I'm going to go back to some technical stuff for this blog. One of the problems I have always had is trying to figure out just what size a stage should be, particularly when there is a diverse mixture of people and performers who will be using it.
Determining the correct area of a stage is sometimes more art than science. Unfortunately, event planners and managers often do not give it enough consideration. The horizontal area must accommodate any and all activities that will take place on it. Even though speeches may occupy 3 hours and 55 minutes out of a 4-hour program with only one speaker appearing at a time, but there is a finale with a 12-member dance ensemble, the stage has to be big enough from the outset to accommodate the dance ensemble. In other words, it must be large enough to allow for the activity that will require the most space, no matter how important or how long that activity is in relation to the rest of the staged program
For most activities, there are no golden rules. Every performing group usually has a minimum size of stage that will accommodate their performance and they should be consulted prior to event setup to ensure that the properly sized stage is ordered. Generally, for speakers at a lectern, a minimum of 15 - 20 ft² is required. Unfortunately, if the event consists of only speeches by one or two persons at a time such as an awards ceremony, having a small stage might not automatically be the correct choice. The stage size in relation to the size of the venue and also in relation to the size of the stage set and any additional décor or audio-visual equipment must be taken into consideration. For example, if an awards ceremony is to take place with a stage set up in the middle of a 150 ft long wall, and two large A-V screens with surrounding drape are to extend to the side walls on either side of the stage, it does not make good design sense to have a stage that is only eight or 12 ft wide as it is completely out of proportion to the remainder of the room’s décor and the scale of the entire venue. The stage must reflect the correct proportion, and should be more in the order of about one third of the total width of the venue or 40 to 50 ft wide, in spite of the small number of persons occupying it at any given time. Part of the extra space may also be taken up purposely with a well-designed stage set.
In the case of musical groups, it is better to compute an accurate size of stage based on fairly static area requirements for individual musicians. The following guidelines are useful for calculating stage sizes for musical groups.
• Electronic rhythm instruments. 25 - 30 ft² per musician (e.g. guitar, bass, keyboards) including amplifiers and equipment.
• Acoustic instruments. 10 – 15 ft² per musician (e.g. brass, woodwinds, strings), including chairs and music stands.
• Drummer. 50 - 70 ft², including all equipment. Drummers are often elevated on a small riser (usually 8 ft x 8 ft x 6 to 12 inches high) for better visualization.
• Spinet piano. 30 ft².
• Full grand piano. 100 ft².
• Vocalists. 10 ft² per vocalist if backup and not moving too much; 30 – 50 ft² per vocalist for a lead vocalist, and possibly more if part of a show band.
As an example, a five-piece regular dance band with a single lead singer, a drummer, a keyboard player, a bass player, and a guitarist, would require approximately 155 to 210 ft² of space using the variable area extremes from the above list. This would equate to a stage with horizontal dimensions of 16 ft x 12ft (192 ft²) for the absolute minimum sized stage, and at least three choices for the stage that would accommodate the band in a roomier manner. These possibilities would be 16 ft x 16 ft (256 ft²), 20 ft x 12 ft (240 ft²), or 20 ft x 16 ft (320 ft²), all assuming single riser dimensions of 8 ft x 4 ft. Since most musicians do not like to play beside a drummer but rather in front, and since a drum kit is approximately 8 ft deep, this means that the drummer occupies essentially the back or upstage 8 ft of the stage alone. Thus, there must still be at least 105 ft² of stage area remaining (155 ft² minimum less 50 ft² minimum for the drummer). If the stage size is 20 ft x 12ft, that means there is only the front or upstage 4 ft remaining for the rest of the band to play on, a total of only 80 ft² of space (i.e. 20 ft wide x 4 ft deep, after subtracting the upstage 8 ft occupied by the drummer), which is inadequate. Therefore, the correct stage size should be 20 ft wide x 16 ft deep, which would leave an ample 160 sq. ft (i.e. 20 ft wide x 8 ft deep, after subtracting the upstage 8 ft occupied by the drummer) for the rest of the band. Although this sounds complicated, it is an exercise that a producer must go through if an adequately sized stage is to be provided for the entertainment planned.
In addition to drum risers for dance or show groups, larger musical ensembles such as symphony orchestras or big bands often specify tiered riser sections on top of the regular stage for the different orchestra sections, such as percussion, strings, brass, or woodwinds. The height and horizontal size of these risers is usually determined by the orchestra leader, and specified in their contract rider.
As far as vertical stage size goes, it is purely a matter of sight lines. The more compressed together the audience is and the farther back from the stage the audience extends, the higher the stage should be.
