Stage Magazine

[paulears]

A nice piece, Josh. Not even a snide cheap quip - often done by the stage.

 

I'm not quite sure your teachers would like the comment about you knowing more than them - even if it's true!

 

well done.

paul

[Bobbsy]

....one concern I have though is that, if you know more than the teachers, what is being done at the school to give you formal training? Learning by doing is all well and good...but to know the jobs properly there's a lot of background info needed: maths, H&S regs, etc etc.

 

Bob

[Simon Lyall]

true, that's been an issue here and the school I attend, on more then one occasion I have taught the teacher something about the sound desk! The rigging issue is something that is annoying and I thought was covered in the proper way in the article, it annoys me that I cant do some things, but on reflection; its for my own good. I am thankful for the fact that I go to an academic school that still gives me the chance to use technical equipment that I wouldn't be able to use in most other schools.

 

Its nice how your school rotates around different jobs, its interesting how this doesn't really occur at my school, most people do a little of everything and just fall into the job they enjoy the most, though I know that if I'm ill, there are a few who could do my job well as is the case for all positions. On a 'gig' at school coming up, everyone is taken different positions to what they normally do, this means that everyone is having to do extra learning for the event, but everyone is looking forward to it, I'm looking forward to doing some stage managing, I think I'm arrogant enough!! (ill get my coat.. )

 

It is interesting that the article comments on the fact that you don't have a pupil 'leader' as such, but the oldest tends to help the younger people, it pleases me that it must work in your situation, I know that it didn't work when we tried it, and in the and myself and the lighting technician look this role, we take it in turns to have overall responsibility for events and this works well to spread the workload.

 

Its always great to here of people of similar age to me that are intresting in tecnical work, it makes me feel less like the odd one out!

[paulears]

One thing that constantly amazes me is that people in full time education believe they really have responsibility. In truth, they don't, despite the 'head of', 'student technician' type titles. Simon mentions he alternate the responsibility with the technician. These titles are normally for convenience only, and actually usually mean you just get more work to do, with no real credit apart from 'well done!'.

 

When the brown stuff hits, you find the responsibility was just an illusion, and lets say, the problem is really serious - you fall from a ladder, get a shock or other nasty stuff - the poor person who is really in charge gets crucified. Staff in a school or college cannot legally pass on the responsibity to a student. if the person is under 18 it gets worse, and if still in compulsory education it is very dodgy.

 

If you make a co*k-up, you can just dig your student heels in and stamp your feet - you can't even get into trouble (legally) - no doubt the school or college will find some way of making you suffer, but a court won't.

 

Over the years I've been taught many things by students - things I didn't know, and I was never too proud to say "I didn't know that" - however, I've had far more students try to teach me things that were wrong. Usually dodgy info from the net, or friends of friends passing on duff data. Some teachers really know their stuff, others, sadly, are just two pages ahead of you in the spec. In the current style of teacher training teachers are told to say in response to a question "I don't know, but I'll find out".

 

It is a bit arrogant for anybody to sort of say that their teachers don't know anything, and they had to do it themselves. Don't get me wrong, this does happen and is shameful, but you only have to look at the blue room to see the quantity of young people who are doing dangerous things, involved in projects where they are really out of their depth, or doing things totally differently from what we do in the business to see that a little knowledge can appear to go a very long way.

 

We have people under 16 advising seasoned professionals on the choice of equipment when their only experience is drooling over a downloaded pdf manual, or bit of demo software on a piece of equipment they have never ever even seen! It happens every day. I would love to have a special moderator button that says "does this person really know what they are talking about?". Just lately I've spent, along with the other mods, far too much time sorting out real questions from daft ones.

 

The OP, Josh is rightly proud of his schools achievement with their student team, but everybody needs to remember that we are talking doing basic technical work with introductory level kit in an educational setting. This doesn't, in any sense, equip people with the skills to walk into the Royal Albert Hall and take charge. Josh's comment, that the stage eagerly picked up on, was probably meant to make them look even better - but people like us just smile.

 

This wasn't intended to turn into a rant - but everybody needs to know their 'level', and school shows don't have the same standards as a pro production. My rose tinted glasses tell me some of my college shows were truly professional - the reality is that many were cr*p.

 

Paul

[jry106]

I TOTALLY agree with everything everyones said (especially regarding the quality of school productions) , I can't wait to leave school and get into a world with a budget!

 

I understand what your saying about doing things correctly etc, I have been learning technical theatre with professionals for 3 years and I have worked on over 20 shows. I am very aware of saftey standards and terminology of technical theatre.

