Viewing all threads tagged #bjag.
Here we go! It's the much anticipated BJAG Notes!
I've had a good read & a good think. To be honest I'm still none the wiser. My questions, observations etc...
Assuming that the BJAG is put in place:
Does this mean that organisers no longer need to set up a ltd company & can arrange all contracts in the name of the BJAG if they chose to do so?
If they do, do the organisers become employees/board members/other of the BJAG?
If so what responsibilities would organisers have to the BJAG (I'm not talking about future advisory roles which should be voluntary positions anyway, I mean are there any legal obligations)?
What happens if the organisers arrange the contracts, run the BJC, then disappear after the event when it comes to settling the bill? The takings of the festival will be held by the BJAG but who picks up the admin work?
If the organisers chose to do so, could the organisers still set up their own ltd company & organise the festival as has been done in the past? Would the BJAG seek to stop them (not sure how exactly but intellectual property rights over the BJC name are hinted at)?
If the organisers chose the ltd company route are there any benefits that the BJAG could offer the festival aside from advice? Not sure exactly what I'm thinking here, but something along the lines of can the BJAG be a supplier to the BJC? eg. could the BJAG run the bar more profitably thanks to tax exempt status, split profits/give kickback to the BJC like a normal caterer & use their share to fill their war chest?Bubba – If BJC lost money would guild dissolve?
Jack – yes/no. It would take money out of pre-reg
Does this mean that if a BJC lost money the BJAG would be liable & that future BJCs are expected to pick up the tab? This seems to be confirming the biggest fear of most people opposed to a central body. If the question at the end of the business meeting becomes, "Is there anyone interested in running next year's festival & picking up this year's £5k debt?" The answer is going to be a definite no. If the '/' represents the split between 2 different answers to the same question, the bit after the '/' needs to be crossed out.
If need be we could set up a new BJAG every year. But then we might need a BJAGAG!Jak – Can BJC organisers set up a CIO and save on VAT etc?
Jack – Yes but costs £120? or <£300 to set up CIO and easier to have central one as opposed to many
Saving 20% VAT over a £60k budget is £10k, which is worth the £300 start up fee. Setting up a new CIO each year gives the BJC the tax benefit while retaining the benefit of not passing over a debt that we have under the current system. Or am I missing something?Consequences of Profit/Loss
Profit: Any money made over the ‘Break Even’ point could either be put into the BJC funds for the next year or the Orgs could claim it as their profits and use it themselves. A healthy medium between the two has been suggested and many agree that to be the case. The hard work of an Org, particularly one that makes a profit cannot and should not be taken for granted. The importance of the BJC to stay grass-roots and community driven (as opposed to commercially driven) is noted too. A 60% to BJC funds, 40% to Org split following the EJA precedent is noted. Further discussion is needed to agree this.
Is that Org as in the organisers or Org as in the organistaion (BJAG)? Or should that read 60% to BJAG funds? At the moment I read that as 100% goes to the BJC organisers.
Under participation it suggests encouraging involvement with the BJAG by publishing a semi-public document. Why semi-public rather than public?
As I understand it, VAT exemptions for charities cover quite specific things such as advertising and lapel pins.
I'm curious about the legality of a charitable organisation that appears to have as a primary purpose, the funneling of money to and from a private profit-making organisation. Especially when that profit-making organisation appears to wind up and re-form each year. Seems like there is a potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest (at best) or the appearance of outright fraud (at worst).
BJC organisers wishing to form a charitable organisation themselves would have legal difficulties in taking any profit, if they wanted the option of taking it themselves rather than spending it on juggly arty aims.
To be worthwhile I would think that we'd need to be able to save on the big ticket items: venue, security, big tops, marquees etc. Advertising is a small part of the budget as far as I'm aware. Most BJC advertising is done through social media which is free, the only advertising I saw for BJC 2014 was the regular website & some fliers, the VAT saving on that will be pretty negligible.
HMRC are typically vague in stating that certain goods & services may be subject to VAT relief. Does anyone know precisely what the BJC uses that could be subject to VAT relief.
Your second point is a very important one. With the juggling convention organiser community as close knit as it is it would be very easy for an independant eye from outside the community to see a lot of cronyism. The small profits involved certainly won't stop an auditor from flagging this up. However, the BJAG as described could be seen as a body that ensures that the ltd company doesn't take all the profit for themselves & ensures that at least some of it is reinvested back into the community.