See my latest book, Special Event Production: The Resources, for more details.
Friday, 26 March 2010
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
More Reflections on the Winter Olympics as Spectacle
It's always an interesting exercise to analyze public spectacles with the advantage of hindsight. The Winter Olympics has proven to be one of the more fascinating to apply such analysis to because it is an example of a public celebration done right.
When one thinks about large mega-events like this, one cannot help but notice that they operate on a number of levels. First, they are a reflection of the culture, society, nation, or civilization that spawns them. They form a statement of the past and define who we are as a nation. That was obvious in these Olympics, especially in the Opening and Closing Ceremonies. Using the Closing Ceremonies as an example, the over-the-top depiction of trite Canadian symbols was an obvious show of what we do not take seriously. What was not as obvious was what we DO take seriously in our society, and that is celebrity worship. The entire second half of the show was a series of mini-concerts by name performers. In antiquity, those celebrity performers would have been images of gods.
At the same time, and in contradiction, such events also seek to establish a pattern or a hope for the future, for the road to a better, improved society and nation. In a sense, it is ironic - and somewhat daunting - that they set a path to influence history, yet in the end must be judged by history. Absurdly, they are like a mentor whose student eventually has the power to fire or to promote his mentor. These Olympics sought to do this by a policy of inclusion: inclusion of first nations, inclusion of founding races, and especially inclusion of spectators. It is this last aspect that will position them well in history.
Why is this? In my own humble opinion, I believe it is mainly because the organizers recognized from the beginning that there is a dual aspect to public events - or to any successful event for that matter. The dual aspect acknowledges that there must be an organized component but just as importantly an UN-organized, spontaneous component that allows for public participation and celebration. By blocking off streets, constructing "party zones," building free-entry pavilions, and having an entire participatory "experience" unencumbered by excessive policing, they endeared this event to the local inhabitants and visitors as well as to a watching world. In this manner, they established a unique model that we as a nation and culture can seek to emulate for future such events. It is indeed no small surprise that there are already calls for Vancouver and BC to seek out more mega-events like the World Cup and for the city to cast off it's undeserved sobriquet of "No-Fun City" by permanently constructing pedestrian-only thoroughfares. No doubt other cities will look to Vancouver and to the model used by VANOC as a template.
Make no mistake, though. History will continue to watch Vancouver to see if we are capable of fulfilling the lofty promises for future, non-destructive communitas.
When one thinks about large mega-events like this, one cannot help but notice that they operate on a number of levels. First, they are a reflection of the culture, society, nation, or civilization that spawns them. They form a statement of the past and define who we are as a nation. That was obvious in these Olympics, especially in the Opening and Closing Ceremonies. Using the Closing Ceremonies as an example, the over-the-top depiction of trite Canadian symbols was an obvious show of what we do not take seriously. What was not as obvious was what we DO take seriously in our society, and that is celebrity worship. The entire second half of the show was a series of mini-concerts by name performers. In antiquity, those celebrity performers would have been images of gods.
At the same time, and in contradiction, such events also seek to establish a pattern or a hope for the future, for the road to a better, improved society and nation. In a sense, it is ironic - and somewhat daunting - that they set a path to influence history, yet in the end must be judged by history. Absurdly, they are like a mentor whose student eventually has the power to fire or to promote his mentor. These Olympics sought to do this by a policy of inclusion: inclusion of first nations, inclusion of founding races, and especially inclusion of spectators. It is this last aspect that will position them well in history.
Why is this? In my own humble opinion, I believe it is mainly because the organizers recognized from the beginning that there is a dual aspect to public events - or to any successful event for that matter. The dual aspect acknowledges that there must be an organized component but just as importantly an UN-organized, spontaneous component that allows for public participation and celebration. By blocking off streets, constructing "party zones," building free-entry pavilions, and having an entire participatory "experience" unencumbered by excessive policing, they endeared this event to the local inhabitants and visitors as well as to a watching world. In this manner, they established a unique model that we as a nation and culture can seek to emulate for future such events. It is indeed no small surprise that there are already calls for Vancouver and BC to seek out more mega-events like the World Cup and for the city to cast off it's undeserved sobriquet of "No-Fun City" by permanently constructing pedestrian-only thoroughfares. No doubt other cities will look to Vancouver and to the model used by VANOC as a template.
Make no mistake, though. History will continue to watch Vancouver to see if we are capable of fulfilling the lofty promises for future, non-destructive communitas.
