Yes Shawn, they also did the same thing with a concert pianist. same results I hear.
   Perception is a strange thing. When you are talking TV there is a game to play. The perception is that  puppets are for kids, however it is actually the adults who enjoy them the most. Consider that it is adults  producing the programs, the programmers (the  ones who choose the programs) are adults, and the ones who control the TV remote are the kids parents... adults. At the last South American children's television summit  held here in Bogota, that is what the BBC , Disney, and  all the big guys, were saying. The trick is to produce something the children want or need to see, but you must market to their mothers.
   Producers have a hard time. They have little budget for what they would like to do, very little time,  and almost no idea about  what it actually takes to do puppets well. They do not realize it takes years to actually get good at  performing with puppets, and especially for TV. Those who produce here will tell you that apart from budget, their biggest problem is finding good puppeteers. The good ones are usually off doing festivals, events  or  international tours etc.
   The head project manager from PBS says her main criteria for hiring someone and their project is, are they  able to deliver what they say they will. I think that when it comes to puppets, very few are capable  of delivering. As far as we are concerned, I am confident on   delivering quality nowdays, but we are unable to deliver quantity, which is where we are being  slowed down. There is more to production than people realize, and the performing is only a small part of the whole process, so a vicious cycle  sets up. Not enough work to keep puppeteers employed, and  not enough puppeteers to employ....
   If you are a good puppeteer( better still, a group of  puppeteers) and you understand how to deliver what will make the producer look good, and can actually do that, then you should have no problem getting a program on air.
   Also do not underestimate local stations. It is a GREAT place to learn, and improve your skills. eg: I went on a live cable show for an interview. I asked our head puppeteer along with a puppet, just in case. Did one short impromptu during the interview ..and voila we were invited back every week, even various times a week, as co-host for the six months they were on air.
    We have laws here that non profit TV must have 50% local content...guess how it suffers . all bulk and very little  quality. But still... good place to practice.

Public perception: if the musician was any good, they'd be playing in concert halls. So they don't expect nor believe they'd be playing on the streets.

Musician's perception: just because they can get a certain crowd (subscribers) to pay for tickets doesn't mean their classical music has any interest with passers-by.

Location: people will always pay less attention when they're on their way somewhere. People are also used to buskers, so maybe doing something wild and zany would work better.

Music: maybe performing in a grand hall gives classical music an aura of respect or likeability, but in actual fact taking it out of its usual setting makes people think about what they're listening to and consider for themselves whether they like it or not.

Etc etc.

The problem with an experiment like that is that there are too many variables so you won't ever know what is the most likely reason behind the dis/interest in the musician. Just by changing the type of music played you could get a completely different reaction.

Na glad to be back!

As a puppeteer i don't think I could do a typical puppet show on that size of forum...it would be really out of place and your limited time and pressure to pull off a character that is believable in maybe 2 minutes plus keeping it lots of changes to keep there attention is a high order for this type of show...but Americans and Canadians have a different view of puppets than maybe many of the other countries.

StiqPuppets

Na glad to be back!

As a puppeteer i don't think I could do a typical puppet show on that size of forum...it would be really out of place and your limited time and pressure to pull off a character that is believable in maybe 2 minutes plus keeping it lots of changes to keep there attention is a high order for this type of show...but Americans and Canadians have a different view of puppets than maybe many of the other countries.

StiqPuppets

I don't know about that. Part of my question is also about the styles seen on these shows. For instance, Richard Bradshaw's short shadow puppet skits work extremely well in this format. The less the public is exposed to other forms or styles of puppetry, the more they assume that the only ones that are enjoyable (or work on TV) are the ones that include ventriloquist acts.

This is another reason why I avoid these shows: they're all about one-line comedians, 'amazing' acrobatics/circus acts/jugglers, high-toned singers... in other words, nothing that actually pushes the envelope or tries to be different. I saw more interesting stuff being done on the Penn & Teller "Fool Us" shows than on these talent series. And this is why I wonder if the producers are playing it safe, or if there's just no one willing to put themselves out on a limb...

