How long should you train for?

 How long is too long to be training? Well in reality we are essentially training our whole lives, aren't we? We are forever the student trying to hone our skills and develop new ones.

In the US it's standard practice to do a 4-year undergraduate course. The UK has traditionally always adhered to a 3-year model (working in terms not semesters), then of course in 2009 I popped up with The MTA and completely challenged that again fast-tracking the training into a 2-year model.

However back in the early noughties, the UK started up this thing called a foundation course (apologies if they've been running for longer, but that's certainly the time that I started to notice them popping up). I guess for the bigger colleges it made financial sense. You're seeing people for your 3-year course who are blatantly not quite ready, but with a bit more training, using the resources that you're already paying for, you could get them ready for a 3-year course (potentially). Then lots of other people saw a sensible business model for purely training pre-undergraduates and a group of independent colleges suddenly opened.

So maybe we really did need to be doing a 4-year course after all - just like the US system?

Foundation courses and colleges quickly moved into mainstream thinking when it came to planning your future career. All the courses varied, some running in the evenings, some over concentrated periods, but all essentially training you to er, train.  

Over the years we've accepted lots of students that have had some sort of pre-training, and there are certainly some foundation courses that we inherently 'trust', insomuch as their students invariably always seem to be ready by the time that we see them for the audition. So they're clearly doing what they say on the packet. Then there are the students that we've rejected in one year, who've gone away, done some further training and have come back to us the following year and we've accepted them without hesitation - so a big yay to the training that they've received in that year.

However, I do have a couple of serious concerns around it all. 

The foundation course is entirely focussed on getting students ready for a traditional undergraduate programme which runs Sept - July (or in our case Oct - Sept), yet their courses all run to the same academic calendar year, meaning that they've started training in Sept, and within 3 months they're likely to be applying for their undergraduate course. Surely it would make more sense for the foundation course to run something like Jan - Nov? That way people that had got rejected have got time to look around for the best foundation course for them, they would have 10 months of training behind them before they've started to apply to other colleges?

As all the foundation courses are supposed to be preparing you for further training, you would be surprised at how many of them actually discuss all the options available to students. Some are great and seem to get all the colleges in to do some sort of outreach, or their course leader will be calling us to ensure that they have the right information for entry onto our course. However, some of them are purely fixated on the more established colleges.  That's always struck me as a bit elitist and even slightly gate keeperish. The number of colleges that we've approached annually to ask to speak to their students about the 2-year model and have had our request ignored is actually quite shocking.  Even more shocking when you look at our stats - we have a 10-year track record for getting all of our students out into the industry with agent rep, so regardless of your personal feelings, our results speak for themselves. A 2-year model works - but those pathways stay blocked (until one rogue class member comes to auditions for us and tells all of their friends about their experience)

Then there's the issue of brand awareness. Lots of young performers grow up knowing that they only want to really train in the one college. Their dream college. Their entire focus is on that dream. They've gone to see shows and keep seeing 'that name' in the programme, they believe that this is the only place that will get them industry-ready.  The big audition comes but they're not accepted on the dream course BUT they do get offered a place at the college, but on their foundation course. Here's the rub. In my experience, a lot of the people that get offered foundation courses at the major colleges would probably get straight offers onto a 3 year training programme at another college. Over the years we've auditioned lots of people from one of the 'major colleges' foundation courses, and we've pretty much been able to accept them all. You could of course argue that the larger college had done an exceptional job in training them ready to be . . . er, trained, or you could hypothesise that they were always ready to be trained somewhere (just not their 'dream college').

Over the years I've always been amazed by people who have turned down offers at ours and at other really reputable drama colleges because they've also been offered a foundation course at their 'dream school' - such is the draw of the 'dream'. A concept that our industry thrives on. A quick caveat here that of course not all courses are suitable for all students, so 100% people should be turning down places on courses that they know that they wouldn't thrive at. . . but that's very different by being blindsided by 'the dream'.

