[Some notes added after class on Sept 19, marked with *]
About Reading for this Class: No outside reading is necessary for this class–just what’s below (and anything you might check out on the web, based on these notes). Read what’s here, and consider the questions listed. I will fill in some information in class, and we will discuss (I hope) contemporary equivalents to anything referred to here.
About the First Assignment, for next Monday:
If you’re reading this on the day of this class then–by ‘next Monday’ (Sept 24), you should send me a 500-750 word email/attachment that responds to this page and the class, in particular outlining your own personal history with and in ‘The Show Business.’ This is broadly defined, as you will see, and though this course focuses on live performance, we all know that’s an artificial distinction. You experience these structures, everywhere and all the time. Talk about that. You are welcome to refer to your life as an audience member, and to any kind of popular performance that you have experience in, as a performer. Anything at all. Clearly you will only talk about one or two ‘things’–that’s as it should be. In particular, what particularly ‘excites’ you, or ‘angers’ you…?
About Your Preferences for ‘Resident Authority’ Assignments and you ‘Hell Weeks’: Write to Sarah about these right away, and certainly by next class. See the Syllabus about that, and other parts of this website.
***
Opening Anecdote–Barnum and the Egress
[Already talked about in the first class]
Phineas Taylor Barnum revolutionized the business of ‘showing’ things to people for money. I’ll talk about him, because he is, in effect, still with us. Indeed, some would say he is more with us today than he has been in some decades. But we’ll get to that.
Barnum ran a museum in New York City with great success. He included a lot of what we would call ‘tricks’ or ‘gimmicks’ in his presentation of exhibits. Just one, very minor example, that I believe is instructive:
He would periodically put a sign on a door that said, ‘To the Egress’–as if an ‘Egress’ was an exhibit. Few who paid a dime to visit the museum would have known the meaning of the word–‘Exit.’ So people would pay a dime, get partway through the museum, see the sign, take the door, and end up outside.
Were people upset? Reportedly not. They laughed, ran around to the entrance, paid another dime and went in again.
So–what was the relationship between Barnum and his audience/spectator? What was the relationship between the audience and the ‘venue’?
Barnum had a word for it, and a theory around it. He called it ‘humbug.’
Later in his life, just so you know, he started a university and went into politics.
Not that I’m making any comparisons.
Opening–That Single, Onle-Stop-Shopping, All-Encompassing Visual Aid:
Here it is, in its entirety, the very first episode of ‘Pinkie Lee,’ thanks to YouTube. I’ll show a bit of it in class–and you don’t have to watch the whole ‘show,’ though there are elements throughout that I do think you’ll find interesting. For your viewing ‘pleasure.’
Here are a few ‘facts’–and why they’re important for you to keep in mind as you watch this clip, and think about as we talk during this class:
–Pinkie Lee was one of the first performers to have a ‘children’s show’ on American television, in New York City (but broadcast nationally–a revolutionary ‘concept’ at the time).
–He brought to the show everything he knew, which was ‘the show business’–and we’re not talking about the ‘legitimate’ theatre…as you’ll see.
–In fact, Pinky Lee was a ‘Burlesque’ comic before he found a brand new audience in early television.
–This really begs the question–you should already be asking it–how does a performer from a live entertainment form that was known for the exhibition of the female body, for coarse humour, and more (to be discussed in a later class!) find his way into the entertainment of children?
–This is the kind of question, and the kind of document, that I’d label the ‘exceptional normal’–that is, the thing we’re watching that seems to be considered normal to the people involved (a past culture, or another culture not our own), but it seems strange to us. Clearly that’s the thing to look into more closely. That’s the thing that can tell us what’s different about that culture, and help us to understand it better. The alternative is to make the mistake of thinking that all cultures are the same…and no one believes that….
Watch this, and you’ll see, I think, every other kind of popular performance I’m going to mention today, all here.
