Feel Me Don't You

Thanks Jared, I’m pleased it’s becoming clearer. If you’ll notice in the original post, I never said “this is the way it is”. I asked how people viewed the current improv scene then offered up my opinion.

Perhaps what has been lost in all this is that it’s not my belief that people shouldn’t wear their “Improv Yay!!1!” blinders (we may have a trademark and branding opportunity here – CafePress pirate eye patches with the “Improv Yay!!1!” text on them), it’s that it’s detrimental to wear them all the time or for everyone in the troupe to be wearing them at the same time. I’ve been guilty of the former in the recent past. Just as you shouldn’t wear your “Improv Yay!!1!” blinders all the time, it’s just as bad to be critical all the time. Where one blinds you to the realities of various situations, the other can squelch creativity or ambition. A balance is needed.

Allow me to go back to a previous example in the form of Thunderdome. I never said people shouldn’t form new groups to perform in TD. That’s what it’s there for – to provide a safe, nurturing environment for improvisers to experiment. It’s a unique environment because of what it affords the performer that a regular performance environment usually doesn’t provide. What if every troupe that performed in TD had such a great time (and, like you & Ed, I honestly hope that everyone has a great time) that they decided to take that troupe or show and create a run of shows. What do you think would be the result?

Might we agree that would be a case of everyone wearing their “Improv Yay!!1!” blinders? Now when I propose that we view things a little more critically, I’m asking people to stop and think for a moment. You had a great time, but does that mean you should continue beyond TD? Will your group/show be able to consistently replicate at a high level when you’re not within the safety of TD? Can the local economy accommodate potentially 6 – 9 new troupes/performances (based on 2 or 3 seasons of TD per year)? If it can, great! If it can’t, by forging ahead, might you be hurting your own potential whether within the new group or possibly even the older group? What if the reality of the situation is that your group can’t consistently produce quality results even though you think you can? Like it or not, each troupe/performance has an impact on every other troupe/performance in this city and a bad show is likely to hurt more than just your future, it can hurt us all. A bad Tantrum show has a good chance of hurting every other troupe in town – just as an example.

The flip side is that if we’re always critical and we’re too afraid to try, we become stagnant once more. No one’s pushing the envelope and no one’s really growing. If we don’t try to flex those muscles, then we’ll never be able to train our audiences that they can expect something different – something they aren’t used to seeing. I realize this may sound odd by the very definition of the word improv, but audiences expect different things from their improv groups – ComedyCity fans may not appreciate the intricacies of the Trip 5′s – again, just as an example.

Clearer still?

Thanks for your input Pete. I like what you said and it made a lot of sense. Let me ask you another question though.

I hope people reading this post understand that I want the KC improv scene to succeed. I want the best for the community. The catch is that I hope people will view the current landscape with a more critical eye. By critical, I don’t mean negative, I mean with closer examination. You know as well as I do that we have a tendency to wear our “Improv Yay!!1!” blinders and don’t always see everything.

I understand what you are getting at in the above paragraph, but there is something in it that I wanted to point out. When you talk about having a critical eye, that is strictly your opinion of the current state of things. Is it not? You see the vast amount of growing groups could possibly be damaging to the future of community, right?

That is all good and fine, but I started thinking… do we really want every group in town to be thinking the same way? Do you want every troupe in town to have the same approach towards performances, marketing, ticket prices, etc? Do we want every troupe to think critically and not wear the Yay Improv blinders?

I am starting to understand more of what you are getting at the more I re-read all of these posts. But also, the more I read the more I believe that the current state of the community is going in the right direction.

Jared, over the past several months I’ve seen a variety of improv shows that would be deemed mediocre at best. Don’t get me wrong, there have been a couple good shows too, but they were more the exception than the rule. Like the shows, there have been some decent attendance numbers but again that’s more the exception than the rule. It made me wonder if the quality of the shows was suffering because the improv community was focused more on expanding and trying something new – be it a troupe or format – rather than on the quality of their current troupe or show.

I hope people reading this post understand that I want the KC improv scene to succeed. I want the best for the community. The catch is that I hope people will view the current landscape with a more critical eye. By critical, I don’t mean negative, I mean with closer examination. You know as well as I do that we have a tendency to wear our “Improv Yay!!1!” blinders and don’t always see everything.

You also know as well as I do that success is relative. With no disrespect intended towards anyone affiliated with The Fish Tank, I would like to use them as an example. Hearing they had a sold out performance sounds impressive. If you look closer, though, you’ll realize their max capacity is 45-ish and that the last Thunderdome performance that was pretty full, but not sold out, would’ve meant two sold out Fish Tank shows. If TD had the same attendance that The Fish Tank had, would you have viewed the night as a success?

Going deeper… what is each person’s/troupe’s measure of success? Performing a show that has the audience laughing more than 50% of the show? Performing a show that has the audience laughing less than 50% of the show, but 50% harder than the first scenario? Performing a show where the audience may not have laughed a lot, but were engaged and entertained just the same? Performing a show where you don’t have to pay out of your own pocket for the space? Performing a show where you obtain a significant amount of names and email addresses enabling you to garner repeat business? Performing a show that scores you a date or perhaps a crowd of people who want to buy you a multitude of drinks after the show? All of the above?

Or as previously mentioned, is success measured by the simple ability to continue doing what you love to do?

Pete, I am now curious as to what instance or occurrence actually spawned this post. Because, in a sense, this post does kinda throw a negative vibe into the growing community. Until reading all of this, I was under the impression that everything in the KC improv world was groovy.

More troupes, more venues, more audiences. January was successful overall. Full Frontal had sold out crowds. The Fish Tank sold out. Both the Loaded Dice/Trip Fives & Thunderdome had very respectable crowds. And so did Roving Imp from what I hear. And that’s just the first big weekend of the year.

So why not be positive about what all is going on right now?

I wasn’t referring to any group in particular. However, to simple state here that other groups lack an understanding doesn’t address the issue in my opinion. I think it only serves to divide a community that is growing I believe is flush with greater potential than what we have had available in the past. And in reference to Trish’s comment, I never said gimmicky. I was talking about having a set that was faster paced and had a hook. I know that sounds like splitting hairs but, I never intended to place “gimmick” at the center.

I would definitely lean towards the views shared by the some of the newer members of the community.

I also believe that it is this expansion that will bring us new audiences. Especially in reference to Trish’s comment about no money being spent on marketing. The level of play does need to be stepped up. I believe in that when we share audience and stage with these newer groups we can offer an example to both of them. I don’t think it is fair to simply accuse the newer segments of our community as not putting the effort forth. I have been surprised much more than I have been disappointed by what I have seen from the newer groups.