Now these foundation courses do not come cheap. Training performers is expensive. Yet suddenly parents are paying out for this additional course in the hope of what? That their child will be accepted onto their 'dream course' - whereas in reality from what I've heard, all the colleges are really honest about the fact that their foundation course is not a guaranteed pathway onto their main course. Even more than that it would be fascinating to find out the percentage of people that actually do go from a foundation course straight onto the undergraduate course, as from hearsay it doesn't seem as high as you'd expect.

I understand that some people opt for the foundation course as they believe that they'll be more likely to secure funding such as an elusive DaDa so they believe that the cost of the foundation course is essentially an investment - but of course DaDas are hard to come by, and the majority of people just end up spending a load of money that they haven't got before needing to find a load more money that they haven't got. It strikes me as a very risky gamble and with foundation courses costing anything from £6k to £10k this is not a cheap gamble.

So do foundation course work? 100% yes, but are some students paying out on an additional year unnecessarily - absolutely. Surely after paying out for a foundation year that student should be guaranteed a place on a course . . . somewhere. You should only be taking the students that you can clearly see have the potential to train but who are just falling short in one area. 

We should be seeing stats from all colleges about progression (which I've been shouting about for bloody years). I believe that students should be applying for foundation courses, not being offered them as the consolation prize (as that plays into the false promise, albeit unwittingly), and of course . . . I believe that all auditions should be free, which would allow students to apply for a wider range of colleges, which might open their eyes to other possibilities. 

Temper Tantrums for the Entitled

My four-year-old can often be found these days acting like some sort of cartoon character, stamping his foot because he can't get his own way. As his parent it's my job to hold the line and teach him that in life you don't just get everything you want and you certainly don't get it because you're screaming the house down (as much as you sense that all your neighbours are begging you to give in as much as your decibel busting child) Sometimes you have to work for it, sometimes it's just not yours to have. In the age of helicopter parenting, mindful parenting is a minefield. Are you being too harsh? Should you just give in as you don't want to 'damage them for life'? What about the fact that you don't want spoilt children though? Shouldn't we be teaching them to be resilient? The questions that you're facing long outstay the incident that precipitated them.  

Since watching the Social Dilemma on Netflix I've become fixated on changing the narrative on my social media timelines (stick with it. . . I swear that it's all related). Our self-serving echo chambers do nothing to make us aware of other people's opinions, which in turn leaves us believing that 'we' (and that is very much a 'we' of the plural variety) must be right in our thinking as EVERYBODY agrees with us. In fact nowadays if you move outside of your social media safe lane, and dare to challenge somebody's narrative, you are automatically lumped into the 'other' category with everybody assuming you to be a sharer of 'fake news', which is a fast track to 'troll city'. 

Creating an echo chamber prevents personal growth. Whilst we all prefer an easier life, and let's face it, we all hope that we're speaking with authority, the reality of life is very different. Were I to employ a senior faculty that just went along with everything that I said, my little college would be all the duller for it. I'm not infallible, I need to be challenged, and sometimes, when trying to think outside of the box you can literally catapult yourself to a different planet. You need people around you that are challenging in order to progress and develop. Damn it, you need people around you that will say 'no'. 

The world of social media needs to be the same fertile space in order for us to grow and develop as emotionally intelligent humans. However, have we stunted this growth due to years of privilege? A world where well-meaning parents overindulged and protected their children, meaning that as soon as they're in an environment that challenges their narratives they hit a huge wall which results in people calling out injustice. Remember the fuss a few decades ago when it was suggested that at sports days we should stop having winner and losers? We were encouraged to tell our children that it wasn't the winning that was important, it was the taking part? However couldn't we have been sold the double narrative? It's great to take part in something, and we should be really thrilled if we win, or conversely, the taking part is everything and let's not worry too much about losing. If you want to do better next time, try training for the event? You might not ever win it, but you could see yourself improving? 

The obvious question now is - does it really matter as long as everybody's happy? Shouldn't I 'give in' to my son's demands just to keep him happy, after all, in the big scheme of life, the thing that he's crying for has now become a matter of principle? I've come to realise that I believe that it really does matter, as we're nurturing a society of people that believe that they can't be challenged, that losing isn't what 'they' do, who deliberately shut down an alternative truth because they want to protect their echo chamber.

