Return-Path: <stagecraft-report [at] theatrical.net>
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 20348772; Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:01:40 -0800
X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.6
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stagecraft-off [at] theatrical.net>
List-ID: <stagecraft.theatrical.net>
Message-ID: <list-20348763 [at] prxy.net>
From: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Sender: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
To: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Precedence: list
Subject: Stagecraft Digest #317
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:01:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on prxy.net
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2
X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned

For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
---------------------------------------------------

Stagecraft Digest, Issue #317

 1. résumés & reference question
    by Jacqueline Haney Kidwell <jacki14fr [at] yahoo.com>
 2. Re: résumés & reference question
    by Boyd Ostroff <ostroff [at] operaphilly.com>
 3. Part cues on ETC express.
    by "Klyph Stanford" <klyphstanford [at] earthlink.net>
 4. Re: Part cues on ETC express.
    by Noah Price <stagecraft-web [at] theprices.net>
 5. Re: Part cues on ETC express.
    by "Sarah Clausen" <sclausen [at] etcconnect.com>
 6. Re: Annotated Resumes
    by Paul Toben <paul.toben [at] tufts.edu>
 7. Re: Annotated Resumes
    by "Paul Guncheon" <paul.guncheon [at] verizon.net>
 8. Re: Annotated Resumes
    by John Bracewell <jbrace [at] lightlink.com>
 9. Re: Annotated Resumes
    by "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" <WAXLERS [at] UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
10. Re: résumés & reference question
    by Jacqueline Haney Kidwell <jacki14fr [at] yahoo.com>
11. Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by Al Fitch <fitchal [at] yahoo.com>
12. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
13. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by IAEG [at] aol.com
14. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
15. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by IAEG [at] aol.com
16. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
17. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
18. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
19. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
20. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
21. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by "Tony" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
22. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
23. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
24. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by Greg Bierly <gbierly [at] dejazzd.com>
25. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by MissWisc [at] aol.com
26. Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
    by Greg Williams <gwilliams [at] appstate.edu>

*** 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message-ID: <20050305130644.8017.qmail [at] web52003.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:06:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Jacqueline Haney Kidwell <jacki14fr [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: résumés & reference question

résumés--my "day job" is as a researcher for a firm
that does outsourced recruiting for larger
corporations.  I spend a great deal of time on
Monster.com and other job boards, and looking at
résumés that are sent directly.  The ONE most
important thing, above the format and above anything
else is PROOFREAD. And then proofread it again.  I
can't tell you how many people I have already
disregarded for $50k jobs because their materials
lookied like they had been typed by a dog.

references--a question for employers out there in the
entertainment biz:  do you contact references before
or after you interview the applicant?  

I have a personal situation where I'm wondering just
how many ways one "employer" was tacky and
unprofessional.  Thanks.

              Jacki

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:44:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Boyd Ostroff <ostroff [at] operaphilly.com>
Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?r=E9sum=E9s?= & reference question
In-Reply-To: <list-20300888 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503050843010.28090 [at] maestro.operaphilly.com>
References: <list-20300888 [at] prxy.net>

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Jacqueline Haney Kidwell wrote:

> their materials lookied like they had been typed by a dog.

Hey: you didn't proofread that, now did you? ;-)

| Boyd Ostroff
| Director of Design and Technology
| Opera Company of Philadelphia
| http://tech.operaphilly.com
| ostroff [at] operaphilly.com

------------------------------

From: "Klyph Stanford" <klyphstanford [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Part cues on ETC express.
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:51:38 -0500
Message-ID: <auto-000020303431 [at] prxy.net>

Having trouble writing part cues on the Express.  The instructions in the
manual do not work, and I suspect are missing keystrokes.  Any help would be
appreciated.

Thanx

Klyph Stanford
 
336.575.7235
 
"Let's go get drunk on the light once more."
Georges Seurat



------------------------------

In-Reply-To: <list-20303432 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-20303432 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <cbaa4f6a09160c87b944a4d5bd8ccf85 [at] theprices.net>
From: Noah Price <stagecraft-web [at] theprices.net>
Subject: Re: Part cues on ETC express.
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:04:36 -0800


On Mar 5, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Klyph Stanford wrote:

> Having trouble writing part cues on the Express.  The instructions in 
> the
> manual do not work, and I suspect are missing keystrokes.  Any help 
> would be
> appreciated.