(Admittedly this is based on 5 seconds of watching these kinds of shows)

As for cultural differences, 70% of our TV is American, with about 10% British, and the rest is Aussie, NZ, etc. So I wouldn't expect a huge difference in tastes/expectations.

While I am not a fan of contest or reality shows myself there are some out there that do seem to push the envelope and they don't just look for the ordinary. One is "So you think you can dance" and it has just started up it's new season. The first show has some extraordinary dance in it. One thing I like about the show is that they do look for dancers that are not only technically good but that are bringing something new to the world of dance. The other thing I like is that they keep everything very positive even when they are judging. They find the beauty even in performances that are really not that great. One contestant they featured was autistic and had no training. He did not make the cut for the contest but they still showed his performance and spoke with him about it. The guy got a standing ovation from the other dancers and the judges.

I guess my point is don't be too closed minded. In all the junk you might find a gem.

Yes, I did like SYTYCD, which always seemed far more about talent than anything else. I think it's partly because in singing you can get away with 'speaking' in melody rather than actually hitting notes - whereas with dance you can't fake it.

I'm not at all being closed-minded about it. I just think that there's a glut of these shows (at least here there is) and a lot of it is popularity/family 'niceness' instead of interesting art. I do agree there's a lot of gems to be found: but I can't be bothered sitting through 60 minutes or more of repetitive narrative to get there. I actually really enjoyed Top Chef (not produced here but I've seen a few American episodes), and SYTYCD, and probably would like The Voice if I could switch off the screaming teens. It's just not something I can sit through very well.

But then I've always liked the less popular shows and roll my eyes at most of the ratings winners. That and it pisses me off that there's a glut of these for a reason: no one wants to spend the money producing tough Australian TV with real actors. We have the 'filler', but nothing that would be considered groundbreaking. Sure we can find performance artist gems, but there's no where for them to go once they've been found. I'd like to see an Aussie 'The West Wing' or something. All of the push-the-envelope stuff is usually about incredibly OTT satire/comedy shows.

(Man, I should check my tongue. I don't get pay TV and always forget there's homegrown stuff on there. But free to air, forget it.)

To a certain extent I agree. But you guys have 100+ TV stations to choose from, and we have about 10. And 2% of that is Aussie. Let's say 1% of that is reality TV. ... Now imagine you're an actor or writing looking for work. Is it any wonder all of our well-known Aussies up and move to Hollywood?

Anyway, /end soap box. Don't poke me, I have had this bee in my bonnet for a while

ha, Na, totally understand. NZ is an even smaller pond. Most NZ actors go to OZ, and far beyond. Fortunately the  Govt thought about it and had a few good policies and it is not quite as bad as when I was young. Here in Colombia we are about where NZ was 20 or 30 years ago. In NZ the employment govt agency told there was no  career for me in TV...my  first transmision in Colombia a on local TV was greater than all NZ put together. Mind you no-one has ever paid me yet. The TV industry is a sausage machine, poking out sausages. However, if you  can make good sausages, you can bump those variety shows  sideways. It does take some guts and determination though.

Yes, NZ seems to be worse off than here. I think it's rather sad that these places are always touted as 'places to film movies', but never 'places we can produce great TV'. I think Americans don't realise how lucky they are to be able to have so much money poured into adventurous TV. You won't see the kind of production values here that you get from a BBC series or HBO - not to badmouth many casts or the results of many crews. They just produce 'technically' good shows without seeming to ever make anything that lasts or is worth watching more than once. Guts is definitely needed.

I don't know about that. Part of my question is also about the styles seen on these shows. For instance, Richard Bradshaw's short shadow puppet skits work extremely well in this format. The less the public is exposed to other forms or styles of puppetry, the more they assume that the only ones that are enjoyable (or work on TV) are the ones that include ventriloquist acts.