Let's take an example . . . if his critics are to be believed this is the case with Donald Trump.  A privileged, spoilt man who always got his own way. Learned how to play the system and not get caught. Then suddenly in 2020 somebody (US democracy) told him 'no'.  He lost the presidentship and seemingly copied my son. He stamped his foot, refused to believe that he could have possibly lost and the rest is history, fast forward a few months and we have the assault on Capitol Hill. Old Donald didn't like the narrative, all the evidence supports the fact that he did in fact lose (albeit with a lot of support, which I believe supports my argument of teaching the taking part and losing/winning narrative as of equal importance). He protected his echo chamber by shouting down the other narratives as 'fake news', and his followers believed him . . . after all, why would anybody create such a monumental lie?

As part of my social dilemma experiment, I've been challenging narratives that I believe to be dangerous online. Always respectfully, never resorting to insults, yet interestingly the people consistently throwing out the most dangerous content also all seem to play the DT game. They protect their echo chamber at all costs. I've now lost count of the number of private messages I've received from people who are all pushing an alternative truth to the fact that we've been in a pandemic. So I've questioned the narratives around 5G, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, QAnon, the Great Reset, etc. They all see their 'followers' as their weapons, setting them onto people that don't agree with them. Yet privately they all ask you to stop disagreeing with them? Their private messages are all the same, they literally name that they don't like being challenged, they all 'threaten' you with being blocked unless you toe the line, then when you point out that their discourse is fighting to protect liberties and freedom of speech and therefore their private message is the antithesis of everything they claim to be fighting for . . . they block you. If they find you particularly challenging, they publicly block you so that their followers will give you a bit of grief for a few days. 

Are they trying to change the world, or simply get what they want? Are they well-meaning or just narcissists building up their empires? Where is their resilience to be challenged, or have they created an echo chamber so bubble-wrapped that they've started to believe their own narrative? Why do they cancel the opposing viewpoint as opposed to engaging in a healthy, respectful debate?

I don't know what the answer is, and I think that this toxic narrative of entitlement reaches out into some pretty murky areas, however, I do believe that this is something that we all need to grapple with a bit more. As parents, we have to show our children that life isn't always what 'they' want, we have to teach them to be resilient. We have to demonstrate curiosity for the other viewpoint to enable our children to grow both physically and emotionally. Most of all, when we're teaching our children that they can be or do anything they want, we have to make them aware that their path isn't some fairytale destiny, it's a path of challenges that they need to work through. My biggest thought of all though is to get some noise-cancelling headphones/pods when you're grappling with these concepts with your young children.

Where's the revolution?

Why is an industry that is full of liberal people desperate to do right so afraid of change? Why do we all doff our caps at the same organisations and people with gratitude when they've deemed to give us a crumb or two?

I wrote last time about the carousel of annoyance that swings by social media about once every 6 months that is the 'drama school audition fee' scandal - yet nothing changes. Several colleges have stopped charging altogether but they don't get a look in as the world goes crazy about one of the old guard colleges reducing their audition fees from £££ to ££. We're meant to be grateful that one of the 'big guys' has decided to open up for the 'poor people'. Press releases go out, social media celebrates the drawbridge going down (not acknowledging that it shouldn't have been up in the first place, and also not acknowledging that you still need a metaphorical ladder to reach the lowered bridge). With the exception of one or two constant voices, we are satisfied & grateful with the tiny step. 

There are various well-meaning organisations attempting to make some of these dinosaurs more accessible to a more diverse group of people (both ethnicity and socio-economic), blindsided by history and completely ignoring the fact that younger beasts have been growing and maturing and who might actually 'fit' this Utopian diverse industry more. Nobody invests in them though - so we mould the 'diverse' to fit into the establishment. We see that as liberal progress. We celebrate the pathway, not question why the destination is always via the same address.

