# Congruent Cues



## chausman (Jun 13, 2011)

I would like your opinion on something. I have read on here about how we have so many different ways to call cues for different things, what do you think about this. For several shows I have done(lighting wise), I have recorded cues on a page by page. So, LQ1 was on page one, and then since the next cue was on page 4, my next light cue is LQ4. I meant that there may be large sections that "jumped" from cue 4 to cue 11, but it was easy to add cues. And, if you have multiple cues on one page, those became LQ4.1 and so on. And, all of my blackouts are x.5, so if i'm in the wrong cue, I can at least tell that I won't accidentally send the stage to dark.

I was thinking, was that everything was cued this way, so everyone was always in the same cue respectfully. Even if nothing changed, you still go through the same cues as everyone else. And, again, going by page numbers. (Just make sure everyones script is the same!)

Does this sound like something that would work, or would do you see any problems I missed? I have never worked a show with flying in it, so I don't want to have some big safety issue. Thanks

Chase Hausman

Sent from my computer using Safari


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 13, 2011)

chausman said:


> I would like your opinion on something. I have read on here about how we have so many different ways to call cues for different things, what do you think about this. For several shows I have done(lighting wise), I have recorded cues on a page by page. So, LQ1 was on page one, and then since the next cue was on page 4, my next light cue is LQ4. I meant that there may be large sections that "jumped" from cue 4 to cue 11, but it was easy to add cues. And, if you have multiple cues on one page, those became LQ4.1 and so on. And, all of my blackouts are x.5, so if i'm in the wrong cue, I can at least tell that I won't accidentally send the stage to dark.
> 
> I was thinking, was that everything was cued this way, so everyone was always in the same cue respectfully. Even if nothing changed, you still go through the same cues as everyone else. And, again, going by page numbers. (Just make sure everyones script is the same!)
> 
> ...



While it may work for some shows, I know as a Lighting designer at the moment I tend to have multiple steps in a cue and it works better if i go by tens, a little info on the "board" i use is horizon and it can use up to 2 decimal places. So cue 1 would be cue 10, next would be cue 20 and etc. so i can always add more in if i need to and have enough room to add in quite a bit. That said This is from a lighting standpoint my sound cues are much more flexible and tend to use the alphabet and fly's go off their own cue sheet which the stage manager calls but the fly person has final say on if they go off.


----------



## chausman (Jun 13, 2011)

DuckJordan said:


> While it may work for some shows, I know as a Lighting designer at the moment I tend to have multiple steps in a cue and it works better if i go by tens, a little info on the "board" i use is horizon and it can use up to 2 decimal places. So cue 1 would be cue 10, next would be cue 20 and etc. so i can always add more in if i need to and have enough room to add in quite a bit. That said This is from a lighting standpoint my sound cues are much more flexible and tend to use the alphabet and fly's go off their own cue sheet which the stage manager calls but the fly person has final say on if they go off.


 
I don't know about other consoles, but the Eos line can go 2 decimal places, so if need be, you could have a LQ1.23, LQ1.24 if necessary.


----------



## rochem (Jun 13, 2011)

I believe most of the higher-end lighting consoles can go up to at least two digits, and some can go even more. I remember a conversation where someone brought up an idea like yours, although I'm not sure if it was here, on the SML, or elsewhere. The biggest problem I'd have with that is that you can never guarantee everyone will have the same pages. If you're doing a new show, you can expect to be given a new set of pages every day, sometimes more often than that, and it'd just prove too time-consuming to update cue numbers every time you get new pages. Even if it's not a new show, many SMs will type out their script to format it another way, so their pages are off, and as a LD I sometimes do something similar. Also, what happens if you need to move a cue placement, and that takes it onto the next page? I see the potential advantages, but I'd be worried about the dangers of providing too much information (page numbers) when there could be a possibility of not having that information accurate. 

