[follower]

> You get down to where you're working at the syllable level - noticing, for instance, that moving on this word, rather than that one changes the whole dynamic of the scene.

That's an interesting perspective on performance for me as it parallels one of the aspects I enjoyed about performing stand-up comedy regularly for a time (primarily at open mics): getting to observe/analyse/theorize what contributed to whether a particular "bit" "worked" or not--both for myself and others.

For my own performances, I could choose a different word, phrasing, tempo etc and see how/if that affected audience response.

Equally, learning from observing the impact of when other performers did the same, refining their set over multiple weeks.

And, then, also seeing how other factors we had less control over (you know, such as the audience :) ) had an impact: sometimes same line, same delivery, might kill one week but got crickets the next.

Granted, my approach to comedy might lean a little more... analytical than some. :D

[eszed]

Right? An audience will teach you so much, and from inside a piece it's so hard to predict what their response will be.

One of the best directors I worked with had the dictum that "you can coerce a laugh, but you can't coerce a gasp." Like, if you know some basic stagecraft you can make something funny, which... ho-hum. (On a related note: God I hate corpsing. 95% of the time it's fake, and represents to me a failure of craft.) But a wholly involuntary reaction? That's gold.

The best performers, in my experience, are craftspeople at heart. There's an analytical level you have to reach in order for the magic to happen in a reliably repeatable way.