Check out Nancy Moeur's tutorial. Page 18 discusses part cues.

<http://stagecraft.theprices.net/gallery/etcexpress/>

Noah


------------------------------

Subject: RE: Part cues on ETC express.
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:27:48 -0600
Message-ID: <0B70E9798A3B4E4080E46327FA359F21C81BD0 [at] MIDL-MAILV.etclink.net>
From: "Sarah Clausen" <sclausen [at] etcconnect.com>

Technically, the instructions are correct, however the note is unclear
about how to record subsequent parts of the same cue.

1. Select the channels and set levels.
2. Record Cue # Part # Enter
3. Release those channels and select others (a channel cannot move to
different levels in different parts of the same cue)
4. Record Part # Enter
5. Repeat steps 3-4 until all needed parts (up to 8 total) are recorded.

An easy way to see and edit the timing for all those parts is to go to
the Blind/Cue List.

Hope that helps -

Sarah

Sarah Clausen
Product Manager
Electronic Theatre Controls, Inc.





------------------------------

In-Reply-To: <list-20297941 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-20297941 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <3d30d99c928cf4b59ada726435416777 [at] tufts.edu>
From: Paul Toben <paul.toben [at] tufts.edu>
Subject: Re: Annotated Resumes
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:43:07 -0500

Steve Mannsardt (the PM at TheatreWorks in Palo Alto, Calif.) runs a 
resume workshop with a group of production managers from the Production 
Managers Forum every year at USITT.  It was certainly the most valuable 
workshop that I attended during the conference and I would strongly 
recommend it to anyone who will be attending the conference this year 
(especially, but not exclusively, undergrad and graduate students).  
Not only does Steve go through a stack of resumes that he has received 
over the years (with the names removed, of course), but he gets 
comments from a group of other production managers from regional 
theaters across the country.  Once they have covered the 'big stuff,' 
there is time to have your resume critiqued by any number of the PMs.  
Since these are the people who will be looking at your resume anyway, 
their feedback is incredibly valuable.

The consensus of the entire group was that one should *always* send 
references with a resume (and, of course, always tell one's references 
that one is sending out a batch of resumes) for exactly the reasons 
that have been discussed here.  If they want to hire you, they want to 
get the ball rolling right away.  The references can (and probably 
should) be on a second attached sheet.

That's just what I learned from them... there are many ways to skin a 
cat, of course.
~Paul

On Mar 5, 2005, at 6:00 AM:

>  If you give the references out front there's no impetus to actually
>  communicate is there?
> Gerry G.


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:44:57 -1000
From: "Paul Guncheon" <paul.guncheon [at] verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Annotated Resumes
Message-id: <024701c521b3$6e9888c0$0202a8c0 [at] yourxhtr8hvc4p>
References: <list-20297941 [at] prxy.net>

<<Annotated format would be

Technical Supervisor, Ithaca COllege.  2000-present
Serve as House Electrician for all Theatre Dept productions
Supervise all student Master Electricians and lighting crews
Teach one class a year in Basic LIghting Technology
Annual Gala Production Manager, Hangar Theatre.  2004.
Supervise all production elements for annual gala
Yadda Yadda Yadda
Master Electrician, Richmond Ballet.  1996-2000
Supervise local crews ranging from volunteer to union stagehands
Prepare shop orders for all rentals>>


I decided to write my resume, of which I have around 5, in a more informal
style, using complete sentences and the word "I".  After having read many
what I would call "techno" resumes which employed lots of punctuation and
catch phrases and serious sounding, seemingly all encompassing idioms, I
chose to describe my duties and skills more in detail.

These "techno" resumes always left me with the impression that the writer
wanted to leave the impression that he was too busy with really more
important stuff than to take the time to actually describe what he did or
assumed some sort of cool realtionship with me that I would "get" everything
about his position and responsibilities from  four words, a dash and a
backslash.

