Revisiting Interactivity for the Future

by:

Joe Patti

Back in November I had an idea for making theatre performances more interactive by inviting people to send or bring in music in support of a show. (Follow the link for the details.) I received a lot of support for the concept via email and links from other sites.

Even without the expressions of support, I was determined to see it attempted one way or another. Since the whole concept is experimental, I didn’t think I had the audience or people with the right artistic alignment to implement the idea at my facility. I broached the subject with a director who possesses both at another venue. He was intrigued with the idea but needs time to ponder it and find a show and approach that would make the idea viable.

I wanted to toss the whole concept out to the ether again. New people have started reading this blog since I first proposed it. I would be interested in any suggestions or ideas people may have to execute it.

From the technology perspective one would need a high speed internet connection in order to receive submissions via email or some file sharing software and then a computer with enough processing power to manipulate the music and then burn it on to a CD or other medium from which it can be played during a performance. Obviously, one would also need a speaker and amp system in place connected to said medium.

On the personnel side, a person in the technology integrator position I mentioned in my earlier entry would need to be part of the artistic team and involved in making choices among what is submitted. I suspect that one might be faced with the artistic choice of whether to use some fantastic pieces that don’t fit with the mood of the rest of the show or using some really good pieces that do fit.

One of the reasons I am proposing a separate position from the director and even the musical director is that while an arts organization might start by having people submit music in advance for use in one spot during the show, if the organization refines their technique they may be integrating music brought to the performance on an iPod 20 minutes before the show starts into the whole performance.

The novelty of having their musical choices included in a show may be enough to inspire people to send in material days in advance of the show at first. As the practice becomes more prevalent, people will make the decision to attend closer to the performance time and will want the opportunity to have their contribution included in the show. The person in charge of processing these submissions will have to be more like a club DJ than the traditional music director and be able to make decisions on the fly about what music works well with the director’s vision of the show but also doesn’t clash stylistically with the other music he/she is using that night.

This sort of scenario really infuses a live performance with a sense of excitement and danger. The actors never know what music is going to be played that night and how it is going to change the atmosphere and dynamic of the performance. It will become abundantly clear if actors are just reciting their lines and slightly altering their approach so it is more appropriate to the energy the music has created.

Stage managers and the tech integrator need to work incredibly closely so that the stage manager knows when to call the next cue. The music may be fading out later one night than it did earlier due to the integrator’s desire to sustain a motif a little longer.

Performing arts venues often promote the unpredictability of live performance as a selling point. Attempting what I propose will make this energy palpable to audiences.

Speaking of promoting events. I can’t imagine that an arts organization would have too much success explaining what they were trying to do and appealing to audiences for musical submissions through newspaper stories. This type of thing is so far removed from the usual experience that I fear newspapers would report the project incorrectly and readers wouldn’t quite understand the process.

Emails and letters to ticket buyers might be better. I suspect an appeal to people over social networking sites like Myspace by those involved with the production might initially produce the greatest yields until audiences had a chance to experience a performance.

As much as I hate to imply that someone my age may be too obtuse to be an early participant as a contributor, young as I am, I think the younger set would have a quicker, more intuitive understanding of what was involved and would contribute far more interesting compositions.

There are hundred of consequences and implications I have already envisioned. As I have already implied, some are a matter of upsetting an established order and can be resolved with flexibility and good planning. Other problems will be unique to each performance and require sound artistic judgment.

But what am I missing? What other technological tools and personnel requirements have I overlooked? What suggestions would make this concept better and more practical to execute? Is there a technology out there that seems ready-made for this type of idea?

Email me or comment below!

Management vs. Leadership Debate

by:

Joe Patti

Since I have been exploring leadership in the arts recently I was interested to see that Drew McManus over at Adaptistration was writing about three executive styles- managers, leaders and builders. Today he dealt with the first two. Initially, I didn’t feel the need to post about his entry other than a “Hey, check this out,” until I started pondering it.

The thing that struck me the most was that he didn’t characterize being a leader as the ideal and suggested that, in fact, such a person could be detrimental to organizational success.