I look forward to more opportuinties to work with the new members of our community and growing it further.

Welcome Nick Rigoli! I’m sure my own geeky analogy in the original post didn’t make it any easier for some folks to digest. That’s just how my brain works sometimes.

/shrug

I’m thrilled that there are many viewpoints being expressed here and that we’re all adult enough not to allow this to deteriorate into any sort of childish mudslinging regardless of the differing opinions.

Timmy – Well, doomed to small crowds in our regular venues — not doomed to implode or cease to exist or turn into vapor or whatever Pete said.

Let’s just use the word “contraction”. Okay? Great!

Jessica – They are BEGGING us to do longform in our rehearsals now.

I wonder if that’s because they haven’t seen really good short form. I will agree with Josh & Trish and say that I’d put the short form shows from the mid/late nineties at CSz up against any of the long form currently being done and it would hold its own. I’m not saying one or the other is better, they’re just different and appeal to different people. I’ll go further and say that the art of short form has been lost on most (not all) of the groups in this town. Hardly anyone is attacking it the way it needs to be attacked to rock the audience’s socks off. It’s too often being approached with a long form sensibility. It’s not a gimmick thing, it’s a timing and rhythm thing.

Scott – Troupes should be focused on quality.

You’re absolutely right, troupes should be focused on a quality show. For the audience, that means being entertaining – funny, quirky, or whatever you do to keep them engaged and interested.

I just found this wonderful post by Pete and then read it. It took me a little while because their was alot to read. I agree with Josh. I forget sometimes that we’re just doing this for fun and if you can get 20-40 people to see your show more power to ya. Plus most people, even though bogged down by being in 4-5 differnet groups, are trying to put on better shows by honing their craft thanks to leaders in that area like John Robinson, Trish, Ed and others. But truthfully, unless you come up with a good format, improv can only be so entertaining to an audience. That’s why comedy sports is so successful. (not just in kc but in other cities.)Personally I think Thunderdome is sucessful even without the family, friends factor. It’s a shame with all this talent in KC that nobody is really interested in doing a polished show such as sketch or even writing a comedic play of some kind. Lot’s of funny people here but no one is really interested in that. Improv is just to easy. And fun to do. Besides, those types of shows are alot of work and you really have to have a passion for that sort of thing. A great example of what i’m talking about is this. I’ve seen Full Frontal perform three times. The two that were improv were boring, the third was their 30 plays in 60 minutes and it was very entertaining and made me want to see more. I don’t say this from a biased perspective, because I went to see them wanting to be entertained. Go see a Pretty.Funny show and compare it to the best improv in KC and see for yourself. In the meantime improv will continue to exist because people are interested in it. But hey Improv-abilities has been around for a long time so that’s a success. Tantrum has been doing shows for a while. Thats a success. Maybe success is as simple as being able to do what you love to do.

I agree with Jared. Trish is right about all three of us.

I agree with Trish. Ed, Pete and I are all pretty.

Boy, that enormous thread was not easy to read.

I agreed with Trish on everything she said in her well-written January 19 post.

There is a lot of audience to be had. To accept that our audiences must always be made up largely of friends and family is incorrect, and worse, defeatist.

Forty to fifty percent of Improv-Abilities audiences at Lucky’s are new to us each show. People call for tickets because they’ve seen our listings (or a rare write-up) on the web or in the paper.* Acquaintances and friends-of-friends become regulars. It’s just a bonus that our friends and family enjoy coming to show after show, but I always approach our shows with the goal of impressing (catering to?) first-time audience members.

I applaud Tantrum and other groups who are actively trying to reach new audiences. We should all do that, and more of it. It doesn’t always work, but if we don’t try we’re doomed. Well, doomed to small crowds in our regular venues — not doomed to implode or cease to exist or turn into vapor or whatever Pete said.

My proposal for a new thread: Let’s share our successful and failed attempts to reach new audiences.

*In fact, I got a reservation for three strangers between the time I started this post and the time I finished it. A woman found us on the web, and like many such people, she has no idea which website it was.

Josh is 100% right.

Artistic quality + entertainment value + demand = success.

Demand means more than “you didn’t have to cancel.” Success means people seek out your product—and beat down the doors to get it.

The only show I know of that has ever sold out regularly was hey-day ComedyCity. Check out the cast back in those days—and how many in that cast who have gone on to artistic AND commercially successful ventures.

There is demand to go around.

For long form improv (which is what everyone wants to do)? Really? Sorry, but that demand is LIMITED. This stuff ain’t for everybody.

Their artistic quality doesn’t matter as much as you’d like to think it does.

If by “artistic quality” you mean “entertainment value”, it matters a LOT, because repeat business and word of mouth is the only thing that has ever worked in consistently drawing crowds to improv shows.

Create reliable supply and the existing demand will find you.

Not true. See the decline of ComedyCity the last, say, 7 years. This goes back well before everyone was off doing their own thing and they were still by far the largest entity in town. This is also relevant to the “artistic quality” argument above.

They are BEGGING us to do longform in our rehearsals now.

Which goes to my point…improv in KC right now is more closely focused on us doing whatever we want. What’s fun for us?

The negative is that sometimes this is at the expense of giving the audience the best possible show. We’ve all seen a person or even an entire troupe that had no business being on stage doing what he/she/they were doing. And there’s no way an audience member witnessing that in his/her right mind would spend another second thinking about seeing another improv show.

Hm, I thought through my comments I had made my thoughts a bit more clear. In case they aren’t, I don’t feel the improv scene will experience a total collapse so much as a contraction. As Josh points out “we have a steady increase in the number of improvisers, troupes and shows, but we don’t have a proportional increase in audience size.”

I think the original point is this: we have a steady increase in the number of improvisers, troupes and shows, but we don’t have a proportional increase in audience size.

Will there be a collapse? No, because people are doing this to have fun. As long as it’s fun for them, they will giddily continue to put up new shows, form new troupes, and do new formats.

(Sidebar – I will say that one thing that is lacking is a sense of self-awareness. I think people–new AND experienced–tend to think about their performances as improvisers, not audience members.)

Will there ever be a huge audience for improv? Probably not for the type of shows everyone seems to want to do. A longform piece has a much smaller margin for error, requires more skill, and demands more vigilance from the audience. For this last reason alone, it will appeal to a smaller swath of people than the Whose Line/Comedy Sportz type of entertainment—it’s simply not as easily digestible.