Laters,

Paul

"My mother is not a shy one," Tom mumbled.


------------------------------

Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20050305134721.02ec4b90 [at] pop.lightlink.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 13:48:47 -0500
From: John Bracewell <jbrace [at] lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated Resumes
In-Reply-To: <list-20290576 [at] prxy.net>


>  If you give the references out front there's no impetus to actually
>  communicate is there?

Gerry, Paul Toben has already given a sufficient answer to this, but I'll 
add that in my experience, anything you do that makes a potential employer 
take extra steps will get your resume very quickly consigned to the waste bin.

-- JLB 


------------------------------

Message-ID: <AE85829C9F38D040A4B63DFBE5A042EA44CEBA [at] ucmail6.ad.uc.edu>
From: "Waxler, Steve (waxlers)" <WAXLERS [at] UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
Subject: RE: Annotated Resumes
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:23:01 -0500 

I prefer to have references on the resume.  This way if I think I might be
interested in the applicant but am not ready to contact her then I can call
someone who knows the applicant and I can ask some questions and get some
answers.

Steve Waxler
 
Technical Director
College Conservatory of Music
University of Cincinnati
  (513) 556-3709

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bracewell [mailto:jbrace [at] lightlink.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 11:42 PM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Annotated Resumes

For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
---------------------------------------------------


>Definitely! If the ad says "Send a resume and a cover letter", then do
>EXACTLY that. Unless it asks for references, don't give them - they can
>always  be asked for later



------------------------------

Message-ID: <20050305194208.76422.qmail [at] web52009.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:42:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Jacqueline Haney Kidwell <jacki14fr [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: résumés & reference question
In-Reply-To: 6667


> I wrote: 
> > their materials lookied like they had been typed
> by a dog.

--- Boyd Ostroff <ostroff [at] operaphilly.com> wrote:
> Hey: you didn't proofread that, now did you? ;-)

Oops!  Sorry, I shouldn't post when dashing out for an
orchestra rehearsal---even if my only vital function
once there was to set up the coffee and bagels.

My thought was serious though--if you can't spell your
own address correctly, why would anyone hire you for
an executive position?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

------------------------------

Message-ID: <20050305200613.48321.qmail [at] web51403.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:06:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Al Fitch <fitchal [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
In-Reply-To: <list-20297941 [at] prxy.net>

Someone (I think Frank Wood) wrote:
<<<<I prefer to trust a good operator, working from an

accurate 
script. ven a bad operator, working from a good
script, ought to get it 
right most 
of the time.>>>

This has been on my mind in the last few weeks.  I
personally hate running sound from a script.  I really
don't prefer running anything from a script as an
operator.

Apparently, it is regularly practiced at the small
college I work at and is common elsewhere.

I don't recall running shows from scripts as an
operator in any of my previous locations of employment
or as a student.

Is there a good reason (other then  lack of SM
experience?) for this practice?

Am I alone in disliking the practice?

Just curious.

Al Fitch

You may now resume your regularly scheduled (and
informative) discussion on relationships.  :)


Be Kind, Smile and Have Fun.


	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

------------------------------

From: "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
Subject: RE: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:03:55 -0500
Organization: Duck's Echo Sound
Message-ID: <000401c521be$77c48d80$a19afea9 [at] AndyLeviss>
In-Reply-To: <list-20310980 [at] prxy.net>

Al Fitch wrote:
> This has been on my mind in the last few weeks.  I
> personally hate running sound from a script.  I really
> don't prefer running anything from a script as an
> operator.
> 
> Apparently, it is regularly practiced at the small
> college I work at and is common elsewhere.
--snip--
> Is there a good reason (other then  lack of SM
> experience?) for this practice?

That depends, are we talking for a playback show or a reinforcement
show? If I'm running sound, which implies operating on a playback show
(at least the way I interpert the phrase, might just be me), then no,
it's a detailed cue sheet with cue number, description, source, routing,
level, timing, and any other pertinent notes, and the SM calls the cue
off his/her prompt script.

