THEATRE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE

1992 SPRING ISSUE - SOUND COLUMN
 
PART III:  THE GAUNTLET RUN

By Charlie Richmond

 In much the same way that publicity is good for public figures,
reader response is food for columnists.  Because the former is
not always positive, the phrase "any publicity is good publicity"
exists; likewise writers rejoice at anything more than anonymous
pasted-together ransom notes.  While Timothy Buchman's note is
not anonymously written, I welcome the opportunity to advance the
dialogue on my (current) favorite topic by responding to it even
though, like publicly acknowledging ransom notes, it may only
serve to both endanger the hostage and raise the stakes.  But, as
usual, radical writing begets a radical response and that may be
what I deserve.

 While I agree that "A Seasonal Sample" is important, it is only
partly fiction.  The fictional part is largely contained in the
premise that performers would use such high tech equipment in an
audition.  I suspect (but have no way of knowing for sure) that
most auditions these days use either cheap cassette machines or
old out-of-tune pianos for accompaniment.  What is mostly
non-fiction is the description of how high tech gear is used in
actual performances today.

 Though I cannot speak for The Mixer, I suspect the purpose of
the tale is more to caution us against complacency in the face of
mediocrity than to advocate we all become Luddites.  In fact, the
author is a theatre sound designer who willingly uses some of the
most advanced digital audio cuing equipment specifically to avoid
such mediocrity.  Show control in the wrong hands can easily
become a mediocre 'juggernaut' in the same way that singing in
Broadway hits can be fake.  What I am advocating instead is both
responsible show control and, similarly, if the producer demands
the singing be canned, that it shouldn't _sound_ fake.

 The problems described in the Ruling piece ("Automated Sound on
a Budget," Theatre Crafts, November 1991, p. 72) and those of
early memory light boards are ones which are inevitable in the
process of technical development.  The difficulties with the Macs
simply demonstrate the unique problem of sound control within the
theatrical environment.  The recording industry comprises the
largest market for sound equipment and the unfortunate tendency
for many consultants, designers and technicians alike is to use
or adapt this recording equipment to theatrical use, whereas the
proper choice would be to use equipment specifically designed for
the theatre.  Lord knows I've been preaching about this long
enough.  But experience ultimately shows the way and anything
that impedes the technical process will quickly be thrust into
the corner.  The proper equipment will eventually find its
rightful place - 'eventually' being the key.

 It is unfortunate that, although Mr. Buchman exhibits
considerable technical knowledge, he has apparently not yet seen
the current state-of-the-art in reliable software and hardware
for control of theatre sound.  I expect that, once this happens,
his story will be different - replete with reports of speed,
reliability and flexibility.  These days, to achieve total
reliability, the largest spare component required is a cheap,
easily serviced off-the-shelf microcomputer.  Hundreds of
productions mounted everywhere from high schools to Broadway
using "cheap, quick and reliable" audio cuing equipment make it
self evident this technology has arrived.

 At the risk of splitting hairs, I must defend using the word
'paranoia' in describing Kevin Mullery's response - especially
since he himself verbally acknowledged his response came perhaps
too close to that.  One _could_ apply the more commonly used
popular sense of the word to those who see their less skilled
tasks gradually being taken away from them and, as a result, fear
for their jobs.  Here, it is hard to be sympathetic to someone
who does not see this as an opportunity for advancement.  I never
intended to imply anyone would suffer from a genuine mental
disease as a result of the proliferation of MIDI Show Control,
however.  But when Mr. Buchman describes an entire touring ice
show as "well-lit" with 50 Vari*Lites and then claims three
assumptions which I never stated are the basis of my thesis, it
may be cause for concern... 

 Even if those assumptions were implied in my original article -
and I do not believe they were - the examples provided by Mr.
Buchman do not adequately substantiate them and I will show why. 
But first, rather than rejecting the assumptions outright, I'll
stick my neck out and rephrase them to more accurately conform to
my original theme - not to make them the basis of an entire
philosophy, but definitely an integral part of it.  Here they
are:

 1) Most problems can be solved with the application of
    appropriate technology.

 2) An important part of a stage manager's job consists of
    following a script and calling cues at the appropriate time.

 3) Theatre technicians should not be given tasks and
    responsibilities which are better done by machines or
    computers.

 I'm not trying to be coy with this last item - the show will
just be better if everyone's job requires thought.  If someone is
doing some mindless task, they will feel less involved, be more
distracted and seem more like they are not needed.  We must find
that person a job which elevates their position above the
mediocre and provides them with a feeling of capability.