 

As for the scenarios mentioned above, we have designed a very flexible rig, therefore rigging new lanterns is rare, due to health and safety we are prohibited from using the tower (tallescope type thing).

[Bobbsy]

I recognise everything you say, Paul...from personal experience.

 

My daughter is "Head of Sound" at her high school but the reality is that the teaching staff are still legally responsible for everything that happens. The students operate the desk for shows, play back disks, etc., but the teacher is still the one who would carry the can if anyone was injured or whatever.

 

Alas, the title does seem to "go to the head" and it takes a major issue for my daughter to come to me for advice...or even ask to access my library of sound effects! There's no pride like that of a 17 year old girl. (I'm just pleased that the few times she HAS approached me I've been able to help...she even once acknowledged that some advice I offered and she ignored turned out to be right!)

 

However, something that does cause me concern is the lack of effective training for anybody interested in the technical side of theatre. I've got "insider" knowledge of at least two high schools, plus was also involved for a while with a Theatre Youth Group. In all cases, the people in charge have some interest and qualifications in the Acting/Directing/Theatre History side, but no real knowledge or interest in technical matters. They're quite content to just give the students nice titles and let them play with a lighting board or a sound desk. My specialty is sound and I'm always saddened to see that the student experts have no idea about things like gain staging or EQ. I'm sure there are similar examples to do with lighting. In this day and age, I really do think that, just as acting students are taught about various theories of theatre, somebody should be teaching the technical staff some of the basics.

 

 

 

Bob

[jry106]

....one concern I have though is that, if you know more than the teachers, what is being done at the school to give you formal training? Learning by doing is all well and good...but to know the jobs properly there's a lot of background info needed: maths, H&S regs, etc etc.

 

Bob

 

Hi,

 

I just thought I'd clarify the training aspect abit further.

 

At the current moment in time I am the only member of the crew with real technical knowledge. It is extremely frustrating with people with little or no technical knowledge, your typical secondary school technician.

 

I have been on a technical theatre course for around 3 years at my local theatre, this covers every aspect of technical theatre, I have been lucky enough to be involved with various productions. I have been a DSM, LX Op, Sound Op, AV Op, Followspot and stage hand.

 

I think that this type of course should be intergrated into the public education system, but I feel that the reason I have gained so much from the course is because the attendants are willing to learn unlike many students.

[Bobbsy]

I don't want to rain on your parade...it's a nice article and you must be very pleased...keep a copy for when you're old and bald like me!

 

However, I have to ask:

 

When you say you have technical knowledge, do you mean you can operate a lighting desk or sound board and name the various lights on your rig? Or do you have a genuine technical knowledge?

 

By the latter, I mean when doing sound, do you know the forumula for calculating the impedence of multiple speakers on the same amp? What's the difference between dBu, dBV...or dB(SPL) for that matter. What is a balanced circuit. Or, if you're on lighting, how many amps do two 500 watt lamps draw? What's the difference between single phase and 3 phase systems?

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but if I was organising a technical course for High School students, the above...and a whole lot more...would be taught before you even start to think about playing with the equipment. Certainly, at a professional level you're expected to understand the maths and theory behind the gear you use.

 

Bob

[paulears]

One of the flaws in the current crop of courses is that if you look at the average group of students, most want to be actors, singers and dancers. The few who want to do technical are either 'real' technical people (very few) or people who can't sing, dance or act. Funding implications mean that for many schools and colleges they can't afford to do run a course for just a few people. The other thing is that there simply isn't any technical content at all in many acting, singing or dancing courses - so any lighting activities don't get a grade, AND they still have to do the acty-singy stuff.

[Bobbsy]

Actually, at least in my daughter's case, that's not quite true. She's working on her AS level right now, and 40% of that mark is based on a practical "devised piece". On this they can opt to me marked either on acting skill or a "design skill" which can be lighting, sound, set design and construction, costuming or (strangely) mask making. My daughter has opted to go the design skill route and will be marked on her lighting for the performance, her planning for the perfomance, and a big chunk on a paper she has to write about the how and why of her lighting choices. She'll also be lighting most of the other devised pieces this year and, while not marked on them directly, how she handles it goes towards an overall mark for participation.

 

If she goes on to do A levels, similar applies next year except instead of a devised piece they do an excerpt from an existing script.

 

The rest of the marks are all for written work and tests...the typical analysis of plays and playwrites beloved by academics.

 

Now, having given the good bit, the bad. Although my daughter is being assessed on her lighting work, she's had absolutely NO formal instruction whatsoever about theatre lighting at the school. What she's learned has come from "hands-on", from me, and from her older stepbrother who does some professional lighting work (when not running a pub to pay the bills).

