Showing posts with label words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label words. Show all posts

Friday, July 14, 2017

tech rehearsal nomenclature

Dear people who do theatre, 
I’ve noticed lately some misuse of certain words and phrases for technical rehearsals. So, here’s a public service announcement. It’s going to be long, but if you do theatre (especially community theatre), you should at least skim through this, and share it with your friends. You may be using these phrases incorrectly.  


A “tech rehearsal” is a rehearsal WITH THE ACTORS in which the focus is the technical elements of the production: lighting, sound, sets, props, costumes. This is generally the rehearsal where these elements are added for the first time, though there may be some props or costume pieces, etc., that have been used already in rehearsals. Typically, cast and crew work through the entire show, often stopping, going back and re-doing some light cue or sound cue or scene change or quick costume change. You may go back and do a particular cue several times until it works. 


This can be a long, taxing rehearsal. In the professional (equity) productions I’ve done, tech is a “10 out of 12” day, meaning it’s a 12-hour rehearsal in which the cast gets a 2-hour lunch or dinner break. In community theatre it’s often more like a rehearsal on Sunday from sometime mid-afternoon “until we finish.” I’ve done shows where the tech rehearsal was broken up into two days, either purposely scheduled that way, or decided in the moment because it was getting late and we were nowhere close to being done with tech. 


Some people (and theatres) seem to want to skip this kind of tech rehearsal, and instead they end up stretching it out over the entire tech week, adding a few more tech elements every night – even to the point of adding a few last minutes things on opening night. Perhaps calling that entire week before the show opens “tech week” contributes to this misunderstanding. It shouldn’t be that you add the tech elements throughout this entire week, but rather that this is the week in which you work with all the tech elements. You should plan to have all the tech elements in place not by opening night but by the tech rehearsal, which then gives a production several rehearsals between tech and opening for the actors and the crew to work with and get used to all the tech elements. It also provides a buffer of several days to discover if something isn’t working and needs to be changed. 


If you’re doing a musical, do not call the band for a tech rehearsal. It is a waste of their time and your money. (You are paying them, right? Please, tell me you’re paying them.) 

You may run through all of a show during a tech rehearsal, OR it may be a “cue-to-cue.” This means you work one technical cue – lighting, scene change, etc. – repeating as needed, then you skip ahead to the next technical cue. So you skip over bits of scenes in which there is no technical cue. This is still a tech rehearsal, so THE ACTORS ARE THERE ON STAGE. 


A tech rehearsal without the actors is called a “dry tech.” This is a rehearsal with the stage manager, the tech crew, likely the designers and director (but not necessarily). In a dry tech, you may run or work or fix many of the technical elements of the show. 


I don’t know if there’s a specific term for when the director and lighting &/or sound designer(s) sit in the theatre talking about and building various cues without other tech crew and such. I’d probably call it something like “setting the light cues,” though it may fall under the category of dry tech. And, of course, there will be times when the lighting designer and some other tech crew or other folks are in the theatre physically adjusting the lights, adding gels or gobos or whatever. I don’t know what that’s called. Perhaps that’s also within this dry tech category. 


A meeting in which the director, light and sound and costume designers, and perhaps others, discuss the technical elements, possibly even talking through scene changes, lighting cues, etc., is called a “paper tech.” No one is actually moving things around or setting light cues and such – you may not even be in the theatre – but probably people are writing things down. 
A paper tech is a bit like a production meeting, but it’s specifically about the tech elements for a production. You’re talking through scene changes and costume changes, lighting and sound, etc. A producer (or artistic director or board member?) may not necessarily be there, as you would expect in a production meeting. You won’t be discussing ticket sales, nor PR, nor casting – none of that stuff. 


There. Those are different types of tech rehearsals. Please start using these phrases correctly. If I’ve missed or gotten something completely wrong, do let me know. I'll update this. 

Okay. Rant over. 

(For now.) 


Wednesday, May 21, 2014

That's the wrong word.

Just a little while ago I was in my car and heard on the radio about this rich businessman, Tom Wolf, who just won the Democratic nomination for governor of Pennsylvania. The suggestion of the reporter (or commentator?) was that this primary win by a relative unknown was at least in part due to Wolf’s using his substantial personal wealth to flood the market with ads.

From the (very) little that I’ve read about him, he sounds like a decent fellow. Apparently four years ago he delayed his planned run for governor to instead re-purchase and bail out the business he used to own. However, the fact that he has $10 million of his own money to spend on a political campaign (so far) makes me rather suspicious. Yes, I’m prejudiced against wealth. I don’t know what the man’s net worth is, but it must be a lot that he can spend $10 million on a campaign. Then again, maybe that’s better than special interest groups funding him.

Anyway... That’s all set-up to what I really wanted to say:

The reporter mentioned that Wolf inherited the family business, and that he had a PhD from MIT. His very next sentence was “It’s an interesting combination of talents.”

Perhaps some people reading this will be aware of my position that words have meanings. Well, I think this is a misuse of that word, “talents”. Obviously it’s not the most egregious misuse of a word I’ve heard lately. (That would be something of a religious nature.) But it’s still the wrong word, unless you’re trying to make a point that seeming to be born with a musical or artistic or athletic ability or some other tendency is akin to being born rich and “inheriting” the family business.

Of course, he didn’t exactly inherit it the business. After college and two years in the Peace Corps, he came back home and worked as a fork lift operator for a few years, then bought the business along with a couple of his cousins.

So, I’ve written all this for two reasons. One, I have way too much free time. And two...
Stop using the wrong words, people! It’s annoying to smart people who know what words mean. Or at least to me.