The stories that hit every so often of the same businesses within our industry that have a monopoly over us. The independent businesses built entirely off people looking for work, which have somehow gained a complete monopoly over our industry with nobody coming close to rival them in spite of various attempts. So powerful is their position within the industry they act as gatekeepers.  Again social media posts pop up every so often which everybody piles on in agreement, whilst the majority of people keep their annoyance on the down low just incase they ruffle the wrong feathers. I mean the industry is tough enough isn't it, without making enemies? One brave soul will put their head up above the parapet, the industry paper doesn't cover it (yet another independent business with a monopoly within the industry, though of course that makes a bit more sense as we are, after all, a niche topic), the companies keep their head's down knowing that within the week it'll blow over.  It was never a fair fight as after all . . . they are the gatekeepers. 

Having campaigned for greater mental health for years, the pandemic has obviously swung the spotlight onto this issue now. Interesting to see the people that once told me that I was pandering to the 'eccentric' now positively gushing in their acknowledgment that mental health is a 'thing', and indeed a thing to be dealt with.  Once again the PR cogs work their magic and press release after press release pop up around who's doing what when in order to help our industry's 'mental health'.  Why aren't we questioning what took them so long? Why are we so easily sated? Why are we just forever grateful for the crumbs, when if this topic had been taken more seriously years ago, we might have been a bit more robust as a whole to deal with the sh*tstorm that is the Tory government dealing with a pandemic. 

In the first lockdown, the BLM movement completely highlighted the systemic lack of diversity in our industry. We were all up in arms . . . we all acknowledged that we had to do better. Posts were shared and apologies given for the 'sins of the past'. Did the revolution happen? Absolutely not. Many of the people that understood in that moment that representation matters, didn't join the dots to realise that representation matters throughout the industry and impacts every diverse group.  We'll all fight for a cause, but won't really make the sacrifice for it. So what if your cast/production isn't fully representative of the world today. You're not going to make a fuss from within as 'they' won't like it. 

The same argument stands around neurodiversity, ableism, size, anything other than the perceived 'norm' - which of course isn't 'normal' at all. It's a whitewashed, photoshopped world that has never really existed, but one that they believe that the 'aspiring' public wants to see. Negating to see that time and time again when we give people representation, when we put the mirror up to our audiences, the audiences will turn up in their droves to see themselves on stage.

It's a vicious circle of blame, performers periodically call it out, lots of people agree, but where's the root of all of this? Who is it that's sat in an office declaring what the 'perfect' cast member looks like? I ask the question as every time one of these hot topics come up seemingly everybody across the board agrees, from producers, casting directors, agents, drama colleges. . . yet somebody, somewhere has perpetuated these 'myths' and kept them going. How many conversations are taking place offline that contradict what people are saying publicly, because that is 100% the issue here, and those offline conversations are the ones with the real power to change - whatever their public face is telling us.

The industry is still such a clique, and the members of that clique guard it with their lives. They form new bodies and organisations all the time in order to form a 'wall' that nobody else can breakthrough. They've got each other's backs, the private businesses that are our gatekeepers won't lead the revolution as they're too busy fleecing our pockets in the name of commercial enterprise. . . . and we won't say anything as 'we' want to work. 

When Thatcher destroyed the unions forcing us out of a closed shop scenario that was meant to free up our industry - allowing everybody a fair bite of the pie. Some 30 years on it feels like we never opened up anything, other than a revenue stream for the few to deprive the many. We see the same faces, we see the same organisations and companies all telling us that they're not controlling our future, all pretending to evolve, with the press coverage celebrating the smallest of movements but where is the real change, and I guess as importantly, who the hell is sitting on the top of all of this refusing to budge and maintaining the status quo?

The Audition Question 2021 Version

Ever since I opened The MTA back in 2009 there's always been a rumbling of grievance around the fact that drama colleges charge for auditions. It's one of the regular 'hot topics' that pop up from time to time.

Before I opened the college I remember reading somewhat aghast as one of the main drama colleges unwittingly (I suspect) informed the members of The Stage Forum that it auditioned X amount of students/year, leading a whole load of us to do the sums. They easily made in excess of £105K/year in audition fees alone. 

