Using TelePrompters....

[Existential Angst]

Awl --

More along the lines of production ( but rec.video.production is DEAD!! What
happened??), I've always been curious about teleprompters and performance.

I watch the PBS stumping at fund-raising time, Dr. Amen, Furhman, even that
absolutely ridiculous Dr. Wayne Dyer, and I'm always amazed at the utter
*seamlessness* of these lectures/performances. I've done classroom
lecturing, spent too many years as a stoodint, and have NEVER seen anything
like this is a natural setting.

Now, I know the response will be, Well, PBS fund-raising et al is *not* a
natural setting..... and that is certainly true.
But these performances seem almost supernatural, even WITH teleprompters,
even with (proly) the wireless ear-bud prompting, etc.

I'm thinking these guys just have some extraordinary ability (proly way
beyond their medical expertise!!), because if I was up there, none of that
cueing/teleprompter stuff would help me!! And I can chat a bit.... LOL

But if they *don't* have extraordinary talent, is there some super-coaching
going on, some special method/technique of practice? This must require
MEGA-rehearsal, practice -- even with teleprompters....

Also, as I watch these guys, they're not standing still long enough to read
or even focus on anything, from what I can see. Amen is all over the
place!!!
I don't think I've seen any of them flub ONCE, yet. Nary a single flub!!!
Simply seamless.

Plus, you have singers all the time forgetting the lyrics to *their own
songs*, so hour-long monologues can't be a trivial feat.

Iny insights into this process??

[Rich Brown]

Post by Existential Angst
I don't think I've seen any of them flub ONCE, yet. Nary a single
flub!!! Simply seamless.

That's the miracle of editing. If there is a flub the host person can
back up a paragraph and say it again. If the host person doesn't notice
the flub someone in the control room probably has. The host person can
go back and re-say stuff after the audience leaves.

Since recorders are now cheap typically there is a recording of every
camera, so there are lots of options when slipping in the corrected
information.

[Existential Angst]

Post by Rich Brown

Post by Existential Angst
I don't think I've seen any of them flub ONCE, yet. Nary a single
flub!!! Simply seamless.

That's the miracle of editing. If there is a flub the host person can
back up a paragraph and say it again. If the host person doesn't notice
the flub someone in the control room probably has. The host person can
go back and re-say stuff after the audience leaves.
Since recorders are now cheap typically there is a recording of every
camera, so there are lots of options when slipping in the corrected
information.

I was under the impression all this was un-edited/live type stuff -- even
tho clearly it is recorded for multiple broadcasts.
So I guess it could very well be edited. And perty good editing, I must
say.

I know sitcoms are heavily edited, and half the fun the audience has is with
the flubs.
But with the Amen lectures, I would think that would be more difficult....
but mebbe his audience is having a ball with the flubs, as well.

Still, I imagine a great deal of work/preparation/rehearsal/memorization
goes into all of that, must be a full-time job preparing for one of those
shows. Cancel my patients, eh?

I hope my audience don't mind hand-held index cards... LOL

[Steve King]

Post by Existential Angst
Awl --
More along the lines of production ( but rec.video.production is DEAD!!
What happened??), I've always been curious about teleprompters and
performance.
I watch the PBS stumping at fund-raising time, Dr. Amen, Furhman, even
that absolutely ridiculous Dr. Wayne Dyer, and I'm always amazed at the
utter *seamlessness* of these lectures/performances. I've done classroom
lecturing, spent too many years as a stoodint, and have NEVER seen
anything like this is a natural setting.
Now, I know the response will be, Well, PBS fund-raising et al is *not* a
natural setting..... and that is certainly true.
But these performances seem almost supernatural, even WITH teleprompters,
even with (proly) the wireless ear-bud prompting, etc.
I'm thinking these guys just have some extraordinary ability (proly way
beyond their medical expertise!!), because if I was up there, none of that
cueing/teleprompter stuff would help me!! And I can chat a bit.... LOL
But if they *don't* have extraordinary talent, is there some
super-coaching going on, some special method/technique of practice? This
must require MEGA-rehearsal, practice -- even with teleprompters....
Also, as I watch these guys, they're not standing still long enough to
read or even focus on anything, from what I can see. Amen is all over the
place!!!
I don't think I've seen any of them flub ONCE, yet. Nary a single flub!!!
Simply seamless.
Plus, you have singers all the time forgetting the lyrics to *their own
songs*, so hour-long monologues can't be a trivial feat.
Iny insights into this process??
--

