Solo performance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Gerald Dickens in solo performance of A Christmas Carol
A solo performance, sometimes referred to as a one-man show or one-woman
show, features a single person telling a story for an audience, typically for the purpose
of entertainment. This type of performance comes in many varieties, including
autobiographical creations, comedy acts, novel adaptations, vaudeville, poetry, music
and dance.[1] In 1996, Rob Becker's Defending the Caveman became the longest
running solo (one man) play in the history of Broadway.
Traits of solo performance[edit]
Solo performance is used to encompass the broad term of a single person performing for an
audience. Some key traits of solo performance can include the lack of the fourth wall and audience
participation or involvement. Solo performance does not need to be written, performed and produced
by a single person-- a solo performance production may utilize directors, writers, designers and
composers to bring the piece to life on a stage. An example of this collaboration is Eric Bogosian in
the published version of his show Wake Up And Smell the Coffee, by Theatre Communications
Group, New York City.[2]
Types and examples of solo performances[edit]
The backgrounds of solo performers over the decades range from vaudeville, comedy, poetry,
music, the visual arts, magic, cabaret, theatre and dance.[1]
Solo performers include Rob Becker, Lily Tomlin, Andy Kaufman, Rod Maxwell, Lord Buckley, Eric
Bogosian, Whoopi Goldberg, Jade Esteban Estrada, Eddie Izzard, John Leguizamo, Marga
Gomez, Anna Deavere Smith, Bill Hicks, Brother Blue and Lenny Bruce.[1]
Several performers have presented solo shows in tribute to famous personalities. The blueprint for
this type of show may have been drafted by Hal Holbrook, who has performed as Mark Twain in his
solo show, Mark Twain Tonight, more than 2,000 times since 1954. Examples since that time
include Julie Harris in the Emily Dickinson biography, The Belle of Amherst; Tovah Feldshuh as
Golda Meir in Golda's Balcony; Frank Gorshin as George Burns in Say Goodnight Gracie[6] by Rupert
Holmes; Ed Metzger in his solo show, performing since 1978, Albert Einstein: The Practical
Bohemian; Metzger in another solo performance, Hemingway: On the Edge; Henry
Fonda as Clarence Darrow in Darrow, Ronald Rand as Harold Clurman in Let It Be Art! since 2001
in 25 countries, and Tom Dugan as Simon Wiesenthal in Wiesenthal.[7]
A few actors adapted entire novels for the stage including Patrick Stewart who played all 43 parts in
his version of A Christmas Carol, which played three times on Broadway and at The Old
Vic in London; actor Gerald Charles Dickens played 26 characters in his performances from the
same work; and Jack Aranson starred in a solo, 13-character production of Moby Dick.
Solo performance may be personal, autobiographical creations. This ranges from the intensely
confessional but comedic work of Spalding Gray, the semi-autobiographical A Bronx Tale by Chaz
Palminteri, or Holly Hughes' solo piece World without End, in which she attempts to make sense of
her relationship with her mother, who had died. Another example of this is In The Body of the
World, written and performed by Eve Ensler in 2018.
Still other shows may rally around a central theme, such as pop culture in Pat Hazel's The
Wonderbread Years, relationships in Robert Dubac's The Male Intellect, the history of the New York
City transit system in Mike Daisey's Invincible Summer, or fighting the system in Patrick Combs' Man
1, Bank 0. these themes could also be centered around a certain topic such as a political or social
issue.[1] Tim Miller explores the topic of gay culture and society surrounding the LGBTQ community in
his production of My Queer Body.[8] Karen Finley expressed her frustration with the standards women
are held to and the issues surrounding them such as rape and abortion in her solo piece titled We
Keep Our Victims Ready.[9]
Sometimes, solo shows are simply traditional plays written by playwrights for a cast of one.
Examples: Shirley Valentine by Willy Russell, I Am My Own Wife by Doug Wright, The Blonde, the
Brunette and the Vengeful Redhead by Robert Hewett and Topless by Miles Tredinnick. A performer
of shows of this type is Chris Harris, whose performances in the genre include Kemp's Jig, That's
The Way To Do It!, Ally Sloper's Half Holiday, Beemaster, 'Arris Music 'All and A Night at the
Pantomime.[10]
There have also been many British comedians who have moved away from performing pure stand-
up comedy in recent years. The shows that appear annually at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe can
involve stories of pathos and the use of technological equipment such as projectors. Examples
include Howard Read, who has performed with the animated character Little Howard which was
projected with the aid of computers and Dave Gorman, who has performed several shows described
as "documentary comedy".[11]
Solo performance in film[edit]
The first full-length talking film which showed only a single character was Sofi, a 1968 film
starring Tom Troupe. The film was based on "Diary of a Madman" by Gogol.