I don't think the last point will be a problem. If the organisers want to use the BJC as a personal profit making venture (hahahahaha!) then setting up a CIO is simply not an option to them.
Oh yeah, & #bjag
VAT on things bought by a charity:
https://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/vat/supplies.htm
VAT on things sold by a charity:
https://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/vat/income.htm
In reply
1) No longer setting up a separate ltd company?
No, the Org team would still (as it stands) set up their own ltd company, so would not be employees. It could be that the BJAG would be the parent to the company, but that it's for much further down the road and would depend on 3rd sector law, the deemed checks and balances, the benefits and detriments and a number of other factors that require discussion and considerable legal research.
It stands to be a Checks and Balances group, similar to the EJA (which I know I'm harping on about but it's a very nifty and handy precedent).
This way, there's no reason why a BJAG board member couldn't be on the Org team with suspended responsibilities (for example) at the BJAG.
2) What responsibilities would the Orgs have to the BJAG?
Actual legal responsibilities would only stem from what they sign up for.
So if you look at the '3 stages' bit, responsibilities could be deemed to be
-Win vote to get the mandate (BJAG should [IMO] hold a vote every year, even if only one bid which is all the bids and then the option of 'none of the above') to get the goodwill of the community and potential IP Rights, if the BJAG goes down that route. Following that, the Orgs may decide that's all the involvement of the BJAG they desire and don't go any further in the 3 stages.
-If there's a Quality Improvement document or structure put in place (which sounds pretty handy, and some people who do that as their day job have mentioned helping), then following that (for instance, providing the BJAG with a budget which is deemed up to scratch [a standardised basic budget could be included as part of this structure to be filled out]) would be a responsibility to receive some of the 'next step' benefits (i.e. start-up loan, bail out, whatever).
3) What happens if an Org goes AWOL?
Any financial arrangements the BJAG would enter would be contractual and so breach of contract would be the security. Simple and small debt (i.e. less than £15,000) claims are super easy to fix, if that were to happen (which seems unlikely anyway).
4) What happens if someone sets up an 'unofficial BJC'?
I hope it's been addressed above about Orgs just going it on their own (it's encouraged, once the Juggling Community have voted for it!), but let's say worst comes to worst and someone loses a vote (either to someone else or to a vote of no confidence) and tries to set up their own BJC. The best way to combat this would be publicise via Juggling Edge, social media and word of mouth that it's simply not the official one and use the goodwill in the BJAG to stop it from being viable. If the unofficial one is superbad and detrimental to the name of BJC, then the above mentioned IP Rights the BJAG has could be used to start a claim for IP infringement. This would be a last resort as IP disputes are expensive!
N.B. 'Goodwill' mentioned above, for those who don't know, is a thing that can be owned, used, sold and disposed of, in legal terms. It's an intangible asset and can be of great power.
5) What benefits besides advice could the BJAG offer?
- Start up loan for the BJC
- A bail-out ( ≤100% of loss)
- There could be benefit in the Quality Improvement structure/document for smaller conventions!
- To be worked on, as mentioned above, but there could be serious tax benefits, this being an event the purpose of which is forwarding of the arts/sport. As Emily noted, if done poorly, there are risks of Conflict of Interest or at worst Fraud. But I think that's why a trainee solicitor has been asked to project manage this! ;)
6) If the BJC lost money, would the BJAG be liable?
If the BJC Org team followed all conditions, warranties and indemnities set by the BJAG, AND the BJAG and Org team have agreed a bail out of X% or £Y (which could vary, depending on the year, the team and the actions of the team) AND the BJAG has the available dosh, then it could aid with any loss it deems reasonable. It wouldn't be a black and white affair.
Here, more than anywhere, experimentation and business acumen would come into play.
7) Would a new Charity model be made each year?
Following the answer to Q6, I hope it's clear that that isn't necessary and I'd go as far as to say that would be unnecessary and redundant as it misses the point of continuity as one of the original problems the BJAG project was started to help.
8) 60%:40% split of profits, a clarification.
At the moment, 100% of the profits from a BJC are held by BJC organisers to do with as they wish: be that keep it all, hand some over, all of it, whatever; it's up to them.
