OMNI-CHARABANG's
Sun, 24 Oct 1999, 12:10 amJoeMc23 posts in thread
OMNI-CHARABANG's
Sun, 24 Oct 1999, 12:10 amHaving been involved with a number of enterprising ventures and even had a few my self.
I have a wee bit of an insight into various ways the industry works.
Firstly it easy to deal with people and gain a work force if the spice is right, as the price certainly is, need to gain experience and their ego¹s stroked by being able to work on or about the BIG stage - so pick the biggest you can afford, book the venue and they will come out of the wood work.(Ref;- Freinds Of The Theatre's Working in Proffessional venues as an example)Reading the previous postings.
I think you all have valid points and it is rather enjoyable.Just for the hell of 'IT' - I should start a Technical theatre Crewing company that will possibly trade as some gooky name or other (I have not decided on yet}(why not CHARABUNG?????}.This will offer full crewing for all types of productions and each of the technicians will be trained in all aspects of the technical theatre, which they would not normally get - only at a cost to them by going to College or being paid to do so.It is mainly targeted at large spaces such as 6 main venues in Perth.I know I can undercut any and all other contractors, as my crews are pure amateurs and have an that extra incentive to learn, experience and be part of the BIG theatre - as they are able to be in the best shows that hit the boards.One of the main advantages is not being restricted by the usual committee camels trying to be a horse.Sure I know what the punters want and how to extract the green backs enough to support me and of course a few flunkies, and do my bit for Australiain by keeping the dole cue shorter.Also as I won¹t have to pay the venues crew, as they will work for me, I can mount some Major extravaganzas - that would put Disney to shame. The down side is I may have to pay the Muso¹s, as I have yet to formulate a plan to incorporate them.I will be a registered trading name and possible later be trading as a unit trust of a Pty Ltd structure.I doubt I would last very long before the Minister for Fair trading and various others, including the Unions, would be tech' screwing me to a flat and fly¹n me out. Fagganism is not allowed apparently?There are probably lots of reasons why - I won't be able to get away it, as most of them are obvious - I leave it to you.Sure I will fill a void and give opportunities for others to see and be part of the BIG theatre, that the community theatre¹s do not fill at present.But the biggest void to fill - would be my bank account?????What do you recon 'ahJoe 'Omni-directional' McCabe
I have a wee bit of an insight into various ways the industry works.
Firstly it easy to deal with people and gain a work force if the spice is right, as the price certainly is, need to gain experience and their ego¹s stroked by being able to work on or about the BIG stage - so pick the biggest you can afford, book the venue and they will come out of the wood work.(Ref;- Freinds Of The Theatre's Working in Proffessional venues as an example)Reading the previous postings.
I think you all have valid points and it is rather enjoyable.Just for the hell of 'IT' - I should start a Technical theatre Crewing company that will possibly trade as some gooky name or other (I have not decided on yet}(why not CHARABUNG?????}.This will offer full crewing for all types of productions and each of the technicians will be trained in all aspects of the technical theatre, which they would not normally get - only at a cost to them by going to College or being paid to do so.It is mainly targeted at large spaces such as 6 main venues in Perth.I know I can undercut any and all other contractors, as my crews are pure amateurs and have an that extra incentive to learn, experience and be part of the BIG theatre - as they are able to be in the best shows that hit the boards.One of the main advantages is not being restricted by the usual committee camels trying to be a horse.Sure I know what the punters want and how to extract the green backs enough to support me and of course a few flunkies, and do my bit for Australiain by keeping the dole cue shorter.Also as I won¹t have to pay the venues crew, as they will work for me, I can mount some Major extravaganzas - that would put Disney to shame. The down side is I may have to pay the Muso¹s, as I have yet to formulate a plan to incorporate them.I will be a registered trading name and possible later be trading as a unit trust of a Pty Ltd structure.I doubt I would last very long before the Minister for Fair trading and various others, including the Unions, would be tech' screwing me to a flat and fly¹n me out. Fagganism is not allowed apparently?There are probably lots of reasons why - I won't be able to get away it, as most of them are obvious - I leave it to you.Sure I will fill a void and give opportunities for others to see and be part of the BIG theatre, that the community theatre¹s do not fill at present.But the biggest void to fill - would be my bank account?????What do you recon 'ahJoe 'Omni-directional' McCabe
Re: OMNI-POTENT
Sun, 24 Oct 1999, 10:03 pmHi Carol and HelenaGee, Carol, and you'd just conceded ...> On a more serious note I do think that all [community theatre?] companies
> should be incorporated [...]
