One of the problems with the blogisphere, at least when it comes to circus is that so much of what passes for history is really just anecdotal -- something that some guys said to some other guy. There's no documentation. While the bog is wonderful in that allows so many stories to be told that might otherwise be forgotten, it's also a source of misinformation -- mostly unintentional, but still misinformation.
Today on one popular mailing list aimed at a circus fans the statement was made that a particular 3-Ring tented show is, with the jump in diesel prices, spending $15,000 on fuel. This is a number that I presume a fan heard while visiting the show. It is however, an inaccurate number. Maybe the show spends $15000 a week on diesel averaging sixty mile jumps, and assuming thirty-five show owned vehicles and another twenty-five privately owned vehicles for which the show is paying mileage based on the route card. With one hundred mile jumps the cost could be as much as $3100-$3300 a day depending on the state and local diesel prices within that state. But that's not even close to $15,000.
Why does it matter? Because when a number like $15,000 a day hits the internet it gets repeated. And the more that misinformation is repeated the more it assumes the mantle of fact. Of history. And ten years from now looking back at 2008 somebody will almost certainly state that, "Show XYZ had to spend $15,000 a day just on fuel in '08. No wonder they downsized." Well show XYZ may indeed downsize in the next decade and fuel prices may be a legitimate contributing factor... But it wasn't that $15,000 a day that did it...
In the blogisphere it's worth taking things with a grain of salt. Or maybe just ask for the receipts.
Ben Trumble
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Don't Trust Anecdotal History
Posted by
B.E.Trumble
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Ben You are spot on with that post. I am waiting for 2018 when some Circus Fan asks me about the big blow down in Honey Grove, TX Kelly Miller sustained. Ofcourse we know that didn't happen, but I will surely be asked about it another 200 times before 2018, where someone will look back on the internet and decide it is fact, no matter what I saw, cause it says so rite here. Rumor, based on speculation, based on another rumor. You have to love this business!!!
What is far worse in the history of the circus I think, is not so much what "is" said, but what isn't said because it may discredit a friend of a friend kinda thing. It truly seems there are some people you just can't tell the truth about on the internet. I guess they stroke the rite palms and buy the rite people drinks. Same for animals, we have heard repeatedly about this elephant was great and this tiger was great. Good luck trying to get a post through saying maybe they were not so good cause they chewed off a guys arm or smashed someones mullet, it may not fit someone else's recollection of history.
Casey, I'm all for traditions and certainly I understand being "with it and for it" and every traveling society, circus and carnivals included adopt a certain degree or secrecy and a wariness of outsiders. But then so do Police Departments for that matter. Privacy or even professional secrecy is one thing, "sacred cows" are another. You're right, some people get a "pass." They get a pass from internet writers who work in the business because we may not have a single good word to say about a guy when we're talking to each other, but we're well trained not to "spill" with anybody else. We smile and say, "He's a great showman" or whatever. Maybe part of it is the unique relationship that's developed over the last eighty years with circus fans, the fans who have never actually worked on shows. If a fan says, "I had lunch with show owner ABC at Luby's last week and boy did he ever tell me some great stories," we're not inclined to reply, "Did he tell you that he still owes me money?" We let it slide, and if fans like the guy he gets a pass. We don't talk about the elephant that slaps you up against the truck every chance she gets because they're fewer of them out there than there used to be, and we aren't going to give activists ammo. We know that same elephant isn't going to be a problem for the public that sees the show and we don't want things taken out of context. So the elephant gets a pass too. Ballhoo has always been a big part of the business, a fun part of the business. But sometimes we start to believe it ourselves. Sometimes we start to call flying acts great if they hit a triple with some regularity -- forgetting that the best hit quads, and once acts hit triples without a net. Maybe it's a "dumbing down" of the whole business. We applaud the mundane because there's so much of it.
That doesn't mean there aren't great acts today...there are. And it doesn't mean that an average act doesn't sometimes have a great day when everything clicks and nothing can go wrong and it's amazing. That happens too.
There's a line in here somewhere and I'm not entirely sure where that line is... Let's look at cat acts for a moment. Once with the fighting acts tghe idea was to convince the audience that the trainer or presenter was heroic because he was constantly in danger. Now instead we highlight an animal's agility and the skill of a trainer (or at least the trainer behind the presenter.) But the cats are still dangerous. People still get hurt by cats. And in this modern era we don't talk about that. Is it vecause pointing it out opens cat acts to criticism from activists? Is it because we might not want to admit some presenters are "cast" for what they look like and not what they bring to the table in skill or experience? Honestly I just don't know.
Ben
Casey and Ben,
It will take a moment for me to comment. I am truthfully overwhelmed. That is some of the most honest, from the heart thought's, I have heard in many many years of this thing of ours. And expressed by one's who are there, are doing it, are getting it over the road. Thank you so much, Gentleman.