However, your blackout method is something that's done quite commonly, and I think it's a great technique. Mostly where I see it is when programming moving lights and such. An MA programmer I know always uses a x.22 cue to denote a scroller mark, and another uses x.1. I know of another show where they actually programmed the follow spot cues into the console (follow spots were normal Lycian arc sources, but they gave the spots a remote video of the console and it allowed them to see their cues as they came up), and all these cues were programmed with a x.36 ending. As an LD, I rarely program complete "blackouts" where the stage goes totally dark between scenes, but if I were doing a show that did have that kind of breakdown, I'd probably do the same. However, as a programmer, I do make it a point to label all my transition cues with TRANSITION or something short and obvious.

For numbering, I don't really follow any pattern. When I first go through the show, I mark everything that could possibly have a hint of being a cue, and I number at this early stage, meaning that I might have ~400-500 cues even for a small show. Obviously, this number gets trimmed way down before tech, but I keep the existing number scheme in place as I find it just keeps things easier in my head and keeps collaboration simpler. So I could have my last cue be Q450, but maybe only have 150 cues in the entire show.


----------



## Grog12 (Jun 13, 2011)

I used to know a designer who followed this formula for numbering her ques and it drove her SM's batty. Yes its great for easy reference and if it works for you great. If you are the only one dealing with your que's awesome but if you're not running your own show you have to consider those that will be dealing with your que's when you're not there. 4.1 is more of a mouthful than 5.

Also while many modern boards do go to a 2nd or 3rd decimal place you won't always be working with top of the line boards. And if a director needs a que between 4.1 and 4.2 on your Express you're going to be doing a lot of work to get it there.


----------



## Footer (Jun 13, 2011)

Its not a horrible idea for lighting, however, if you tried it with fly cues or deck shifts, you are going to have a bunch of stagehands that think you are the biggest moron that has ever walked the earth. In lighting and sometimes audio, its pretty standard to skip cues. All the board op cares is when to hit go next, and if the SM is doing their job right, thats all they should have to worry about. However, on deck and on the rail, its another story. Rail 1 should follow rail 2 and so on. Same thing goes for deck moves. Otherwise, you are going to have a bunch of stagehands asking where shift 2-15 went and why we have a shift 16.2. Its going to be confusing simply because its not done that way. If you need to add a shift or move after the fact, it gets denoted by a letter designation after the number, so 3A, 3B, etc.


----------



## chausman (Jun 13, 2011)

Footer said:


> Its not a horrible idea for lighting, however, if you tried it with fly cues or deck shifts, you are going to have a bunch of stagehands that think you are the biggest moron that has ever walked the earth. In lighting and sometimes audio, its pretty standard to skip cues. All the board op cares is when to hit go next, and if the SM is doing their job right, thats all they should have to worry about. However, on deck and on the rail, its another story. Rail 1 should follow rail 2 and so on. Same thing goes for deck moves. Otherwise, you are going to have a bunch of stagehands asking where shift 2-15 went and why we have a shift 16.2. Its going to be confusing simply because its not done that way. If you need to add a shift or move after the fact, it gets denoted by a letter designation after the number, so 3A, 3B, etc.


 
Thanks. Thats what I didn't know when I was thinking about this.


----------



## MrsFooter (Jun 13, 2011)

Grog12 said:


> 4.1 is more of a mouthful than 5.



There's a really excellent point there. If you're an SM calling light, spot, sound, deck and rail in quick succession, having to spit "LX 5.13" out amid everything else not only makes the job unnecessarily difficult, but it means more digits to make sure you're saying correctly. If it's just you behind the console taking your own cues, you can name them whatever the hell you like, it doesn't really matter. But if there's an SM with multiple departments to communicate with, have a little mercy. They've got enough to contend with.


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 13, 2011)

That is a very good point Mrs Footer.

But we always numbered the initial cues sequentially and when we added new cues the SM never wanted to renumber (since cues are often added every day, to renumber after each one would be a nightmare), so that was how we numbered everything.