A split of profits would be 60% of the profits goes to the BJAG accounts to build the war chest for BJCs of the future (bigger start up loans, more bail out money, money to play with and buy stuff for the BJC perhaps?) and then 40% could be kept by BJC Organisers to keep as payment for running a good and profitable convention.
9) Private, public or semi-public Quality Improvement document/structure?
Not a crucial matter, I stated semi-public as we want it available but I guess for the the protection of intellectual property, not sharing it with the world? It's a commercial document/mechanism after all.
all over complicated and fixing problems that currently do not exist.
any controlling body does little more than satisfy the ego's of those who want to set one up,
BJC has ran so far quite happily without any of this crap and can continue to do so.
Thanks very much for the clarifications Jack. I'll probably have a load more questions in a bit!
Mini, the BJC is currently paying VAT that it might not need to pay, that is a real problem. I agree that it does seem very complicated at the moment & may be using Confucius' cannon to kill a gnat, but if Jack is willing to do the work to explore the options then I think he should be supported in his efforts or at the very least allowed to try.
Be careful about trying to stamp out someone trying to do things differently otherwise you could be seen as a controlling body too.
i retired from BJC's 2 yrs ago. But still dont want to see it ever end up being "controlled" there is no need for any governing body. if there had been a need the organisers from the previous 25 or so years would have identified this need. the call for one ALWAYS comes from outside the organising team. people looking in seeing problems that they think some official body can fix.
if someone really wants to help BJC's finances then that person should offer their services as accountant to each yrs org team, who can chose to take up the offer or not.
the beauty of democracy is that anyone can choose to have elongated debate, on almost any subject
at the same time, anyone can stand on a street corner and shout how shit that debate is. we live in a wonderful free country.
As I understand it, the request for Jack to look into this came from Jane, the main organiser of this year's BJC.
One BJC Organiser out of 26yrs does not demonstrate a majority.
anytime a solicitor gets involved in anything. the solicitor will eventually be the only one to benefit.
BJC has now been around for a long time. i would be interested as to how it can be possible for anyone to claim intellectual rights to the name. prior use has been with over 20 different organisations, many of whom are no longer contactable.
i wont post again on this topic. tis been bashed around for years by many and every time has luckily drifted away and BJC keeps on rolling. and rolling it will continue to do. i am suspicious by nature of intrusive legality and i am aware of power creep. give it time. if this ever does come to fruition. before long there will be a requirement for every bjc to have some "standard" parts. and that removes the thing that makes BJC unique. every team does it their own way.
My time with BJC has passed. i have watched it slowly drift away from being ran by jugglers for jugglers, with attendees co operating with clean up efforts etc for the benefit of BJC and becoming consumer driven.
i have seen it go from an event with external venues, big tops, marquees etc, to the past few years of the sanitised version where nothing is grubby at all.
and it looks like its about to change again to be somehow ran by an unelected legal entity who will try to enforce some rules on hard working volunteer BJC organisers.
BJC as i knew and loved it has gone. Long live BJC. it will be missed.
No one said it was a majority, Aidan was just pointing out that it doesn't always come from outside the org teams as you said. Peachi & Andy Vass have also put the idea of a central organisation forward. This idea will keep coming up & like all ideas won't go away unless it fails.
I'm sorry that your time with the BJC has passed, your work has had a massive positive effect on the BJC. Far more than I think any central organisation ever will. Thank you.
Jane was the organisation of this year's bjc not every bjc.
If she wanted assistance then cool but to try to inflict her needs on every future bjc org shows disrespect on them.
If jack really wants to help bjc then offer his legal advice to any BJC that wants it. And keep out of any that dont
Jane is in the interesting position (maybe unique?) of being the main BJC organiser more than once. She will have more of an insight into how much reinvention of the wheel is involved each time. A central body may reduce this.
Another point is that at this year's business meeting noone stood up with a proposition for next year's BJC. The same happened last year. People may be put off by things like having to set up a ltd. company. If a central body takes away some of these burdens, more people might be wiling to step forward.
