HowlRound: If you want to tour, you have to do it like a punk band. Lately, this is something I've heard several times. I first had this conversation with Internet poet Steve Roggenbuck over vegan pancakes and I heard it most recently from Louisville circus act Blue Moon. But my favorite band of travelers this summer was a group of puppeteers and musicians out of Chicago. On August 20, Rough House Theater pulled into Louisville; put up their hand built stage; erected their DIY light system; and performed Sad Songs For Bad People. It's the second show the group has taken on the road, following last summer’s tour of Constance and the Perpetual Motion Machine.
6 comments:
I can see how many of the more spectacular elements of a touring concert production would be helpful in marketing and selling a theatrical production, because it's a tried and true idea that in a lot of cases, spectacle will draw in audiences (ahem, pippin). However, I'm not quite sure that this article hit the nail on the head and really left out a large majority of thought in terms of what kind of theatrical production is being toured in the first place. What's the scale of the production in the first place? What is the level of professionalism? There are so many factors involved in how spectacle can be included properly in a touring production, assuming that the article is attempting to assert that adding additional spectacle will increase attendance/sales on a touring production. It also kind of annoyed me that they kept using the euphemism of a "punk band" when really what it boiled down to was just adding this additional spectacle and it essentially generalized as much as it could to make it seem like it was a concrete formula for better touring productions, which just isn't that realistic when we take facets such as genre and location into perspective.
I was very intrigued by the title of the article and wanted to know exactly the process of a touring punk band, but I got so much more out of it. Rough House’s design and tactics really surprised me and I have to say I am very interested in their program – they seem kind of like an offbeat Avenue Q. With edgy material and ‘ghetto’ lighting and scenery, they seem like a company I could really get into, maybe as a side job or commission. I really support this kind of theatre because the people behind it are typically just trying to send out the message of their shows and do some good in the artistic world. I especially enjoy the topics and what I can only imagine being satirical execution of their shows. I definitely think their guerilla approach to performing and venue choice is brilliant and favorable to the edgier and artsy crowds.
I went in to this article expecting a dry formalized approach to touring successfully. I very quickly realized how wrong I was and was pleasantly surprised to find that the writer explained their point by telling the story of Rough House’s most recent tour. Its easy to imagine yourself as part of the group working on this tour and trying to figure out how to solve the problems they encounter. It all too easy to fall into the habit of “this thing broke; how do we fix it?” “Why bother we can just replace it.” That’s a fine mindset if your working a Broadway show or some kind of event with a similarly massive budget. But most of the time we don’t get that luxury and we have to improvise. This writer and the story of Rough House manages to convey the kind of mindset and attitude that lets you get through these situations. A willingness to adapt and work with new people. Not being overly attached to plans that have been made in advance, and possibly most importantly being willing to take chances.
I think that the concept and motivation behind this article was right, about touring with force, attitude, and a degree of flexibility. However, I agree with Brennan that a punk band was not the right term to compare it to. If anything I think the article is more about the direction of the tour and the content and structure of the performance. Tours are an extremely commercialized entity mainly because of the scale of the production and the high costs involved, it just becomes difficult to not produce a tour in this highly organized, professional, polished way. Otherwise, the production would not get its feet and the ground and get going. But I think that's what this article sets out to prove but doesn't quite get there. The whole idea of "Do Not Go Gentle" I think has merit behind it now. We want to be comforted by the entertainment we pay to see, we don't want to be put on edge or challenge our current ideals.
When I think of punk band, I think of the notorious "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" concept, which I don't think is what this article was going for as well. In that vein, I also agree with Brennan in that a punk band was not the right concept to compare a successful touring theater company to. However, then what do you compare it to? There's not a lot of collectives that function quite like touring shows do, barring other touring shows. I really identified with the bit about opening acts. I haven't been to many concerts in my life, but I have been to a lot of shows. Speaking personally, the opening act can make or break the show. From my experience, it actually doesn't matter if they're good or not. If they're entertaining and lively and can connect with the local audience, then they've done their job; which is warming the crowd up for the main act. Being flexible is one of the most important parts of being any kind of artist, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the impromptu show that Rough House put on. That's the kind of thing that really makes the art meaningful to the artist, and even though their van was going to cost so much to fix, I bet that that was one of the crowning moments of their careers.
I love this idea. Why does theater have to be a formal affair? This is a great avenue for some theater to go down. Its rough, its visceral and its people who care about their craft getting up and going, to perform and bring what they love, in any means possible to wherever they're wanted.
Maybe I, as a connoseur of low-quality bands in scuzzy places, am drawn to this for the utter juxtaposition of a musical involving puppets living the rockstar lifestyle. Maybe its romantic to live out of a van for a while, with just your friends and some puppets. Either way, this is a fantastic idea. I hope we see more of this: theaters spreading into other venues, performers who did it just to perfrom with no glitz and glam added.
Post a Comment