The 1964 Hindi movie Yaadein also featured only Sunil Dutt, but Nargis Dutt made a few
appearances as a silhouette. However, it still made it to the Guinness Book of World Records for the
"fewest actors in a narrative film".[12]
In the 21st century the "solo performance" had a rejuvenation period. with films like Locke, All Is
Lost and Buried. The characteristics were different from the previous one-character films that were
made – mainly by location and style. Sofi and works like Give 'em Hell, Harry!, were still studio-
filmed theater pieces. The 21st-century films were mostly shot on location and were much more
stylized with their cinematic expression and camera usage. Most recently films by Marcus
Tell showed ongoing characteristics of one-character films. [13]
Ensemble performance involves musical and social interaction between a group of performers.
The term ‘ensemble’ derives from the French for ‘together’, and it defines the seemingly
infinite array of musical performances involving more than one person, ranging from a duo to
a symphony orchestra. At the same time, ‘ensemble’ refers to the precision with which
musicians perform together: a good group is often praised for its ‘tight’ ensemble work,
whereas an inferior one might have ‘sloppy’ ensemble.
Our experience of ensemble performance can be enhanced by realising some of the processes
involved in making music together. This chapter considers four aspects in particular:
coordination, communication, the role of the individual and social factors. Most of the
observations refer to small chamber groups within the Western art tradition, but reference will
also be made to larger ensembles on occasion.
What are the types of ensembles?
Orchestra. What is an Orchestra? An orchestra is a group of musicians that can
vary in size from 25 to over 100. ...
Trio. What is a trio? A trio is a group of three musicians. ...
Quartets. What is a quartet? A quartet is a group of four musicians playing
together or singing together. ...
Quintet. This page is a work in progress.
Broadcast Radio and Television.
Because there are a lim-ited number of broadcast frequencies for radio and
non-cable television use, the Federal Government licenses access to these
frequencies, permitting some applicants to use them and denying the
greater number of applicants such permission. Even though this licensing
system is in form a variety of prior restraint, the Court has held that it does
not present a First Amendment issue because of the unique characteristic of
scarcity.1150 Thus, the Federal Communications Commission has broad
authority to determine the right of access to broadcasting, 1151 although, of
course, the regulation must be exercised in a manner that is neutral with
regard to the content of the materials broadcast.1152
In certain respects, however, governmental regulation does implicate First
Amendment values, and, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the Court
upheld an FCC regulation that required broadcasters to afford persons an
opportunity to reply if they were attacked on the air on the basis of their
“honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities,” or if they were
legally qualified candidates and a broadcast editorial endorsed their
opponent or opposed them.1153 In Red Lion, Justice White explained that
“differences in the characteristics of [various] media justify differences
in First Amendment standards applied to them.”1154 Thus, although
everyone has a right to speak, write, or publish as he will, subject to very
few limitations, there is no comparable right of everyone to broadcast. The
frequencies are limited and some few must be given the privilege over
others. The particular licensee, however, has no First Amendment right to
hold that license and his exclusive privilege may be qualified. Qualification
by censorship of content is impermissible, but the First Amendment does not
prevent a governmental insistence that a licensee “conduct himself as a
proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which
are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by
necessity, be barred from the airwaves.”1155 Furthermore, said Justice
White, “[b]e-cause of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the government is
permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views
should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole
retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have
the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First
Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the
broadcasters, which is paramount.”1156 The broadcasters had argued that, if
they were required to provide equal time at their expense to persons
attacked and to points of view different from those expressed on the air,
expression would be curbed through self-censorship, for fear of controversy
and economic loss. Justice White thought this possibility “at best
speculative,” but if it should materialize “the Commission is not powerless to
insist that they give adequate and fair attention to public issues.” 1157
In Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National
Committee,1158 the Court rejected claims of political groups that the
broadcast networks were constitutionally required to sell them broadcasting
time for the presentation of views on controversial issues. The ruling
terminated a broad drive to obtain that result, but the fragmented nature of
the Court’s multiple opinions precluded a satisfactory evaluation of the
constitutional implications of the case. However, in CBS v. FCC,1159 the
Court held that Congress had conferred on candidates seeking federal
elective office an affirmative, promptly enforceable right of reasonable
access to the use of broadcast stations, to be administered through FCC
control over license revocations, and held such right of access to be within
Congress’s power to grant, the First Amendment notwithstanding. The
constitutional analysis was brief and merely restated the spectrum scarcity
rationale and the role of the broadcasters as fiduciaries for the public
interest.