If you're unfamiliar with the drama school/conservatoire model you pay for the privilege of getting seen, and probably rejected (as the odds are really stacked against the majority of people due to (back then) the numbers of students that they could accept/year). Auditions back then varied from £25-£75, plus you have to factor in travel expenses, possibly overnight accommodation etc. Now if you're getting an amazing workshop for that money maybe you could argue a case for the cost - but at some colleges, applicants are getting 10mins of somebody's time, at other colleges applicants get cut before being able to show the panels their full skillset, at some colleges you're seen in groups of over 100 people! Years later I discovered that at some colleges if you were successful during their first-round you were gifted the right to pay some more to get your next round audition?

I'm not blameless, we charged a nominal fee for years, as at first it was felt that if we charged nothing we would be underselling our course, so in order to 'fit in' we should value ourselves with a fee in order for people to take us seriously.

We often spoke about scrapping it, but as our policy was to only audition a small number of people each day we were despairing with the number of no-shows, so we not only kept the fee but increased it in order to deter people from wasting our audition places.  Yet still, we discussed it as it just didn't really fit with what we wanted to represent.

Susan Elkin from The Stage used to regularly call this out, and indeed I had many a conversation with her as I grappled with how we could manage the no shows whilst still placing a value on the course. I salved my own conscience by proudly seeing on every single anonymous feedback form since we opened that applicants felt that we had given them value for money. We had spent the day with them, we knew their names, we had workshopped, we had chatted, we had attempted to be helpful whatever the outcome was, and we would always give each applicant written feedback. We only have one round, but then we only audition a maximum of 15 on any one day, so we got the opportunity to see everything that we needed to see on that day, thereby minimizing the cost of a recall. 

Then back in 2017, we introduced #auditionfromhome. A self-tape first round really. Applicants could send us their self-tape and we'd advise them whether we thought that we'd a good fit for each other just based on the skill set. It meant that we were able to save people the additional expense of travel and accommodation if it was clear from the tape that we wouldn't be the best college for them. Interestingly when The Stage ran our press release I had a bit of flack on the old Twitter - people calling us out for making it too easy for applicants, "audition from home" they said, "how lazy". Ironic right now don't you think?

Whilst this certainly saved people some money it still didn't fit well with me.  As I bang on and on about I'm from a council estate in Swansea. My family would not have been able to afford for me to apply for lots of colleges, yet here I was - suddenly on the side of the establishment all because we couldn't grapple enough with how to solve the problem of how to place value on our time (even though the applicant's time was valuable too), and how to stop the annoying no-shows, leaving people waiting longer than they needed to in order to audition for us. I mean it was all rather arse about tit, wasn't it? 

So eventually we scrapped our fee. The compromise was to ask people to pay a refundable deposit in order to secure their place. They'd get it back if they turned up for the audition. We kept the day the same, a whole day audition like we'd done from the beginning, no cuts throughout the day, feedback to all applicants, we also threw in some comp tickets to watch one of our shows if applicants wanted to see us in action. Our audition panel was the same as when we started - the senior faculty. The people that the applicants would work with if they'd been successful.

When the pandemic hit we (like the rest of the world) moved straight to zoom. In fact, we were the first drama college to move our auditions to zoom. Obviously, that was just timing as opposed to us attempting to be a 'first', we already had auditions booked in for the first week of lockdown. We had a few practice runs at it and found a way that we felt worked for us, and hoped that it would work for the applicants.

In truth, we were shocked. The interactive online audition told us everything that we needed to know, and seemingly the applicants were leaving satisfied too. We'd changed the day to a half-day in order to avoid zoom fatigue, and we stopped the feedback as by moving it online we committed to only seeing 6-7 students at a time.  