This is another reason why I avoid these shows: they're all about one-line comedians, 'amazing' acrobatics/circus acts/jugglers, high-toned singers... in other words, nothing that actually pushes the envelope or tries to be different. I saw more interesting stuff being done on the Penn & Teller "Fool Us" shows than on these talent series. And this is why I wonder if the producers are playing it safe, or if there's just no one willing to put themselves out on a limb...

(Admittedly this is based on 5 seconds of watching these kinds of shows)

As for cultural differences, 70% of our TV is American, with about 10% British, and the rest is Aussie, NZ, etc. So I wouldn't expect a huge difference in tastes/expectations.

The Got Talent franchise is completely and totally rigged, winners are determined by any means necessary. David Splatt, who came third on Australia's Got Talent in '09, originally auditioned for the producers (before the tv audition they show you) with puppets, more marionette/internal mech small scale stuff but was rejected, but the producers loved his backup plan of playing the music saw. Jugglers are not looked on kindly by shows like this either, they're considered old and unoriginal. There's a reason a singing chld wins every year, and that's advertisers money. On top of all this they splice fooage together to convey a warped perception of the performance by any one paticular competitor depending on what they feel like! I know 5 or 6 people who've been on the show and all of them have major qualms with it, one so much he wants legal action.

I think a performer has to really understand the advantages and disadvantages in proceeding with any of these talent shows. They all fall under the heading of reality TV and the bottom line is they are looking at the advertising dollar they can bring in. Also with the exception of a few they winning is completely based on popular vote. I am not saying that they can't help someones career but I doubt as a rule they are going to launch them into stardom.   I would almost compare them to some of the "talent" agencies out there.  You may have noticed open audition calls for modeling agencies from time to time. Most of these are simply looking for clients they can charge fees to and don't really do that much to promote them.

I worked with a singer once who had looked into "American Idol". I believe she even did some preliminary auditions for them. She ended up not going through with it because the legalities (they own you for a certain period of time) would have seriously hindered current on going contract she had.

The idea of overnight stardom is overrated.

I think a performer has to really understand the advantages and disadvantages in proceeding with any of these talent shows. They all fall under the heading of reality TV and the bottom line is they are looking at the advertising dollar they can bring in. Also with the exception of a few they winning is completely based on popular vote. I am not saying that they can't help someones career but I doubt as a rule they are going to launch them into stardom.   I would almost compare them to some of the "talent" agencies out there.  You may have noticed open audition calls for modeling agencies from time to time. Most of these are simply looking for clients they can charge fees to and don't really do that much to promote them.

I worked with a singer once who had looked into "American Idol". I believe she even did some preliminary auditions for them. She ended up not going through with it because the legalities (they own you for a certain period of time) would have seriously hindered current on going contract she had.

The idea of overnight stardom is overrated.

Er... "talent agencies" that charge fees but don't do anything are pretty illegal. Well, there may not be specific legislation dealing with it (here laws only exist for Queenslanders, not any of the other states), but if you call the BBB or state agency for consumer affairs, they'll quickly get into trouble.

Anyone who signs up for a talent agency without doing their homework first is an idiot. Unfortunately there are plenty of snake oil salesmen in all countries when it comes to agents.

As for reality TV, I always counselled those interested in them to not waste their time. There's only been a handful of people in Australia who managed to spin any win into a long-term career, and I know a lot of people here in the arts think of reality TV as simply the lazy-ass method of getting famous, rather than sincere interest in a career.

I liked what one person once said on Yahoo Answers about it:
It takes decades to become an overnight success.

... If you remember the 2000 Olympics there was a young singer who got heavily promoted at the time. She was about 13 or so, and the media kept saying she was "undiscovered". Truth was, like so many "undiscovered" stars, she'd been doing singing for years.

