Burlesque

[pamelaneko]

This is a very interesting article by Dan Savage, and it's making the rounds in the burlesque community.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-burlesque-shoah/Content?oid=4399613

"...Because without some negative feedback, without criticism, the local burlesque bubble is destined to burst."

When I started burlesque, I tried very hard to spend time w

Comments

[redhotannie]

Obviously you know what I think on this one.

The problem is there are some really, really, really bad performers who don't know they are bad performers. I did a spittake yesterday when one of the WORST performers in Chicago posted that she would be game for an audience's honest response.

REALLY? Are we *that* clueless? If she's walking around thinking she's good when she's not, how many other people are equally clueless?

We encourage the audience to yell and hollar and "Woo!," and unfortunately, I think we're asking them to do something counter their nature. The audience KNOWS when something is bad, because people have said things to me months after shows about how awkward a certain performer was.

The problem starts when we consider a performing art to be some sort of group therapy or opportunity to pat eachother on the back for doing a "good job." Do we really need that?

I think some people think we do because they don't realize the audience - any audience - wants to be entertained. Not forced to "woo" out of discomfort for a situation, which - with the community as full and active as it is now and audiences being much more familiar with the artform - is more likely than it was years ago when not as many people saw burlesque and it was more of a novelty.

[redhotannie]

I will add that I think the reason why burlesque dancers are responding so strongly to this is BECAUSE there is a lack of a community standard, and most of us don't know where we fit it - are we good? mediocore? bad?

Many of us would like to improve, but have limited resources and outlets for it because there's so many performers who are complacent.

[aynatonal]

I find your perspective on this issue super interesting in particular, Annie, since to a very real extent, Vaudezilla *is* in a position to enforce your idea of community standards, purely because of how much work you generate for performers. You provide opportunities for performers (particularly independents without home shows) well in excess of any other production team that I can think of, so you *are* taste-makers. Performers you judge good enough to put on your stage are going to be seen far more than ones that you don't, and if you're really considering courting genuine audience reaction, I'd imagine it would be in the best interest of shows, performers and production company that you only put up the best.

[redhotannie]

We absolutely try to set community standards by who we hire, but there are two problems:

We are in the position where we have to put up "a" show - any show - and regularly. If good people aren't available, we still have to do the show, anyway. We need lots of performers, which is why, when you look around these days, you'll find a lot of people who got their start with us...and no stinkers among them (so far!). We have rehearsal and are constantly scouting new (good) folks so we don't have to use bad ones.

And number two is: if we used the best 8 people at every show, we'd have no audience. The audience doesn't want to see the same people every week, and some good performers have absolutely no draw, anyways!

So, I think we're doing our part...but I see the problem is one that takes performers being self-aware, too. I've seen perfectly good performers shrug after they say they didn't rehearse a mediocore act they just put on stage - and that's something no producer can control. Few performers seek feedback, and many are so complacent that they don't even attend other peoples shows to learn, let alone attend some sort of performance-oriented class. This is the only performance art I can think of like that!

[aynatonal]

Oh, for sure! Filling a line-up can be difficult, and you're doing it something like six times a month. Sometimes, one has to make compromises (although I certainly think your line-ups are generally terrific). And I certainly don't mean to imply that the responsibility for not sucking is on anyone other than the individual performers--there really *is* nothing you can do if someone who is normally reliable shows up unprepared, except not use them if it becomes a chronic issue.

I do think that the closest analogue to the burlesque scene is improv. There are more established avenues for training in improv, but not everyone comes to it that way. It has some of the same quality control issues, the same lack of self-examination, the same gulf between the top practitioners and the folks who are just in it because they love it, or because it feeds some need in them. It's not a perfect analogy, of course (burlesque's body politics are unique to the form, thank goodness), but I do see a lot of parallels.

[pamelaneko]

yeah this is such a tough issue to tackle, especially since our audience is so varied and sometimes doesn't even know what they want to see! I think there are a lot of performers who are totally clueless that they are not good-- however, it seems like audience feedback would just encourage them to blame the audience and society b/c they feel like they have a right to use burlesque to put out whatever they want to, for their own desires.

On the other hand, a lot of audience ppl have told me that they love dancers who are a bit flawed, b/c they are more relateable.

[redhotannie]

Plus, I WANT people to be good - to "get good" if they aren't already. And it seems to me that I can write feedback that encourages people to accept responsibility for the qualtity of their work and seek critical feedback.