On a reinforcement show, however, when I'm on book it's on a script. To
appropriately mix a reinforcement show (see my post about this in the
archives from a few months ago, where I detail what I feel makes for a
good sound engineer), especially when it's not a show you've been living
with for an extended amount of time, you want--no, make that need--a
very well notated script. My script for my current show is marked up
like you wouldn't believe; lines are highlighted in various colors for
each mic/other input, and then there are notations marked for dynamics.
For example, if an actor has a tendency to push a word, I'll underline
the part of the word he pushes and draw in a little arrow to warn me to
be prepared to duck that line a touch. If there's a line that tends to
be too quiet, it gets an up arrow over it. There are a couple spots in
the show where the first word or so of an exclamation tends to be overly
pronounced, so that gets a sort of swooping arrow to tell me to bring
the mic up with a quick fade as the line starts, rather than having it
up at full before the first word of it (thus giving a more natural and
less "Holy crap, where'd that shout come from?!" attack to the phrase).

Depending on the show, and the engineer's preferences, this may be
either a libretto, a piano conductor's score, or a mix of both (the
score is really nice if the style of the mix demands a lot of riding of
the orchestra, too, or if a lot of cues are off of music cues rather
than lines*).

On my previous tour, the A1 had the libretto in his laptop, mounted on a
stand over the console, and used Word's note feature to put notes on
which line was on which DCA (it was a PM1D, so the DCA faders were
dynamically assigned for each cue), when to hit the go button
(automation cues are NOT cues you want to have an SM call), when to ride
the orchestra a little hotter or add a touch more 'verb to certain
songs, when to pan the whooshing sound effect from the keyboard from one
side to the other, etc. That said, certain effect playback cues were
cued by the SM off of a cue light, if I'm not misremembering, but stll,
those notes were in the script, since it would complicate things to have
him tracking both a cue sheet and a script.

So yes, it is very common. And no, it's not. Entirely depends on what
type of show you're doing. Playback show, I want a cue sheet;
reinforcement, however, tends to be much more autonomous, and requires a
greater detail than you can accurately and easily express in a cue
sheet. For my current tour, the home office had me do a detailed cue
sheet in case they ever need to train a replacement engineer, and I'll
tell you, I wouldn't want to have to mix from it. Could I go by the
numbers and pull it off? Sure, but it wouldn't sound anywhere near as
good as if I were following a well-notated script..

--Andy Leviss
Touring Sound Engineer
Webmaster, http://OneFromTheRoad.com
Tools, Toys, and Tales for the Theatrical Technician

*-Funny sidenote--you can tell that my PSM on this tour is a dancer, and
I'm a musician, because all her notes in her script that are taken off
of the music are referenced to 8-counts, whereas all of mine refer to
bars of 4 :o) And, while on that subject, if you're a sound engineer and
don't read sheet music, shut down your computer, run to your local
bookstore, and pick up a book on music theory. I'll go out on a limb
here and say that it is impossible to be a really good engineer if you
can't read music and don't understand at least basic music theory. 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.5 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
 


------------------------------

From: IAEG [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <197.39f8dca8.2f5b8669 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:02:17 EST
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship


In a message dated 3/5/05 4:04:56 PM, Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com writes:

<< *-Funny sidenote--you can tell that my PSM on this tour is a dancer, and
I'm a musician, because all her notes in her script that are taken off
of the music are referenced to 8-counts, whereas all of mine refer to
bars of 4 :o) And, while on that subject, if you're a sound engineer and
don't read sheet music, shut down your computer, run to your local
bookstore, and pick up a book on music theory. I'll go out on a limb
here and say that it is impossible to be a really good engineer if you
can't read music and don't understand at least basic music theory.  >>

A few years ago I was involved in opening a new venue with an in house 
production of an elaborately staged original holiday musical revue, , music was 
tracked and all vocals were live.

Music was on 2 Mini Discs set up with alternate tracks so that that cross 
fades could be done, and there were about 6 wireless lavs switched off among 
about 10 people as well as PZMs

There was a single Audio Tech /  sound op , , who ran the board and the Mini 
Discs and he quite frankly was having quite a difficult time in rehearsals and 
previews dealing with music ques, 

The Director wasn't too happy, and somewhere along the line some sound tech 
with a lot of experience mixing Rock and Roll got his ear and said something 
like " Oh, that's easy, no problem, I've mixed so and so and so and so, , it 
can't be any harder than that"

Well, be careful what you wish for.