As for the claims of rigging the show, [citation needed]. I've been to taping of TV shows before, and they don't do things in order either... reality TV is by nature, not reality. It's massaged, and that's why it got such a panning from critics when it first started (man, that's a while back now). But out and out rigging... need some evidence of that.

'The idea of overnight stardom is overrated.'
Totally agree.  Look into the background of each past overnight star, and you will see a lot of preparation. There is no way you can get onto a show like that and win, unless you can at least handle a microphone,and have experience to woo or wow an audience, except if you have the 'cute factor', as my children call it. Seldom is pure talent enough.  Having worked in the TV and theatrics industry for a good part of my life, I also would have to agree with buppetpusker. The puppeteers and people we have worked with generally come from people you have met previously. And the people who do the choosing, it is not very often that they pick someone straight off the street. It is usually a who you know, not what you know  scenario. Although when you do know the  chooser, you do have to know what you are doing...unless you are good in bed.

na  I think the  'rigging' sort of thing is that there is a lot of bias in selection, and processing. The choosers and manipulators of the deal have a picture in their head  of what is and is not what they are looking for, very opinionated. Even if it is  audience vote, it is all opinionated. From experience, if the  choosers like  a person, they  will do a lot to make their choice better, and the ones they do not like, they  will ignore...so actually unintentionally rigging. It is human nature and  you can't really get away from it. Beauty contests are the same. I see  stunning  women here in Colombia walking on the street , definite  contest material, but  the ones that go into the competitions, have to sign  agreements that they  will have cosmetic surgery  to be able to compete... its all rigged to a degree.

Er... "talent agencies" that charge fees but don't do anything are pretty illegal.

Oh no they keep it "legal".  The ones I am speaking of are praying on folks who really don't know anything. They do the bare min to keep you coming back and continue to encourage spending via services that benefit them.  Can we say kick back.  They look for parents who feel their kid has star power!  They are never going to tell that parent the realities of the business.  If the parent questions why the child is not getting work the answer is always going to be .... "Spend more money".

Oh no they keep it "legal".   The ones I am speaking of are praying on folks who really don't know anything. They do the bare min to keep you coming back and continue to encourage spending via services that benefit them.  Can we say kick back.  They look for parents who feel their kid has star power!  They are never going to tell that parent the realities of the business.  If the parent questions why the child is not getting work the answer is always going to be .... "Spend more money".

Yes, they "get around it" by selling you classes instead. But as I say, most of these "agencies" have a bad reputation and have been dobbed in to the BBB and other places.

It's another reason why I call the people signing up for them idiots. I used to defend people who got taken in, because a lot of people just don't know where to find info about agents, etc. Now, I can't think why people don't do a background check before signing a contract or handing over money.

In particular, with the amount of info available on the net - and as a parent, my first thought would be to find an actor's union and their info - I can't understand why so many people just go with it anyway.

My favourite was a common one used by a few Australian "companies". They advertise on job sites. No experience needed. Just send a headshot. And paid work is guaranteed.

My question I always put to people asking about such ads is: if your average trained actor is always out of work, how do these folk guarantee your underage untrained wannabe child any paid work at all?

Sometimes it gets through, usually, when it's the wannabe asking for advice, they ignore it. And I assume their parents are either too busy or ignorant to do their own homework and just blindly sign whatever it is their kid hands them.

Frankly, all one needs to do is research a little and you will find all the info you need to have an educated gut-reaction guess to whatever agent/company you're interested in. ... Which is why I have come to the point where the people that get sucked in are idiots. Fine, you know nothing about the industry -- but common sense obviously went out the window somewhere (see above example).

And at the end of the day, if you're not willing to do a modicum of searching beforehand, you kind of end up sucking yourself in. It's like buying a car: you're going to hand over a chunk of money, sign a contract, get the keys.. why wouldn't you check that the person selling it isn't legit? Unless of course you're too busy wanting a Porsche to notice or care to check that the engine's still in the frame.

/end soap box.