As to whether it was “definitely not” better with the two major theaters (what are you considering to be the second?), are we talking better for the improvisers or the audience? Also, are we talking 1999 or 2006?

If we’re talking 1999, I would argue that things were better for both improvisers AND audience. Improvisers were paid well, crowds were huge, and you could learn on the job and get stage time without hurting a show. Audiences knew where to go, far more people knew about it, and—sorry, Tom–the quality of show was consistently good to very good. Yes, better and funnier than the average show you’ll see today. There was almost a 0% chance that you’d see something that was painful to watch. The creative control and personality conflicts were the downside, and they affected some more than others. Overall though, things were pretty damn good.

I say this as more of an explanation than an argument. What I mean is, I’m not in this to make an artistic statement. I don’t do this to bring some obscure Malaysian improv theory to Kansas City.

I want to make tons of people laugh. Period. That’s the rush I’m after. That’s what got me hooked on this stuff. I’ll be the first to admit it’s been hard for me to deal with the fact that there’s not a way to do that on a regular basis right now. Now, the standard for what’s considered a “good crowd” is looking out from behind the curtains at showtime and celebrating that we won’t have to pay rent. And that, in a nutshell, is why I’m not Mr. Sunshine when it comes to improv.

I was about to add my two cents, but Jess and Scott pretty much did it for me. I just blogged, however, and I think my posting is rather germane to this conversation -

http://kcxrc.blogspot.com/2010/01/experimentation.html

The only limit to our audience is the limited number of people who like to be entertained outside their home. Anyone who is willing to go into a comfortable, welcoming, entertaining environment, along with fellow human beings, is our potential audience. We just need to provide that environment. Do you ever wonder where that Comedy City audience came from? There wasn’t a generation of people who loved improv and then died off like the dinosaurs. They were people who *found* improv, enjoyed it, told their friends, brought their co-workers, and made a hobby of it. What makes this generation any different? More entertainment options? Perhaps, but I’d counter that by saying you’re doing better improv now (I wish I could say “we”…maybe some day) than Comedy City in its heyday. My brother and sister performed Comedy Sportz/Comedy City in the early-to-mid-90s. I saw plenty of shows, with and without them performing. And I’d line up The Trip Fives, Improv-Abilities, Spite/Tantrum, Your Mother Called, Loaded Dice, Babel Fish, Dictionary Soup, and Those People and put you into an Thunderdome with that bunch any day of the week, and you all would win 9 times out of 10.

So yes, I think we’re in a growth cycle. I think we’ve been stunting our own growth, honestly, by trying to compete for a fragmented market rather than unifying and making a run at something bigger. KC’s Improv scene isn’t a Malthusian environment. We don’t need to limit growth or fight one another for scraps. We need to combine existing audience and quality performances with consistent venues, and the occasional marketing breakthrough. It’s not rocket science. It’s evolution.

My tiny piece to add to this:

Many people have made the point that 99.99999% of an improviser’s audience consist of friends and family of the improvisers themselves. That being said….the easiest way to grow and expand our universe is to make more improvisers.

That being said, there is the aspect of quality to be considered. And how do we get quality improvisers? Training and experience.

I know for a fact that Project Improv has created at least four brand new improvisers from scratch, and having brought them to shows at KC Crossroads Comedy, they seem to be awed and inspired by what we have built so far in our universe. They are BEGGING us to do longform in our rehearsals now.

I believe our universe is not only expanding, but sustainable. As long as we continue to provide an energy source from which to feed newcomers.

What can I say? I am an optimist.

The Q of ‘Were we better off with two major houses to perform improv in this town?’ is the wrong question to ask. In fact, most of the discussion here has been misdirected, although circling around the truth. Trish said “No one has managed to create demand”. This is inaccurate. There is demand to go around. This is why new people keep trying us. This is why we are able to at least launch (but rarely sustain well) new troupes. I’ll say it again, there is demand to go around.

The real problem is that few have managed to create a reliable, regular supply, and now to use Trish’s suffix more accurately, besides Comedy City, that is. The magic of the two major improv houses of yesteryear was that there was always a show at both. Create reliable supply and the existing demand will find you.

Some may say that Thunderdome has created demand. No. It smartly centralizes a much broader supply base’s existing demand.

CC has multiple shows a weekend. KCXRC has at least 1 show a weekend. Roving Imp has at least 2 shows a weekend. That is why they are going to succeed. Their artistic quality doesn’t matter as much as you’d like to think it does. Why? Because the successful part of all three are their production companies. The ‘art’ comes secondary, as far as the dollar and the butts-in-seats is concerned. If TD (essentially a production company) stepped up to having a show every weekend, they’d be as much a player as CC, RI, and KCXRC.

Troupes should be focused on quality. Production companies should be focused on regularity. Its time to un-couple the two functions if we’re getting serious about this biz.

“You’re welcome.” Dammit, there could be a billion typos in there and there’s not a damn thing I can do about it.

I’m picking random questions to answer and will rattle off random thoughts. So there.

THUNDERDOME:
—Brilliant marketing technique—the first in the city. Jared and Ed create the hype; the troupes bring the crowd.
—TD means your first show is likely to be for people who like you…or like improv…or both. Great for your troupe, and because Jared and Ed create a “cheer for your team without being against the others” vibe, great for the others.
—So yes, TD results in troupes that don’t know how hard it is to market a show in the long term AND may not be capable of being interesting for more than 30 minutes.
—Ed, you said yourself—when you were directing Team #9—that Thunderdome formats are all about the wacky gimmicks. Right? Right.
—More experienced players may not be taking T-Dome as seriously out of disrespect. They may be busier than college kids. Or have to squeeze a T-dome rehearsal between 4 others. Or figure that as experienced players doing a known format, they don’t need to rehearse the life out of it. So maybe they’ll put on a good show and lose to college kids who have 800 facebook friends and can’t get into bars. They’re (We’re) doing solid sets and keeping the show watchable. Your welcome.

TANTRUM:
—You say: “To take Tantrum for example, from an outsiders point of view it seems that you all are relying on whoever will be guest monologist to provide a majority of the audience. I don’t know if that is true or not, but it’s just a point of view. I would hope that the troupe itself would still push marketing beyond that.”
You’re right. We market to our regulars (usually 1/3-1/2 of the audience) and count on the monologist to bring the rest in. If we’re lucky, they turn into regulars, too. Thunderdome has your marketing tactic; we have ours.
—Tantrum doesn’t invite other troupes to play because we’re able to get the 7 of us together once a month, and for those of us who were spoiled (and trained) by playing four 90-minute shows a weekend, 30 minutes feels like foreplay. We want a whole show to ourselves. It’s not elitism. It’s selfishness and love of playing.