> Think that may have far reaching implications and
> would then drag in the dance schools etc that are also "for profit"
> and not incorporated. Could be a bit of a slippery slope argument
> in the end but may be well worth further investigationwhich is the position i've maintained from my very first post. :)Not that it is a legal requirement. Just that i, personally, for the reasons i've outlined over several posts, believe that community theatres should incorporate.It would appear that you do too. Isn't it nice that we agree on something. Something, i would have thought, that is central to this debate.Then the "straw man" had to show his head again. (Remember how easily his head fell off?) More ill-informed ad hominen argument and knocking down notions no-one has suggested here - certainly not me.Carol Lange wrote
>> I have noted, with some interest, that one of the people posting
>> comments did actually accept a directing job with Omnibus, PAID directingHow mysterious! Pity that there is no mystery. It is very public knowledge for anyone interested that Omnibus approached me to direct for them about 4-5 years ago.I didn't do the job and i wasn't paid.So, help me out here, Carol. I've got a terrible memory and i'm just trying to recollect suggesting anywhere in this debate that:* no-one should be "PAID"
* all the actors should be paid equallyPretty contradictory.Funny, i thought i said, as recently as my last post:> The single thing that i have found most telling in this debate is that
> i'm yet to hear anyone suggest that the Omnibus should not become incorporated
> or should not try and pay something to at least some of the actors if it
> can afford to.But maybe i was mistaken, perhaps i actually said something else. ;)Then Helena replied to Carol:
> Please tell us all who is this hypocrit you are referring to?Hypocrite is mighty big word to bandy around and it pays to check your facts (hehehe and your spelling!) before firing it off.If you wish to tag someone a hypocrite, its helpful to make sure that they actually hold the opinion you think they are misrepresenting....Throughout this debate (i'm going to indulge in a little generalising of my own) the "pro-Omnibus" camp have energetically repudiated supposed slurs against "their" company. You'd think we'd spat on their posters! But I don't recall seeing anyone posting "OMNIBUS SUX!", or "Your shows are [insert favourite invective here]!"All this animosity, when in fact many of you probably agree with the rest of us that incorporation is a good idea and it would be nice to pay at least some actors....Incidentally, when i was discussing directing with Omnibus management, paying actors was very much on my agenda. At the time i was given to understand that the company was paying a director as a step towards paying some of its principal cast members "real soon now". That was four years ago when their ticket prices were half that they are now.Cheers
Grant
> should be incorporated [...]
> Think that may have far reaching implications and
> would then drag in the dance schools etc that are also "for profit"
> and not incorporated. Could be a bit of a slippery slope argument
> in the end but may be well worth further investigationwhich is the position i've maintained from my very first post. :)Not that it is a legal requirement. Just that i, personally, for the reasons i've outlined over several posts, believe that community theatres should incorporate.It would appear that you do too. Isn't it nice that we agree on something. Something, i would have thought, that is central to this debate.Then the "straw man" had to show his head again. (Remember how easily his head fell off?) More ill-informed ad hominen argument and knocking down notions no-one has suggested here - certainly not me.Carol Lange wrote
>> I have noted, with some interest, that one of the people posting
>> comments did actually accept a directing job with Omnibus, PAID directingHow mysterious! Pity that there is no mystery. It is very public knowledge for anyone interested that Omnibus approached me to direct for them about 4-5 years ago.I didn't do the job and i wasn't paid.So, help me out here, Carol. I've got a terrible memory and i'm just trying to recollect suggesting anywhere in this debate that:* no-one should be "PAID"
* all the actors should be paid equallyPretty contradictory.Funny, i thought i said, as recently as my last post:> The single thing that i have found most telling in this debate is that
> i'm yet to hear anyone suggest that the Omnibus should not become incorporated
> or should not try and pay something to at least some of the actors if it
> can afford to.But maybe i was mistaken, perhaps i actually said something else. ;)Then Helena replied to Carol:
> Please tell us all who is this hypocrit you are referring to?Hypocrite is mighty big word to bandy around and it pays to check your facts (hehehe and your spelling!) before firing it off.If you wish to tag someone a hypocrite, its helpful to make sure that they actually hold the opinion you think they are misrepresenting....Throughout this debate (i'm going to indulge in a little generalising of my own) the "pro-Omnibus" camp have energetically repudiated supposed slurs against "their" company. You'd think we'd spat on their posters! But I don't recall seeing anyone posting "OMNIBUS SUX!", or "Your shows are [insert favourite invective here]!"All this animosity, when in fact many of you probably agree with the rest of us that incorporation is a good idea and it would be nice to pay at least some actors....Incidentally, when i was discussing directing with Omnibus management, paying actors was very much on my agenda. At the time i was given to understand that the company was paying a director as a step towards paying some of its principal cast members "real soon now". That was four years ago when their ticket prices were half that they are now.Cheers
Grant
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···