This is ‘burlesque’? Fine–then if this character was successful in ‘burlesque,’ how do we define gender, race and ethnicity, time and pacing, humour–all of these and more?
[*Further Notes From Class: This is a significant question to ask about this ‘artifact.’ There are clear ethnic stereotypes here, and though they are dated, perhaps unrecognizable to you now, they indicate an attitude toward race, ethnicity, cultural difference. And with respect to gender, we talked in class about the ‘age’ of Pinky Lee, character and performer and what that means when performing in a children’s television show–and in burlesque.]
And–with apologies for all the false endings here, but you should also know that I ‘remembered’ Pinky Lee because I recently watched the new documentary about Fred Rogers of “Mr Rogers Neighbourhood”–Won’t You Be My Neighbour. Near its beginning, there was a clip from the ‘Pinky Lee Show’ presented as the kind of children’s entertainment that Mr Rogers–radically, as it turns out–was rebelling against. Pinky Lee vs. Mr Rogers. Useful juxtaposition as you watch this.
***
Part One — The Complete History of the ‘Show’ Business in 50 Minutes:
The Instructor will give a complete structural history of ‘American Show Business’ in about 50 minutes (!). This is not only a challenge, of course–it’s impossible. But whatever happens, the forms of ‘entertainment’ used here will come up repeatedly throughout the course, and ‘histories’ will be filled in. The ‘cheat’ here is the word structural. I want you to think about how performers and audiences are organized, within/between the performance space (that is, who travelled where and how). It’s what I would call a potted history. You will need to take some notes for this class….
Legitimate and Illegitimate Theatres
–What do these words even mean? How old are these words?
[*Further Notes From Class: Consider the effect of being booked into a theatrical space that has been declared ‘legitimate.’ No matter what appears there, the message sent to the local audience is that ‘this is all right, safe, approved.’ But anything might be booked into these spaces, and was. The venue becomes the defining feature of ‘approval.’]
The Legitimate Theatre Monopolies
–The Syndicate (Klaw & Erlanger) and The Shuberts
–New York City as a North American ‘Theatre District’
–What’s left? The Royal Alex–a ‘Shubert House’
–What’s the relationship with the film industry?
–Ask me about The Shubert Archive and The Richard Wall Project
[*Further Notes From Class: On the one hand, performers were pleased, because it improved conditions for travel and increased bookings–no one was stuck in a small town with no future bookings. On the other hand, it was a monopoly, so if you didn’t follow the rules, or you took a job somewhere else at any time, you were ‘blacklisted.’ This was the rule from the 1890s until the 1930s, and though there is no monopoly now–the film industry broke that with its own tough monopolistic practices–the legacies are still with us. The majority of the theatres considered Broadway houses are owned by ‘The Shubert Organization.’]
Big and Little Vaudeville
–Big-Time Vaudeville, and Keith and Albee
–Small-Time Vaudeville, and Marcus Leow
–What’s left? The Elgin/Winter Garden, The Pantages (or whatever it’s called now)
–What’s the relationship with the film industry?
–Ask me about ‘The Roof Garden’ and ‘Ziegfeld’s Follies’
[*Further Notes From Class: Asked and answered in class–Big-Time Vaudeville was its own monopoly, because everything was booked through one mammoth company, the ‘United Booking Office’ (UBO). If you appeared with them, great, you had a full season’s work. If you appeared with anybody else, you might never work again. The also had rules and practices that were restrictive, though with a purpose. There were words, gestures, subjects to be avoided, to avoid controversy and attract a wider audience. Big-Time Vaudeville theatres tended to be built in the better, commercial areas of any town or city. The key feature of this booking system was that no one generally travelled together as performers–it wasn’t in any way an integrated structure, and it might include anyone on stage, in any week.