Unfortunately, a Leader’s strengths often pull double duty by serving as their weakness. An over reliance on senior staff can put the administration in jeopardy if personnel turnover is too high. And since most Leaders tend to under-perform when directly managing certain aspects of the organization they end up spending inordinate amounts of time keeping the organization running. The result is an organization that suffers from continually falling short of their goals and an executive leader suffering from a severe case of burnout.

Usually I have seen managers and leaders compared as in this article where managers are listed as “Perpetuates group conflicts” and “Doesn’t insure imagination, creativity, or ethical behavior” vs. leaders who “Works to develop harmonious interpersonal relationships” and “Uses personal power to influence the thoughts and actions of others.” (Note: Yes, article was written in 1996, but it was updated a few months ago and an update article written in 2003 did not change this view.)

This site too, suggests that one should aim to be a leader rather than a manager.

What Drew was writing made sense to me. A lot more sense than the many articles I have read throughout my life urging one to eschew managing in favor of solely cultivating leadership traits. So I started looking around for what people were saying about leadership vs. management. Not only did I find the websites linked to above, but some sites that support Drew’s like Mulhauser Consulting, Ltd. which bases their view on empirical studies.

I also came across this entry on Management Craft blog which seemed to lay out the whole leadership vs. management debate practically. (Comments are very interested too) The writer, Lisa Haneberg makes an interesting observation that:

“There is a shortage of great management in many of today’s corporations. Perhaps the management vs. leadership mindset is one reason for this. Leadership is certainly the “sexier” of the two and I wonder if some have abandoned developing excellent management skills because they want to be a leader.”

(Note: Somehow I neglected the link to the Management Craft blog entry when I first wrote this entry.)

Technology Tip-Google Word Processing

by:

Joe Patti

Came across this bit of information before but forgot to write about it.

Google has a word processing program which is reputed to be as good as MS Word in terms of its features. One benefit it has over Word though is that multiple people can work on the same document simultaneously from different places. No more having to create a read-only copy if someone else is working on a document you want to view.

This has great potential for a lot of different people. Students can work on different sections of papers together while sitting side by side or in the comfort of their own homes, perhaps chatting about each segment using an instant messaging program.

Likewise for arts organizations, different people can work on different sections of a grant proposal narrative at the same time while referencing stats and language the lead writer is using. The online storage reportedly saves as information is being typed rather than at programmed intervals. Google Docs also allows people to telecommute from home or lets a traveling supervisor check on progress, proof and edit from different time zones without worrying about whether software at their destination will be compatible.

A number of years ago I was reading an article that suggested one day our personal computers would regress back to essentially being work stations again with all our software and information processing being accessed from central host locations over the Internet. It looks like that is drawing closer to being true.

On the other hand, given that Google seems to save information on every search conducted via their service, you may want to consider just how sensitive the information you are typing into their word processors and spreadsheets might be. Since most of your financial information is available on Guidestar if you are a non-profit, having that information floating around probably isn’t too big a concern. You probably want to forgo using Google Docs to write a report to a lawyer detailing financial malfeasance though.

Humbling Email Experience

by:

Joe Patti

I was over at Arts Marketing blog last week catching up on Chad Bauman’s posts. One of his January posts contained some rules for administering bulk email lists. I looked over what he suggested and felt proud of myself for coming to many of those some conclusions on my own.

The next day I went in to work and reviewed the report for an email I had sent to my Listserv list the evening before. There was a long list of email address with the error message “Excessive Spam Content Detected” I had blatantly broken the rule about not using keywords common to spam in the subject line.

Now in my defense, I always do a test email to my work and two personal email address and the email passed those spam filters. It also passed through Yahoo and Hotmail filters so following Chad’s tip about using them as tests wouldn’t have helped. My email didn’t meet with the approval of the local Time Warner RoadRunner filter and that represents a pretty large chunk of folks.

What were the offending words you ask? One of the groups of musicians we are presenting boasted in an interview that they aimed to make people lose 20 lbs. by the end of the night through dancing. Thinking this was a good hook, my email subject line blared “Lose Weight with Band X at MyTheatre.”

In the message body I explained the boast, talked about the group a little and gave the ticket information which is probably why it got through most other filters. The timing was a little humbling given that I had been so smug about having already divined the guidelines.

Knowing the guidelines and following them are two different thing though, eh? Just goes to prove you should always approach what appears to be information with which you are overly familiar with an open mind.