 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Andy welcomes all questions and will answer whatever he can thoughtfully and respectfully. Write him at improvandy@improvreview.com.
Read Past Andy's!
#7 - Andy opines on festivals and gives the skinny on how to combat improv burnout.
#9 - Andy finds the reason in the Rhyming game, and shows you can't get around paying a musician.
#11
- Andy helps a successful troupe split the dough, and tells another how
to get to Carnegie Hall.
Dear Andy,
I am in a troupe that has been established for only five years. For the first couple of years, our troupe has been seen only as a bunch of college kids. As of the last two years, and after long hard practice and dedication, our troupe has become respected and popular. With this newfound success, there has been an influx of money in our account. How do we deal with the feeling that the players should be paid, but that there also needs to be a collection of funds to go towards future projects, props and buying our own theater? The problem is that somehow the decision was made to pay the players in some shows all of the profit for that show. On the other hand, for some other shows, all of the money was put into a troupe account. Now there is bickering as to what to do with the money. We are at a critical stage in a troupe where now that we are making serious cash, decisions need to be put in stone as to what to do with the money from here out. Do we make some kind of document and sign it? Thanks for your help. -Barely Rich
Dear Barely-
There are a lot of questions buried in your paragraph, and I'll try to answer all of them, but first you need to learn the phrase "from now on…" This will solve a lot of your problems. What you decided to do in the past was meant to account for the situation you were facing at the time. You made little money so all or most of it should go to the players. Now that you are making more money, some players are making a fortune, some are not fairing as well, and nothing is going to the company.
This is what you should do: starting with the phrase "from now on…" draw up a document that allows for your situation as it is now and have everyone in the troupe sign it. This document does not have to be in severe legalese, but if you can have a lawyer look at it to make sure all of your bases have been covered, it would be a good idea. The "contract" should stipulate a percentage for the company as an entity. For example, if the four members of the troupe do a gig that pays $500, each member gets $100 and the company gets $100. Now you are saving for your beautiful new black-box theater. Alternately, you could pay each performing member a flat rate (say $50 a performance) and have the rest go into a company account.
Whichever road you chose, the whole shebang is contingent on a couple of factors. One is that all current members agree to the terms. Another is that novice members be able to get a piece of the action as well. You can only tell someone that you'll put him or her in a show soon for so long before they quit. Finally, you need to build into the contract the terms for change. If the troupe suddenly gets that big TV deal, does most of the money still go to the company? If you start a school to augment the performances, do teachers get paid in the same way as performers? You don't have to try to answer these hypothetical situations in the document, but you do need to establish the mechanism to change the contract as conditions change.
There is a lot to digest and decide, but if the group can think as a unit and remain levelheaded, that money coming in now could soon start to add up to some pretty heady production values.
I contend that to really get good as improvisers and as a team, we need to rehearse more than the usual once a week; I think four times a week would produce better results. How well would you learn guitar, I argue, if you only practiced once a week? - Disillusioned, L.A. (This is an excerpt of a multiple part question. -ed.)
Dear Disillusioned-
I contend that the majority of improvisors are lazy no-good-niks, but that's just me. There are three ways to broach this issue: like a musician, like an actor and like an improvisor.
The musician practices as often as he can. Every day. He wants to be as good a musician as he can be. When he joins with other musicians he practices with them as often as he can, but still not as often as he practices alone. With this method he is able to put together a good band that might become really good, or even great. However, his own practicing has allowed him the ability to walk into any jam or guest role and still perform to a great ability.
The actor takes classes. The actor studies various disciplines. Unfortunately, about half of what the actor learns is to be put to use simply in finding his next acting job. Then the joyous day comes that he gets that job and spends most of his time rehearsing with others like him toward a common goal: putting on a play (or movie, etc.) They rehearse as often they do because the words are already written and the blocking is already laid out and there's not much they can do to make the play any more coherent (other than learning lines and making choices) just practicing it at home.
The improvisor has no pre-written words, and he is limited in what he can do alone as practice. However, he can join other troupes and classes (or just get a bunch of Improv Joes together to "workout") so that his time is taken up working on his improv skills. As far as working as getting good as a team, I subscribe to the chain-weakest link theory. If each improvisor is not going to strive to be the best they can be, then working overtime as a team won't help much anyway. The only thing more work as a team can grant you is a better understanding of where those people might go in a scene, but ultimately you'll find yourself focusing on their weaknesses rather than their strengths. Give me a group that never worked together, yet are superior improvisors, over a group that has been together forever, yet still can't embrace the fundamentals, every time.
The musician has it right.