Small-Time Vaudeville wasn’t quite a monopoly, but it was a different business practice, and relationship between audience and performer. This business, run by Marcus Loewe, built neighbourhood houses, and rotated their acts twice a week. Basically, if this business didn’t attract a strong percentage of the community into the theatre at least once a week, as a ritual (like…church), then it failed. It didn’t fail…but it did quickly begin to save money by showing that new technological game-changer, ‘the cinema.’ A lot of performers lost work….
In both cases, there was a goal to attract women and children into the theatre, and therefore double their audience–or that was the plan.
Burlesque–not just the stripper
–What is a Wheel?
–Who toured and who stayed put?
–Who was the audience and where were the theatres?
–What relationship does the so-called ‘strip-tease’ have to this form?
–Why are there no purpose-built burlesque houses?
–Ask me about Starvin’ Marvin’s
[*Further Notes From Class: The essential statement from class was that the structure of this business was difference from those above. In this case, two parts of the business structure were local–the audience (of course) and the Chorus of women, which were generally locally cast, and resident in the theatre. The touring element were the (male) comics, who came in to perform skits, comic monologues, short plays. The audience was exclusively male, the humour broke all the rules set by vaudeville (see above) and may have been one reason for its success–‘counter-programming’. The theatres were generally older, and in areas of town that had seen ‘better days.’
My point–embedded in the questions above–is that something happened during the history of this form that stopped the touring comics, who either went out of business altogether, or found a better livelihood (see above for Pinky Lee). What was left was the local audience, and the local chorus, and the ‘burlesque show’ became known entirely for its sexualized exotic dance, and ‘the strip-tease.’ For a while.
The Circus, and why it’s round
–What is a canvas tent and why was it such a radical invention?
–Why is it round? What was its original purpose?
–Who are the key performers?
–What roles do the Clown and the Master of Ceremonies play?
–Elephants–where did they come from, where did they go?
–Horses–same questions
[*Further Notes From Class: I’d only add that the Clown and the Master of Ceremonies that are the mainstay of the Circus–really, still are, for any Circuses that remain–can be clearly seen in Pinky Lee’s show. And also–historically, that canvas tent allowed a flexibility that created a very different dynamic between audience and performers. They could pitch the tent anywhere–outside city limits, in a farmer’s field, or in friendlier towns in the village green. The arbiters of taste and moral codes couldn’t touch them. People were starved for entertainment, and flocked to see these performances as if they were from another planet. This may seem an exaggeration, but there are reasons the circus has been such a mainstay of popular literature, film, television–as it was for many years. Now–we didn’t talk about this in class, but I’d invite you to look at the recent developments in the culture of the circus. With the banning of elephants from performance, the largest and oldest of these circuses has closed. What we have now is Cirque du Soleil, something very different. Unless…is it?
The (Dime) Museum–the original environmental theatre space
–This one is relatively easy, but what is it’s relationship to all these other forms?[*Further Notes From Class: Nothing more here.]
The Medicine Show (the second most influential ‘structure,’ historically–why?)
–Is this something you have heard of? And if not, why not?
–What is the relationship between audience and performers for this form?
–Dirty secret– I could argue that this is the most influential structure of popular performance ever devised. Why? Because: ‘Free but not Free.’
–What are the contemporary structural equivalents. Hint–all of them.
[*Further Notes From Class: As I say above, and made clear in class with ‘the story of my Cousin Pete’, this is Popular Performance that makes its money by organizing itself around ‘The Mountebank’–the travelling salesman. And this is significant because it’s the model used for all subsequent mass media.]
I’m aware that this is already too much to talk about. But then again, in this brave new world, you may already have looked up these words, and the basic definitions you will find when you do are not to be dismissed. I find that the more people that are interested in a subject, the more reliable the material found on the web, because people are checking up on each other. Or that’s what I find for these ‘popular’ materials. By this argument (if you believe it, and you can argue the point) the Wikipedia entry on Elvis Presley is more reliable than the entry on the dancer ‘Juba’–because millions read and ‘correct’ the one, and six academics the other….
