Given a choice to be a performer on-stage or a stagehand backstage. Which would you choose? I suppose most if not all would choose to be the performer on-stage rather than backstage. More glamor and fame. Personally, I would choose to be a stagehand. The one who helps silently at the back, supporting the show.
Why would i chose to be a stagehand at the back rather than a performer on-stage? I guess its how I am. I was never good at music, dance or any artistic performance that warrants a show on-stage. The times I have appeared on stage can be easily counted with my ten fingers. With that, I have always been involved in the backstage productions. With all those experience and so on, I felt that the stagehands are more important that the performers. I suppose some people would say that this argument is something like the chicken and egg argument. Which came first?
Any performer without the stagehands cannot perform to their fullest. In contrast, any stagehand can make the performance spectacular. From my time as my former school concert's logistics member to vice group leader and then leader. I have always held on to this fact. Can the drama go on with the logistics group? Or the PA? Can the brassband sit correctly? Can the choir stand properly? No. It has always been a no.
One thing I have to admit though, being a stagehand isnt the best. Theres lots of request to fulfill. Some very ridiculous. Theres also a lot sweat due to the heat backstage. Theres also the prospect that you will be scolded for your efforts. Theres also the probability that no one would thank you for your effort. Truth be told, its a hard job. But its worthwhile to see all your efforts in that one spectacular moment on stage.
Thats what I think anyway. All for now. See ya dudes.