Flying Coach

[kaci_beeler]

The one thing that I would be sure to advise you on, is to get a director/coach that is not apart of the group. No one in the group should be giving anyone else direction, and even the most seasoned pros find it to be iffy in some projects to be a player/director.

I dunno, I think it can also be useful to have a practice group without a coach or leader at first. Once you get things going and are having a good time together, then you can bring in a coach or coaches to work with you on specific skills or on a long term basis.

On your own you can trade off leading exercises between members, and if someone is a dick about it, well, maybe you wouldn't want to be in a troupe with them anyway.

I enjoyed this "director-less" style of learning myself, and so I wanted to bring it up and offer my thoughts. I never went through the traditional style of improv classes (levels), and PGraph has never had a coach. Yes, we've brought in improvisers to coach us in specific skills (Jeremy Lamb in story and group work, Bob and Erika in characters, etc), but the great bulk of our work we do by trying things out and failing, learning together as an ensemble and directing from the inside out.

This is not to brag, this is just how we wanted to approach it. We took this style on from the Cupholders (via the Well Hung Jury), they had/have a similar approach, and although Jeremy is the main guiding force in a lot of the specifics, the formats and style are ensemble-driven and directed.

Going "solo" like this definitely has its rough spots. You really have to trust the people you're working with, and develop methods for giving constructive criticism to each other (which you'll need to deal with after weird-feeling shows). You might be fearful when developing ideas without a strong figure to say, "yes, this is a good idea." But, it also means you could become more independent, more trusting, and more self-reliant as a group in the long run.
We've had our fair share of yelling fights, but they don't happen as frequently the longer we've been together.
When it all comes out in the open, there is no room for hidden resentment. And I think this leads to a more open and trusting ensemble onstage.

We all started out as just a group of people who were fond of each other. Some of us had friendships with each other and some of us were just becoming friends. Now, almost 5 years later, I spend more time with the other members of PGraph more than anyone else, and it's not just because I married one of my troupemates. It's because I really love and adore them, both on and offstage.

It's taken a lot of trust to give in to the ensemble and become a working and equal unit (we lost 2 of our original members in the process) but the rewards have far out-numbered the disadvantages.

So yeah, whatever inspires you. Create your own process.

(Also, I'm explaining all of this in the context of a troupe that is hoping to stay together for a long time, I think my opinion differs from this when it comes to selected show runs, one-off troupes, side projects, etc)

[Spots]

Great insight. Personally, I lean toward your "letting the group carve itself" mentality. If you need a coach to keep everyone on the same page, there will definitely be resentment and other hidden issues in the longterm. Hmmmm. I'd love to hear other people's approaches/perspectives.

Most third party coaching I've seen invokes the feeling of the "don't think of an elephant" anecdote. I think notes are always great, especially to raise awareness. But "you guys did such and such wrong" only seems to strengthen those tendencies (in the short term) since the neocortex can't reason away emotional reactions and ritualistic tendencies. Some changes take time and a personal overarching narrative for the individual, so dealing with the negative would have to be a gradual process. And it seems to me coaches feel a certain compulsion to say everything that's on their mind. Which would just create clutter... AND reinforce the negative. Good coaching would take finesse and patience for sure. I suppose a coach could always just reinforce the positive. That's more of a cheerleader... and I'm all for that.


By the way stop thinking about half naked cheerleaders.

[Jastroch]

Far be it from me to tell people how to enjoy themselves, but I will see I have seen a number of troupe--particularly new ones--self destruct or create and reinforce bad habits.

Especially at the outset, it's real hard to distinguish "I did good" or "I got a laugh" from "That was a good show" and "The audience was laughing at me, not with me." A good coach is not there to constrain the creative process or the group, but rather to facilitate it.

[Jastroch]

Most third party coaching I've seen invokes the feeling of the "don't think of an elephant" anecdote.

? Sorry. I'm not sure what that means, but it's intriguing to me.

[Spots]

Guess I'm thinking of a particular instance. Hmmm, how to go about this without using the actual example.

I know you know the "don't think of an elephant" thing. They even use it in Inception. If you tell someone that, the first thought they'll create IS an elephant. The affirmative or negative value of the instruction holds no bearing on the learner's longterm memory.

Really this only applies to telling someone "stop doing that thing you keep doing." There's plenty of instructions on structure and stage picture and audience engagement and and and that a coach can give so my post was basically just me thinking out loud. What do I know.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

i'm of varying mindsets on this. i was initially going to say, "it's probably better for troupes of younger improvisors to have coaching, but once you're more experienced and been together a while you might not need it as much."

but then i thought of my own experiences...my first troupe and performative improv experience (ie: not just as warm up games in theatre) was with Well Hung Jury. and while Jeremy spearheaded the direction and notes, it was a very communal and ensemble driven process of giving each other notes, mentioning things we thought would make scenes stronger. which led to a lot of arguments and digressions, but also to a very experientially driven learning and training process. and since anyone could give notes, no one took offense at anyone giving them notes (they might at the note ITSELF, but not the fact that someone was giving them one).

then jump forward to today and playing with Jeff in 710 Split. we've been best friends since high school. we were in the Jury together. we've been in two other troupes together since. we've lived together, written together, done plays together. and still when we were starting out as a duo, rehearsals and notes were often less productive (with a few notable exceptions) until we asked Jeremy and then Mikey to step in and help coach.