In FCC v. League of Women Voters,1160 the Court took the same general
approach to governmental regulation of broadcasting, but struck down a
total ban on editorializing by stations receiving public funding. In
summarizing the principles guiding analysis in this area, the Court reaffirmed
that Congress may regulate in ways that would be impermissible in other
contexts, but indicated that broadcasters are entitled to greater protection
than may have been suggested by Red Lion. “[A]lthough the broadcasting
industry plainly operates under restraints not imposed upon other media, the
thrust of these restrictions has generally been to secure the public’s First
Amendment interest in receiving a balanced presentation of views on diverse
matters of public concern. . . . [T]hese restrictions have been upheld only
when we were satisfied that the restriction is narrowly tailored to further a
substantial governmental interest.”1161 However, the earlier cases were
distinguished. “[I]n sharp contrast to the restrictions upheld in Red Lion or
in [CBS v. FCC], which left room for editorial discretion and simply required
broadcast editors to grant others access to the microphone, § 399 directly
prohibits the broadcaster from speaking out on public issues even in a
balanced and fair manner.”1162 The ban on all editorializing was deemed too
severe and restrictive a means of accomplishing the governmental purposes
—protecting public broadcasting stations from being coerced, through threat
or fear of withdrawal of public funding, into becoming “vehicles for
governmental propagandizing,” and also keeping the stations “from
becoming convenient targets for capture by private interest groups wishing
to express their own partisan viewpoints.”1163 Expression of editorial
opinion was described as a “form of speech . . . that lies at the heart of First
Amendment protection,”1164 and the ban was said to be “defined solely on
the basis of . . . content,” the assumption being that editorial speech is
speech directed at “controversial issues of public
importance.”1165 Moreover, the ban on editorializing was both overinclusive,
applying to commentary on local issues of no likely interest to Congress, and
underinclusive, not applying at all to expression of controversial opinion in
the context of regular programming. Therefore, the Court concluded, the
restriction was not narrowly enough tailored to fulfill the government’s
purposes.
Sustaining FCC discipline of a broadcaster who aired a record containing a
series of repeated “barnyard” words, considered “indecent” but not obscene,
the Court posited a new theory to explain why the broadcast industry is less
entitled to full constitutional protection than are other communications
entities.1166 “First, the broadcast media have established a uniquely
pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent
material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizens, not only in
public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual’s right to be
left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder. . . .
Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too
young to read. . . . The ease with which children may obtain access to
broadcast material . . . amply justif[ies] special treatment of indecent
broadcasting.”1167 The Court emphasized the “narrowness” of its holding,
which “requires consideration of a host of variables.”1168 The use of more
than “an occasional expletive,” the time of day of the broadcast, the likely
audience, “and differences between radio, television, and perhaps closed-
circuit transmissions” were all relevant in the Court’s view. 1169
Broadcasting is the distribution of audio or video content to a dispersed audience via any
electronic mass communications medium, but typically one using the electromagnetic
spectrum (radio waves), in a one-to-many model.[1][2] Broadcasting began with AM radio, which came
into popular use around 1920 with the spread of vacuum tube radio transmitters and receivers.
Before this, all forms of electronic communication (early radio, telephone, and telegraph) were one-
to-one, with the message intended for a single recipient. The term broadcasting evolved from its use
as the agricultural method of sowing seeds in a field by casting them broadly about. [3] It was later
adopted for describing the widespread distribution of information by printed materials [4] or by
telegraph.[5] Examples applying it to "one-to-many" radio transmissions of an individual station to
multiple listeners appeared as early as 1898. [6]
Over the air broadcasting is usually associated with radio and television, though in recent years,
both radio and television transmissions have begun to be distributed by cable (cable television). The
receiving parties may include the general public or a relatively small subset; the point is that anyone
with the appropriate receiving technology and equipment (e.g., a radio or television set) can receive
the signal. The field of broadcasting includes both government-managed services such as public
radio, community radio and public television, and private commercial radio and commercial
television. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, title 47, part 97 defines "broadcasting" as
"transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed". [7] Private or two-
way telecommunications transmissions do not qualify under this definition. For
example, amateur ("ham") and citizens band (CB) radio operators are not allowed to broadcast. As
defined, "transmitting" and "broadcasting" are not the same.
Transmission of radio and television programs from a radio or television station to home receivers
by radio waves is referred to as "over the air" (OTA) or terrestrial broadcasting and in most countries
requires a broadcasting license. Transmissions using a wire or cable, like cable television (which
also retransmits OTA stations with their consent), are also considered broadcasts but do not
necessarily require a license (though in some countries, a license is required). In the 2000s,
transmissions of television and radio programs via streaming digital technology have increasingly
been referred to as broadcasting as well.
Radio broadcasting (experimentally from 1906, commercially from 1920); audio signals sent
through the air as radio waves from a transmitter, picked up by an antenna and sent to
a receiver. Radio stations can be linked in radio networks to broadcast common radio programs,
either in broadcast syndication, simulcast or subchannels.
Television broadcasting (telecast), experimentally from 1925, commercially from the 1930s:
an extension of radio to include video signals.