ED’S QUESTIONS:
Q. Do you feel there is only one pool of audience from which all of us to draw from?
A. Yes. It’s called Kansas City. It’s big, but we’re marketing with no budget, which means we’re getting people to try us instead of their usual forms of entertainment one by one.

Q. Were we better off with two major houses to perform improv in this town?
A. Nope. The audience didn’t notice, though, because NO ONE HAS MANAGED TO CREATE DEMAND. Besides ComedyCity, that is.

Q. Does Thunderdome only promote and create half assed troupes?
A. I’d say it’s about 50/50.

Jared. Ed. Pete. You’re all pretty. Why the hell can’t you quit baiting each other and just get along?

First and foremost, I want to thank everyone who has posted their thoughts here. My goal was to get a dialogue going and you’ve all contributed.

Thank you!

I hope that others will still offer up their opinions. Now, onto my reply…

Why do you feel there is a finite number of people from which we can draw?

It’s purely a numbers thing, Ed. Let’s work from the outside in. The KC metro area has a finite population. Of that population, there are a finite number of people willing to see improv. Of those willing to see improv, there are a finite number willing to see a show within a certain geographic radius. Of those people, there are a finite number willing to see a show within an area on a specific date/time.

Is the only answer to this issue for the amount of groups to be limited?

Yes, but that limit will not be defined by any one individual. The market will determine the limit as we can only assume that people won’t simply continue performing for little to no audience. Improv Darwinism.

Then what is the proper number of options for shows? How is this going to be decided (who stays, who goes, who gets to play) and maintained (how do we play by these new rules)?

See above. These aren’t new rules, they’ve always been there. The improv scene just hadn’t expanded enough for people to really consider it. I hope people reading this post understand that I’m not saying we need to curtail any sort of expansion or exploration. If people want to form new troupes and do more shows, more power to them. I just hope they take a moment to remove their “Improv Yay!!1!” blinders and take a realistic look at the local scene. I don’t mean that term in a negative sense because we’ve all worn/still wear those blinders.

I keep getting a sense that you believe the TD to be creating spoiled groups of improvisors… I don’t understand your issue with an environment that nurtures performers… Because, for this line of thinking to rule, it means a rejection of growth.

I don’t know how to say this any plainer than I already have, so for the final time… I don’t believe that TD is creating spoiled groups. I don’t have any issue with an environment that nurtures performers. What I am saying is that the TD environment is not the same as if a troupe were to do a show on their own or combined with another troupe. The demands on the troupe are different and what works in TD may not work outside TD. And I disagree about this line of thinking meaning a rejection of growth. It simply means that we shouldn’t expect a spike in audiences. Just because we add 4 new troupes or 12 new shows doesn’t mean the audience will necessarily follow. It’s a slow growth.

And if there is a contraction in the scene; I would hope that the scene quickly rebounds and growth begins again. I would go into economic theory but, I don’t have enough experience in that area to compete in a geek off with your cosmology analogy.

I agree with you. When I say that I think there will be a contraction, it’s with the hope that we are able to grow stronger from it. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Go into economic theory if you like. Geek away!

And it isn’t going to be enjoyed by troupes that button down the hatches and choose isolation over collaboration. Veteran troupes who choose to remove themselves from the opportunity to work with those who are new to the scene miss the opportunity to support growth through cooperation, providing example, and gaining access to audiences they would not have had otherwise.

So you’re saying you feel Tantrum acts elitist?

I do agree that it would be nice to have some established standards in our community. I don’t know what is the best approach to that. Although I do have some half baked thoughts. Most of them have to do with the veterans of the community being more aggressive with their presence. Those with experience should be offering their expertise to the community along side their critique.

I don’t have the answers – that’s what this post was intended to spitball through discourse. Which veterans would you like to see doing more in the community?

I believe there will continue to be more groups to replace the ones that fall off.

So if they’re replacing the ones that fall off, we’re merely maintaining a certain level until such time as the audience allows growth and expansion?

So instead of a glass half empty take on this change in our scene, I feel real positive about what is happening.

Just because I feel there will be a contraction, it doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. It’s a necessary thing.

There is a finite number of people from which we can draw and, like every other entertainment option in this town, we are all in competition with each other for those dollars.

Why do you feel there is a finite number of people from which we can draw?

Is the only answer to this issue for the amount of groups to be limited?

2. Were we better off with two major houses to perform improv in this town?

Definitely not.

Then what is the proper number of options for shows?

How is this going to be decided (who stays, who goes, who gets to play) and maintained (how do we play by these new rules)?

3. Does Thunderdome only promote and create half assed troupes?

no, I don’t think you only promote half-assed troupes.

The flip side is that performances can often (not always) be under-rehearsed or less polished and because of the feeling of a safe haven can be misleading. If you pluck a particular performance out of that environment will it be able to stand on its own? If we took TBA’s first performance in TD out and placed it on its own at WCH or another venue, would it have worked? I can’t say, can you? Therein lies the danger of troupes continuing their shows beyond these events. This doesn’t mean that I think that no one should form or continue a troupe/show for or beyond these events, it just means that there’s greater danger and requires a hell of a lot of effort involved – a reality check is needed.

I keep getting a sense that you believe the TD to be creating spoiled groups of improvisors. I would say my experience has been the more seasoned performers take the sets less seriously and eschew preparation more often than the less experience groups. I have found more often I am impressed and surprised by what happens on the stage than I am disappointed by the efforts of the groups. I don’t understand your issue with an environment that nurtures performers. I can see what you identify as reasons to feel this way. However, I don’t feel that there are examples in our community to back up what you are saying i.e groups continuing on doing bad performances.

i don’t think there is a finite amount of audience for us. To say so is to say that we have all ready reached a saturation point with awareness of improv in this town. I disagree with that mindset. Because, for this line of thinking to rule, it means a rejection of growth. It is the same argument used by both of two major houses when this whole thing got started.

Why not go where things were all ready established?

Why not maintain the status quo?

Improv was stagnant in this town. Now it is a dynamic force. I see possibilities in this growth, not demise. And if there is a contraction in the scene; I would hope that the scene quickly rebounds and growth begins again. I would go into economic theory but, I don’t have enough experience in that area to compete in a geek off with your cosmology analogy.