Monday, 1 March 2010
Winter Olympics Closing Ceremonies in Vancouver
Another Olympics comes to a close - and quite a close it was. The ceremonies, as always, have been meeting with mixed reviews. My own opinion is that David Atkins delivered an eclectic mixture of comedy and music that I am not totally convinced did too much to advance anyone's understanding of our country. They were, however, extremely well executed.
For me, the short comedic opening was the highlight of the entire show. To "fix" the technical glitch from the opening in such a creative manner was brilliant. It's always nice when one can capitalize on a second chance. The oversized Canadian symbols (e.g. blow-up beavers, huge hockey board game, dancing maple leaves, etc) were certainly humourous but not too creative. Atkins relied on the old event producer's trick of going oversize to impress, but that part of the show lacked substance. The Sochi presentation was very creative and bodes well for their games.
The second half - the party half - of the ceremonies was a little disappointing. Yes, great music from some well-known Canadian musicians. However, the input of Canadian entertainment moguls Bruce Allen and Sam Feldman, who together basically control the star machinery in our country and were "advisors" for all the ceremonies, was far too obvious. I will hazard a guess that the lion's share of the funds for the Closing Ceremonies went to their stars and their pocketbooks, but then that is only speculation. I wonder how many arguments went on behind the scenes about creativity vs star drawing power. Hmmmmm!!??
Technically the ceremonies were basic compared to the opening, with not a lot to "wow" me.
Overall, a decent effort, coming off successfully thanks to the overwhelming success of our Canadian athletes and two weeks of "treacly" emotion.
For me, the short comedic opening was the highlight of the entire show. To "fix" the technical glitch from the opening in such a creative manner was brilliant. It's always nice when one can capitalize on a second chance. The oversized Canadian symbols (e.g. blow-up beavers, huge hockey board game, dancing maple leaves, etc) were certainly humourous but not too creative. Atkins relied on the old event producer's trick of going oversize to impress, but that part of the show lacked substance. The Sochi presentation was very creative and bodes well for their games.
The second half - the party half - of the ceremonies was a little disappointing. Yes, great music from some well-known Canadian musicians. However, the input of Canadian entertainment moguls Bruce Allen and Sam Feldman, who together basically control the star machinery in our country and were "advisors" for all the ceremonies, was far too obvious. I will hazard a guess that the lion's share of the funds for the Closing Ceremonies went to their stars and their pocketbooks, but then that is only speculation. I wonder how many arguments went on behind the scenes about creativity vs star drawing power. Hmmmmm!!??
Technically the ceremonies were basic compared to the opening, with not a lot to "wow" me.
Overall, a decent effort, coming off successfully thanks to the overwhelming success of our Canadian athletes and two weeks of "treacly" emotion.
Friday, 26 February 2010
The Marketing Power of Games Has Deep Roots
As the Winter Olympics draw to a close, there seems to be no doubt that they have been a success. By success, I do not mean Canada’s medal count, although it is impressive. I mean the use of the games as a marketing tool, a tool to send a message to the world. As we are now coming to know, these last two weeks have given unparalleled exposure to British Columbia and Canada that will help to boost tourism and investment for years to come. In recent years, of course, this concept has come to be known as event marketing. However, harnessing the power of humanity’s emotional connection with such games is not a new concept.
Many people do not know that the Olympics were not the only games in ancient times. Other centres throughout Greece such as Delphi, Corinth, and Athens had their own regularly-scheduled games and even artistic contests with prizes as valuable as for athletics. Some, like Corinth, were almost as big as the Olympics themselves. Often, the games were instituted ostensibly to honour a dead local hero. Alexander the Great, for example, created funeral games in Babylon in honour of his dead friend Hephaestion. They were no small potatoes. Alexander invited over 3000 athletes (our Winter Olympics had just over 2600)!
What all these games had in common was their expressed purpose of sharing the Greek cultural heritage, to bring Greeks together. Why? Because they never did have a formal “nation” and fate had scattered them literally to what were in those days the ends of the earth. From the huge crowds attending and watching our games, we know how well the Olympics still do this. But even the Greeks knew that more than mere patriotism could be squeezed from the emotion of athletic victory. Here’s an example.
In or around 278 BCE (Before Current/Christian Era), King Ptolemy II of Egypt began games called the Ptolemaieia in Alexandria, Egypt, in honour of his dead father, King Ptolemy I, one of Alexander’s generals. As with all the other games, he invited athletes and leaders from all over the world. In the inaugural games, he held what has come to be considered as the most spectacular parade in history, including anything since. The parade took at least an entire day to pass and displayed the wealth of the nation in pure gold (literally billions of dollars’ worth that included hundreds of gold prizes for victors), along with thousands of animals, mechanical marvels and floats, and a march past of over 80,000 soldiers. The purpose? To impress his adversaries with the power of Egypt. This was a political message, much like China expressed with the 2008 Olympics. In the case of the 2010 Winter Olympics, our real message to the world has been, “Come to work and play in beautiful British Columbia.”
