and more...).

This really helps with editing scenes too (if there is any justification needed to make it a part of the curriculum).

And the training doesn't mean you still won't make mistakes. I've talked to troupes who've told me what they wanted and I was sure I understood, but their words did not translate in my head to what I saw on stage.

And I love seeing a show with awesome tech - whether it's minimal or fairly involved.

Todd

[Ryan Hill]

So the universe provides so hard sometimes.

I just got to tech my first show, lights and music, all by myself, extremely low pressure. I TA Jessica's teen class and they had a show today. Mostly parents and siblings in the audience.

Just yesterday I was running tech for the adult class I TA on Mondays for half the class as they are preparing for their showcase.

So it was like: here's a little practice, tomorrow you'll tech a really low pressure show.

I'm not exactly confident though, so how to get more experience...

RYan

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

yeah, i recently had to run lights for two of the first three Process shows, and the entire time leading into up to the show itself my brain kept shouting "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING! EVERYTHING'S GOING TO GO WRONG!"...and then once the show started, i just played with things till they looked pretty and went from there. mind you, this happened both times...you'd think by the second i'd have remembered.

but yeah, just reinforced my already immense respect for techies!

[Brad Hawkins]

I think I misunderstood one troupes directions to leave the lights down when they started (because - who does that? I mean I had seen 3 improv shows before that) and I think they hated me. Yay. At least they didn't yell at me.

Ha! Yeah, Franz & Dave start in the dark, and there have been a couple of instances of confusion with the tech booth, but nothing we can't handle, and no one ends up caring.

[Spaztique]

Why aren't the theaters training their techs?

Amen.

Paging David Zimmerman for class patrol...

I really want to lead a tech workshop. It's just a matter of where and when.