The simple fact is that this growth we are experiencing is what is going to sustain us in the future. And it isn’t going to be enjoyed by troupes that button down the hatches and choose isolation over collaboration. Veteran troupes who choose to remove themselves from the opportunity to work with those who are new to the scene miss the opportunity to support growth through cooperation, providing example, and gaining access to audiences they would not have had otherwise.

I do agree that it would be nice to have some established standards in our community. I don’t know what is the best approach to that. Although I do have some half baked thoughts. Most of them have to do with the veterans of the community being more aggressive with their presence. Those with experience should be offering their expertise to the community along side their critique.

In either case I don’t feel the same as you do. I believe there will continue to be more groups to replace the ones that fall off. I believe that there will be more improvisors and along with them more audience. We don’t have an precedent in our area to go on. So instead of a glass half empty take on this change in our scene, I feel real positive about what is happening.

So I’m not sure whether you are speaking as a concerned member of the community, a performer/producer of tantrum, a former and longtime member of comedy sports/city, or star wars fan/fake feuding member of TBA.

I’m speaking as “a concerned member of the community, a performer/producer of tantrum, a former and longtime member of comedy sports/city” since they are all the same person. You write as though “star wars fan/fake feuding member of TBA” is a continual thing when, in fact, that subterfuge was short-lived. You know others whose “tendency to start shit for the sake of starting shit” is far greater than mine. Regardless, moving on…

The answers to your questions:

1. Do you feel there is only one pool of audience from which all of us to draw from?

There is a finite number of people from which we can draw and, like every other entertainment option in this town, we are all in competition with each other for those dollars.

2. Were we better off with two major houses to perform improv in this town?

Definitely not.

3. Does Thunderdome only promote and create half assed troupes?

Am I mistaken here or do you & Jared still feel this post is in some way an attack on Thunderdome and by extension the two of you? It’s not. I have no qualms with Thunderdome. For the record, Thunderdome doesn’t create troupes, improvisers create troupes for TD. While TD creates an opportunity for those troupes to perform, they might just as well form to perform at RI, The Fish Tank, or on their own. TD creates a safe, friendly environment for those troupes to perform. You & Jared promote TD as a show or event. By extension the troupes who perform are promoted, but the focus, as it should be, is on the name TD. As promoters, you have no control over the troupes as far as performance content. They can tell you what format they’d like to perform, however, there’s nothing stopping them from doing something else once they hit the stage. You have no control over how much they rehearse or how seriously they take the event. My apologies for taking so long to answer this question – no, I don’t think you only promote half-assed troupes.

I’m really not sure how to process your argument here Pete so, I’m having difficulty tracking what you are saying. It is also difficult for me to take what you say with any validity since you have shown an tendency to start shit for the sake of starting shit. So I’m not sure whether you are speaking as a concerned member of the community, a performer/producer of tantrum, a former and longtime member of comedy sports/city, or star wars fan/fake feuding member of TBA. Some questions clarification:

1. Do you feel there is only one pool of audience from which all of us to draw from?

2. Were we better off with two major houses to perform improv in this town?

3. Does Thunderdome only promote and create half assed troupes?

Yes, I did say that I agree that a lot troupes out there are not surviving on their own. After giving it a little more thought I should downgrade from “a lot” to “some” troupes. I don’t know how many troupes have to pay rent out of pocket on a regular basis, but I think it would be a small amount. Maybe a couple of troupes.

If a troupe is having problems paying rent over and over, then they should A) Move to a smaller venue with cheaper rent, B) Start splitting shows with 1 or 2 more groups to help share rent costs, C) start re-thinking whether it is still worth it to be a troupe.

To take Tantrum for example, from an outsiders point of view it seems that you all are relying on whoever will be guest monologist to provide a majority of the audience. I don’t know if that is true or not, but it’s just a point of view. I would hope that the troupe itself would still push marketing beyond that.

To your first part, I agree. If they are having problems, they should try all of those. To your second part, Tantrum has a fanbase regardless of the monthly monologist as evidenced by repeat business. You’re right, though, that we rely on our monologist to bring new people to the show. Rather than pairing with another troupe and drawing from the same pool of audience members, we’ve elected to go outside that circle and try to draw in new audiences that might not ordinarily see improv. It’s a risk we’re willing to take.

Back to point 1, its seems that you have more of a problem with individuals involving themselves in a variety of shows/troupes rather than the amount of troupes forming and growing.

Nope, I have no problem at all with anyone wanting to explore other troupes. I have never gotten mad at Megan, Nikki, or Trish for their involvement with Spite (or any other endeavor) nor with Rob for his involvement with Loaded Dice. As long as they honor their commitment to Tantrum, I have no right to complain, so I don’t.

I still do see what you are talking about the “safety” that TD provides. All thunderdome does is give performers an opportunity to perform with people they don’t normally perform with & do it in front of a nice size crowd. Whatever people want to do with their teams afterwards is their own choice. If that ends up hurting the pocketbook of another troupes show down the road, then so be it.

To me, what it really seems like you are trying to get at is that with all the groups forming at a fast pace, that eventually this will cause some other groups to maybe wither away and cease to exist. That maybe be true. That might not be such a bad thing. Semisonic said it best, “Every new beginning came from some other beginning’s end.”

I am assuming your “do” was supposed to be “don’t”. The nice size crowd you mention is one predominantly filled with people who want to see their friends/relatives/co-workers perform. It’s a very safe, friendly environment since there are few, if any, walk ups. These people are already there to see someone they know and chances are they will be polite while sitting through another troupe’s set. The same conditions don’t necessarily exist when you do a show on your own. You don’t have the safety net of 2 other troupe’s audience members there for support and I think many people forget that fact. Does this mean I don’t think they should try to perform on their own? Not at all! People should remember that it’s not just the rhythm that’s gonna get ya, it’s improv Darwinism. I’m glad to see you agree and by your quote I see you believe in the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory.

With proper rehearsing, marketing, and production, I think any team that created themselves for TD could go on and do successful shows on their own. I would just be for them to decide whether or not it would be worth it to do.

But a lot of troupes at the moment are not surviving on their own. There are a lot more double-billed shows as a way to combine powers and audiences. Its the best way to split rent costs AND showing themselves to a new group of audience.

Yep, it’s up to them to decide if they should continue. Okay, so you admit that a lot of troupes aren’t surviving on their own. Why do you think that is?

I don’t know though, I think you still feel a bit tainted from TBA’s experience in Thunderdome. Yeah, yeah, yeah Makeshift stacked the house, so what. To be honest, i doubt you guys would have been able to draw a decent crowd on your own. On top of that, I think Makeshift still would have won.