The BJC has evolved into a large festival that's complicated to organise. It doesn't necessarily need to continue in this direction. Each new team can organise the festival they want to see. I think this is what you refer to when you say 'by jugglers, for jugglers' Having a central body doesn't necessarily change this. I think the central body's proposed influence would be discouraging things that that are ill thought out, ie maybe a great expense for something trivial that might undermine BJC 's expenses. Their influence should not involve demanding certain features of BJC from the organising team. One question at the business meeting was could we have a BJC without a public show? Many people said they'd be happy to attend such an event!
My personal stance is undecided on a central body. I can see some advantages, and I have some reservations, which coincide with some of yours, Mini. I think it's an idea worth exploring. Also if it was set up and thought to be unhelpful, surely it could be disbanded by a vote at a business meeting.
Don't worry Mini you are more than welcome to say you think the debate is shit, I have no intention of stopping you. It's just that people tend to cross the road to avoid the guy shouting on the street corner! This is why I'm taking the time to lay out my specific concerns.
So the BJAG could pursue holding intellectual property rights over the BJC name & enter into contracts with organisers & enforce those contracts through litigation. You also mention that debts of less than £15000 are easy to fix, I guess you are referring to the small claims courts? This sounds like a lot of potential litigation to bring to the British juggling community. Haven't we learned from the IJA's troubles that this is a very bad thing? Despite all their recent progress I still get the impression that the IJA is thought of as a joke by many on this side of the pond. Please don't take this personally Jack as I know you are training to be a solicitor, but the only people guaranteed to really benefit from litigation are the solicitors. Any litigation no matter how minor or unlikely will damage the BJC.
You mention that the initial set up fee for a CIO is under £300. Are there any ongoing running costs for a CIO eg. submitting annual accounts? I'd like to know precisely what the BJAG would cost & precisely how much could be saved with the BJAG in place.
Unless the financial benefits outweigh the costs I can't see the need to set up a CIO or any other legal entity (which is not the same as saying I don't see the need of a BJAG). Underneath the talk of quality control documents & such like we just need to talk to each other better, write things down & maintain that archive. We don't need to pay out to set up a legal entity just to talk to each other.
Even the holding of funds for start up loans doesn't *need* a new legal entity because as Emily & others has already mentioned that's what has already been happening. However, I can see the BJAG solving a few problems in this area specifically:
But again both of these points could be solved by people talking to each other better.
On the proposed quality control document, how will this differ from the information that is already held on the BJC Wiki? If the wiki is not up to scratch & the expertise exists to produce something better why not channel the effort into improving the wiki rather than starting from scratch?
I think any and all involved would like to avoid litigation. It's ugly, slow and expensive and rarely turns out the way litigants intend, but having it as a possible last resort is better IMO than not having it at all come some legal issue. Unfortunately, being a lawyer is often about worst case scenario, not easiest case scenario!
When I say easy to fix though, I mean super easy. Issuing a claim form (I can write those, no independent solicitor needed) and no defence or acknowledgement of service by opposing side (sorry, this is a little jargon heavy) can be dealt with by default judgement. Therefore, no trial/hearing/litigation, just decision by the court.
As I say, this is highly, highly unlikely to happen. There's nothing stopping this scenario from happening already without the BJAG or a corporate body, this would just give protection (as a side effect) to it. I'm not going to set up something only for it to be lacking in defences should something happen, no matter how unlikely! As to how the EJA regulates it's business, that's up to them. Not my issue. They're bigger, have more commercial worth and thus are a bigger target and at more risk. How they go about defending that liability is up to them.
Precise costs will come, but cannot yet be given until it's purposes have been discussed and decided. This is still early on in the talks and research for this. If you'd like to check out https://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-charitable-incorporated-organisations-(cios)/cios-general-information/ You may get a lot of the details you're looking for. Have a poke about and see what you can find.
Re: Quality Improvement structures/docs, unfortunately that is most certainly not my area of expertise and I'm just being told that's what they're called. Ewan came up with a lot of helpful ideas here but Anna Inman and Sam McIntyre deal with 'talking to each other better, writing things down & maintaining that archive' in their professional life. All of them will be working with me and basically making an easy and effective way to write stuff down and make the data a resource we can use.
I am guilty of using a lot of jargon and I apologise. I'm better at explaining these things face to face, but this will have to suffice for the moment! I'm using what people know in the juggling community and are able to help with to make the BJAG as good as can be!