 I enjoy telling what happened all too often when I ran sound for
"The Importance of Being Earnest."  Because there were only 12
cues in the entire show, I sometimes forgot to preset the levels
correctly or to cue the tape.  It wasn't because I wasn't
interested in what I was doing; on the contrary, the production
was excellent and I enjoyed every single performance.  If
anything, it was because I enjoyed the show so much that I
forgot I had things to do between cues that were not immediately
related to it.  I always did the right thing when the cues were
called because they were a necessary and integral part of the
show.  What was forgotten were the rote mechanical procedures
required as preparation for each cue and which could have just as
easily been done electronically.  If you're thinking I must not
have been a very good operator, you're right - and it was this
experience that made me stick to designing sound and eventually
turn to manufacturing theatre sound equipment.

 Now, on the subject of empowering:  I am not saying the actor
always has to control technical cues.  If stage managers would
rather do things the 'old fashioned' way, they still may do so
using even more varied methods of execution.  For example, they
may call the cue directly through the show control system so the
delay incurred by the light op need not be anticipated or they
may even include that person in the loop. 

 Filament lag is a known phenomenon, however, and if I'm going to
be accused of being academic, let's proceed hypothetically. 
Theatrical spaces are often larger than the spaces they portray
and sometimes this can help.  If an actor clicks a switch which
is on the average 50 feet or more from most of the audience, they
will hear the click approximately 50 milliseconds or more after
the filament begins to react.  This compensates for filament lag
since the aural perception of the click more closely coincides
with the visual perception of the light going on or off. 
Finally, it is not usually the response of the stage lighting,
where most instruments with filament lag are used, which is the
most disturbing when not synchronized - it is the practicals,
since they respond quickly and are part of the character's
microcosm of reality.  It is quite possible to have the
practicals controlled by the actors and the stage lighting called
by the SM - both through the same show control system.

 If an actor wishes not to be responsible for flying pieces,
there is no need to be.  Incidentally, Mr. Buchman's gender
assignment is interesting since many of the best stage managers I
know are women.  'Authorized' commands are a serious matter and
hardly 'nonsense' created just for liability's sake - the idea
that a show control system should fly in a set piece purely as a
result of a video scanned gesture is the height of
irresponsibility.  The difference between doing something simply
because it is technically possible and providing a complex but
safe performance environment is basic professionalism.  In fact,
our lawyers hope that one of the first jobs HAL 9000 will do when
he/she comes to work in the theatre is to warn actors when they
get too close to open elevator pits.  Joking aside, such safety
functions are the highest priorities of most show control system
designs.

 I'm not sure how the assistance of a show control system will,
as Mr. Buchman implies, impair the stage manager's ability to
maintain the production - it seems just the reverse should occur.
I also fail to follow the logic which says that a stage manager
who reads music should have an assistant conductor call some of
the cues, although they both can easily be tied into the same
show control system.  Nor am I saying that there should not be a
live body responsible for the production of Sound Cue 56 when
required.  If Mr Buchman reviews my previous writings, he will
see that, rather than advocating operators' jobs be cut, I am
trying to make those jobs less mechanical.

 Overworked certainly, underpaid perhaps, but I'm definitely not
a member of any faculty - except perhaps that proverbial school
of Hard Knox.  I have no delusions of over staffing in these
tough times, and am most sympathetic to the needs of overworked
stage managers, technicians and stagehands.  In fact, isn't the
alleviation of this overwork a large part of my thesis?  If this
was misunderstood, then I truly failed to make a basic point! 
The point is, when all hands are full on a regular basis, where
is the margin for error?  It sounds as though crews are being
downsized simply because of mechanization and not because of the
added security which show control systems could provide.  Can
this be a safe move?  Let's hope the regional theatre winch
articles of the future will explain how to use a show control
system to make them safe!

 To be the devil's advocate for a moment, perhaps Mr. Buchman has
a solution for saving the "invalid."  If so, I'm sure it would be
of interest to us all - maybe it would even create a larger
market for theatre sound equipment and make me especially happy. 
He may be right that the intrusion of technology is a problem,
but I maintain it is only because some technology has been poorly
implemented, drawing attention to itself and away from the
performance it is intended to enhance.  Indeed, theme parks _are_
developing a desire for live theatre and are creating theatrical
productions very successfully.  These venues change quickly and
if Mr. Buchman has not been to Florida within the last few years
he's in for a big surprise.  While lip-syncing is still common,
live vocals are often considered more appropriate.

 Like Mr. Buchman, I also fear the live event may become
indistinguishable from the one on video or film; and for the same
reasons.  The response to this - and the real _challenge_ of our
careers - is to make the live event more immediate, more
complete, more moving, more vital, more creative and more
significant than video or film - in short, more of everything
that drives us to stay in this crazy business.  Mr. Buchman's
opinions, so passionately expressed, convince me we are indeed
kindred spirits who believe a great live performance is well
worth the trip and expense.  But more than anything else, we need
to make our audience feel the same.

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

Copyright ©1992 Charlie Richmond