Re: RAT terminologically hip, but

[NOMADMONAD@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/16/00 1:04:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
anarver@yahoo.com writes:
>  Isn't the determiner with TCG that in order to be
>  eligible for membership a theater needs not to be an
>  equity house but rather  needs to have an annual
>  budget  of over $100,000? 
>  That was always our (Annex Theatre's) understanding at
>  any rate.
>  Allison

It's at $150,000 now.

The TCG Web page on CONSTITUENT THEATRES: ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS is here:

http://www.tcg.org/member/the_con_req.htm

So obliviously Big Ben had the hype machine in high gear about the "big 
changes" he was ushering in at TCG.  

Now that I actually look at the requirements, it's everything I imagined it 
to be.  One could go through each eligibility item showing how it has nothing 
to do with producing from a RAT perspective.

And so much emphasis on capital!   Mo' Money!  Mo' Money!  Mo' Money!  as the 
ultimate gauge of  "professionalism."    How boring can you get.

I feel extremely stupid now for knowing nothing about the constituent 
theatres' relationship to AEA before I suggested Ben had made some dramatic 
change there.   The change he was hyping was probably this minor one:

"Payment to artists equivalent to the Equity minimum for the area (theatres 
need not operate on a union contract) or at least 25% of the theatre's annual 
budget dedicated to artist compensation."

My bet is that the provision "or at least 25% of the theatre's annual budget 
dedicated to artist compensation" is the new addition he was hyping.  I'll 
ask him if that's it.

I really hate this TCG definition of what "professional theater" is.  It's 
actually worse than what I imagined it to be.

--nick