 

Since the students who opt for acting get tons of instruction and advice at school, I think this is a great flaw in the system.

 

Bob

[the kid]

One of the flaws in the current crop of courses is that if you look at the average group of students, most want to be actors, singers and dancers. The few who want to do technical are either 'real' technical people (very few) or people who can't sing, dance or act. Funding implications mean that for many schools and colleges they can't afford to do run a course for just a few people. The other thing is that there simply isn't any technical content at all in many acting, singing or dancing courses - so any lighting activities don't get a grade, AND they still have to do the acty-singy stuff.

 

Yep our course is shutting down this summer becasue one person pulled out. Insted they are doing 2 tech based units for the actors.

 

Time for a split?

[mac.calder]

It certainly beats my states (Victoria, Australia) theatrical units 'Drama' and 'Theatre Studies'. There is NO study on the technical elements in either of them. I think the large reason a lot of schools don't offer technical theatre study is because there are a number of specialy areas, each completely different, which appeals only to a minority subset of the 'Dramatic' types, and the equiptment is damn expensive. Devising a separate course within the course may be ideal, but it would take up a large portion of the assigned teachers time. In a Drama class of 30 - if the technical 'sub course' was offered, there would probably be 1, maybe 2 people interested in taking it. So 1/15th of the class requires separate work and training, it is not worth it. There is also the wide range of equiptment available, which differs not only in features but in complexity and quality, so devising a fair, yet standard grading scale would be next to impossible. Instead, if I was to be a careers councilor, I would advise that those interested in a career in technical theatre study physics. They will learn far more important things than pushing faders, that is for sure.

[paulears]

Sorry Bob,

I was talking mainly about BTEC. Assuming she's doing the Performing Arts AS

the lighting elements are quite minimal - and not specified in any great depth. I've taken these from the spec - as you can see they are very generic. The people on the course really don't have to do much 'real' lighting. In the BTEC, the schools and colleges have set units that deal with lighting. There is a kind of basic lighting unit, a lighting design style unit and even one dealing with automated lighting - the AS/A2 spec is not in the same complexity or depth league.

 

 

 

Lightingdesigners should be able to rig and focus at least two kinds of lantern and operate a multi-channel control desk. Both sound and lighting designers should be able to create relevant documentation, such as rig plans, speaker positions and cue sheets.

 

you will have to provide some appropriate form of lighting, costume and sound but only on a simple level to support the performance.

 

A lighting specialist will need to know about the different types of lantern that are available and how to adjust them and carry out simple

maintenance.

 

A portfolio of notes and research showing the development of ideas. The final lighting design with a grid plan and lantern schedule that shows the

use of at least two different types of lantern and uses a minimum of 12 lanterns. A lighting plot or cue sheets showing at least 10 different lighting

states. A justification of the final lighting design, rigging and focusing of the design and operation of the lighting plot for performance.

 

It is expected, however, that you will have to provide simple lighting

 

These are pretty well the lighting requirements that have to be covered.

 

I hope that sort of explains the differences - I can post a link to the current btec specs if anybody needs it - but there is far too much to include here

paul

[Bobbsy]

Yeah, the AS syllabus is totally woolly as to what any of the "Design Element" parts entail, which is silly since, as I said, my daughters work on lighting will, in one way or another, account for 40% of her final mark. The course is Theatre Studies as opposed to Performing Arts, BTW.

 

One last thing on this...maybe my daughter's school is the exception, but there seem to be roughly as many people interested in the various technical aspects of theatre as there are in acting, with the rest really just there to write essays. However, the skill set of the instructors is heavily biased to the academic and acting side of things.

 

Bob

[cdcarter]

Our school is completely void of a technical theatre course, but if you stay after school in the scene shop for an hour each day, you can get 7th hour credit in "Theatre Production". A lot of our students do not know much about the theory behind what they do, but they can attach castors, or build a platform from the design with ease. When you start looking at the less, not simple, but less construction related departments, like LX or sound, there are a lot less students involved. Usually those students have an idea about what they are doing, from being taught by another older or more expirenced student, from reading books on the tech bookshelf, or from alum coming in to help out. Our TD/responsible adult staffer does not know too much about LX or sound, but she knows enough to get by. She will have alum come in to do things around the theatre she doesn't feel comfortable having a student do, and we then learn how to do those things, and also how to do other things. We also learn alot by doing. I learned how to create a cable patch by the LD shoving the paperwork and a pencil into my hand. I learned how to do a plot, paperwork, focusing, and changing bulbs that way, and it works.