What we’re not talking about: Here are just some of the organized/professional forms of ‘Western’ popular performance we are not dealing with, but you can still look up (I’ll be interested in knowing if you find anything):
–The Tom Show
–The Toby Show
–The Tab Show
–The ‘Ten-Twent-Thirt’
–The Carnival
–The Sideshow
What’s listed above only indicates what happened when groups of people organized and toured, performing for money. I hope you’ll see how it connects with that first 1840 document, from last week.
What’s Missing Here:
But this doesn’t begin to talk about so-called amateur, folk, local, regional performance, and all the kinds of performances communities do for each other. It doesn’t begin to talk about those kinds of gatherings that are ‘performative’ but not defined as ‘performance’ or ‘entertainment.’
We will talk about some of this Next week: The Collingwood Elvis Festival (a hybrid community-touring performance), and the Psychic Fair (a performative event and a commodity culture and an expression of belief, all at once)–both examples of these other structures.
And just for the record, the most successful and pervasive form of popular performance is conspicuous by its absence here, and will be treated in two weeks: The Minstrel Show, which I’m sorry to have to inform you is the foundational performance structure of the 19th century–and is still with us. Or so I will argue.
***
COMPLETELY OPTIONAL FOR CLASS, BUT TO BE READ…EVENTUALLY
Part Two–The Word ‘Culture:
I am well aware that I am unlikely to get to or through all of this. Still, I’m going to list what we should all think about, and that will come up in subsequent classes. We will get to it–directly or indirectly, we can’t avoid it, in every class discussion.
Here is a list of ‘versus’ concerning the words ‘popular’ and ‘culture.’ I want to stress the very different kinds of ‘cultures’ that define and influence performance. ‘Popular’ is a loaded word, as you probably know–what does it mean?
Consider these terms. I want you to have these relationships in mind as we move through the course.
High versus Low Culture
–very old-school, but still useful–
–very closely tied to ideas about ‘class’–if we believe in ‘class’–
Written versus Oral Culture
–or, as ‘Oral-Performative’ Culture, closely related to what happens in a theatre–
–and, as a means of transmission, related to any research methods we’ll discuss–
–and not as closely tied to ‘class’ and ‘High/Low’ culture as you may think–
–if I don’t raise these two questions, you should ask me:
–Why would I say that ‘written’ or ‘recorded’ culture is as dangerous as ‘oral’ culture in the transmission of ideas? Perhaps moreso?
–How is Jim Smagata a true representative of cultural traditions of performance?[*Further Notes From Class: I talked about this, ignore the rest. But consider that clip of Pinky Lee’s first television show as two things: an example of oral-performative culture, because everything in it is drawn from a set of traditions that were entirely passed on through performance; and a recorded document, lost in time, that you an I look at now without those traditions. It all skips several generations from those performers and audiences to us. This recorded (‘written’) document is great for historians, and for artists looking for inspiration and subject matter and even, perhaps, lost skills–but it does have its dangers. You should think about those dangers. The rest of these words will come up in other classes.]
Local versus Regional/National/Imported/Imposed-from-without Cultures
–as you see, only the first part is remotely definable–everything else is defined in opposition to it–
The Idea of a ‘Sub-Culture’
–particularly important just now, when we can easily carve ourselves up into smaller, insular, not-to-say-hermetically-sealed groups–
The Culture of Mass ‘Media’
–very important to everyone in the room–
–but really, doesn’t it change definitions more or less weekly?
–What is a ‘mass medium’?
Folk Culture
–does this still exist?–
Popular Culture
–this is a ‘catch-all’ term suggesting that all of the above combine to create something that is complex, contradictory, and significant–if often unseen–
–its roots are in Marxist ideology–it’s a statement about the economic co-optation of ‘culture.’ In the world of performance, this is called ‘the show business.’
The Word: Hegemony
–or, in its simplest explanation, ‘oppression by consent’–something we all experience, every day. Discuss….
***
End.
Performance and Popular Culture 