The zoom auditions worked so well we announced back in August 2020 that we would be keeping them post-pandemic. It was a great way to see people without them having to pay a penny (other than the refundable deposit). Finally, it had all fallen into place. We started this academic year giving students the option of a half-day virtual audition or a whole day in-person audition, and that's the way that it's going to stay now I think. I mean who knows what will be thrown at us next. Having recently been bought an Oculus it's not that hard to envisage a VR audition room within the next few years, and I can't wait to embrace it (if only because I love a gadget).

Our auditions cost us money, I have to pay for staff to be in the room, not all of them are on salaries, and even for those that are, I need to pay for staff to cover their classes that day. We lose the potential of a room hire in the audition space - a much-missed source of income at the moment, as it's those rehearsal room hires that pay into our Hardship Fund. The admin takes time, and of course in business time always equates to cost. However, it is our cost to absorb. I got that wrong in the beginning. I just wanted to 'fit into the establishment'. For those of you that have followed The MTA's journey, you'll know how dumb that thought was given that we are forever the course on the outside of the establishment, doing things our way, from the 2 year model to a whole school approach to mental health.

Of course, what's prompted this blog is the social media call to arms to abolish audition fees at a time when a lot of colleges are just doing self-tapes. The irony of somebody calling this out as wrong whilst simultaneously starting a Go Fund Me in order to help people who are financially struggling sums up the disconnect in our industry. 

We shout about what's not right, we celebrate and indeed laud any of the established colleges that knock a couple of quid off their audition fees in the name of 'opening up the room', yet fail to see the systemic failure in the way that we operate. 

Next time you're at an audition, or indeed sat in a lecture theatre on the first day of your course, or see a college online telling you how 'lucky' you are to be offered a place because they've auditioned thousands of people - do the math.  Due to how many people we'd audition on one day we never made money on our auditions. I'm not that sure how many other colleges can say the same with their hand on their heart.

Auditions should be free. . . we got it wrong for really poor reasons actually, however, we've corrected it. Maybe the rest should too, and maybe if you're advocating for a charity or fundraiser trying to help the underprivileged pay those fees, you're inadvertently endorsing the business model.

The Working Class privilege

 It's struck me over the past few days about how we view 'other work' in order to survive. Somebody private messaged me off a tweet that I'd put out about the reality of working-class life, to say that they were currently working in a supermarket but they'd be too embarrassed to put that out on social media as they are considered a success in our industry. They weren't ashamed to be working, they just couldn't deal with people's reaction to the fact that they were working.

We know that our industry is dominated by the middle classes. We also sort of understand why - classes are a luxury and whilst they enhance a child's life, they are not as essential as food and water. Therefore in many families, they don't get privileged.

I remember a family member of mine telling their parent in front of me that they wanted to work on stage, and they were shot down in the flames of Welsh reality. "Our sort of people don't live that sort of life, get real, and get a proper job. Stop living with your head in the clouds". That desire was crushed and dismissed as quickly as the sentence was over. The family member went on to have a secure career - who's to say if they're actually happy or not, or whether they secretly still wish that they'd given their dream a chance. In our family, it just wasn't an option. I was the lucky one - my mum believed that we only had one life so we should go for broke from the off. 

For months now I've read how people have been struggling, how people have been petitioning to get more help from the government as, after all, they SHOULD be supporting the arts and our freelancers. Today the hospitality businesses are shouting the same. Where is the help? Indeed at the moment where are ANY jobs to be found. With even the reliable bar work suddenly disappearing under our COVID noses.

Here's the difference though - some people have never expected this to be easy. They've always been grafting away at various jobs in order to make ends meet. They've done that because they've been brought up to understand that that is how you survive in this world. They've understood that nothing in life is free. You put your head down and get on with it. Eventually, things might change, but for now, to survive you have to live in the moment. 

I'm proudly from a working-class background. The bank of mum and dad saved hard and made massive sacrifices to allow me to follow my 'dreams'.  Our holidays were spent for the most part growing up in some random caravan about 30 minutes from where we lived so that my dad could come down after work to join us. As life got a bit easier we upgraded to Butlins where my dad couldn't join us but there was more for the children to do (for free).  Other than those holidays I can't remember a time where as children we went to restaurants. It was only when my father was made redundant did my parents suddenly have a bit more cash to go out and about. Sadly also by this time, my mum was gradually getting ill, so those well-earned outings didn't last that long. I think that they managed about 3 foreign holidays in their lifetime. A tragedy when I think how much enjoyment they both had from them.