If I still felt tainted from the TBA set, why would I perform again with Burnin’ Sternums? Makeshift’s stacking of the house is no different than Loaded Dice or any other troupe doing the same. You’ve said it yourself on countless occasions – if you want to win, bring the most people. It’s part of the marketing genius. I’m proud of the set TBA did that night, I don’t deny that. Should we or shouldn’t we have won is irrelevant. We didn’t, case closed. I hope you understand in all this that I don’t hate TD – these are all just examples to illustrate a point. I think you and Ed have done a tremendous job with it and hope it continues to be successful. It’s a boon to the improv community.

Before this becomes the Pete & Jared thread, anyone else feel like chiming in?

1. I completely agree with you on both points that the improv fanbase is small and that they should have the freedom to see as many shows as they want. No arguments there! My thoughts about a collapse in the scene stems from the following: there are a finite number of audience members with a finite amount of entertainment dollars within a finite radius of distance they’re willing to travel. So, they will be more selective about which show they will see, when, and where. If, for example, there are only 90 people willing to see a show on a given weekend and there are 9 shows, then the average of 10 audience members is likely not bringing in enough money to cover theater rental costs. Over time, how often are performers (or even owners/producers such as yourself and Ed, Tom, or John) willing to then cover the cost of rental out of their own pockets? Yes I realize that not every weekend will have only 90 audience members and there isn’t always 9 shows available. I just selected that to make the math easier. It’s possible there could be 900 audience members on a given weekend and none of this would then matter. I would posit, however, that the number is closer to 90 than 900. Regardless, it all boils down to this: Is there enough audience for each troupe/show to break even and, if not, how long are performers willing to pay to perform?

If a troupe is having problems paying rent over and over, then they should A) Move to a smaller venue with cheaper rent, B) Start splitting shows with 1 or 2 more groups to help share rent costs, C) start re-thinking whether it is still worth it to be a troupe.

To take Tantrum for example, from an outsiders point of view it seems that you all are relying on whoever will be guest monologist to provide a majority of the audience. I don’t know if that is true or not, but it’s just a point of view. I would hope that the troupe itself would still push marketing beyond that.

2. Yes, I know for a fact that many improvisers have fans because I’ve spoken to them before and after shows. Think back to your days in the office at ComedySportz. Didn’t you ever get calls from people asking if Rob Lawrence, the Doughboy, “that little guy”, “that tall guy with the dark hair”, etc. were performing? Sometimes they made the reservation anyway and sometimes they changed it based upon when their favorite player was performing. We all have friends, relatives, and co-workers who have come to see our shows and some have, thankfully, seen multiple shows. They aren’t, however, coming to see us in each show and that leads us back to point 1.

I’m sorry, but I really do not see ComedyCity in the same light as the other troupes/shows. It is its own entity. At ComedyCity an individual can shine above everyone else on any given night and it has no effect on the overall show itself. Therefore, audiences walk away thinking how funny that “one short guy” was and not what a great overall show it was.

Back to point 1, its seems that you have more of a problem with individuals involving themselves in a variety of shows/troupes rather than the amount of troupes forming and growing.

4. I don’t think Thunderdome as an entity is misleading. It’s pretty straightforward… Create your troupe/format. Stack the house with your friends/relatives/co-workers. Win. What I think is misleading is the safety that TD provides. A good show or bad show is irrelevant – bring enough people and you win.

I still do see what you are talking about the “safety” that TD provides. All thunderdome does is give performers an opportunity to perform with people they don’t normally perform with & do it in front of a nice size crowd. Whatever people want to do with their teams afterwards is their own choice. If that ends up hurting the pocketbook of another troupes show down the road, then so be it.

To me, what it really seems like you are trying to get at is that with all the groups forming at a fast pace, that eventually this will cause some other groups to maybe wither away and cease to exist. That maybe be true. That might not be such a bad thing. Semisonic said it best, “Every new beginning came from some other beginning’s end.”

5. You’re right, TBA or Spite might not be a troupe without TD. We owe TD our thanks, but that wasn’t my point. I simply used TBA as an example to ask if you plucked out our first performance and dropped it into a night on its own would it have done well. You could ask the same of any performance – AntiProv, Fluffer Nutter, Loaded Dice (no disrespect intended towards these performers/performances as they are simply examples of various styles and experience). Could they stand on their own without the built in safety TD provides? Would people come to see those shows without the benefit of other troupes/shows performing? Would they have been received as well? TD isn’t misleading, the thought that your troupe/show should continue on its own based upon your experience in TD may be misleading – hence the reality check.

With proper rehearsing, marketing, and production, I think any team that created themselves for TD could go on and do successful shows on their own. I would just be for them to decide whether or not it would be worth it to do.

But a lot of troupes at the moment are not surviving on their own. There are a lot more double-billed shows as a way to combine powers and audiences. Its the best way to split rent costs AND showing themselves to a new group of audience.

I don’t know though, I think you still feel a bit tainted from TBA’s experience in Thunderdome. Yeah, yeah, yeah Makeshift stacked the house, so what. To be honest, i doubt you guys would have been able to draw a decent crowd on your own. On top of that, I think Makeshift still would have won.

Jared, looking at the code in the comments section, the blockquote tags are all there in the right place. I’ll have to dig into the PHP code to see why it’s not showing up properly here. Anyway, addressing your comments…

1. I completely agree with you on both points that the improv fanbase is small and that they should have the freedom to see as many shows as they want. No arguments there! My thoughts about a collapse in the scene stems from the following: there are a finite number of audience members with a finite amount of entertainment dollars within a finite radius of distance they’re willing to travel. So, they will be more selective about which show they will see, when, and where. If, for example, there are only 90 people willing to see a show on a given weekend and there are 9 shows, then the average of 10 audience members is likely not bringing in enough money to cover theater rental costs. Over time, how often are performers (or even owners/producers such as yourself and Ed, Tom, or John) willing to then cover the cost of rental out of their own pockets? Yes I realize that not every weekend will have only 90 audience members and there isn’t always 9 shows available. I just selected that to make the math easier. It’s possible there could be 900 audience members on a given weekend and none of this would then matter. I would posit, however, that the number is closer to 90 than 900. Regardless, it all boils down to this: Is there enough audience for each troupe/show to break even and, if not, how long are performers willing to pay to perform?