Never thought about it being a mouthful because I never had an SM mention it to me.

As to the OP how do you do it when there are multiple cues on the same page (I have had as many as 30 cues on one page).

Mike


----------



## chausman (Jun 13, 2011)

Esoteric said:


> As to the OP how do you do it when there are multiple cues on the same page (I have had as many as 30 cues on one page).


 
Q x.yz

Q=To mark that this is a cue! (I often have stray numbers on my scripts)
X=Page Number
Y="tens place" for additional cues
Z="ones place" for additional cues 
Additional cues being either cues added later, or cues that occur on the same page


----------



## Grog12 (Jun 14, 2011)

While we're on the subject, I had a group come through this spring and ALL thier ques were numbered sequentially. 4 would be curtain 5 would be lights 6 would be sound. It was an…interesting experience to day the least.


----------



## rsmentele (Jun 15, 2011)

For ease of the SM and the crew, I try to make all called cues whole numbers (1, 50, 171) and use point cues for all internal, linked or followed cues. It makes it alot easier to for them to call, for the board op to understand (listening for one number instead of what point number) and it helps to shorten the calling sequence when there are multiple cues. It especially makes it easier when there is a fast cue sequence. Calling 'cue 55 go, cue 56 go, cue 57 go' in a fast sequence is a lot faster, and easier to hear and say than 'cue 124.12 go, 124.25 go, 124.76 go' it makes things alot cleaner. It is also easier for the SM to learn so that they are able to call cues and pay attention to the stage, instead of having their head in the prompt book becuase they have two billion point cues to remember. It also leaves plenty of room for director add-ins. I have had pleanty of times when I needed those extra (in my case) 10 point cues beacuse the director wants an extra 10 cues, or a chase, or an effect.

anywho, just my 2 pennies


----------



## derekleffew (Jun 15, 2011)

Grog12 said:


> While we're on the subject, I had a group come through this spring and ALL their cues were numbered sequentially. 4 would be curtain 5 would be lights 6 would be sound. It was an "interesting" experience to say the least.


This is the way I was taught in college, but I abandoned the method quickly when I got into the real world and realized that no one else did it that way.

Another common method is to make called lighting cues "point even" (x.2, x.4, x.6, x.8) and point-odd cues .1,.3,.5,etc. as auto-follows (or the other way around).


----------



## shiben (Jun 15, 2011)

chausman said:


> Q x.yz
> 
> Q=To mark that this is a cue! (I often have stray numbers on my scripts)
> X=Page Number
> ...


 
FWIW the Z would be the hundreds place... y being the tens. remember that .51 is 51 hundredths or 51/100. 

I tend to number my cues 1,3,5,7,9 etc, because this allows you to have room to put in another cue, but also keeps even some of the added cues in whole numbers. Also, if there is an intermission, I start the stack of cues for the second half with the next highest hundred, so on a shorter show Act 1 might be cues 1-69, and act 2 would be cues 101-179. I have also seen act 1 be 101-whatever and Act 2 be 201-whatever, if there are more than 100 cues in the act, 101-299 etc.


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 15, 2011)

chausman said:


> Q x.yz
> 
> Q=To mark that this is a cue! (I often have stray numbers on my scripts)
> X=Page Number
> ...


 
So what if you have 11.33 and 11.34 and you need to add a cue between them?


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 15, 2011)

For those of you that don't want to use point numbers, are SM's okay renumbering the entire show the night before opening?


----------



## Footer (Jun 15, 2011)

Esoteric said:


> For those of you that don't want to use point numbers, are SM's okay renumbering the entire show the night before opening?


 
There is a difference between a few point cues here or there and entire show of them. I personally skip all over the place with numbering. I hate point cues so I will skip blocks of numbering to leave room for expansion. I will also cue an entire show with odd numbers to avoid point cues. 

...... Something involving tapatalk.......


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 15, 2011)

Interesting thoughts.