How it will differ from the wiki: it'll use info from the wiki but will have a lot of other info. There's no reason why it couldn't be kept on the wiki and just be the 1 hit document (for instance) which has got all the stuff you need. The wiki provides a lot of information that is not 100% relevant to festival running.
On the holding of Funds, Jonathan T Jester (on facebook. Unsure of real name) has been vocal in the idea of a 'Friends of the BJC' branch of the BJAG as a donation model. For people to give the BJC, there would need to be a company behind that, to keep it accountable and above board (one of the reasons why BJCs are run by companies, not individuals). A central organisation would be best, I agree; hence the BJAG.
Jonathan T(he) Jester is Jonathan Russell from Salisbury. He has been to a number of recent BJCs but often for a day or two and so doesn't impinge on the conscious of organisers. Some of us have worked with him and know he has views on a lot of subjects.
Nigel
I am of course diplomacy personified.
Little Paul - - Parent #
He certainly does hold some strong views, and vocally expresses them. I can't say I've always agreed with him, not by a long chalk.
Sitting here on my sofa on my day off, I thought, 'Hey I wonder if there is anything interesting to read on juggling edge?'
Then I find my name referenced on several posts and lines and lines of stuff to read. Well I haven't read it all, far too long I am afraid.
Okay, so just to clarify.
The idea of an Advisory Board has been around for a long time. Over the past 10 years possibly 7 of the organising teams have talked to me about how a version might have helped them. As I understood it Mini and Emily (and others?) set up the BJC Wiki as a way of helping teams organise a BJC, and it does help to a point. But it doesn't have accurate specific information about numbers or costs or other sensitive information that businesses would not normally post on an open forum. Its quite hard to find things and its not a person you can talk to, ask advice or sound ideas off. And that is what we thought would be helpful. A group of people who are democratically elected every year or two who are there to help.
Before he disappeared off to Sierra Leone Peachi suggested that I try and start one. Well that was just a silly idea, I had just said I would run 2014 and I would not be impartial or have the time or energy to do it properly and to be honest I didn't and still don't want to get caught up in the arguments about it. Palmer Jack had said he wanted to be part of my extended team, so knowing that he is training to be a solicitor I thought it would be a good use of his legal brain for him to investigate the POSSIBILITY of some sort of official body and research the different formats it could take.
I think that people are making it far more complicated than it needs to be, or maybe I just have a simplistic version in my head of how it should be and perhaps I am being naive!
I don't think it should be there to control anyone, each team should be able to run its event however it likes (not as easy as it sounds) it should be there to help teams run the event, stop them from having to reinvent the wheel every damn year and help them from making massive expensive mistakes that put the future years in jeopardy. I was really lucky this year in that I had a team made up of experienced and non experienced BJC organisers. I am lucky I have been around for a few years now and know these people and feel comfortable messaging them for advice. We didn't have that in 2011. This year I still had new challenges that no one else had had to deal with before!! (like completing a full and comprehensive Event Plan that, with appendices, was over 131 pages long.) Just as an example of a small thing that we had no information on, I needed to know how many tents and how many caravans we would have. We had nothing, no data at all. We had to look at old photos, and make estimations.
If a BJAG doesn't happen for a while then okay, but for the record I am doing as much as I can to collate as much data as I can, recruit as many new faces as I can and generate as much interest in how a BJC works as I can. I want people to want to run it, I want them to feel that they can be involved, not just come along and expect someone else to do it or feel that they don't know the team so they can't approach them. I want people to know that, yes it is hard, but with help it can be done. I don't want us to return to a time when teams were coerced into doing it with no real knowledge of what they were letting themselves in for.
Yes BJC's have evolved so must the organisation of them evolve. The people who come to them are not the same people that came even 5 years ago! I was really surprised at the last renegade, when asked who had been to more than 5 or 6, at how few hands. I haven't seen the survey answers but it would be interesting to know more specifics.
So to those who have read all the way to this line, thanks and sorry for the long rant!
Jane
Long rants are very welcome here!
That moment in renegade was indeed interesting, the people I was with looked at me with incredulity when I put my hand up & shouted when Martin asked who had been to 16.
I would agree with Mini about certain changes.