We may not have owned the whole podium, but for two weeks we have certainly owned the media. That message has been received by the world loud and clear. Thanks, VANOC. You understand the power of athletic victory.
Job well done!
Many people do not know that the Olympics were not the only games in ancient times. Other centres throughout Greece such as Delphi, Corinth, and Athens had their own regularly-scheduled games and even artistic contests with prizes as valuable as for athletics. Some, like Corinth, were almost as big as the Olympics themselves. Often, the games were instituted ostensibly to honour a dead local hero. Alexander the Great, for example, created funeral games in Babylon in honour of his dead friend Hephaestion. They were no small potatoes. Alexander invited over 3000 athletes (our Winter Olympics had just over 2600)!
What all these games had in common was their expressed purpose of sharing the Greek cultural heritage, to bring Greeks together. Why? Because they never did have a formal “nation” and fate had scattered them literally to what were in those days the ends of the earth. From the huge crowds attending and watching our games, we know how well the Olympics still do this. But even the Greeks knew that more than mere patriotism could be squeezed from the emotion of athletic victory. Here’s an example.
In or around 278 BCE (Before Current/Christian Era), King Ptolemy II of Egypt began games called the Ptolemaieia in Alexandria, Egypt, in honour of his dead father, King Ptolemy I, one of Alexander’s generals. As with all the other games, he invited athletes and leaders from all over the world. In the inaugural games, he held what has come to be considered as the most spectacular parade in history, including anything since. The parade took at least an entire day to pass and displayed the wealth of the nation in pure gold (literally billions of dollars’ worth that included hundreds of gold prizes for victors), along with thousands of animals, mechanical marvels and floats, and a march past of over 80,000 soldiers. The purpose? To impress his adversaries with the power of Egypt. This was a political message, much like China expressed with the 2008 Olympics. In the case of the 2010 Winter Olympics, our real message to the world has been, “Come to work and play in beautiful British Columbia.”
We may not have owned the whole podium, but for two weeks we have certainly owned the media. That message has been received by the world loud and clear. Thanks, VANOC. You understand the power of athletic victory.
Job well done!
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Opening Ceremonies of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver
Since 2008 it has been widely acknowledged that the magnitude and creativity of the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics may never be repeated. David Atkins, the Australian-based producer of the Vanouver Winter Olympics Opening and Closing Ceremonies wisely chose not to even attempt to compete.
As a much smaller-scale producer of corporate events, and one who has frequently tried to transform the elusive Canadian identity into a meaningful entertainment presentation for visitors, I understand the difficult task he was handed. While I would not class Friday's performance as the most imaginative, emotional, or technically complex Winter Olympics Opening, I have to give Atkins an "A" for effort. What was successful and what was not?
In spite of Atkins' vow not to compete with Beijing technologically, I give very high praise for the absolutely incredible programming of the digital lighting. I would have to say that this was the true star of the show, much more than any other element. It made a little - budget, of course - go a long way. Another technological accomplishment - unfortunately one that would later cause problems - was the raised floor of BC Place and the obviously complicated hydraulics installation underneath. This had to be difficult but undoubtedly necessary given the restrictions of the indoor stadium. The ceiling rigging was another accomplishment, with it being used for several interesting segments requiring raising and lowering the large concentric fabric curtain and for flying quite a few performers.
For certain, his subtle combinations of natural phenomena and the Canadian landscape with our cultural diversity was well done. For example, the opening arctic sequence was wonderful, as were most of the others such as the concept of autumn in eastern Canada mixed with step and tap dancing. It would have failed if it had just been the dancing but by combining the scenics with the dancing, Atkins managed to isolate the Canadian versions of the dances from their Irish/Scottish/French locales of origin.
I know a lot of people did not like the pop-stylized version of our anthem, but I enjoyed it; finally, something different. Come on people, you're going to get so many chances to sing along that surely you can tolerate something a little non-traditional. I also thoroughly enjoyed one of the final segments with a virtually unknown "slam poet," Shane Koyczan. It was a nice touch, again something a little different, and Mr. Koyczan had a great delivery, very emotional.
The pre-cultural segment of first nations performances was very inspired, with great staging and some semi-modern music and choreography, at least as much as the governing elders of each nation would presumably allow.