2. Yes, I know for a fact that many improvisers have fans because I’ve spoken to them before and after shows. Think back to your days in the office at ComedySportz. Didn’t you ever get calls from people asking if Rob Lawrence, the Doughboy, “that little guy”, “that tall guy with the dark hair”, etc. were performing? Sometimes they made the reservation anyway and sometimes they changed it based upon when their favorite player was performing. We all have friends, relatives, and co-workers who have come to see our shows and some have, thankfully, seen multiple shows. They aren’t, however, coming to see us in each show and that leads us back to point 1.

3. I think you flip-flopped your best and second best ways to garner return audiences Jared.

4. I don’t think Thunderdome as an entity is misleading. It’s pretty straightforward… Create your troupe/format. Stack the house with your friends/relatives/co-workers. Win. What I think is misleading is the safety that TD provides. A good show or bad show is irrelevant – bring enough people and you win.

5. You’re right, TBA or Spite might not be a troupe without TD. We owe TD our thanks, but that wasn’t my point. I simply used TBA as an example to ask if you plucked out our first performance and dropped it into a night on its own would it have done well. You could ask the same of any performance – AntiProv, Fluffer Nutter, Loaded Dice (no disrespect intended towards these performers/performances as they are simply examples of various styles and experience). Could they stand on their own without the built in safety TD provides? Would people come to see those shows without the benefit of other troupes/shows performing? Would they have been received as well? TD isn’t misleading, the thought that your troupe/show should continue on its own based upon your experience in TD may be misleading – hence the reality check.

Oh, and your breakquote button does’t seem to be working.

I think we’re going to start seeing a collapse. I think the number of troupes/shows is beginning to outnumber our new audience members. Our current fans are going to be more selective in where they spend their entertainment dollars.

A collapse in audience? I think I would have a hard time blaming other improv shows for a decline in show’s audience. The kc improv scene fanbase is so small anyways. They should have the freedom to see as many troupes out there. If they see a turd, then no they won’t come back. If they see a decide show, then maybe they come back. If they see a stellar show with more than on troupe, then maybe they’ll test the local improv waters and decide what they might want to see more of. But then again, the new movie release might be the best option of the night.

Hardcore fans of one troupe will likely remain loyal, but what about those who are less fans of a troupe and are more loyal to a friend who’s performing. Which night/show do they want to attend now?

Hardcore fans keep well in-touch with their friend the performer and will probably attend the show that is strongly suggested by the performer. This is more of an assumption.

Do fans of Megan Mercer want to see her performing with Tantrum on second Fridays at the WCH; Trip 5’s on second Saturdays at the WCH; Spite on another Fri/Sat at the WCH, RI, or the Fish Tank; or perhaps with Pretty.Funny. at a benefit show Chuckling for Change? Do fans of John Robison want to see him performing at the Roving Imp in Peace, Love & Happiness, the RI Improv Jam, Sunday Warriors, Dial-A-Show, 92 Monsters of History, Robot Parade, or any number of the other approximately 9 billion options available at the Imp?

Do you honestly think that there are fans (outside of other improvisers) hat actually follow individual performers? If you do, then your view of the community is a bit skewed. BUT if this were to be true, then I would say that hardcore fans keep well in-touch with their friend the performer and will probably attend the show that is strongly suggested by the performer. Again, this is more of an assumption.

However, fans of John Robison have no problem getting there John fix. They wouldn’t care what show he was in, he’d be awesome in all of them.

Or, do people wait and come see their friends in Thunderdome?

This would be the smartest choice, Yes.

What if they don’t have a favorite? What if they have no real vested interest in any one person, troupe, show, venue, or whatever? What is getting them to the show and is it getting them to repeat on a regular basis? Will a tremendous show get them to return quickly? See another another troupe/show? Will a poor performance prevent them from giving the troupe another chance? Will they believe that’s what they can expect from the rest of the shows/troupes? Our community seems to follow others in that bad word of mouth travels faster and farther than good.

The second best way to get repeat business is simply by being funny. If you’re not, them might not come back. The amount of shows going on that night will have little to do with it.

The best way is to give away free shit.

The benefit to TD is the rawness and excitement of something new. With the marketing mechanism in place, it also provides a safe haven for the performers. The flip side is that performances can often (not always) be under-rehearsed or less polished and because of the feeling of a safe haven can be misleading.

You’re “flip side” is interesting. I guess Thunderdome simply being Thunderdome might be misleading and cause teams or troupes to rehearse less. Or that team or troupe might just be lazy and not take it very seriously. Because it actually shouldn’t be taken seriously from a competitive stand point.

If you pluck a particular performance out of that environment will it be able to stand on its own? If we took TBA’s first performance in TD out and placed it on its own at WCH or another venue, would it have worked? I can’t say, can you? Therein lies the danger of troupes continuing their shows beyond these events.

TBA probably wouldn’t even be a troupe if it not for Thunderdome. (Are you guys still a troupe?) Nor would Spite for that matter. So to say what their performances would be like in a different venue is irrelevant. The other groups, the ones that were formed before TD, now have a venue where 2/3 of the audience are new to them and have an opportunity to gain more audience for future shows.

This doesn’t mean that I think that no one should form or continue a troupe/show for or beyond these events, it just means that there’s greater danger and requires a hell of a lot of effort involved – a reality check is needed.

Man, effort sucks.

We’re splitting roughly the same audiences in a community that isn’t that hardcore about improv and eventually something will have to give. There you go.

There’s no business like show business like no business I know!

I don’t think we are splitting any audiences at all. I don’t see any audiences being fatigued from too much improv. I don’t think there are any stats available to back up anything one way or the other. I say bring on more improv. I say bring on more groups. Science should stay with science. Cosmology has no bearing or provide any insight here. The more people doing improv the more new audiences will come to see them and others. The question should be how can we harness this. The problem with Kansas City Improv was there wasn’t enough going on out there. There were only two options available. It created stagnation. Now, we are incredibly diverse and there is a new audience building. My goal for the T5s, to get in front of those new people. It has to happen on a collaborative level. We have to work together. Nobody is out there to spoon feed opportunities any more and it is easy to “hunt in packs” if you will.

I could’ve sworn I just said I would share…

I think we’re going to start seeing a collapse. I think the number of troupes/shows is beginning to outnumber our new audience members. Our current fans are going to be more selective in where they spend their entertainment dollars.

On any given weekend, audiences now have a choice of seeing 1-9 shows. There’s a finite number of people who are seeing shows at any given time and now they have more choices which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Hardcore fans of one troupe will likely remain loyal, but what about those who are less fans of a troupe and are more loyal to a friend who’s performing. Which night/show do they want to attend now?