Renegade is not the same if it is not in a tent, when it is in a building it is to clinical and there isn't enough atmosphere. People find it easier to get up and perform something silly or outrageous when it is in a tent, this doesn't happen any more and I miss this as this is one reason I go to BJC, I have now been to 17 including the first in 1988. Anyone who has only attended the past 4 or 5 years wouldn't have seen a proper renegade show. I love sitting in a tent for half the night freezing and getting a fizzy arse, it is part of the whole BJC experience.
I feel that anyone who has any ideas of how to keep the BJC going should be listened to as this is a part of my life and I for one don't want to lose it, this is one reason I have started to help with set ups and volunteering more over the last few years.
There is a whole seperate discussion to be had about renegades, renegade audiences etc. I've pretty much stopped going to renegades because of how different they have become from the ones I remember in the 90s. The renegades probably hit there nadir in 2004 with the cheese throwing and totally shambolic happenings of the renegade hosted by the Burrage twins. This happened in a tent, so tents are not the only thing that makes or breaks a renegade. It appears to be more to do with how educated the audience is in how to be an audience. Whether the heckles are funny or just repetitions of somebody else who was funny the first time they said it. Whether people come to the convention with acts that they think would suit a renengade stage or devise one at the convention specifically for renegade. Whether the compere has the ability to hold the audience and interact with them in a funny way. I popped in to the renegades this year and managed no more than 20 minutes.
As for more and more people helping to run BJC then I am all for it. Whilst I don't intend to be an org next year, I will carry on my tradition of running a workshop every year for the last 15 years (apart from Whitstable which I missed) and probably do something else to help as I and my family do most years.
Nigel
Part of the problem here is the slow change of BJC from largely working jugglers, to largely hobbyists.
I suspect that what people think of as a great renegade is largely what happens when you get a group of perfomers together. The fewer working performers come to BJC, the less spontaneous performance there is going to be, and the less the audience is going to feel part of the performance that happens.
Similarly, in a large group of working performers it will be easier to find people with experience handling tents and their requirements for heating, lighting, and not burning down or blowing away. Mini was pretty much the only person on the scene recently with the ability to manage this properly and now in his absence I am not at all sure it is safe or realistic to expect the average team of organisers to manage tents.
This is a massive shame because I too don't think BJC is quite the same without the smell of mouldering big top :-)
mike.armstrong - - Parent #
Just next to paste ;oP
Little Paul - - Parent #
My god I agree with that in spades.
Enough to want to read it again...
Cedric Lackpot - - Parent #
> Part of the problem here is the slow change of BJC from largely working jugglers, to largely hobbyists.
Really? I think I've heard this mentioned before, but it just doesn't ring true to me, and my memories of Renegades long ago is of 'ave-a-go hobbyists stepping up just as much as seasoned performers.
Is there any evidence to support/refute this?
I don't have evidence myself, only an impression formed by talking to various people who had been around a long time who have said this to me.
It's interesting that you don't think so; now I wonder what the actual fact is. Any other old timers around to chime in on this one?
Little Paul - - Parent #
I don't have any hard stats to back this up, but I think that while the ratio of performers to non-performers has shifted towards hobbyists somewhat - I think the type of performers who attend BJC has changed, simply because the performance landscape in the UK has changed.
Back in the 90s, a lot of the performers I was aware of at BJC had a street show (or at last a street background) or were working comedy clubs. Especially those in their 20s.
There were a few performers with school shows, or working corporate walkabout gigs, but there were comparatively few with a theatre show or a cruise ship act.
These days, there seem to be far fewer performers at BJC who work street shows - certainly the enthusiastic younger performers all seem to be running through the circus school route and into theatre shows.
This isn't good, it isn't bad, it's just different.
In #baking news - I've lost my cheese straw mojo. The batch I've just cooked are rather on the bland side :(
I was under the impression that street performers generally didn't attend BJC due to it being in a school holiday, therefore peak time for street performing. Is that the case, and has that always been the case?
Little Paul - - Parent #
I'm sure someone will pop up and correct me - but...
April is a sucky time of year for street shows, it's too cold and hats are small as a result (what passing shopper wants to stand still and watch a 20 minute show when it's freezing cold?)
As far as I'm aware, BJC falls pretty much just before the season starts for schools workshops, street shows, tented shows etc. This is the reason often cited for BJC not being at a warmer/more comfortable time of year (eg August) which is a *much* busier time for most non-theater show performers.