The Director fired the original Sound Op, and hired this guy.

He refused to look at the Script and various que sheets, , said " Oh no, , I 
can take all of that on the fly" he was incredibly obnoxious and of course 
just didn't get that this wasn't a rock show and that people expect music to 
start on exactly the third step they take in from stage right or that wireless 
mics have to be "ridden" up and down and OFF while they are being exchanged,, etc 
etc etc    He was in a whole new world and was in denial that he was in over 
his head.

Well,   after two full tech rehearsals he was about to quit,  of course none 
of the problems were HIS fault.  In reality, he had no idea how difficult this 
task was going to be and The Director naively had taken his word for his 
competence.  The difference between mixing good ole' boy southern rock and roll on 
the college circuit and operating and mixing a musical theatre presentation 
are so extremely different.

By the third night he realized that he needed to get with the program and 
actually listen to the stage manager and director ( who by now had realized his 
mistake but wasn't about to admit it ) 

In actuality, the original operator would have had the production down pat by 
this time and it wouldn't have been an issue, , but the Producer /  Director 
panicked and put the entire show in jeopardy in the process.

The show really never ran smoothly,  fortunately none of it was my problem or 
responsiblity! 

very best,

Keith Arsenault

IAEG -  International Arts & Entertainment Group 
Tampa, Florida

------------------------------

From: "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
Subject: RE: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:10:32 -0500
Organization: Duck's Echo Sound
Message-ID: <000601c521c7$c4bdaaa0$a19afea9 [at] AndyLeviss>
In-Reply-To: <list-20313465 [at] prxy.net>

Keith wrote:

> The difference between mixing good ole' boy 
> southern rock and roll on 
> the college circuit and operating and mixing a musical 
> theatre presentation 
> are so extremely different.

Don't you know it! And, because of the way the two beasts work, it's
generally a lot easier for somebody who's used to theatre to switch to
doing rock than the other way around, since rock certainly won't be hurt
with the level of detail that we have to work to in theatre, whereas the
subtle mixing we do in theatre just won't work if you try mixing it like
a lot of rock guys mix. 

That said, of course, the best top dollar rock engineers mix with a
level of precision and dynamics that's on par with theatrical mixing,
and ideally this would be the goal for all engineers. Unfortunately,
most just don't care or don't know any better.

--Andy

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.5 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
 


------------------------------

From: IAEG [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <7e.64bebd48.2f5b8886 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:11:18 EST
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship


In a message dated 3/5/05 4:04:56 PM, Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com writes:

<< *-Funny sidenote--you can tell that my PSM on this tour is a dancer, and
I'm a musician, because all her notes in her script that are taken off
of the music are referenced to 8-counts, whereas all of mine refer to
bars of 4 :o) And, while on that subject, if you're a sound engineer and
don't read sheet music, shut down your computer, run to your local
bookstore, and pick up a book on music theory. I'll go out on a limb
here and say that it is impossible to be a really good engineer if you
can't read music and don't understand at least basic music theory.  >>



In my stage managing days, I had to always be careful to remember to write 
ques in a way that someone else was going to be able to read and understand 
them, 

I have  a degree in Music, and literally grew up with my mother's ballet 
studio in the building next to my house.  I've spent a good part of my life Stage 
Managing  and lighting dance all over the Western Hemispheare.  (ps I have 
never had a academic course in theatre or design in my entire life)

Well, with my knowledge of dance and music, (and what I have always felt was 
a keen visual memory) many of my early SM notes are quite meaningless to 
anyone but me.

I got over that fast,  don't have one standard way of notating things now, 
(all depends on the circumstances) , but I do make certain that there is no 
doubt as to my intentions.

