Return-Path: X-Processed-By: Virex 7 on prxy.net X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.6) with PIPE id 4969808; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:01:23 -0800 X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.6 List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Message-ID: From: "Stagecraft" Sender: "Stagecraft" To: "Stagecraft" Precedence: list Subject: Stagecraft Digest #191 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:01:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on prxy.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2 X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Stagecraft Digest, Issue #191 1. Re: theatrical architecture by "Moore, Martin W." 2. Re: theatrical architecture by "K. Daly" 3. Re: theatrical architecture by "Hall, Delbert L." 4. Re: theatrical architecture by "Stephen E. Rees" 5. Re: theatrical architecture by "K. Daly" 6. Re: theatrical architecture by "Jonathan S. Deull" 7. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by Steve Larson 8. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by "CATHERINE BRUMM" 9. Re: theatrical architecture by MissWisc [at] aol.com 10. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by "Paul Schreiner" 11. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by Richard Niederberg 12. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by "Storms, Randy" 13. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by John Bracewell 14. C-Clamps and drops by "Ken Mark" 15. Re: C-Clamps and drops by "Mike Rock" 16. Re: theatrical architecture by Jerry Durand 17. theatrical architecture by 18. Re: UK Casual Pay comparison by 19. Re: theatrical architecture by "Randy Whitcomb" 20. Re: UK Casual Pay comparison by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 21. Re: theatrical architecture by "Jon Ares" 22. Re: theatrical architecture by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 23. Re: theatrical architecture by James Feinberg 24. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 25. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 26. Re: theatrical architecture (longer than I intended) by "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" 27. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by "Paul Schreiner" 28. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by "Jonathan S. Deull" 29. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by "Storms, Randy" 30. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by John Bracewell 31. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by Steve Larson 32. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by Wood Chip-P26398 33. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by "Paul Schreiner" 34. Flash Card cheers by "richard j. archer" 35. Re: theatrical architecture by "K. Daly" 36. Re: theatrical architecture by "K. Daly" 37. Re: theatrical architecture by "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" 38. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 39. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 40. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 41. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 42. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by "Andy Leviss" 43. Re: theatrical architecture by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 44. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 45. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by Mike Brubaker 46. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by David Marks 47. Re: Flash Card cheers by "Immel,Patrick" 48. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by Pat Kight 49. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by Richard Niederberg 50. Re: Hoffend Vortek system by "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" 51. Re: Hoffend Vortek system by "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" 52. Re: Hoffend Vortek system by Bill Sapsis 53. Re: Hoffend Vortek system by "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" 54. Re: Flash Card cheers by Dale Farmer 55. Audio operation in the audience space (was 10 biggest mistakes) by John Bracewell 56. Re: 10 biggest mistakes by Mike Benonis 57. Re: Flash Card cheers by MissWisc [at] aol.com 58. Re: theatrical architecture by Paul Masck 59. DMX issues and a VL2202 question by "Mike Burnett" 60. Re: Audio operation in the audience space (was 10 biggest mistakes) by Charlie Richmond 61. Re: DMX issues and a VL2202 question by Greg Persinger 62. Yoke Bolts and Pan Bolts by June Abernathy 63. Subscriber tekman0106 [at] juno.com Failed by "stagecraft Report" *** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject *** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to *** one message subject in each reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:15:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Moore, Martin W." Randy: If you can answer the question then share it with us all please Getting architects, consultants, construction managers, etc to understand "the unique needs of theaters when it comes to designing the structure" would be something those of us involved in building theatres would love to be able to do. Prestigious architects etc. continue to screw up theatres. There's a new one round the corner from me - Skirball in NYU's Kimmel Center, where, for one example, the front of house circulation is a nightmare. Martin *** On Behalf Of Dr. Randall W.A. Davidson Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:33 AM To: Stagecraft Subject: Re: theatrical architecture Wow. Write me off line and I have about ten books. Doom **** On Behalf Of K. Daly Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 4:31 PM To: Stagecraft Subject: theatrical architecture An architecture student friend is making a project for his class out of re-designing a tired old theater. He knows architecture but not theater; can anyone recommend a good book for him on the unique needs of theaters when it comes to designing the structure? ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20041109084817.01cd4258 [at] mail.comcast.net> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:50:21 -0500 From: "K. Daly" Subject: Re: theatrical architecture In-Reply-To: References: At 03:33 AM 11/9/2004, Dr. Randall W.A. Davidson wrote: >Wow. Write me off line and I have about ten books. doom ================= Would you post your reply to the list? -KD ------------------------------ Subject: RE: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:56:22 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Hall, Delbert L." Architects (especially young ones) seem to think that reading a book on = theatre will qualify them to design theatres. I attended an AEC = convention several years ago and discovered that many architects = (especially the ones who also call themselves "designers and planners") = think they can design anything. Some are so arrogant as to say that = they are the only people qualified to design anything. If an architect = could just read a book on theatre and really understand it, we could all = read a book on architecture and become architects. Theatre is like = swimming, you can read all the books you like about it but you never = really understand how to do it until you "jump into the water" for a = while. Good architects know that they will never understand the true = workings of a theatre or its changing technology, so they hire = consultants to help them. I hope you can help you friend understand = this. OK, now that I have this off my chest, let me recommend some books. = Since this is a re-design, I would first recommend: WILL IT MAKE A THEATRE by Eldon Elder (ISBN 0-933750-00-5) This book is out of print but he can probably get it through = inter-library loan. Next, he should read: THEATRE TECHNOLOGY by George Izenour (ISBN 0-300067-66-6) THEATRE DESIGN by George Izenour (ISBN 0-300067-75-5) Things to remind him: 1) A theatre is a factor - its purpose is to produce a product. It does = not matter how pretty it is, if it does not allow the "workers" to = efficiently produce a superior product that their customers will = purchase, then it is a failure. 2) There is no such things as too much storage space in a theatre. =20 I hope this helps. -Delbert Delbert L. Hall, President Hall Associates, Inc. Phone: 423-773-HALL Web: www.flyingfx.com -----Original Message----- From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of K. Daly Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 7:31 PM To: Stagecraft Subject: theatrical architecture For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- An architecture student friend is making a project for his class out of=20 re-designing a tired old theater. He knows architecture but not theater; = can anyone recommend a good book for him on the unique needs of theaters = when it comes to designing the structure? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 =20 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 =20 ------------------------------ Message-ID: <4190D415.1000102 [at] fredonia.edu> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:28:37 -0500 From: "Stephen E. Rees" Reply-To: Rees [at] fredonia.edu Subject: Re: theatrical architecture References: Also, Theaters and Auditoriums by Harold Burris-Meyer and Edward C. Cole. From 1949 but excellent basic information. Steve ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20041109093246.01c95410 [at] mail.comcast.net> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:36:48 -0500 From: "K. Daly" Subject: Re: theatrical architecture In-Reply-To: References: At 08:56 AM 11/9/2004, you wrote: >Architects (especially young ones) seem to think that reading a book on >theatre will qualify them to design theatres. You may be right: I wouldn't know. The person of whom I wrote originally is a student, not an architect (I believe I made that clear in the original message) and he's not dumb. He knows that he has absolutely everything yet to learn about theater design, which is why he is doing this as a student project, not as a commercial proposal. I told him that I thought studying books on the subject would be a perfectly reasonable first baby step (in a journey of a zillion miles) and I still think so. If we want to raise up a generation of architects who *can* do the job for us, we need to be kind to the students, and not brand them "arrogant" for asking questions. ------------------------------ From: "Jonathan S. Deull" Subject: RE: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:47:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: About two years ago I asked a question on this list. I said we were designing a new studio theatre (AKA black box) for our high school and I wanted to get a list of the 10 biggest mistakes people have seen or had to work with in such spaces. This turned out to be a very productive thread, and served us well in our design process. I'm sure it is still accessible in archives. BTW, we will break ground this coming spring, with a design which was informed by the input from this list. It isn't perfect, and there are many compromises we had to make, but I think it will be a good and workable space. Also, we had a really interesting design process, from which we learned a great deal. As we move along, I intend to document some of the lessons we learned and share them. This won't be for a while yet, though... Jonathan S. Deull Edmund Burke School Washington, DC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:59:34 -0500 Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes From: Steve Larson Message-ID: In-Reply-To: OK let's get it started. Biggest mistakes architects make when designing theatres: No loading dock Doors not big enough to handle trucks and scenery Air conditioning ducts which prohibit scenery moving onstage or battens flying where they should. No sound control between stage and shop Bad sight lines Not enough fly space Lighting positions that don't work or have bad or no access. Not enough power to space An in-house (not booth) space for audio mixing Not enough storage OK this will get us going. Goooooooooooo! Steve on 11/9/04 9:47 AM, Jonathan S. Deull at jdeull [at] clarktransfer.com wrote: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > About two years ago I asked a question on this list. I said we were > designing a new studio theatre (AKA black box) for our high school and I > wanted to get a list of the 10 biggest mistakes people have seen or had to > work with in such spaces. ------------------------------ Message-Id: Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:16:36 -0500 From: "CATHERINE BRUMM" Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes One I would like to add which is not as much a black box problem but in proscenuium theaters when the fly rail is not on deck level -No way to access the fly rail from back stage Also don't let them forget the small seemingly common sense stuff Mirrors in the dressing rooms logical costume hanging in the dressing rooms-especially in a HS setting I have two small dressing rooms with gym lockers the door that lead off the stage opening on the off-stage side so not to throw light across the stage when the door gets opened Catherine K. Brumm, General Manager Minnie Evans Arts Center Wilmington, NC P910-)790-2360 x821 F)910-790-2356 cbrumm [at] nhcs.k12.nc.us www.geocities.com/nhcscbrumm/index.html >>> tiptd [at] theatreinthepark.com 11/09/04 09:59AM >>> OK let's get it started. Biggest mistakes architects make when designing theatres: No loading dock Doors not big enough to handle trucks and scenery Air conditioning ducts which prohibit scenery moving onstage or battens flying where they should. No sound control between stage and shop Bad sight lines Not enough fly space Lighting positions that don't work or have bad or no access. Not enough power to space An in-house (not booth) space for audio mixing Not enough storage OK this will get us going. Goooooooooooo! Steve on 11/9/04 9:47 AM, Jonathan S. Deull at jdeull [at] clarktransfer.com wrote: > About two years ago I asked a question on this list. I said we were > designing a new studio theatre (AKA black box) for our high school and I > wanted to get a list of the 10 biggest mistakes people have seen or had to > work with in such spaces. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:15:45 -0500 From: MissWisc [at] aol.com Subject: Re: theatrical architecture Message-ID: <47A704F4.16BE3105.007B9F2A [at] aol.com> How about a middle ground then... encourage him to design a movie theatre. He's still be learning about sight lines, tech bridges, acoustics, seating/aisles, ADA, FOH needs, and so on without adding all the additional theatre hardware/rigging/lighting stuff in the process. One step at a time makes it manageable. Kristi ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 10 biggest mistakes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:18:12 -0500 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A74AD56 [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" > OK let's get it started. Biggest mistakes architects > make when designing theatres: >=20 > No loading dock N.B.: loading dock doors on the second (or higher) floor do not count. > No sound control between stage and shop > Bad sight lines Personally, I'd lean towards considering these somewhat minor problems...and maybe substitute "no means of getting from FOH to backstage without going outside" and "no isolated power for sound". And maybe "installing noisy HVAC and/or dimmer racks in close proximity to stage". > An in-house (not booth) space for audio mixing That's NOT a mistake, that's what SHOULD be happening! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:26:33 -0800 Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes Message-ID: <20041109.072637.3320.0.ladesigners [at] juno.com> From: Richard Niederberg The biggest issue that I am always fighting is height---on stage, in booths, understage, in pits, in lobbies, on covered loading docks, etc, etc, etc. /s/ Richard ________________________________________________________________ Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores. ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 10 biggest mistakes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:42:15 -0800 Message-ID: <555928311F8B2943B65FC7197942C3B732398B [at] es1.bsdnet.wednet.edu> From: "Storms, Randy" Amen, brother... our space was remodeled about four years ago and the = height of the stage was increased by three feet or so - the *grid,* = however, was left exactly where it was, and now I feel like I spend half = my life tripping scenery so it's not in view when it's supposed to be = out. You wouldn't think a couple of feet would make such a difference, = but it does... Another constant annoyance is our linesets - the original plan had them = on 8" centers,I think, which would have been OK. Then one day I walked = in to discover that somebody had decided that electric winches would be = safer than counterweight sets for the LX pipes. The winches, of course, = take up a lot more room on the rail, so (wait for it)... they just = shoved everything on either side of each winch over until it cleared, = and called it good. Now my first LX pipe fouls on the main rag every = ! [at] #$!!!! time it moves. The solution, I think, is to be proactive in reviewing drawings and = identifying problems. Good luck, -- r. Randy Storms --------------------------------------------------- The biggest issue that I am always fighting is height---on stage, in booths, understage, in pits, in lobbies, on covered loading docks, etc, etc, etc. /s/ Richard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:49:18 -0500 From: John Bracewell Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In-reply-to: Message-id: <5.2.0.9.0.20041109104307.00b5f740 [at] pop.lightlink.com> References: Inadequate acoustic damping of surfaces that would cause problematic sound reflections, especially when heavy reinforcement is required. High-pressure, high-velocity HVAC (a real no-no in my book). Wrong ratio of proscenium to grid height. Orchestra pits that aren't somewhat recessed under the stage (though some people may disagree with this on the grounds that the pit then interferes with trap space.) Inadequate or no backstage crossover space. -- JLB ------------------------------ From: "Ken Mark" Subject: C-Clamps and drops Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:06:39 -0500 Message-ID: Reply to reply From: "Mike Rock" Subject: Re: C-Clamps and drops >I can not recommend the use of clamps along to hold a drop. My freshman year >we had the same problem and used spring clamps and c clamps to fix it. Half >way through last dress there was a loud thud and the whole fly system >shook, turns out gravity overpowered the clamps and the drop fell four or >five feet and gathered enough speed to strain the system. I hate to think >what would have happened if a clamp would have fell or if it would have cause >it to tear causing it to fall. We're talking about a muslin painted backdrop here. Even at 24'H x 45'W (one of the larger ones we own) it weighs in at 60#. LARGE SPRING CLAMPS are just fine at every 2 feet, every 1 foot is even better as that is what the typical grommet spacing is. The Tie Lines could be brought up and tied through the little hole of the clamp to act as a safety. I would never use Woodworking C-Clamps with or without a safety. They just won't work unless you're going to sandwich the drop between two wooden battens (1x3 perhaps). I