Professional Performers Survey

Recently I have been working on my survey for my inquiry. I created it and then sent it to a select number of people. I then spoke to them about their answers making sure they all understood the questions to mean the same thing. In some cases they didn't, so we worked on the phrasing of the questions together to make it clearer. We also talked about the relevance of the questions and I realised that some could be removed and others should be added to give me the information I want. I found this a really useful process and now think I have a survey that will give me some really interesting information.

This is where you come in! The survey is for musical theatre performers or for people who trained in musical theatre. I would be really grateful if any of you who are in that group could fill in the survey and also, if you have time, forward it on to any other people who apply. Feel free to put the link on your Facebook etc. If you don't fit the criteria yourself but know people who do then please pass it on as well. I want to try and get as many responses as possible. Thank you so much. 

Here is the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/markiles

Versatility or Specialisation?

As a musical theatre performer it is often assumed that one needs to be a 'triple threat'. It is the performance buzz word of the last ten years and the idea that a performer working in a integrated medium should have integrated skills seems an obvious one. However, the more I look around at working professionals and what is required of people in the industry the less I am convinced that being a 'triple threat' is always relevant.

I know many successful musical theatre performers who can't dance, can't act, or can't sing. In fact I know some who can't do any of the above but that's another story. My point is that if it is possible to work without being a triple threat then why is it so desirable?

The answer that I seem to keep coming back to is that the more skills you have the more chance you have of getting a job doing something. This seems to be the logic that the majority of training institutions are using when creating their courses. If they give their students a wide enough variety of skills those students will have the ability to fit more brackets and therefore get more work.

I'm starting to believe that this approach could be fundamentally wrong. If this is the way we train our students what we end up with is a lot of generalists. In other words, performers who are quite good at everything but who excel at nothing. In such a competitive industry it is the things we excel at that get us the jobs. Who cares if you are a good singer and actor if you have been cut after the first round of auditions because you didn't stand out next to a group of phenomenal dancers?

There will always be some people who are 'triple threats' and who have talent and skill in all three disciplines in equal measure. It is therefore appropriate that there are some training institutions that cater to this type of performer. I do think, however, that we shouldn't be blinded into thinking that the triple threat mould is attainable or even desirable for every performer.

There are some people who cannot dance. They will never be able to dance and nor should they have to. There is enough musical theatre work out there for them without them having that skill. So why then should we waste their valuable time trying to turn them into a dancer during their all too short training? The answer I am starting to believe is that we shouldn't. Their time would be much better spent perfecting their natural talents of singing and acting.

My conclusion is that although being a triple threat performer seems most desirable it is by no means essential and training institutions should not feel bound to create versatile performers when specialised ones are just as likely to work.

Professional Peer Interview 2

Here is the second video in my series of professional peer interviews. I think this one is particularly interesting because the opinion of the participant is very different from the opinion of the last interviewee. Here the participant comments that their career has not suffered at all by not being a "triple threat". In fact they think being specialised may well have enhanced their success.

As a word of warning to others I had to re-film this interview because the file of the first interview was corrupted. In future I will always be using two recording devices for every interview I do. I suggest you all do the same to avoid an evening of stress.

Professional Artefact

At the campus session yesterday we were talking about the professional artefact that we have to create as part of our final module and I thought I'd share some of the things that were said that I found most useful.

First thing to mention is that, unlike the critical review, the artefact doesn't have to have a specific form. In other words it doesn't have to be a piece of academic writing, although it can be. I think Jo Gunnel's artefact is a good example of this. She is doing her inquiry on singing and so her artefact is going to involve her actually singing. What better way to show your discoveries about singing than by actually giving sung examples?

I think the most important things that was said was that your artefact needs to be directly connected to your question. It is not and 'add on' and is not the next step. Make sure your artefact is the natural culmination of what you wanted to know. Don't get carried away using your artefact to pose new questions.

I think it is also important to say that your artefact should be useful within your field of work. Whereas the critical review academically describes your process and findings your artefact should be something that reveals your new knowledge in a format that is useful and understood within your professional environment.

I think with the artefact we have licence to be more imaginative and creative. Start thinking about it now though rather than leaving it until the last minute. Obviously we don't know everything we are going to find out yet but don't let your artefact end up being something you throw together at the last minute. I hope some of this is useful.

Professional Peer Interview 1 (part 2)

Professional Peer Interview 1 (part 1)

As part of my professional inquiry, or rather as a lead up to my professional inquiry I have decided to do a collection of short filmed interviews with professional musical theatre performers. I thought this would be an interesting way to talk over ideas and gain insight about my topic from other people who have first hand experience of the industry and its training. Also, I will eventually be carrying out a survey of professional musical theatre performers and I thought these interviews would help me evaluate which questions would provide useful answers when put in that survey. Below is the first interview with Suzy and some really interesting points are discussed. In fact there were times during this interview that I found my opinions completely changing from one end of the spectrum to the other. Maybe that is what happens when you are trying to be as impartial as possible? I hope you find these interviews interesting, and please feel free to comment with any of you own ideas and insights.