Here are some insights from my own experience. A week ago I saw a stage
performance of Eugene O'Neil's "The Iceman Cometh", 4 and a half hours long.
Many of the actors, particularly Nathan Lane and Brian Dennehy, had
monologues many minutes long. No mistakes that I heard. None. There are
many examples of actors doing one-person shows that may last as long as 90
minutes with few or no mistakes. I used to do a presentation at sales
meetings for a large company, 20 minutes of information about marketing
plans, advertising buys, special promotions, plans for coupon deals, etc.
Twice a year the presentation I was a part of travelled the country to
present the sales meeting in major cities. I got a script for my part of
the show. I was allowed to suggest rewrites for language that didn't feel
natural to me. I memorized the script. I reheased it on my own until it
was flawless. Fortunately, I don't remember ever 'going up' on stage, not
remembering my lines. So, that's one method. Memorization and lots of
practice.

I once knew an actor, Ward Ohrman, who had an amazing knack for
memorization. In addition to stage work, he did a lot of corporate film and
video work, on-camera presenter stuff. He could learn a 25 minute script
sitting in a coffee shop in the early morning for a couple of hours. He'd
report to the set and ask the director which scene he wanted to start with.
He look at the scene on the page for a few seconds, literally a few seconds,
and he be ready to go. His flubs were very rare. He isn't the only actor
I've known who had extraordinary memorization and performance skills.

At corporate meetings, where I was 'hosting', which is to say introducing
executives and performers, MC work, nationally known speakers often
appeared...sales experts, marketing experts, etc. Most had one or more set
speeches that client companies could choose. These people, Wayne Dyer being
among them, practically never flubbed in a way the audience would recognize.
In addition to their initial preparation and rehearsal, they had given these
speeches hundreds of times. It was as much a part of them as saying the
pledge of allegiance to the flag is/was to school children.

In short, IMO, memorable performance is possible for many people. However,
most people just cannot bring themselves to do the extraordinary amount of
preperation that is normal and expected of trained actors and others who
make their livings presenting themselves to audiences.

Elsewhere in this thread someone asked about teleprompters/cue cards and
audio in-ear prompters. Using teleprompters while appearing to speak
spontaneously is a learned skill. Some people require much more practice
than others. Same with the in-ear prompters, where one records ahead of
time one's lines, usually monologues, then uses a playback of those lines in
a little ear bud to cue live speech. A learned skill, a skill usually more
difficult for most to learn than using a teleprompter. The in-ear prompter
has many advantages, though. Mainly no restriction on sight lines. One
isn't locked to looking at a prompter screen. The in-ear prompter literally
changed the way a certain class of video production is done today, both work
flow and economics. Before the in-ear prompter and people who could use it,
scripts had to be broken up into many short shots to accomodate the
imperfect memories of actors who had little opportunity to memorize and
rehearse before performing. When pages of script had to be done in one
take, it was expected that many, many tries might have to be done before
both actor and camera crew got everything right. With the in-ear prompter
and actors skilled in its use, that is all in the past. Now, it is
perfectly reasonable to do pages and pages of a monologue script flawlessly.
The director's choices are increased immeasureably. With a steady-cam long
travelling shots encompassing lots of copy are routine. Take after take
without needing re-takes are normal. This means that a video script that
might have taken three (stressful for the actors) days in the 1960s now are
done in a leisurely single day, saving thousands of dollars.

This is probably way too much information. I'll stop.

Steve King

[Existential Angst]

Post by Steve King

Post by Existential Angst
Awl --
More along the lines of production ( but rec.video.production is DEAD!!
What happened??), I've always been curious about teleprompters and
performance.
I watch the PBS stumping at fund-raising time, Dr. Amen, Furhman, even
that absolutely ridiculous Dr. Wayne Dyer, and I'm always amazed at the
utter *seamlessness* of these lectures/performances. I've done classroom
lecturing, spent too many years as a stoodint, and have NEVER seen
anything like this is a natural setting.
Now, I know the response will be, Well, PBS fund-raising et al is *not* a
natural setting..... and that is certainly true.
But these performances seem almost supernatural, even WITH teleprompters,
even with (proly) the wireless ear-bud prompting, etc.
I'm thinking these guys just have some extraordinary ability (proly way
beyond their medical expertise!!), because if I was up there, none of
that cueing/teleprompter stuff would help me!! And I can chat a bit....
LOL
But if they *don't* have extraordinary talent, is there some
super-coaching going on, some special method/technique of practice? This
must require MEGA-rehearsal, practice -- even with teleprompters....
Also, as I watch these guys, they're not standing still long enough to
read or even focus on anything, from what I can see. Amen is all over
the place!!!
I don't think I've seen any of them flub ONCE, yet. Nary a single
flub!!! Simply seamless.
Plus, you have singers all the time forgetting the lyrics to *their own
songs*, so hour-long monologues can't be a trivial feat.
Iny insights into this process??
--