Your friend,
Wade Burck
Casey and Ben,
Our business has no record books/standards by which to judge who or what is the best. As do all other forms of entertainment/sport venues.
The only thing close to our profession is the WWE where you decide, do you like the bad guy, or the good guy.
God love the CFA, but when you chose what person/animal is the best you have nothing to refer to. When your decision is based on whether the individual spent time talking to you, or the elephant ate a peanut out of your hand, your vote will be flawed.
When it is pointed out to the sports writer that he has never played the game, he has only to refer to the record book, to at least have a good idea of who is the best. When choosing a "lifetime achievement", they may not have been a singer or actor, but they have record sales/box office on which to cast a vote.
Until we have those things called standards, it will be nothing more then a Monte Carlo Festival Awards Gala. A chance to dress up, cut up jackpots, and play circus for a week. No more valid then the land of Oz, and nothing more then flipping a coin to choose the "best". And even that coin is double headed, leading us right back to the WWE. Do you like the guy with the mask, or the guy with the green hair.
The two most important factors leading to the demise of great act is salary, and the generational crap. It is show business Ben, and I think a "cast" or "look" is a factor. But only if the ability is there also. Good looks are all over. The circus does not look for or encourage the combination of the two.
Salary, as I have stated often, and will state until it is addressed using my 33 years as a foundation, has kept up with the times thusly. In 1989 I made 850.00, and in 2008 I make 1000.00. Don't let anybody fool you into thinking their salary structure is any different or based on any type of ability.
When someone only has to wait until they are old enough to do an act, as opposed to earning that act by ability and skill the quality will decrease accordingly to where it stands today. Do an honest evaluation and look at which acts/individuals are the best at what they do today, and look at which ones were born doing it, and which one earned that right by being the best at the craft?
Address compensation and address earning that job, and you will stop the downhill slide of the caliber of acts in the circus today.
The producer of today, and I can only address today, I wasn't there yesterday, say's "I don't care how many dogs or what they do. I just need a cheap dog act." If the owner of the New England Patriots said, "I don't care whether you can throw a ball or tackle somebody, I just need somebody to put on a uniform so we have 11 on the field", the public would quite buying a ticket, as they have done with the circus, and soon football would die, as the circus is dying. The few diehard fans will not support it.
Regards,
Wade Burck
Great points Wade. I have a lousy internet connection today. I'll try to write more tomorrow.
you made some great points wade. a lot of what you said is stuff i've said for years. i agree, fans are not always objective. when i read a review that says, for example, that this year's edition of a circus is the best yet, and i know what the line-up is, and i know what the show has offered in the past, i know somebody was just being nice. too many of us feel like "any circus is better than no circus" and that feeling has hurt our business just as the "I don't care how many dogs you have, i need a cheap dog act." the football comparison was perfect. i will always feel that when circuses go back to the basics, how good can we make the show rather than how many pitches can we make, the business will be a lot better. we have only to look at cirque du soleil. i love animals and i think a circus needs animals, but cirque crowds are there and i think it's because entertainment is the purpose. they survive quite well without a light pich or a photo op with a snake. when circuses return to entertainment, business will be better. i don't think its bigger that's the best either. i've seen shows with 10 performers that are better than shows with 100. i's waht the performers do. if you have to pad with hula hoops, fine, but rememmber, it's padding, not center ring solo feature.
Aw yes, the act vs pitches,
Back in the day Mr. Edgar refers too, acts made good money to do good acts. You didn't see them fighting like jackals over the couple of scraps they could get by selling balloons or winky blinky lights. Now days alot of acts will go some where for minimum pay for a chance to gamble with the show owner on a pitch or some other concession. I seem to recall hearing of a day and age when elephant rides were not even an option on some circus'. Wow think of how great a big shrine show might be if instead of 40 mins of elephants rides in the middle, you saw three rings of high school horses or liberty horses.
Henry,
I you are suggesting that the "basics" are entertainment, I agree 100%, if you are suggesting that the "basics" are acts and music and atmosphere, I suggest they are still her, and never changed. Change Henry, giving the public what "they" want is the success of Cirque, not that they have no animals etc. Sea World does well with them, as do various Horse venues. They are tired of seeing the same thing over and over for 100's of years in the circus. Remember the excitement of the first Quad? The Flying Cranes? Even the first White Tigers? Some of us, dictated by an employeer have to abide. But there should be nothing stopping the independent from "creating" different act's out of this world. What is the financial gain, Henry? Combine that with the pride of a young performer, and watch the levels it will be taken to. Look at all the records that have been broken in a competitive sport world? The sad steroid generation not withstanding.
My best,
Wade Burck
Post a Comment