What was not so great? Well, it started with the four first nations leaders being late for their own show. Guys (the leaders), this did not ingratiate you to the public. It just made you look disorganized. This was followed by the raised totems, much too closely resembling giant dildos/phallic symbols. Surely someone could have seen the obvious comparisons long before they were used live.
Second, the extensive - almost complete - lip-synching and fake orchestra playing. Yes, they tried really hard to get it perfect, but there were still subtle clues here and there that gave it away. One not so subtle was the fiddle sequence. Having been part of my fair share of microphone problems in live shows I can understand why it was done. There may never be a perfect solution to this in these kinds of shows.
By now, everyone knows the fourth arm of the flame's cauldron did not rise. That's one of those technical problems that take about ten years off a producer's life. Could it have been prevented? Who knows? It sounds as if they tried everything and the mechanics were working earlier. Forunately, all the torchbearers had in-ear monitors so it did not look completely unplanned and, to the producer's credit, there was a backup plan.
My last gripe - albeit somewhat minor - is that I think they could have chosen a classier way to get Wayne Gretzky and the flame from BC Place to the permanent cauldron on the waterfront. Really, standing on the back of a truck driving through pouring rain? Once there, the whole thing looked good. It was just getting there. Although, when you think about it, what could be more Canadian than a pickup truck?
Overall? A good effort, ranking high, but certainly not the best I have seen.
As a much smaller-scale producer of corporate events, and one who has frequently tried to transform the elusive Canadian identity into a meaningful entertainment presentation for visitors, I understand the difficult task he was handed. While I would not class Friday's performance as the most imaginative, emotional, or technically complex Winter Olympics Opening, I have to give Atkins an "A" for effort. What was successful and what was not?
In spite of Atkins' vow not to compete with Beijing technologically, I give very high praise for the absolutely incredible programming of the digital lighting. I would have to say that this was the true star of the show, much more than any other element. It made a little - budget, of course - go a long way. Another technological accomplishment - unfortunately one that would later cause problems - was the raised floor of BC Place and the obviously complicated hydraulics installation underneath. This had to be difficult but undoubtedly necessary given the restrictions of the indoor stadium. The ceiling rigging was another accomplishment, with it being used for several interesting segments requiring raising and lowering the large concentric fabric curtain and for flying quite a few performers.
For certain, his subtle combinations of natural phenomena and the Canadian landscape with our cultural diversity was well done. For example, the opening arctic sequence was wonderful, as were most of the others such as the concept of autumn in eastern Canada mixed with step and tap dancing. It would have failed if it had just been the dancing but by combining the scenics with the dancing, Atkins managed to isolate the Canadian versions of the dances from their Irish/Scottish/French locales of origin.
I know a lot of people did not like the pop-stylized version of our anthem, but I enjoyed it; finally, something different. Come on people, you're going to get so many chances to sing along that surely you can tolerate something a little non-traditional. I also thoroughly enjoyed one of the final segments with a virtually unknown "slam poet," Shane Koyczan. It was a nice touch, again something a little different, and Mr. Koyczan had a great delivery, very emotional.
The pre-cultural segment of first nations performances was very inspired, with great staging and some semi-modern music and choreography, at least as much as the governing elders of each nation would presumably allow.
What was not so great? Well, it started with the four first nations leaders being late for their own show. Guys (the leaders), this did not ingratiate you to the public. It just made you look disorganized. This was followed by the raised totems, much too closely resembling giant dildos/phallic symbols. Surely someone could have seen the obvious comparisons long before they were used live.
Second, the extensive - almost complete - lip-synching and fake orchestra playing. Yes, they tried really hard to get it perfect, but there were still subtle clues here and there that gave it away. One not so subtle was the fiddle sequence. Having been part of my fair share of microphone problems in live shows I can understand why it was done. There may never be a perfect solution to this in these kinds of shows.
By now, everyone knows the fourth arm of the flame's cauldron did not rise. That's one of those technical problems that take about ten years off a producer's life. Could it have been prevented? Who knows? It sounds as if they tried everything and the mechanics were working earlier. Forunately, all the torchbearers had in-ear monitors so it did not look completely unplanned and, to the producer's credit, there was a backup plan.
My last gripe - albeit somewhat minor - is that I think they could have chosen a classier way to get Wayne Gretzky and the flame from BC Place to the permanent cauldron on the waterfront. Really, standing on the back of a truck driving through pouring rain? Once there, the whole thing looked good. It was just getting there. Although, when you think about it, what could be more Canadian than a pickup truck?
Overall? A good effort, ranking high, but certainly not the best I have seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)