Do fans of Megan Mercer want to see her performing with Tantrum on second Fridays at the WCH; Trip 5′s on second Saturdays at the WCH; Spite on another Fri/Sat at the WCH, RI, or the Fish Tank; or perhaps with Pretty.Funny. at a benefit show Chuckling for Change? Do fans of John Robison want to see him performing at the Roving Imp in Peace, Love & Happiness, the RI Improv Jam, Sunday Warriors, Dial-A-Show, 92 Monsters of History, Robot Parade, or any number of the other approximately 9 billion options available at the Imp?

Or, do people wait and come see their friends in Thunderdome?

What if they don’t have a favorite? What if they have no real vested interest in any one person, troupe, show, venue, or whatever? What is getting them to the show and is it getting them to repeat on a regular basis? Will a tremendous show get them to return quickly? See another another troupe/show? Will a poor performance prevent them from giving the troupe another chance? Will they believe that’s what they can expect from the rest of the shows/troupes? Our community seems to follow others in that bad word of mouth travels faster and farther than good.

Let me be clear here. I don’t think forming a new troupe or a new show is necessarily a bad thing. I think it can lend a sense of one-time or limited-time opportunity to a show or troupe which is primarily what Thunderdome is predicated upon. The benefit to TD is the rawness and excitement of something new. With the marketing mechanism in place, it also provides a safe haven for the performers. The flip side is that performances can often (not always) be under-rehearsed or less polished and because of the feeling of a safe haven can be misleading. If you pluck a particular performance out of that environment will it be able to stand on its own? If we took TBA’s first performance in TD out and placed it on its own at WCH or another venue, would it have worked? I can’t say, can you? Therein lies the danger of troupes continuing their shows beyond these events. This doesn’t mean that I think that no one should form or continue a troupe/show for or beyond these events, it just means that there’s greater danger and requires a hell of a lot of effort involved – a reality check is needed.

We’re splitting roughly the same audiences in a community that isn’t that hardcore about improv and eventually something will have to give. There you go.

Boo! Why fish for other people’s comments? If you posted your own opinions here once in a while, I would comment seriously more frequently. But instead, you’d rather see what everybody else thinks. Boo to that sir. Boo.

Sure, I’ll share mine if you and Ed will share yours.

I would want to hear Pete’s opinion on this, rather than anyone else’s.

Edward, to use the word upset is to grossly exaggerate any emotion associated to this post. The use of the phrase “piss & vinegar” refers more to my desire to post something earlier in the week because it was fresh in my mind. At the time, it’s possible that post might have been viewed as inflammatory or it might not have – I’m not precognitive.

Naturally, as more time passed, my introspection regarding the local improv universe evolved and, for better or for worse, this is what came out. My goal is simply to get a dialogue going about people’s thoughts on the state of the local improv universe. Care to weigh in?

KC Crossroads Comedy is a cosmological experiment. What if you take as much improv energy as possible and channel it into a small space, like a star, rather than letting it float, nebulaically, in a space too large to channel it? Is it possible that energy begets energy, and within a constrained gravitational well, the pressure will create fusion, and sustainable radiation that can be harnessed and used to power the scene? Is it possible that our real problem is *not* that of creating a universe, but creating a series of stars? And that those stars can only be created when the critical mass exceeds a certain threshold under which fusion can take hold?

A few particles, lost in the endless void, may wait forever for the big crunch, whereas a large number of atoms, collected and energetic, may create a force and energy around which a great many planets may thrive. KCXRC aims to provide that source of fusion for the KC improv scene. Until KC chooses to have a center that doesn’t swallow our financial wherewithal, we are doomed to an open system that serves only to leave each of us cold.

Huh…

Piss and vinegar?

What piss and vinegar do you have to dump?

I’m curious what upsets you so much about the community?

1. Are we expanding too fast for the market to handle?
I think in people’s haste to get the next new group/format/show up and running, they’ve failed to notice there really isn’t much of an improv-seeking market period, let alone a market that is craving more groups and more shows.

2. By constantly forming and reforming, are we diluting our shows?
Sure we are. But–and a lot of people won’t admit this–improv as a whole in Kansas City is still more about the performers having fun, not the audience. It’s more about doing what we want to do than it is about entertainment.

3. How does the general public feel about paying the same price for shows/troupes with greatly varying quality?
They don’t. As in, the general public is not coming to check out a bunch of different groups. Pardon the blue-in-the-face look I’m sporting, but if they see a turd, they’re not coming back to see if another group is better.

Side note – we keep forcing artsy stuff down people’s throats (see response #2 above), but the fact is that most people don’t want to see it. They really just want to laugh.

Perhaps less analogous questions for the community…

Are we expanding too fast for the market to handle?

By constantly forming and reforming, are we diluting our shows?

How does the general public feel about paying the same price for shows/troupes with greatly varying quality?

I’m sure I can think of more, but I have to get ready for an interview…

I don’t think about the community that much. Definitely not this much.

Fair enough, Sean. As anyone who reads Trish’s blog can attest, parallels can be found almost anywhere and this was merely the one that had struck me at the time.

I think you’ve got it backwards.

Audience is dark energy, improvisers are baryonic matter (thus having mass and gravitational influence with the universe).

The more audience you have, the longer expansion continues. The more improvisers you have without audience to counter act, the slower expansion becomes.

Especially since you’re saying you want to avoid the collapse to singularity, then a high audience:performer ratio is preferred.

Also, I’m not sure cosmology is the best analogy. Inflationary cosmology (the stuff that happened before the big bang) depends quite a bit on quantum effects, which don’t really translate to the improvisation scene.

I think evolutionary biology and the argument between gradual steady change vs. punctuated evolution and the survival mechanisms therein are better suited to this sort of dilemma. It’s also easier to involve complexities without losing interest via cosmological constants and Einstein’s six interconnected and beautifully impossible equations.

BECAUSE EVERYONE CARES ABOUT SCIENCE.

1. Yes, this turned out to be more geeky and less inflammatory than I expected when I began writing it. I had more piss & vinegar Saturday.

2. Naturally.

3. Done and done.

1. This is geekier by far than ANYTHING I have ever written.
2. I find lesser skilled performers with great emotional states/attitudes irritating as eff. “Dark energy” is a perfect description of how they make me feel. Unless, of course, they are my high school kids.
3. At some point, you’re going to have to walk me through this whole thing using glasses of beer, napkins and coasters.