Cedric Lackpot - - Parent #
School workshops are year-round these days, albeit with considerable seasonal variations. But of course they don't take place during school vacation times, although some of that slack is taken by holiday play schemes and suchlike.
In #baking news - I've lost my cheese straw mojo. The batch I've just cooked are rather on the bland side :(
How many jars of Marmite did you use?
Little Paul - - Parent #
None, just half a bunch of spring onions.
Perhaps that's what I'm missing, I'm so used to the marmite version I'm missing it :/
I'll bake a new batch tonight , along side the rhubarb cake I'm planning to take to bungay...
Cedric Lackpot - - Parent #
Coarse ground black pepper, coarse sea salt, and lashings of cayenne pepper. It's the only way. If it doesn't remind you of a Bloody Mary in cheese straw form then you need MOAR.
If I wanted a Bloody Mary I'm pretty sure there's no kind of cheese straw that could possibly be suitable!
Little Paul - - Parent #
I had a discussion with someone at BJC (possibly Barnesy?) about how I like that BJC happens, but that I don't need to feel any ownership of the component parts any more. Renegades are a case in point, I used to feel they were "my thing" and I was an active part of them. They're now "someone elses thing" and I'm no longer involved - which is fine, it's how it should be.
I don't think everything has to stay the same, and I'm glad that there are a new group of people who have feelings of ownership towards renegades - and that run them how they want to run them with their own approach and their own in-jokes etc. I don't need to be a part of that, and I'm 100% fine with that!
I had a lot of fun at renegades from 1998-2004(ish) - that was very much my time. I wouldn't want to impose that style of renegade on the new guys though - they love renegade as it is now and who am I to tell them "it was better in the old days"?
All a good renegade needs is an audience packed in to as small a space as possible, as close to the acts as possible, a good compere and someone managing the signup list.
This years BJC had that, last years didn't and the atmosphere suffered massively because of it - despite being in a tent.
Canvas or not isn't the issue - the size of venue and the proximity of the acts is what kicks off an atmosphere.
Am I right in thinking that Renegade used to be what everyone did late at night at the BJC 10+ years ago, or was that just what *I* did?
I'm in the same position as you LP with Renegade. I think I started to lose interest in it around 2005-2006. I kept going for a while through inertia, I still pop in now & then for an hour or two. Recently I've spent more time in the main hall during the wee small hours. Curiously I never used to find that much fun but now I do. I think a lot more people spend their time in the bar playing games than before.
I definitely agree that proximity between the audience & performance space is the key to a good renegade. If I think back over the years there is a definite correlation between size of venue & quality of atmosphere.
That and removing all the normal "stage" stuff that forms a barrier between the audience and the performance. Raised stage, proscenium, all the stage drapery in the wings. The more ambiguous the stage/audience distinction is, the more renegadey it feels!
c.f. the time two members of the audience conducted a chess match on the stage for the duration of a renegade.
anything on a raised stage = less good . the audience should not have to look up to a renegade. (my opinion of course)
Little Paul - - Parent #
I can't remember exactly what size the Croissant Neuf/No Fit State tents were, but they were regularly packed beyond their fire-capacity and even so I doubt you'd have got more than 300 people in there.
Which is my roundabout way of saying no, not everyone went to renegades 10 years ago, but you did, and I did, and a lot of other people did - but many more didn't.
10 years ago (2004) there were definitely groups of people having similar conversations about renegades not being as good as they used to be. I'm sure similar conversations were happening 15 years ago as well.
I recall having exactly the same sentiments, the renegades I recalled from the 90s were magical, those in the early 2000s just weren't quite the same.
But in all honesty, I think it was me that wasn't quite the same. Things always loose their magic when they are no longer new.
I think you are right, the Renegade tents probably held around 300 people. However, the ones I remember did go on for man hours, and whilst some people stayed there all night, most would pop in and out over the course of the evening. That is until the small hours when the stamina of the audience and performers eventually gave way!
mike.armstrong - - Parent #
https://www.nofitstate.org/story/family/core-team says that the tent seated 350 - so with the people sat on the floor and crammed into the doorway it'd probably be over 400 when it was full. That's still fewer than half the attendees at an average BJC in those days...
BJC 1995 Norwich there were two tents and two renegade shows running at the same time. A lot of the acts went from one tent to the other so if you were quick you could see the same act twice.
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post