One of the more difficult /  interesting things I've done that brought my 
musical skills to the fore front was to sit through the entire creative rehearsal 
process with a choreographer working on THE RITE OF SPRING, 

Now thankfully this was a performance that was to be done with recorded music 
and not and orchestra ( you don't want anything but a really really first 
rate orchestra even THINKING about Sacre' ) 

But I sat with the full orchestral score and the tape through every 
rehearsal, helping the choreographer keep track of where they were, , what the hell 
time signature they were in, , and what would be a reasonable way for dancers to 
think of it in terms of "dancers counts" 

that was quite an experience, , 


very best,

Keith Arsenault

IAEG -  International Arts & Entertainment Group 
Tampa, Florida

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <d.3f62ada8.2f5b9232 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:52:34 EST
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship

In a message dated 05/03/05 20:07:13 GMT Standard Time, fitchal [at] yahoo.com 
writes:

> This has been on my mind in the last few weeks.  I
>  personally hate running sound from a script.  I really
>  don't prefer running anything from a script as an
>  operator.
>  
>  Apparently, it is regularly practiced at the small
>  college I work at and is common elsewhere.
>  
>  I don't recall running shows from scripts as an
>  operator in any of my previous locations of employment
>  or as a student.
>  
>  Is there a good reason (other then  lack of SM
>  experience?) for this practice?
>  
>  Am I alone in disliking the practice?
>  
>  Just curious.

An interesting point of view. Why not?

The SD or LD should have, in conjunction with the Director, have established 
all the cues. Most of the time, these are triggered by on-stage action or by 
lines. Some are not, I grant you. But, If the LD or SD, as they must, has 
prepared an exact set of instructions for each and every cue, why not include the 
timing information?

It makes for more accurate execution, and saves the DSM trouble. It does 
imply competent operators, which I assume you want to be.


Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <75.4069ac47.2f5b949e [at] aol.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:02:54 EST
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship

In a message dated 05/03/05 21:04:56 GMT Standard Time, 
Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com writes:

> That depends, are we talking for a playback show or a reinforcement
>  show? If I'm running sound, which implies operating on a playback show
>  (at least the way I interpert the phrase, might just be me), then no,
>  it's a detailed cue sheet with cue number, description, source, routing,
>  level, timing, and any other pertinent notes, and the SM calls the cue
>  off his/her prompt script.

Why? For what you describe as a 'playback' show, the sound operator can take 
the cues from the lines or the action as well as the SM.

For doing a live mix, it's totally different. To start with, you need to be 
in the audience space, and hearing what they are hearinng. This is a very 
highly skilled job, and one I should not wish to undertake. I know my limitations.


Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
Subject: RE: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:12:43 -0500
Organization: Duck's Echo Sound
Message-ID: <000701c521d0$7443c600$a19afea9 [at] AndyLeviss>
In-Reply-To: <list-20315044 [at] prxy.net>

Frank, responding to my distinction between running a playback show and
mixing reinforcement, write:
> Why? For what you describe as a 'playback' show, the sound 
> operator can take 
> the cues from the lines or the action as well as the SM.

Frank, I am NOT, NOT, NOT going to have that argument with you again.
We've beaten the dead horse to the point that at this point we're
stirring a puddle of glue. You know how the majority of us on this list
feel about this sort of thing, and we know how you feel. It's passed on.
It is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its
maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you wouldn't
keep posting it, it'd be pushing up the daisies. It's metabolic
processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket,
it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the
bleedin' choir invisible!!

Seriously, we get it. You like to be super autonomous. In the world that
I work in, and many others here, it doesn't work that way. Can't you for
once in your cantankerous, stubborn life just agree to disagree and quit
posting the same old thing in some pigheaded attempt to convince us all
that your way is "the" way? I don't at all understand how just a day ago
you could rant and rave about how you wish we would acknowlege that our
way isn't the only way, when we readily do this all the time, but you
insist on posting the same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

We're over it. Why can't you be?

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.5 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
 


------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <99.5981db0d.2f5ba516 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 19:13:10 EST
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship

In a message dated 05/03/05 23:13:29 GMT Standard Time, 
Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com writes:

> Frank, I am NOT, NOT, NOT going to have that argument with you again.
>  We've beaten the dead horse to the point that at this point we're
>  stirring a puddle of glue. You know how the majority of us on this list
>  feel about this sort of thing, and we know how you feel. It's passed on.
>  It is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its
>  maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you wouldn't
>  keep posting it, it'd be pushing up the daisies. It's metabolic
>  processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket,
>  it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the
>  bleedin' choir invisible!!