Here are some insights from my own experience. A week ago I saw a stage
performance of Eugene O'Neil's "The Iceman Cometh", 4 and a half hours
long. Many of the actors, particularly Nathan Lane and Brian Dennehy, had
monologues many minutes long. No mistakes that I heard. None. There are
many examples of actors doing one-person shows that may last as long as 90
minutes with few or no mistakes. I used to do a presentation at sales
meetings for a large company, 20 minutes of information about marketing
plans, advertising buys, special promotions, plans for coupon deals, etc.
Twice a year the presentation I was a part of travelled the country to
present the sales meeting in major cities. I got a script for my part of
the show. I was allowed to suggest rewrites for language that didn't feel
natural to me. I memorized the script. I reheased it on my own until it
was flawless. Fortunately, I don't remember ever 'going up' on stage, not
remembering my lines. So, that's one method. Memorization and lots of
practice.
I once knew an actor, Ward Ohrman, who had an amazing knack for
memorization. In addition to stage work, he did a lot of corporate film
and video work, on-camera presenter stuff. He could learn a 25 minute
script sitting in a coffee shop in the early morning for a couple of
hours. He'd report to the set and ask the director which scene he wanted
to start with. He look at the scene on the page for a few seconds,
literally a few seconds, and he be ready to go. His flubs were very rare.
He isn't the only actor I've known who had extraordinary memorization and
performance skills.
At corporate meetings, where I was 'hosting', which is to say introducing
executives and performers, MC work, nationally known speakers often
appeared...sales experts, marketing experts, etc. Most had one or more
set speeches that client companies could choose. These people, Wayne Dyer
being among them, practically never flubbed in a way the audience would
recognize. In addition to their initial preparation and rehearsal, they
had given these speeches hundreds of times. It was as much a part of them
as saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag is/was to school children.
In short, IMO, memorable performance is possible for many people.
However, most people just cannot bring themselves to do the extraordinary
amount of preperation that is normal and expected of trained actors and
others who make their livings presenting themselves to audiences.
Elsewhere in this thread someone asked about teleprompters/cue cards and
audio in-ear prompters. Using teleprompters while appearing to speak
spontaneously is a learned skill. Some people require much more practice
than others. Same with the in-ear prompters, where one records ahead of
time one's lines, usually monologues, then uses a playback of those lines
in a little ear bud to cue live speech. A learned skill, a skill usually
more difficult for most to learn than using a teleprompter. The in-ear
prompter has many advantages, though. Mainly no restriction on sight
lines. One isn't locked to looking at a prompter screen. The in-ear
prompter literally changed the way a certain class of video production is
done today, both work flow and economics. Before the in-ear prompter and
people who could use it, scripts had to be broken up into many short shots
to accomodate the imperfect memories of actors who had little opportunity
to memorize and rehearse before performing. When pages of script had to
be done in one take, it was expected that many, many tries might have to
be done before both actor and camera crew got everything right. With the
in-ear prompter and actors skilled in its use, that is all in the past.
Now, it is perfectly reasonable to do pages and pages of a monologue
script flawlessly. The director's choices are increased immeasureably.
With a steady-cam long travelling shots encompassing lots of copy are
routine. Take after take without needing re-takes are normal. This means
that a video script that might have taken three (stressful for the actors)
days in the 1960s now are done in a leisurely single day, saving thousands
of dollars.
This is probably way too much information. I'll stop.

Actually, very informative, and for me, very bad news, due to my
swiss-cheese brain.
Indeed, that memory stuff is very impressive. Ditto the memory req'd for
choreography.

It seems, ito the Amen/Fuhrman/Dyer type stuff, that the catalyst of their
success is not their product or message, but rather their unique ability to
deliver it!!
Too smooth, for my taste -- almost like the smooth guy at the bar, with the
great pickup lines....