don't like the wooden batten because it adds weight and is something that could easily break and fall. It also means that you have to haul the whole thing up at once in a dead hung house. I CAN'T IMAGINE 60#'S over 1,080 square feet straining a fly system any where. With clamps at every foot, this scenario generates 1.33 pounds of tension per clamp. As stated before, YES there is an additional danger of tearing the drop. With a little care this shouldn't be an issue. I run a production rental house and I have recommended this system to clients who REALLY WANT a drop that is just to high for their house and have ZERO problems to date. MAKE SURE YOU PLACE THE SPRING CLAMPS ON FROM THE TOP, CLAMPING THE DROP AGAINST THE PIPE, KEEPING THE JAW ENDS IN CONTACT WITH THE PIPE. THE SPRING CLAMPS COME WITH PROTECTIVE ENDS. ADD SOME GAFFERS TAPE FOR MORE PROTECTION. Mike, you are the original poster here, right? Why are you questioning the T.D. anyway? Seriously, no malice intended. Just trying to be helpful? My original post on this subject follows: As for rigging a backdrop that is too tall... I typically fold over the portion I don't need and put on a WHOLE LOT of LARGE SPRING Clamps. Every other foot seems to work nicely. Be CAREFUL. there is always the danger of tearing the drop. Just keep the clamp jaws on the pipe. ____ This is the Pipe (the spring clamp is represented by / the carats, just put them on from the TOP) || || || Down Stage || || | | | | | The 5' not needed is US with good side now FACING US Kenneth Mark Production Rentals Manager 439 County Route 45 Argyle, NY 12809 VOX: 518/761-3360 FAX: 518/761-3361 Mobile: 518/222-7750 On the Web at: www.adirondackscenic.com Visit the Production Rental On-Line Photo Album at: www.geocities.com/asikenmark ------------------------------ Message-ID: <003f01c4c679$7a4cea20$80fea8c0 [at] Fred> From: "Mike Rock" References: Subject: Re: C-Clamps and drops Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:30:51 -0600 Looking back on it I guess I could have worded it a little better. >I CAN'T IMAGINE 60#'S over 1,080 square feet straining a fly system any >where.. I guess strain might not have been the best word, as there was no bent steal or anything like that. Joulted might have been a better one. > MAKE SURE YOU PLACE THE SPRING CLAMPS ON FROM THE TOP, CLAMPING THE DROP > AGAINST THE PIPE, KEEPING THE JAW ENDS IN CONTACT WITH THE PIPE. THE SPRING > CLAMPS COME WITH PROTECTIVE ENDS. ADD SOME GAFFERS TAPE FOR MORE PROTECTION. While the details are a bit shaded, I think we clamped the drop to itself, and used the c-clamps with some boards to sandwich it. > Mike, you are the original poster here, right? Why are you questioning the > T.D. anyway? Seriously, no malice intended. Just trying to be helpful? I thought there was a better way, I get along well witht my TD, but sometime I think there might be a better or safer way. The goal WAS NOT to come back saying I'm right your wrong hahahahha. Mike ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20041109084211.02d63f58 [at] localhost> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:42:48 -0800 From: Jerry Durand Subject: Re: theatrical architecture In-Reply-To: References: At 05:56 AM 11/9/2004, you wrote: >2) There is no such things as too much storage space in a theatre. With access for LARGE items. Doors that can actually be used, etc. ---------- Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. 219 Oak Wood Way Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA tel: +1 408 356-3886 fax: +1 408 356-4659 web: www.interstellar.com ------------------------------ From: Subject: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:58:23 -0500 Message-Id: <20041109165825.NMPB27180.fed1rmmtao05.cox.net [at] smtp.west.cox.net> > He knows architecture but not theater; >can anyone recommend a good book for him on the unique needs of theaters >when it comes to designing the structure? Sounds like an experiment in real life. If he wants to teach his kids about architecture as it relates to theatre, he needs to know theatre, and mostly stuff that you can't get from a book. This list (if allowed) will bloom like springtime with stories of 'book-learned' architects that designed their, or some other, theatre. They tend to do it remarkabley poorly, and then teach new students to do it remarkably poorly. Give your istructor buddy the gift that no one gave him. Tell him that ifhe wants to knkow about the special needs of theatres, got to theatres. Go find techs and crew and actors that used to work at the theatre that he wants to renovate, and ask them what the original architect missed, and what he nailed. Go to newer theatres and talk to the folk that work there. The students will get a far better education in theatrical architecture than offered (apparently) anywhere else in the world. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: UK Casual Pay comparison Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:59:06 -0500 Message-Id: <20041109165908.NOHF14545.fed1rmmtao09.cox.net [at] smtp.west.cox.net> >At twenty shillings for each pound in mine eyes, sixty shiny new pennies >wilt come to no less than TWELVE shillings! > I knew that, and still got the math wrong. Somehow I took twenty and decided that twenty of sixty equals three. "OK, soundguy, step AWAY from the rigging and put the claculator down nice and easy!" ------------------------------ Message-ID: <000601c4c682$a9a02770$0300a8c0 [at] D4D3R151> From: "Randy Whitcomb" References: Subject: Re: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:36:36 -0700 >>2) There is no such things as too much storage space in a theatre. > > With access for LARGE items. Doors that can actually be used, etc. Amen, Amen. Not just storage space though. Wing space. If you have a musical with 8 sets, one is on stage at a time, where do the other 7 sit? For educational facilities you need enough classroom space. How many of us have to contend with our stages used as classrooms, which limits our ability to schedule outside groups as well as our own tech needs? For high schools, don't locate the theatre anywhere near the gym or cafeteria and provide adequate bathroom facilities. Assume that wrestling sectionals will be held the same night that the local civic music association schedules a string quartet! Randy Whitcomb, TD Price Civic Aud. Loveland, CO. ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <20.37834dc0.2ec25adf [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:39:43 EST Subject: Re: UK Casual Pay comparison In a message dated 09/11/04 04:59:01 GMT Standard Time, psyd [at] cox.net writes: > A four pound three shilling (is that correct old math?) stagehand is the > going rate in Shakespeare's day. No. Four pounds twelve shillings would be the right conversion. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-ID: <003f01c4c684$fc3486a0$0600000a [at] BRUTUS> From: "Jon Ares" References: Subject: Re: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:53:13 -0800 > For high schools, don't locate the theatre anywhere near the gym or > cafeteria and provide adequate bathroom facilities. Ok, funny but sad story..... regarding our recently-torn-down facility. The mainstage was located next to the gym. Auditorium was built first, then some years (decades) later the gym was added next to it - basically built off the freestanding auditorium wall. Every time there was a basketball game, or other event that required heavy air-moving, the catwalks in the auditorium would jiggle and squeek unrelentlessly. Sounded like the ol' bedsprings upstairs in a cheap roadside motel, I kid you not. Most embarassing during a show - sounded like a little 'action' going on above the audience's head. Oh, and the weight room UNDER the theatre - and they'd turn their stereo on real loud, then leave the place all locked up with Black Sabbath blasting away during a show. Ok, fast forward to demolishion time: tear down the auditorium. Surprise: the gym wall was not made from reinforced concrete! It was tied into the auditorium wall, so they nearly lose a huge amount of building as it collapses under its own weight. They've beefed up the crumbly wall now with lots of steel, but it was a scary discovery. Oh, how I wish the standard wasn't "Lowest Bidder." Things like this come back to bite you. -- Jon Ares Program Director, West Linn HS Theatre Arts www.hevanet.com/acreative http://www.wlhs.wlwv.k12.or.us/aresj/theatre/index.htm ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <74.464e9e8c.2ec25e18 [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:53:28 EST Subject: Re: theatrical architecture In a message dated 09/11/04 12:16:45 GMT Standard Time, MOOREM4 [at] rpi.edu writes: > Getting architects, consultants, construction managers, etc to > understand "the unique needs of theaters when it comes to designing the > structure" would be something those of us involved in building theatres > would love to be able to do. > > Prestigious architects etc. continue to screw up theatres. So do non-prestigious ones. It is vitally important, before any work is specified, to have the proposals thoroughly vetted. That means getting in the full drawings and specifications well before work starts, to give your own experts a chance to study them, and to point out snags. For instance, when we had some work done a few years ago, the architect proposed to site a support column on a manhole cover. Guess who paid for moving the manhole! It is a great help if there is somebody across the project who understands the theatre rules. And the electrical rules, and the plumbing rules, and so on. Not to mention the fire codes. Good luck! Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-Id: <200411091803.iA9I3tPr026064 [at] gryphon.auspice.net> Subject: Re: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:03:55 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Stephen E. Rees" at Nov 09, 2004 09:28:37 AM From: James Feinberg If you can find a copy, "Theatre Check List, A Guide to the Planning and Construction of Proscenium and Open Stage Theatres." Prepared by and published for The American Theatre Planning Board, Inc.; Jo Melziner, chairman; Edward F. Kook, vice-chairman; Henry Hewes, executive secretary; with drawings by Ming Cho Lee. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT, 1969 distributed by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. from the back cover, a quote from "Choice": ...can and should be studied by everyone contemplating construction of a performing arts building. ... The physical plant, the needs of the audience, the performer, and the technician are all discussed with attention to standard problems and inventive suggestions. ... Handsomely illustrated with a variety of informative sketches and diagrams, this book brings together information generally gathered form researching many more expensive volumes, and it presents this information in a way that is understandable to both layman and professional artist. ISBN 0-8195-6005-7 --James Feinberg University of San Diego ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1eb.2d59d593.2ec25f79 [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:59:21 EST Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In a message dated 09/11/04 15:19:01 GMT Standard Time, pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu writes: > > An in-house (not booth) space for audio mixing > > That's NOT a mistake, that's what SHOULD be happening! Well, it depends on what you are trying to do. For doing a PA mix, you are right, but for playing in effects, I think that you are wrong. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:02:29 EST Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In a message dated 09/11/04 15:48:50 GMT Standard Time, jbrace [at] lightlink.com writes: > Inadequate acoustic damping of surfaces that would cause problematic sound > reflections, especially when heavy reinforcement is required. Very true. But, how many architects understand acoustics on any level? This really does need a specialist, with a reputation for getting it right. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-ID: <886EF25AF8BEF64EB89A820EF84064FF0A28DA28 [at] UCMAIL4> From: "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" Subject: RE: theatrical architecture (longer than I intended) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:39:24 -0500 I have no problem with this being a student project. I would hope that in addition to reading some books, which is a good thing, that he go over to the theater department, make an appointment with the TD, LD, SD and all the other little D's and ask them what they need and what they do. Maybe he could crew for a show or at least shadow someone. Then, when the project is complete and is to be evaluated his teachers include a number of theater professionals on the review board. We might even encourage the student or faculty member to do some more serious study in the area. The problem is not only do many architects not know about our profession, they think they know enough about everything and refuse to listen to those that do know. If the architect says, "tell me what you do and how you do it", we would all give him all the time requested. When the architect presents something we think unworkable they need to listen to us and we need to explain why it is unworkable. On our recent renovation the ceiling in one theater was redesigned three times because the original designs did not permit the FOH lighting to get to where it was needed on stage. Finally they said, "you show us where we cannot put ceiling and we will design around it". We did and they did and it is fine now. They weren't happy about the situation but our administration insisted that we be listened to. Too often the administration does not support the professional staff that uses and teaches in the space and really does know what is right and what is wrong. I know of a case where the architect wanted to put the lighting patch panel (it was a number of years ago) on the grid and also the height of grid to ceiling was only 4'. His answer when questioned on this was that, "he did shows when he was in HS and nobody ever went up there and also once the dimmers where patched nobody ever changed it". The patch panel did get moved but the height above the grid did not change. He was prophetic, nobody went up there. The administration supported the architect not the TD who had been teaching there for a number of years. Oh, well. I say we should encourage this student and his project as much as we can. He may be the wave of the future. Steve Waxler Technical Director College Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati How about a middle ground then... encourage him to design a movie theatre. He's still be learning about sight lines, tech bridges, acoustics, seating/aisles, ADA, FOH needs, and so on without adding all the additional theatre hardware/rigging/lighting stuff in the process. One step at a time makes it manageable. Kristi ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 10 biggest mistakes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:49:02 -0500 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A74AD57 [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" > > > An in-house (not booth) space for audio mixing > > =20 > > That's NOT a mistake, that's what SHOULD be happening! >=20 > Well, it depends on what you are trying to do. For doing a PA=20 > mix, you are=20 > right, but for playing in effects, I think that you are wrong. Read that again, Frank...it does specifically state "for audio mixing." If a theatre plans to never ever ever ever use microphones and merely use a sound console only for effects and/or recorded music, then what you're proposing would be acceptable IMO. But then again, allowing for no flexibility or growth in the design of the space is another one of those things that architects really need to work on... With the potential of needing microphones for a live show, there always should be the conduit and cable and space necessary to stick an audio console in the house. ------------------------------ From: "Jonathan S. Deull" Subject: RE: 10 biggest mistakes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:18:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm glad to see that everyone is having so much fun with this topic. I feel obligated to note again, as in my original post, that we did this thread very thoroughly two years ago and it is still -- as far as I know -- in the archives. Jonathan ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 10 biggest mistakes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:37:16 -0800 Message-ID: <555928311F8B2943B65FC7197942C3B732398C [at] es1.bsdnet.wednet.edu> From: "Storms, Randy" My motto is: "Every two years, whether we need to or not..." ;-> -- r. Randy Storms --------------------------------------------------- I'm glad to see that everyone is having so much fun with this topic. I = feel obligated to note again, as in my original post, that we did this thread very thoroughly two years ago and it is still -- as far as I know -- in = the archives. Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:56:11 -0500 From: John Bracewell Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In-reply-to: Message-id: <5.2.0.9.0.20041109145358.00b681e8 [at] pop.lightlink.com> >If a theatre plans to never ever ever ever use microphones and merely >use a sound console only for effects and/or recorded music, then what >you're proposing would be acceptable IMO. I'd disagree. At this point in time, I'd always want the sound control in the audience space. We don't have the problem of loud, clicky tape recorder solenoids to deal with these days, so operational noise in that sense is not an issue. Ways do exist to handle operator communications with the SM, though that is a potential source of distracting noise. In any case, I'd prefer to have the sound operation in the house, not in a booth. -- JLB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:52:14 -0500 Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes From: Steve Larson Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Exactly! Will the current occupant be there forever? Create flexibility. You may not have the job there tomorrow. The next person may have a different idea on what will go in the space. Steve on 11/9/04 1:49 PM, Paul Schreiner at pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu wrote: > > If a theatre plans to never ever ever ever use microphones and merely > use a sound console only for effects and/or recorded music, then what > you're proposing would be acceptable IMO. ------------------------------ Message-ID: From: Wood Chip-P26398 Subject: RE: 10 biggest mistakes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:36:37 -0700 Of course since Frank, as sound op, never communicates with his SM during the show, no big deal. :>) However, since most of the communications during a show should be from the SM to the sound op's earphone and not vice-versa, that usually is not a problem in more conventionally SM run shows either. Even if only playing effects, I still want to hear them in the space and not from behind glass. -----Original Message----- From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of John Bracewell so operational noise in that sense is not an issue. Ways do exist to handle operator communications with the SM, though that is a potential source of distracting noise. In any case, I'd prefer to have the sound operation in the house, not in a booth. -- JLB ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 10 biggest mistakes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:40:54 -0500 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A74AD60 [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" > >If a theatre plans to never ever ever ever use microphones=20 > and merely=20 > >use a sound console only for effects and/or recorded music,=20 > then what=20 > >you're proposing would be acceptable IMO. >=20 > I'd disagree. At this point in time, I'd always want the=20 > sound control in=20 > the audience space. In=20 > any case, I'd prefer to have the sound operation in the=20 > house, not in a booth. Okay, so I didn't phrase myself properly. How about "would be acceptable IMO, though by no means preferred"? ------------------------------ Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:14:22 -0500 From: "richard j. archer" Subject: Flash Card cheers Listmembers; Not seemingly much to do with theatre (or so you might think) but does anyone out there know what the size is of the cards are that are used at football games when a whole section of fans use the cards to form pictures?? At various times and places called Coordinated card stunts and cheering , or Flash Card Cheering Sections, or by some other name. Thanks. Dick A TD, Cornell U ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20041109170228.01ce95d0 [at] mail.comcast.net> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0500 From: "K. Daly" Subject: Re: theatrical architecture In-Reply-To: References: >Give your istructor buddy the gift that no one gave him. He's not an instructor. He's a student. ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20041109105857.01ccc958 [at] mail.comcast.net> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:24:17 -0500 From: "K. Daly" Subject: Re: theatrical architecture In-Reply-To: References: >How about a middle ground then... encourage him to design a movie theatre. We don't need a movie theater. It's a student project, and we are making our space available to him to study and to learn from. We, meantime, will learn from him and his team of faculty advisors how to talk to architects. Then five years from now when we have the money to renovate for real, we'll speak architect and can hire someone who speaks theater. Maybe my friend, if he has graduated by then, maybe someone else. Or maybe this whole idea was a bad one: I seem to be having a terrible time explaining the concept. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <886EF25AF8BEF64EB89A820EF84064FF0A28DCAF [at] UCMAIL4> From: "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" Subject: RE: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:41:05 -0500 Don't give up on it. The concept is good. For our renovation we taught an architect theater and he translated language between acrhcitectezze and theaterezze. It worked very well. Not only did he review each drawing, but he reviewed them with us and he learned more and we learned more. We were both willing to open up and gain from the experience. Steve Waxler Technical Director College Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati Maybe my friend, if he has graduated by then, maybe someone else. Or maybe this whole idea was a bad one: I seem to be having a terrible time explaining the concept. ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:48:42 EST Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In a message dated 09/11/04 18:50:07 GMT Standard Time, pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu writes: > Read that again, Frank...it does specifically state "for audio mixing." I did guess that you meant PA, but thought it important that the distinction should be drawn. > > With the potential of needing microphones for a live show, there always > should be the conduit and cable and space necessary to stick an audio > console in the house. We have an old-fashioned habit of using actors and singers who can be heard. That's why we seldom do musicals. Someone who can't sing, furnished with a microphone, is simply someone who can't sing, VERY LOUD! Not good theatre. But yes. The facilities should be provided, but not to the detriment of the more important functions. Only you can decide the balance. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <8c.194fb2dd.2ec2b309 [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:55:53 EST Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In a message dated 09/11/04 19:55:54 GMT Standard Time, jbrace [at] lightlink.com writes: > I'd disagree. At this point in time, I'd always want the sound control in > the audience space. We don't have the problem of loud, clicky tape > recorder solenoids to deal with these days, so operational noise in that > sense is not an issue. Ways do exist to handle operator communications > with the SM, though that is a potential source of distracting noise. In > any case, I'd prefer to have the sound operation in the house, not in a > booth. And, I'ld disagree. Once they have been established in rehearsal. the sound operations are as much tablets of stone as are those for the lighting operator, assuming that they have been properly documented. The exact timing may vary, depending on the actors. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1a7.2a9a839d.2ec2b479 [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:02:01 EST Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In a message dated 09/11/04 20:37:41 GMT Standard Time, Chip.Wood [at] motorola.com writes: > Of course since Frank, as sound op, never communicates with his SM during the > show, no big deal. :>) > > However, since most of the communications during a show should be from the > SM to the sound op's earphone and not vice-versa, that usually is not a > problem in more conventionally SM run shows either. Even if only playing > effects, I still want to hear them in the space and not from behind glass. Why? At rehearsal, the levels will have been set by the designer, and documented. Why do you presume to override the decisions of the SD and the director? Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <8d.195e1301.2ec2b5eb [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:08:11 EST Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In a message dated 09/11/04 21:41:43 GMT Standard Time, pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu writes: > > >If a theatre plans to never ever ever ever use microphones > > and merely > > >use a sound console only for effects and/or recorded music, > > then what > > >you're proposing would be acceptable IMO. > > > > I'd disagree. At this point in time, I'd always want the > > sound control in > > the audience space. In > > any case, I'd prefer to have the sound operation in the > > house, not in a booth. > > Okay, so I didn't phrase myself properly. How about "would be > acceptable IMO, though by no means preferred"? Why? If you propose to do live mixes, I have no problem with this. Indeed, I think it essential. Effects playback is a different question. This should have been sorted out at the tech, and the levels set. I find it arrogant that the operator should presume to change them. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: "Andy Leviss" Subject: RE: 10 biggest mistakes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:08:44 -0500 Organization: Duck's Echo Sound Message-ID: <005f01c4c6b9$724ee900$a19afea9 [at] AndyLeviss> In-Reply-To: Am I the only one who finds the thought of Frank Wood (basically) questioning John Bracewell's judgment on sound design/operation principles really, really funny? Wonder if Frank knows that John is literally the guy who wrote the book on sound design for theatre... --Andy --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <6a.48e5cfa2.2ec2b682 [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:10:42 EST Subject: Re: theatrical architecture In a message dated 09/11/04 23:41:59 GMT Standard Time, WAXLERS [at] UCMAIL.UC.EDU writes: > Don't give up on it. The concept is good. For our renovation we taught an > architect theater and he translated language between acrhcitectezze and > theaterezze. It worked very well. Not only did he review each drawing, but > he reviewed them with us and he learned more and we learned more. We were > both willing to open up and gain from the experience. You don't get more lucky than that! Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1e4.2dd50ed5.2ec2b8eb [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:20:59 EST Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In a message dated 10/11/04 00:09:38 GMT Standard Time, Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com writes: > Am I the only one who finds the thought of Frank Wood (basically) > questioning John Bracewell's judgment on sound design/operation > principles really, really funny? Wonder if Frank knows that John is > literally the guy who wrote the book on sound design for theatre.. Well, it depends on what you think theatre sound design is about.Mikeing up shows is one side of the coin. Creating a believable sound environment for the audience is another.I belong to the latter school. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20041109191731.01b26b08 [at] mail.insightbb.com> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 19:25:46 -0500 From: Mike Brubaker Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes In-Reply-To: References: ...and when did any of us reach a point where we have the only right answer? There are lots of ways to do theatre, including performance, lighting, sound, scenery, staging, stage managing...the list goes on. There are definitely unsafe practices, bad ideas and foolish approaches, but there are also lots of "right" ways to produce the end product. As I once told a student I was providing some lighting instruction to (after presenting problem): "Keep in mind that there are lots of answers to this. Some are more effective than others. I would come up with a different solution than the guy down the hall, and from you." This creativity and variety of solutions to problems is what makes the performing arts interesting, exciting, and fun. Mike At 07:08 PM 11/9/2004, Andy Leviss wrote: >Am I the only one who finds the thought of Frank Wood (basically) >questioning John Bracewell's judgment on sound design/operation >principles really, really funny? Wonder if Frank knows that John is >literally the guy who wrote the book on sound design for theatre... ------------------------------ Message-ID: <41916154.8040800 [at] davidmarks.cc> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 19:31:16 -0500 From: David Marks Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes References: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote: >Effects playback is a different question. This should have been sorted out at >the tech, and the levels set. I find it arrogant that the operator should >presume to change them. > > > Right. The tech levels are set without an audience in place, without an audience reaction. The "operator" is there to react to the audience reaction, to ride an effects fade over audience laughter, applause, to judge the size of the audience on a particular night. A roll of thunder played to a full house is going to be considerably louder than to a half empty house. But I'm probably wrong.............. Dave Marks, sound guy ------------------------------ Message-ID: <147CF8DFB9C5D41187300001FA7EE390237E2A64 [at] mail.nwmissouri.edu> From: "Immel,Patrick" Subject: RE: Flash Card cheers Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:32:30 -0600 I was a part of such a card "trick" at a Huskers football game, (Nebraska US). If I remember the card was about 18" x 24"...we made a big American flag. Patrick Immel Northwest Missouri State University > -----Original Message----- > From: richard j. archer [mailto:rja10 [at] cornell.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:14 PM > To: Stagecraft > Subject: Flash Card cheers > > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Listmembers; > > Not seemingly much to do with theatre (or so you might think) > but does anyone out there know what the size is of the cards > are that are used at football games when a whole section of > fans use the cards to > form pictures?? At various times and places called Coordinated card > stunts and cheering , or Flash Card Cheering Sections, or by > some other name. Thanks. > > Dick A > TD, Cornell U > ------------------------------ Message-ID: <4191666D.9010901 [at] peak.org> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:53:01 -0800 From: Pat Kight Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes References: In-Reply-To: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 09/11/04 20:37:41 GMT Standard Time, > Chip.Wood [at] motorola.com writes: >> However, since most of the communications during a show should be from the >>SM to the sound op's earphone and not vice-versa, that usually is not a >>problem in more conventionally SM run shows either. Even if only playing >>effects, I still want to hear them in the space and not from behind glass. > > > Why? At rehearsal, the levels will have been set by the designer, and > documented. Why do you presume to override the decisions of the SD and the director? If only it were that easy. I'm very much not a sound designer, but as a sometimes director and sometimes stage manager, I've worked closely with several good ones. In my experience, levels can and do change significantly from night to night - at least in our theater - depending on how many bodies are in the house, the air temperature and relatively humidity and even how much traffic is going by street outside our building (or the railroad tracks in back). Our general practice is to set base levels in rehearsal, with the understanding that the sound operator - usually working from the booth - will take direction from the SM about whether to raise or lower them from one performance to the next. Shows that don't do that - that set a level and stick with it - invariably have nights when the sound is too loud or too soft for the prevailing audience and conditions. -- Pat Kight Albany (Ore.) Civic Theater kightp [at] peak.org http://albanycivic.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:13:11 -0800 Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes Message-ID: <20041109.171316.1272.2.ladesigners [at] juno.com> From: Richard Niederberg In a newly designed theatre, where you lose NO seats to sound consoles or handicap spaces because the design achieves the maximum legal amount of seats pursuant to the fire code notwithstanding empty spaces, it is, of course, much easier to justify the space taken up by a PM 4000 as a 'hot standby' for the obligatory PM 5D or functional equivalent, along with 4 racks of outboard gear and multiple dimmed video monitors. /s/ Richard ________________________________________________________________ Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <886EF25AF8BEF64EB89A820EF84064FF0A28DCE6 [at] UCMAIL4> From: "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" Subject: RE: Hoffend Vortek system Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:44:52 -0500 Personally, whether it be a CW or Vortek system I would want a grid iron. I want to be able to do the special "stuff" when I want. Whether it be hang an additional motor or a little trip line for a trick. I also would like access to the Vortek equipment for periodic inspection, if nothing else. Steve Waxler Technical Director College Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati _____________________ Thanks Bill. This may very well be true. My thinking is that for many CW systems the 30,000 pound load may not be spread out over a 30'x40' grid, but it might rest entirely on 4 or 5 I-beams, so the load on each beam could get significant and the resultant load would be make a real difference in the size of the steel. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that it would be much easier to spread the load over more (smaller) beams with the Vortek system, than with an under hung CW system. Even it the theatre gets a full grid to spread to load out, the beams that supports the head blocks in a CW system have got to be pretty massive and fairly expensively. I have seen far more high school theatres with under hung rigging than ones with full gridirons. If Joe's architect is concerned with money, the possibilities of him getting a full grid don't look good to me. As I said, I am not an engineer, nor am I an architect. I don't know the cost of the steel or the cost to install it. His architect seems to think that this might save them some money. I don't know if this is true or not, but it makes sense to me. I think many new high school theatres (like Joe's) might opt for the Vortek system. There are certainly good reasons to go with this system, just as there are good reasons to go with a counterweight system (and some people might say that there are good reasons to go with a dead-hung pipes). Just my opinion. -Delbert ------------------------------ Message-ID: <886EF25AF8BEF64EB89A820EF84064FF0A28DCEA [at] UCMAIL4> From: "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" Subject: RE: Hoffend Vortek system Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:52:49 -0500 Bill, I am sure you knew better than to ask a question like that on this list. bail*i*wick ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bl-wk) n. A person's specific area of interest, skill, or authority. See Synonyms at field. The office or district of a bailiff. Middle English bailliwik : baillif, bailiff; see bailiff + wik, town (from Old English wc, from Latin vcus. See vicinity).] Bail"i*wick\, n. [Bailie, bailiff + wick a village.] (Law) The precincts within which a bailiff has jurisdiction; the limits of a bailiff's authority. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (c) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. Steve Waxler Technical Director College Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati This is my bailiwick. (BTW...what the hell is a bailiwick?) Zat help? Bill S. Sapsis Rigging, Inc. www.sapsis-rigging.com 800.727.7471 800.292.3851 fax 267.278.4561 mobile We stand behind, and under, our work. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:05:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Hoffend Vortek system From: Bill Sapsis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: on 11/9/04 8:44 PM, Waxler, Steve (waxlers) at WAXLERS [at] UCMAIL.UC.EDU wrote: > I think many new high school theatres (like Joe's) might opt for the > Vortek system. There are certainly good reasons to go with this system, > just as there are good reasons to go with a counterweight system (and > some people might say that there are good reasons to go with a dead-hung > pipes). One of the things to remember about the Vortek (or any system like it) is that it does not replace the need for a headblock beam. That's because the winch system IS the headblock. You will still need those big beefy beams and all the lateral support you can muster. In short, there won't be much savings over a traditional C/W system. Bill S. www.sapsis-rigging.com 800.727.7471 800.292.3851 fax 267.278.4561 mobile We stand behind, and under, our work. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <886EF25AF8BEF64EB89A820EF84064FF0A28DCF4 [at] UCMAIL4> From: "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" Subject: RE: Hoffend Vortek system Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:07:57 -0500 Some how some very old email was mixed in with the new stuff. Sorry for the repetition. Ditto for the next post also. Steve Waxler Technical Director College Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati -----Original Message----- From: Waxler, Steve (waxlers) [mailto:WAXLERS [at] UCMAIL.UC.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:45 PM To: Stagecraft Subject: Re: Hoffend Vortek system For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Personally, whether it be a CW or Vortek system I would want a grid iron. I want to be able to do the special "stuff" when I want. Whether it be hang an additional motor or a little trip line for a trick. I also would like access to the Vortek equipment for periodic inspection, if nothing else. Steve Waxler Technical Director College Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati _____________________ Thanks Bill. This may very well be true. My thinking is that for many CW systems the 30,000 pound load may not be spread out over a 30'x40' grid, but it might rest entirely on 4 or 5 I-beams, so the load on each beam could get significant and the resultant load would be make a real difference in the size of the steel. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that it would be much easier to spread the load over more (smaller) beams with the Vortek system, than with an under hung CW system. Even it the theatre gets a full grid to spread to load out, the beams that supports the head blocks in a CW system have got to be pretty massive and fairly expensively. I have seen far more high school theatres with under hung rigging than ones with full gridirons. If Joe's architect is concerned with money, the possibilities of him getting a full grid don't look good to me. As I said, I am not an engineer, nor am I an architect. I don't know the cost of the steel or the cost to install it. His architect seems to think that this might save them some money. I don't know if this is true or not, but it makes sense to me. I think many new high school theatres (like Joe's) might opt for the Vortek system. There are certainly good reasons to go with this system, just as there are good reasons to go with a counterweight system (and some people might say that there are good reasons to go with a dead-hung pipes). Just my opinion. -Delbert ------------------------------ Message-ID: <41917A38.98D5C09 [at] cybercom.net> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:17:29 -0500 From: Dale Farmer Subject: Re: Flash Card cheers References: "richard j. archer" wrote: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > Listmembers; > > Not seemingly much to do with theatre (or so you might think) but > does anyone out there know what the size is of the cards are that are > used at football games when a whole section of fans use the cards to > form pictures?? At various times and places called Coordinated card > stunts and cheering , or Flash Card Cheering Sections, or by some > other name. Thanks. > > Dick A > TD, Cornell U While the dimensions vary from venue to venue, you basically want a square that is the same size as the footprint of each seat, less a couple of inches for ease of handling. So if you have seats that are 30 inches wide ( center to center ) and the rows are every 36 inches, then a card about 28 x 32 inches. This also depends on your viewing angle. The above example is for a blimp or helicopter shot. If you intend the cards to be seen by the players on the field or the people sitting in the opposite stands, you want to use the rise between each row, rather than the distance between each row as the controlling measure if vertical card dimension. --Dale ------------------------------ Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20041109213624.0274f320 [at] pop.lightlink.com> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:46:38 -0500 From: John Bracewell Subject: Audio operation in the audience space (was 10 biggest mistakes) In-Reply-To: >Well, it depends on what you think theatre sound design is about.Mikeing up >shows is one side of the coin. Creating a believable sound environment for >the >audience is another.I belong to the latter school. Frank, I belong to both sides of the coin. In fact, if anything, I'm more of a designer who does audio environments than I am a designer who does reinforcement systems. And as a sound score designer, I still say that I want my operator in the same space as the audience. Yes, I set levels in tech, but as others have pointed out, performances and audiences change from night to night. I want my operator to learn what I want to hear and to feel empowered to adjust as needed in order to accomplish that goal from night to night. No, I don't want the operator to change the timing of the cues or to make a radical alteration in level, but I do want the level to match the intensity of the performance as each performance varies. Now, here's where we get into trouble, I realize, but here we go. The SM still calls the cue, so the timing of the show remains in the hands of the SM; but, for my dime, the actual sound of the cues should be in the hands of the operator. That said, fine adjustments get more and more difficult as we use levels set in a computer, but that can be overcome. I do use both Audiobox and SFX, but if I need to I can also put a Motormix on the Audiobox and let the operator have a limited amount of control. And with SFX I usually route sounds from the computer through a standard console. Naturally, I'm not going to entrust every operator who comes along with the power to change my levels, but when I find someone I trust, you bet I'm going to let him or her have that ability, because I'll get a better show than if the cue levels are set in stone. -- JLB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:02:39 -0500 Subject: Re: 10 biggest mistakes From: Mike Benonis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: My biggest problem with our theatre is a poorly designed wireless system that is inflexible and not expandable. Therefore, we have to place receivers in the back stage area, which leads to the second biggest problem: not enough microphone ports in the backstage area. We have seven ports backstage, and six in front of the stage - that's really helpful when you have 9+ things backstage to plug in! Best regards, -Mike Benonis Senior and Sound Designer/Technician Stone Bridge High School 43100 Hay Road Ashburn, VA 20147 (703) 779-8900 On 11/9/04 9:59 AM, "Steve Larson" wrote: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > OK let's get it started. Biggest mistakes architects > make when designing theatres: > > No loading dock > Doors not big enough to handle trucks and scenery > Air conditioning ducts which prohibit scenery > moving onstage or battens flying where they should. > No sound control between stage and shop > Bad sight lines > Not enough fly space > Lighting positions that don't work or have > bad or no access. > Not enough power to space > An in-house (not booth) space for audio mixing > Not enough storage > > OK this will get us going. Goooooooooooo! > > Steve ------------------------------ From: MissWisc [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1d4.2ef921dd.2ec2e988 [at] aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:48:24 EST Subject: Re: Flash Card cheers Cc: rja10 [at] cornell.edu Thinking out loud... it would have to correspond with the size of the seats/aisles being covered. Some stadiums have pie-shaped sections that might need trapezoid shaped cards if accuracy is needed. Just as in theatres, stadium seats may vary in size from 17-23" (appx 45-60 CM for our metric friends). Is there bench seating? Where will the cards be stored/how will they be distributed? Lots of variables. In general, you'd need something with an inch or two around the edges for fingers to fit and would want a card that is printed then wax coated to protect from small amounts of moisture. Kristi ------------------------------ In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <34041392-32CD-11D9-AE4C-00039301A716 [at] masck.com> From: Paul Masck Subject: Re: theatrical architecture Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:01:30 -0500 On Nov 9, 2004, at 6:00 AM, Stagecraft wrote: > Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20041108192901.01ce32e0 [at] mail.comcast.net> > Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:31:25 -0500 > From: "K. Daly" > Subject: theatrical architecture > In-Reply-To: > References: > > An architecture student friend is making a project for his class out of > re-designing a tired old theater. He knows architecture but not > theater; > can anyone recommend a good book for him on the unique needs of > theaters > when it comes to designing the structure? From an educational/historical perspective, George Izenour's massive tome "Theater Design" has long been a reference. This is sometimes hard to find, but was reprinted in the 90s, and most university libraries have a copy. ISBN 0-07-032086-1 The companion volume "Theatre Technology" is not as applicable. ISBN 0-07-032039-X Another one that's pretty interesting is called "Will it make a theatre?" all about using and converting found spaces. Dated now, but still interesting. ISBN 0-933750-00-5 My all time favorite is a classic: "Theatre Check List" by the long defunct American Theatre Planning Board. Still a brilliant book, and very useful even today. I give a copy to everyone I know involved with building a theatre. American Theatre Planning Board, Illustrated by Ming Cho Lee Theatre Check List : A Guide to the Plannning and Contruction of Proscenium and Open Stage Theatres Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1969 These and a few hundred more, are listed on my website at http://www.masck.com/bib.html a fairly complete list of books and resources about theatre architecture. P... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Masck paul [at] masck.com www.masck.com slave to the misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Subject: DMX issues and a VL2202 question Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:21:37 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Mike Burnett" I'm 1 day from opening and having a fit with some DMX. I have no idea what to try next, so if any of you have some suggestions, I am ready to try anything. THE SETUP Expression 3 console DMX 1 - daisy chain to house EDI dimmers and lightronic dimmer packs, terminator DMX 2 - to Martin Mac 600s, terminator DMX 3 - daisy chain of lightronic dimmer packs, VL2202, Diversitronics strobe, and Martin Mac 500s, terminator THE PROBLEM At some point in a run-through, the lights on DMX 3 start to wig out. The moving lights move by themselves, panning and tilting all over the place, running through colors and gobos, and changing intensities. The lights on the lightronic packs start random flashing. The strobe randomly flashes. This will continue for 30-60 seconds. Sometimes we turn off the console and it fixes itself. Sometimes it fixes itself on its own. This evening's dress was all over the place, with it happening about 10 times in a 2 hour show. What could be causing this? We have run these setups in the past without issue, though the lightronic packs have given us fits in the past, we seem to have gotten them figured out. It seems the worst when the wireless mics are on (we have 19 UHF wireless mics in the show) or when the pit is playing (no wireless there). No DMX is running through the sound snakes, it is all isolated. Any ideas? Short in a cable? After the run-through tonight, we left the console on, ran through all the cues, I corrected a dozen or so cues, and had no issues. On a side note, we are renting some VL2202 spot units. One of them will not zoom out any more. Does anyone know of a user-fix that I can do to correct this? It started yesterday, and I thought it might be tied into the DMX issue, but I cannot be certain. Thanks all, M Mike Burnett, M.F.A. Assistant Professor of Theatre Chair, Department of Theatre Huntington College Honoring Christ in Scholarship and Service 260-359-4279 office 260-359-4249 fax mburnett [at] huntington.edu www.huntington.edu/theatre I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way - in all your speaking and in all your knowledge. =20 --1 Corinthians 1:4-5=20 "We are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little life is rounded with a sleep..." --The Tempest (IV:1, 156-157) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:37:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Charlie Richmond Subject: Re: Audio operation in the audience space (was 10 biggest mistakes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, John Bracewell wrote: > Frank, I belong to both sides of the coin. In fact, if anything, I'm more of > a designer who does audio environments than I am a designer who does > reinforcement systems. And as a sound score designer, I still say that I > want my operator in the same space as the audience. Yes, I set levels in > tech, but as others have pointed out, performances and audiences change from > night to night. I want my operator to learn what I want to hear and to feel > empowered to adjust as needed in order to accomplish that goal from night to > night. No, I don't want the operator to change the timing of the cues or to > make a radical alteration in level, but I do want the level to match the > intensity of the performance as each performance varies. Now, here's where > we get into trouble, I realize, but here we go. The SM still calls the cue, > so the timing of the show remains in the hands of the SM; but, for my dime, > the actual sound of the cues should be in the hands of the operator. > > That said, fine adjustments get more and more difficult as we use levels set > in a computer, but that can be overcome. I do use both Audiobox and SFX, but > if I need to I can also put a Motormix on the Audiobox and let the operator > have a limited amount of control. And with SFX I usually route sounds from > the computer through a standard console. Naturally, I'm not going to entrust > every operator who comes along with the power to change my levels, but when I > find someone I trust, you bet I'm going to let him or her have that ability, > because I'll get a better show than if the cue levels are set in stone. Yet again, I'm firmly with Dr. Bracewell - and, as always, he says it so well, I've repeated it above ;-) Charlie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:38:32 -0600 Subject: Re: DMX issues and a VL2202 question From: Greg Persinger Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mike, How many devices are on the data cable? How many 3 to 5 and 5 to 3 adapters are you using? Is it all DMX spec grade cable including the adaptors? Does the problem get better when you remove the terminator? Are all of your DMX devices on the same power or different disconnects? It sounds as though you have a cabling problem. The quick fix would be to put an optoisolated splitter in line three and send DMX from multiple outputs. This way you remove ground loops and limit the number of devices and cables per output. This way if a certain section begins to act up you will have a better idea of where to troubleshoot. This also will help if you are using "mic" cable and not real DMX cable. Good luck. Greg Persinger Vivid Illumination Greg [at] Vividillumination.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20041110070622.17061.qmail [at] web14107.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:06:22 -0800 (PST) From: June Abernathy Subject: Yoke Bolts and Pan Bolts >If neither are an option, I like a speed wrench >(ratcheting box end wrench for those looking through >catalogs, and mine is from Sears) with a 5/8" >and 3/4" end - one end works for the c-clamp, the >other for the yoke bolt. >There are also a lot of wrenches like these made >specifically for lighting focus. >- Jim Dougherty >ATD, Middlebury College Theatre Dept. I like using a speed wrench too. They are particularly great for loosening a bolt that has been overtightened by someone else. The thing is, it is 10 times EASIER to overtighten a nut with a speed wrench than it is with a standard Crescent wrench. For this reason, I don't like to see them in the hands of inexperienced people. It's hard to "feel" when you are just snug enough. I have seen newbies literally drive the long square bolt on the C-clamp through a system pipe with one of these. And, I have a "lightspeed wrench", which is one of those commercial theatrical versions Jim refers to. Basically a ratcheting box ended wrench with offset ends, made for theatrical use. I like it - I use it alot. The smaller end has an inset on one side made specifically for the small square "pan bolt". I never use this part, for two reasons. One, it is SO easy to overtighten that bolt - or even rip it in half while you try to LOOSEN it. Two, the heads on those bolts are not exactly standard in size, particularly between different brands of clamps. Half the time the nut in question doesn't fit my wrench. Annoying to discover mid focus, so now, I don't even try most of the time. I agree that even properly used, the pan bolt can detrimentally tweak the focus of a lamp as you tighten. I also agree that it takes a good bit of doing to loosen the large bolt holding the yoke to the clamp to the point that it falls out without realizing that you are doing so, and that forbidding it's use for this reason is dumb. I try not to use the "pan bolt". For an overhung lamp, or a lamp hung on a T-nut or a unistrut nut or a cheesboro, or anything BUT a standard C-clamp, you HAVE to use the large nut to adjust the pan. C-clamp or otherwise, I use the large bolt to pan 99% of the time, and most people I know do the same. All lamps should have safeties. And yes, you should, absolutely, make the safety before you start messing with any bolt. The way I teach to hang a lamp is to hook the C-clamp on the pipe, tighten the long bolt finger tight, make the safety, then tighten the long bolt to snugness with your wrench. Separate safeties for scrollers, top hats, barn doors, and etc. make sense to me. Most of the time I just make these safeties back to the yoke of the host lamp, so the whole thing can be pulled as a unit if need be. Separate safeties for the barrel or the cap or whatever? Silly. Overkill. Safeties for the color? Well, I've never seen it done, although a lot of theaters and a lot of tours use cardboard "safety" frames for at least the lamps overhead. (Let me say that in small sizes, they are great. In large sizes - say, 10" or above, they suck. The tend to bend over,and often need to be clipped to the lamp with a binder clamp if they aren't held in by a top hat or something.) Lamps that are set up for "wrenchless" focus are indeed handy and quick, but I can see where one could make the case in an educational setting for using the hardware you are likely to actually see and learning to use the appropriate tools in an appropriate manner. Unable to send a short post lately - June Abernathy IATSE #321 FOH Electrician The Lion King National Tour (Gazelle) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: "stagecraft Report" Cc: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net Subject: Subscriber tekman0106 [at] juno.com Failed Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:23:45 -0800 Message-ID: tekman0106 [at] juno.com subscription confirmation timed-out It has been unsubscribed from the 'stagecraft' list ------------------------------ End of Stagecraft Digest #191 *****************************