Pretty intersting discussion going on here.

[shando]

Reminds me of some of the things that occasionally get bandied about here, but from different angles I'm not used to seeing.


http://forums.yesand.com/showthread.php?t=7830

[ratliff]

Meh. I feel the same way about this that I do about any sentence that starts with "Improv should . . . "

'Bye! You lost me!

If this guy (why do I assume it's a guy?) hates the Harold, he probably shouldn't do it or go see groups that do it. But clearly he's got a much larger rod up his ass than just not wanting to ever see a Harold again.

I'm getting a lot out of learning the Harold, the same way that I got a lot out of learning blues and R&B when I first started playing the piano. Some people never play anything else, and some people do. But no musician worth a shit refers to blues musicians as needing training wheels or being "baby" musicians because they stick with the blues instead of freer forms.

Maybe I'll love the Harold so much that I never want to do anything else. Maybe I'll move past it. Who knows? But why the fuck would a complete stranger want to shame me for doing exactly what I want to do with improv? I just don't get it.

The Harold is a structure, like longform narrative or the blues. That structure promotes certain ways of playing that are entertaining to me. It also forces me to think about scenes in a way that I probably wouldn't if I were just doing a montage. If that's "training wheels," cool. I need all the training I can get, now and for the foreseeable future.

I completely reject this contempt for forms as something unworthy of real improvisers. In most arts, mastering existing forms is a necessary step toward transcending them and developing your own means of expression. I'd really like to hear why improv is the sole exception. (Or, alternatively, why the White Stripes are lame and irrelevant because they play the blues.)

[Milquetoast]

All I hear is a lot of whining from that guy backed by "really smart reasons".

So I basically agree with ratliff.

[mcnichol]

That guy's seeming presumption of what constitutes Harold is way off, so I don't need to watch him try and keep that chip on his shoulder.

I've seen enough Harolds (and been in a few) that transcend comedy and what I thought I could ever see/experience on an improv stage, that I'm a lifelong believer.

[ChrisTrew.Com]

I've seen enough Harolds (and been in a few) that transcend comedy and what I thought I could ever see/experience on an improv stage, that I'm a lifelong believer.

Well put, and ditto.

[shando]

What intrigued me was not Stomach Ache's initial post. He's a shit stirrer and I've already tangled with him elsewhere on the Yesand boards. What was interesting to me was the follow up discussion to his initial bomb throwing.

[ratliff]

I dunno, I didn't see much there, though I did like the observation that if you let the format run roughshod over your own instincts, you're doing it (and you, and your audience) a disservice.

At least once during every class I had with him at iO, Bill Arnett would say, "Inspiration trumps obligation." Meaning that if it becomes obvious to the group exactly what should happen next, for god's sake don't get hung up on the fact that it doesn't fit into the prearranged structure.

Shannon (or anyone, but I know you'll see this), what's the equivalent in narrative? Can you think of examples of when you were inspired to do something you weren't "supposed" to do? Did it work?

[shando]

Shannon (or anyone, but I know you'll see this), what's the equivalent in narrative? Can you think of examples of when you were inspired to do something you weren't "supposed" to do? Did it work?

I'm not sure I quite follow the question. I will answer with a little more clarification. Are you talking about moments inside certain shows, or entire show formats?

[shando]

Let me also add, I didn't bring this up out of some "Hey, other people dislike the Harold, see see" spirit. I brought it up because I was intrigued to see people debate the form from the vantage of having done it and the way other people like Jill Bernard talk about story and its relationship to the form removed from the usual dynamic we have here when this gets talked about.

[kbadr]

Shannon (or anyone, but I know you'll see this), what's the equivalent in narrative? Can you think of examples of when you were inspired to do something you weren't "supposed" to do? Did it work?

Oh yeah, there's definitely that with narrative. If you study narrative structure, there comes a point in a show where you think you know what "should" happen. Sometimes you are inspired to do something else, for whatever reason, and the show takes a different turn. It's not always wonderful, but allowing yourself the freedom to be inspired mid-show and take things in an uncertain direction can be awesome.

Not to say that pissing all over an established story arc is a good idea, but blindly following a story down a certain path because you thought that's where it should go 3 scenes ago is probably not a good idea either.

[ratliff]

Shannon (or anyone, but I know you'll see this), what's the equivalent in narrative? Can you think of examples of when you were inspired to do something you weren't "supposed" to do? Did it work?

I'm not sure I quite follow the question. I will answer with a little more clarification. Are you talking about moments inside certain shows, or entire show formats?

Like Kareem addresses above. I don't know the principles of narrative enough to ask it more intelligently, but in a Harold, you're theoretically bringing back three scenes three times, and if you don't, you've violated the structure (if you've chosen to play a strict Harold). Bill was saying that if you see something you need to do, fuck the structure.

[kbadr]

Like Kareem addresses above. I don't know the principles of narrative enough to ask it more intelligently, but in a Harold, you're theoretically bringing back three scenes three times, and if you don't, you've violated the structure (if you've chosen to play a strict Harold). Bill was saying that if you see something you need to do, fuck the structure.

Narratives will have a sort of structure for a given show. There's not a "narrative structure" that all narratives have to follow, but once your in a show, it helps to be able to identify the type of story you're telling, which dictates a sort of structure. You don't want to stray from it too much, because you risk alienating the audience and going to Crazy Town. But there are plenty of ways to be playful within (and even out of) what you think has been established as the structure. A good example of that is the speaking over each other game that 3 For All stumbled on. Obviously the story had to move on after 2 years had passed, but Stephen and Rafe spoke over each other again, and sending them back for another year was just too perfect to pass up.

Yeah...this is hard to articulate.

[ratliff]

A good example of that is the speaking over each other game that 3 For All stumbled on. Obviously the story had to move on after 2 years had passed, but Stephen and Rafe spoke over each other again, and sending them back for another year was just too perfect to pass up.

But even though that decision felt a little meta, it also served the story. They'd pimped themselves to not talk over each other, and everyone saw them blow it, so to pretend like it didn't happen would have been pretty alienating, as though they were just going through the motions. I'm not sure if this falls in the category of violating rules.

[York99]

I just glossed over that guy's post and a few replies and something came to mind: Someone a century or so ago at the patent office said that they should close that office down because everything that will be invented already has been.

I know he's saying that the Harold has already been invented and not that all forms of improv have been invented, but it's like saying a car's already been invented... even though every car company makes changes to every model of car every year.

A Harold is like a car in that it has a few requirements to count as a Harold, but there are unlimited variations.

[beardedlamb]

i would say that harold is by definition not open to variation. if you're doing anything that isn't three scenes, three times, it's something else, right?