I hope my audience don't mind index cards, cuz that's what it's looking like
for me.... :(

What did you think of Dyer? Did you get to meet him?
I email PBS now and then, lambasting them for sullying the air waves with
that TaoMaoChao stupidness (no offense to *real* buddhists, btw), but then
having the eminent likes of Bill Moyers (finally back). I tell them their
programming dept has to be schizophrenic....
Dyer has good memory for his shtick, but it seems like he has trouble
remembering the names of his 8 kids.... LOL
--
EA

Post by Steve King
Steve King

[Steve King]

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Steve King

Post by Existential Angst
Awl --
More along the lines of production ( but rec.video.production is DEAD!!
What happened??), I've always been curious about teleprompters and
performance.
I watch the PBS stumping at fund-raising time, Dr. Amen, Furhman, even
that absolutely ridiculous Dr. Wayne Dyer, and I'm always amazed at the
utter *seamlessness* of these lectures/performances. I've done
classroom lecturing, spent too many years as a stoodint, and have NEVER
seen anything like this is a natural setting.
Now, I know the response will be, Well, PBS fund-raising et al is *not*
a natural setting..... and that is certainly true.
But these performances seem almost supernatural, even WITH
teleprompters, even with (proly) the wireless ear-bud prompting, etc.
I'm thinking these guys just have some extraordinary ability (proly way
beyond their medical expertise!!), because if I was up there, none of
that cueing/teleprompter stuff would help me!! And I can chat a
bit.... LOL
But if they *don't* have extraordinary talent, is there some
super-coaching going on, some special method/technique of practice?
This must require MEGA-rehearsal, practice -- even with
teleprompters....
Also, as I watch these guys, they're not standing still long enough to
read or even focus on anything, from what I can see. Amen is all over
the place!!!
I don't think I've seen any of them flub ONCE, yet. Nary a single
flub!!! Simply seamless.
Plus, you have singers all the time forgetting the lyrics to *their own
songs*, so hour-long monologues can't be a trivial feat.
Iny insights into this process??
--

Here are some insights from my own experience. A week ago I saw a stage
performance of Eugene O'Neil's "The Iceman Cometh", 4 and a half hours
long. Many of the actors, particularly Nathan Lane and Brian Dennehy, had
monologues many minutes long. No mistakes that I heard. None. There
are many examples of actors doing one-person shows that may last as long
as 90 minutes with few or no mistakes. I used to do a presentation at
sales meetings for a large company, 20 minutes of information about
marketing plans, advertising buys, special promotions, plans for coupon
deals, etc. Twice a year the presentation I was a part of travelled the
country to present the sales meeting in major cities. I got a script for
my part of the show. I was allowed to suggest rewrites for language that
didn't feel natural to me. I memorized the script. I reheased it on my
own until it was flawless. Fortunately, I don't remember ever 'going up'
on stage, not remembering my lines. So, that's one method. Memorization
and lots of practice.
I once knew an actor, Ward Ohrman, who had an amazing knack for
memorization. In addition to stage work, he did a lot of corporate film
and video work, on-camera presenter stuff. He could learn a 25 minute
script sitting in a coffee shop in the early morning for a couple of
hours. He'd report to the set and ask the director which scene he wanted
to start with. He look at the scene on the page for a few seconds,
literally a few seconds, and he be ready to go. His flubs were very
rare. He isn't the only actor I've known who had extraordinary
memorization and performance skills.
At corporate meetings, where I was 'hosting', which is to say introducing
executives and performers, MC work, nationally known speakers often
appeared...sales experts, marketing experts, etc. Most had one or more
set speeches that client companies could choose. These people, Wayne
Dyer being among them, practically never flubbed in a way the audience
would recognize. In addition to their initial preparation and rehearsal,
they had given these speeches hundreds of times. It was as much a part
of them as saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag is/was to school
children.
In short, IMO, memorable performance is possible for many people.
However, most people just cannot bring themselves to do the extraordinary
amount of preperation that is normal and expected of trained actors and
others who make their livings presenting themselves to audiences.
Elsewhere in this thread someone asked about teleprompters/cue cards and
audio in-ear prompters. Using teleprompters while appearing to speak
spontaneously is a learned skill. Some people require much more practice
than others. Same with the in-ear prompters, where one records ahead of
time one's lines, usually monologues, then uses a playback of those lines
in a little ear bud to cue live speech. A learned skill, a skill usually
more difficult for most to learn than using a teleprompter. The in-ear
prompter has many advantages, though. Mainly no restriction on sight
lines. One isn't locked to looking at a prompter screen. The in-ear
prompter literally changed the way a certain class of video production is
done today, both work flow and economics. Before the in-ear prompter and
people who could use it, scripts had to be broken up into many short
shots to accomodate the imperfect memories of actors who had little
opportunity to memorize and rehearse before performing. When pages of
script had to be done in one take, it was expected that many, many tries
might have to be done before both actor and camera crew got everything
right. With the in-ear prompter and actors skilled in its use, that is
all in the past. Now, it is perfectly reasonable to do pages and pages of
a monologue script flawlessly. The director's choices are increased
immeasureably. With a steady-cam long travelling shots encompassing lots
of copy are routine. Take after take without needing re-takes are
normal. This means that a video script that might have taken three
(stressful for the actors) days in the 1960s now are done in a leisurely
single day, saving thousands of dollars.
This is probably way too much information. I'll stop.