You know that, and so do I. But, once in a while, somebody raises the topic 
again. I should be as happy as you to bury the whole thing. It just won't go 
away.

There are two different ways of running shows, yours and mine. Each of us 
thinks that his own is best. No problem. But it just won't go away. In spite of 
the almost universal opinion against me,  I wonder if there is some doubt, out 
there.

Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
Subject: RE: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:23:43 -0500
Organization: Duck's Echo Sound
Message-ID: <000801c521da$5fb4d1c0$a19afea9 [at] AndyLeviss>
In-Reply-To: <list-20316398 [at] prxy.net>

Frank wrote:

> You know that, and so do I. But, once in a while, somebody 
> raises the topic 
> again. I should be as happy as you to bury the whole thing. 
> It just won't go 
> away.

Yes, but Al asked if there was a reason for the practice, and what
people's preferences about it were. I posted that my reasons and
preferences varied with the type of job, and that on certain ones I
agreed with him that it was less than ideal, and on others I wouldn't go
without a script. And you posted with an implied tone that the way I do
it is silly.

Why do I prefer a cue sheet with an SM calling it? Because I design and
run for other designers shows that are complex enough that having to
sort out the amount of information I need to accurately run it from
notes added to a script is damn near impossible. A nicely formatted cue
sheet, however, gives everything I need to know in a quick, easy to read
format, and I can concentrate on all the work I have to do while having
somebody (the SM) who is solely focused on giving me (and the rest of
the crew) the cues. Even on the lower tech end, four CD decks to
multiple outputs, worrying about presetting levels, fades in and out at
varying rates, etc. is more than enough to keep all of my focus without
having to pay perfect attention to a script and the action onstage. I'm
more than happy to let the SM do that...even when I'm operating my own
show (something I hate doing).

--Andy

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.5 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
 


------------------------------

Message-ID: <24ae01c521e3$32890320$0800000a [at] Tony>
From: "Tony" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
References: <list-20316398 [at] prxy.net>
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:26:46 -0000


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <FrankWood95 [at] aol.com>
To: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship


> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> In a message dated 05/03/05 23:13:29 GMT Standard Time,
> Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com writes:
>
> > Frank, I am NOT, NOT, NOT going to have that argument with you again.
> >  We've beaten the dead horse to the point that at this point we're
> >  stirring a puddle of glue. You know how the majority of us on this list
> >  feel about this sort of thing, and we know how you feel. It's passed
on.
> >  It is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its
> >  maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you wouldn't
> >  keep posting it, it'd be pushing up the daisies. It's metabolic
> >  processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket,
> >  it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the
> >  bleedin' choir invisible!!
>
> You know that, and so do I. But, once in a while, somebody raises the
topic
> again. I should be as happy as you to bury the whole thing. It just won't
go
> away.
>
> There are two different ways of running shows, yours and mine. Each of us
> thinks that his own is best. No problem. But it just won't go away. In
spite of
> the almost universal opinion against me,  I wonder if there is some doubt,
out
> there.
>
> Frank Wood
>
No, Frank.
Everyone else acknowledges there are other ways of doing things. There are
some caveats which many will agree on that can be identified as BAD
PRACTICES for whatever reason, but most are willing to discuss their
thoughts if challenged.
You, on the other hand, see 'Frank's Way' and the 'wrong way' and you preach
it til the cows need milking! You don't understand or appreciate or
recognise that there are many thousands of people out there who have done
things the way you purport to disagree with, and despite you have done them
well.... both in am-dram and pro work.

I know this will not penetrate that 3 inch skull of yours, but please try to
restrict your posts to stuff you have a fighting chance of actually
contributing anything remotely plausible on! If you don't fully understand
something by all means ASK, but DON'T post an opinion and claim it as hard
fact just to see your name in lights!!!