i'm in the same boat as Kaci. i never took any classes or had really any kind of formal improv training until i'd already been doing it for almost a decade. so i'm used to and see the benefits of being mostly self guided as a troupe (with perhaps one person taking a slightly more leadership position to keep things on track and running smoothly...though with a group as small, tight and attuned as Pgraph, you might not even need that). on the other hand, i've seen the benefits of having an outside pair of eyes and a coaching mentality do great things. and i come from a primarily theatrical background, so having a director absolutely has merit in my mind (particulary for, as Kaci said, limited runs/format driven shows, the kind of shows that would benefit from being run like a play).

in the end, there are really no absolutes here. just like with format, dynamic, name, dress code, etc., it all comes down to what works best for YOUR group. and discovering all of that is half the fun (or half of what causes you to break up and never speak to each other again. ).

[PyroDan]

Far be it from me to tell people how to enjoy themselves, but I will see I have seen a number of troupe--particularly new ones--self destruct or create and reinforce bad habits.

Especially at the outset, it's real hard to distinguish "I did good" or "I got a laugh" from "That was a good show" and "The audience was laughing at me, not with me." A good coach is not there to constrain the creative process or the group, but rather to facilitate it.

This was my line of thought in the matter.

Sure you can rhearse/play and do whatever together, but directing one another is very tricky, it takes a deft hand, and if everyone comes in as peers it can make for instant problems when some toes, or feelings are stepped on. We all have egos as performers.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

Sure you can rhearse/play and do whatever together, but directing one another is very tricky, it takes a deft hand, and if everyone comes in as peers it can make for instant problems when some toes, or feelings are stepped on. We all have egos as performers.

and it's good for those egos to get kicked in the balls every once in a while. but that's a whole other matter entirely...

[Jeff]

...

[sara farr]

"don't think of an elephant" thing.

A good coach/director/teacher will give you something actionable to create the behavior they WANT, not to tell you not do to the behavior they don't want.

It's never helpful to say something like, "Stop doing this" -- because of course you may not be able to just stop the behavior without really THINKING about it (which means you are now in your head instead of in the moment), nor may you have to tools to help you stop doing that thing even while thinking about it.

Asaf Ronen has a great set of tools for this in his "Directing Improv" book. I'm in favor of a MIX of both internal and outside coaching. Practicing diagnosing scenes from the outside coupled with finding what to say that will change the players behavior in a POSITIVE way will inevitably help improve your OWN improv skills. And, finding a coach that will facilitate the group finding their own vision/voice will relieve the pressure for all of you to do this 100% of the time (it can be exhausting bc you are not just watching, you are working your "director" muscles)

[Aden]

I'm a big believer of bringing in coaches to help a group work on something specific. If you think you need a coach to help your group be good at improv, then maybe all of you just need to keep taking improv classes. If on the other hand you're looking for someone to bring a renewed spirit of fun, or work on strong characters, or help you figure out what specifically in your format is feeling awkward; then a coach can be a terrific resource.

[Sully]

"don't think of an elephant" thing.

It's never helpful to say something like, "Stop doing this" -- because of course you may not be able to just stop the behavior without really THINKING about it (which means you are now in your head instead of in the moment), nor may you have to tools to help you stop doing that thing even while thinking about it.

Exactly what i was thinking. It struck me in terms of child behavior. If you tell an X year old not to do something they might completely ignore you until you give them something better to do. "Don't play with that vase!!" won't work. "Hey, why don't you play with this bubble wrap, instead?" will likely work.

X<=80

[sara farr]

"don't think of an elephant" thing.

never helpful to say, "Stop doing this"

"play with this bubble wrap"

Exactly!!! As a Lifeguard, we were told to tell running kids to "WALK!!!" instead of "DON'T RUN" -- because they inevitably just heard RUN!!" which they were already doing. But the "WALK!" reminded them of what they SHOULD be doing, which was something different -- which triggered their brain to hear it. And if they didn't walk, THEN you could throw them in the pool.

Also, we were doing this to make the pool friendly & safe... just like a coach should be keeping the improv play area friendly & safe. Perhaps Coaches should be called "Playguards"

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

I'm a big believer of bringing in coaches to help a group work on something specific. If you think you need a coach to help your group be good at improv, then maybe all of you just need to keep taking improv classes. If on the other hand you're looking for someone to bring a renewed spirit of fun, or work on strong characters, or help you figure out what specifically in your format is feeling awkward; then a coach can be a terrific resource.

this. i like this.

[Jastroch]

I know you know the "don't think of an elephant" thing. They even use it in
Inception.

Oh, duh. I see what you're saying. I think a good coach or improv instructor or coach looks at the causes of the problem, rather than the symptoms. It's not the fact that you can't stop tapping people out that's the real issue, but rather that you aren't listening to your scene partners.

I also think people should be allowed to express themselves artistically however they want. On the other hand, sometimes you just need to call someone out, cause that's the only thing they respond to.

Two things:

1) It sounds like some people feel like a coach might squash or constrain group expression. I see it as being able to facilitate the group, like a therapist. A coach isn't a substitute for the group, but rather someone who's there to help the group achieve what they're after.

2) I lied, there was only one thing.