Actually, very informative, and for me, very bad news, due to my
swiss-cheese brain.
Indeed, that memory stuff is very impressive. Ditto the memory req'd for
choreography.
It seems, ito the Amen/Fuhrman/Dyer type stuff, that the catalyst of their
success is not their product or message, but rather their unique ability
to deliver it!!
Too smooth, for my taste -- almost like the smooth guy at the bar, with
the great pickup lines....
I hope my audience don't mind index cards, cuz that's what it's looking
like for me.... :(
What did you think of Dyer? Did you get to meet him?
I email PBS now and then, lambasting them for sullying the air waves with
that TaoMaoChao stupidness (no offense to *real* buddhists, btw), but then
having the eminent likes of Bill Moyers (finally back). I tell them their
programming dept has to be schizophrenic....
Dyer has good memory for his shtick, but it seems like he has trouble
remembering the names of his 8 kids.... LOL

Dyer was very pleasant and considerate to me on the only chance I had to
really have a conversation. What I come away with about all of the really
A-group business speakers is that all have spent a huge amount of time
researching and developing their subject matter usually later published in
book form. They know far more than they are able to communicate in the time
allotted to them. So, a smooth,. polished presentation gives them the best
chance to deliver value for the high fees they command. As for speaking
style, there is a lot of research in support of their presentation. Going
back 40 years a fellow from the University of Minnesota, Dr. Ralph Nichols,
did serious research on listening and retention of the spoken word. The key
thing that he found, that I remember, is that we are capable of listening to
spoken word much faster than most people speak. His experiments with a
large group of subjects showed that, whenever listeners got ahead of the
speaker, whenever they had the jist of what the speaker was saying and could
anticipate what the speaker was going to say next, their brains took a
little side trip. They thought about something else. What they were going
to eat that night. What their spouse was doing. With whom. Etc. Each side
trip the speaker allowed during a single presentation tended to get longer
and longer before the listener returned full attention to the speaker. The
result was that that their cognition and retention suffered more and more.
When I heard the Nichols speak to a group of about 250 people, he spoke
faster than anyone I had ever heard before. I and the rest of the audience
was riveted to what he was saying, riveted because of how he was saying it.
He gave us no opportunity to take mental side trips. He had our complete
attention for the full 60 minutes of his presentation. I suspect that many
of the A-list business speakers are aware of this research and prepare
accordingly. I surely do wish some of my professors had learned that
lesson. Next time you speak, ask an assistant to guage the attention of
your audience/students every five minutes or so. Give it a grade. You may
not be able to, or choose to, change your presentation accordingly, but at
least you will have a better sense of how much teaching you are doing and
how much time-filling. I do not mean my use of "you" to be personal. Nor
do I imply that speaking fast is the only effective way to communicate.
But, I have done this for my own presentations, when I was speaking often as
a hired hand for companies. When I had a client complain that I was
speaking too fast for the audience to absorb what I was saying, I asked him
to guage the audience's attention, when I was speaking modestly fast vs. a
much faster rate in a later presentation. He was convinced. In the
theater, new acting students hear this from their teachers more often than
any other criticism, "Faster. Louder. Faster. Louder."

Steve King

[Geoff Berrow]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:13:24 -0500, "Steve King"

Post by Steve King
In the
theater, new acting students hear this from their teachers more often than
any other criticism, "Faster. Louder. Faster. Louder."

I seem to recall that the dialogue in a lot of old American crime
dramas was a lot faster. Perhaps not an new idea, eh?

[Steve King]

Post by Geoff Berrow
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:13:24 -0500, "Steve King"

Post by Steve King
In the
theater, new acting students hear this from their teachers more often than
any other criticism, "Faster. Louder. Faster. Louder."

I seem to recall that the dialogue in a lot of old American crime
dramas was a lot faster. Perhaps not an new idea, eh?
--

Probably not new at all. I do love to hear that stylized acting that was so
prevelent in both movies and radio drama in the 30s and 40s as well as the
common nasel placing of male voices. However, for acting students, the
criticism of 'louder, faster' generally has to do with the fact that they
have so much going on mentally not only about the words but also about the
physicality of their performance. All that thinking tends to slow
everything down. With training and practice many of those early concerns
become intuitive leaving mental space to get on with it.

Steve King