Ynot



------------------------------

Message-ID: <20050305174651.dspgeocg4w04ksgs [at] www.email.arizona.edu>
Date: Sat,  5 Mar 2005 17:46:51 -0700
From: Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
References: <list-20316398 [at] prxy.net> <list-20316780 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-20316780 [at] prxy.net>

Would it be OK if I brought up Surtitles?


--
Mark O'Brien
Opera Technical Director
University of Arizona, School of Music
Tucson, AZ
520/621-7025
520/591-1803 Mobile


Quoting Tony <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>:

>
> No, Frank.
> Everyone else acknowledges there are other ways of doing things. There are
> some caveats which many will agree on that can be identified as BAD
> PRACTICES for whatever reason, but most are willing to discuss their
> thoughts if challenged.
> You, on the other hand, see 'Frank's Way' and the 'wrong way' and you preach
> it til the cows need milking! You don't understand or appreciate or
> recognise that there are many thousands of people out there who have done
> things the way you purport to disagree with, and despite you have done them
> well.... both in am-dram and pro work.
>
> I know this will not penetrate that 3 inch skull of yours, but please try to
> restrict your posts to stuff you have a fighting chance of actually
> contributing anything remotely plausible on! If you don't fully understand
> something by all means ASK, but DON'T post an opinion and claim it as hard
> fact just to see your name in lights!!!
>
> Ynot




------------------------------

From: "Andy Leviss" <Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com>
Subject: RE: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:51:30 -0500
Organization: Duck's Echo Sound
Message-ID: <000901c521de$41580130$a19afea9 [at] AndyLeviss>
In-Reply-To: <list-20317219 [at] prxy.net>

Mark asked
> Would it be OK if I brought up Surtitles?

Only if they flouresce under near-UV from normal gel combinations!

--A

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.5 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
 


------------------------------

In-Reply-To: <list-20316398 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-20316398 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <bebfd0d40417a590a9be3802a5038660 [at] dejazzd.com>
From: Greg Bierly <gbierly [at] dejazzd.com>
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 21:28:51 -0500

> There are two different ways of running shows, yours and mine. Each of 
> us
> thinks that his own is best.

> Frank Wood

I don't think our way is best.  It is the way theatre around here 
operates.  If I don't routinely wait for the "go" from the SM 
(sometimes even if they are wrong) I am going likely to get fired for 
not taking direction.  Not always the way I would prefer it but it is 
just how some theatres are structured.


------------------------------

From: MissWisc [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <e5.e6db9bf.2f5bd2f9 [at] aol.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:28:57 EST
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship

IMHO the biggest problem with having someone who has done a lot of Rock and 
Roll switch to thatre/ballet/etc. is he has probably damaged his hearing from 
the constant loudness of the rock shows. Unless you're wearing hearing 
protection for every gig, your ears get beat up fast. 

Andy is right... knowing and adapting to the nuances of the performers makes 
for better sound. That means you have to hear what it is you are working with.

Kristi
Who started doing tech theatre as a sound goddess at Interlochen many moons 
ago.
My HS wouldn't "let" girls do it!

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:11:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Small Detour from SM/Designer Relationship
From: Greg Williams <gwilliams [at] appstate.edu>
In-Reply-To: <list-20316398 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <3C83E92B-8DFE-11D9-8388-000393DB9BBC [at] appstate.edu>



> In a message dated 05/03/05 23:13:29 GMT Standard Time,
> Andy [at] DucksEchoSound.com writes:
>
>> Frank, I am NOT, NOT, NOT going to have that argument with you again.
>

To which Frank responded:
>  In spite of
> the almost universal opinion against me,  I wonder if there is some 
> doubt, out
> there.

Uhmmmm.... No. Nope. Nada. Not here, anyway... Maybe elsewhere? 
Anyone... anyone? Bueller?

-=Greg Williams=-
Production Manager, Valborg Theatre, Appalachian State University
------We're at it again!!!------
Check out the Long Reach Long Riders cross country fund raiser for 
BC/EFA at http://sapsis-rigging.com/LRLR.html


------------------------------

End of Stagecraft Digest #317
*****************************