However, this upbringing has definitely contributed to my work ethic. You get nothing for nothing in this life. I've never signed on (when that was a thing) because I always had another skill to fall back on, which excluded me from getting a handout. I've cleaned houses, worked a bar, done so many desk jobs I've lost count, and my worse by far - cucumber packing. In other words, I was taught to do whatever I needed to do to survive. I knew that I had rent to pay and I knew that I wanted to eat - so those were my priority. 

Now for the past 20 years or so, I've been really lucky, I haven't had to do those jobs, but psychologically I'm always ready to go back to any of them (well . . . except the cucumber packing, I hated that the most). Even now that I'm a grown-up with children, I don't manage to save. Don't get me wrong we now (usually) manage a holiday once a year, but it literally takes us all year to pay for it. 

My children are no doubt bored of me going on about not expecting to have everything in life. I worry that my grown-up middle-class world will ill prepare them for the realities of life. So I probably go on about it a bit too much.

We all think that we're hard done by. I guess even more now with social media showing us everybody's edited snapshot of life. I'm forever baffled by how many people eat out so regularly or manage to get in at least one holiday a year whilst also proclaiming that they're skint. How the person one day online is proclaiming poverty then the next day they're pictured with their Starbucks? Then I remember the student that once asked for financial support at a college where I was working, only to find out years later that their parents had a couple of properties. They considered themselves skint because they were shelling out for both properties. They didn't think for one moment to sell off an asset in order to support the student. That's probably why that family will always have money and my family won't. I understand that my home is a luxury - let alone if I were in the position to have more than one property.  Or what about the friend that told me that they were so skint they were going to go on holiday to feel better? They weren't lying to me when they proclaimed themselves as skint, they thought that they were. They didn't understand that skint meant no holiday.

Right now the people breathing sighs of relief overseas. They've earned that break and that cocktail because they've been living through the pandemic. They're not being ironic, they believe it. Who am I to begrudge them a break? Then again that's not the point of this blog - it's to remind you that there are socio-economic groups far below you who also need a break, but they don't have the luxury of a holiday (or even an M&S cocktail).  How many times do we hear 'oh but I didn't pay for the holiday, it was gifted to me' so it hasn't cost me a penny? Of course, people say that to alleviate their own well-meaning guilt, but again the reality for the other classes is that they can't afford the break from work. Even if they were offered an all-expenses holiday they couldn't afford to lose the week's wages to go.

As I look around the timelines and see people struggling I also see the survivors. The people that will work through the pandemic, doing whatever/whenever to stay afloat. Their priority is to keep the roof over their head and food on the table. I also see the faux survivors - drowning their woes with a Prosecco or two whilst Instagramming their designer plates. They will be OK regardless as their safety net is strong. There are people though with no safety net. They are the ones that we need to try and help.

Our industry needs a reality check. We've been shouting at audiences for not behaving the way that we want them to behave, yet now we haven't got that audience at all, we're clinging onto their bootlegs in the hope of recapturing a moment of glory. We had started to think that the audience should be grateful to us for performing for them, whereas all the time we needed them a lot more. 

Every year at the college I bang on about the audience member who's chosen to spend their hard-earned cash on coming to see our show. They had chosen us as their luxury item, therefore we owed it to them to give them everything we had (not mark it cos we were coming up to the end of the run and were slowly getting pissed off with the management). I give that chat as I'm from that family. That is my heritage.

Here's the rub though - I'm from a privileged working-class family. A family that could save. From parents who were able to work in order to get us the things that we needed. There's a whole other level out there of families living hand to mouth, relying on food banks to get by.  How do we hear their voices in our industry, how do we support them? 

We need to hear more reality stories and less edited lifestyle posts. Keeping it real online would eventually allow more people to live the dream offline. 

So the pandemic continues . . .