----------



## JChenault (Jun 16, 2011)

As a lighting designer I have some issues with this methodology. First is my method of working. When watching rehearsals I tend to build a spread sheet with:

Where am I in the script ( usually page or scene number)
Cue number
The action on stage
What I want it to look like
What I plan to do to get the look I want. 

I then use this spread sheet as the my primary design document during tech rehearsals and level setting. It's just a lot easier to auto number my cues than try to go through and make them jump around as your method would suggest. Indeed, frequently I don't always put the page numbers on the form.

If I have a dance number - in the script is says 'Dance Break'. This can frequently expand to 20 or so cues. We usually insert a blank page with the blocking notes that the SM can use to know when to call the cue. Not sure how that would work with your system.

I also find scripts with page numbers like '1-2-8' ( For act 1, scene 2, page 8). It might be hard using your system to tell the difference between act 1, scene 1, page 21 and act 1, scene 12, page 1. Or better yet act 1, scene 1, page 2.1 


As a stage manager I think I would have an issue with trying to impose the system on a designer. ( What do you mean you want me to renumber all of my cues ).

In Computer Science, it is usually a bad idea to overload the meaning of your identifiers. To my mind this feels like what you are trying to do ( combine the cue number - a sequential list of looks with the location in the script ).


----------



## jglodeklights (Jun 16, 2011)

A lot of how a designer should choose to number their cues will also depend on the situation of the show. If it is a show you have designed several times and it is being done straightforward, then it will be easier to predict the placement of your cues. As such, you can leave less wiggle room between them. However, it is still a good idea to leave some rather than none. This is the same if you have the opportunity to sit in on many rehearsals and get an extremely accurate feel for the show. 

If you are working on a new show, at least a new show for you, or do not have the opportunity to sit in on many rehearsals, it would be better then to leave more wiggle room. I.E. numbering cues 1,5,9,13 rather than 1,3,5,7. It is also easier to delete a cue than having to add one. This can often be the case, the summer stock I work with only offers one chance for a designer to see a run before going into tech, and it is a 2.5 day changeover/tech period between show close and next show preview. Planning ahead for more and then scaling back can be beneficial.

All about the situation.


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 16, 2011)

I never skip cue numbers. Too confusing. Cue 2 follows cue 1, cue 3 follows cue 2, etc.


----------



## jglodeklights (Jun 18, 2011)

Esoteric said:


> I never skip cue numbers. Too confusing. Cue 2 follows cue 1, cue 3 follows cue 2, etc.


 
I don't see how it is in any way confusing to skip cue numbers. Our brains are programmed for order. As such, as long as an ordered pattern is followed, with only slight deviations from such, we won't think much of it. Thus, whether we go 1,2,3,4 or 1,3,5,9 in our numbering, our brain won't know the difference. There is a slight delay in processing the next number; if we don't do it as often as our individual brains need to create the needed associations to prevent having to perform +1 +1 versus +1 (or whatever the +_n_ may be). 

In calling the show, there will be no difference. We are creating an association that, again as long as it is not completely unexpected, our brain will associate that specific number with whatever the specific action/line/event occurring is. Even in the pattern is broken, in a situation such as skipping 20 integers ahead rather than 2, after the first few times our brain will create the necessary association with the event occurring. This can be, for shorter runs, used as a technique for bookmarking certain sequences; our brains will create the association that this is something new or different.

That is far from confusing.


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 18, 2011)

I just remember having deleted a cue once in a show and the SM called lights 6 go and freaked out because she never called lights 5. So now I don't ever even delete cues. If I don't need cue 5, I copy cue 4 into cue 5, so the SM can continue to call it.

Mike


----------



## shiben (Jun 18, 2011)

Esoteric said:


> So what if you have 11.33 and 11.34 and you need to add a cue between them?


 
This situation should rarely happen if you are doing it right, and if it does, you did your job poorly and deserve the fun time re-recording 100 or so cues into the next whole numbers point numbers.


----------



## shiben (Jun 18, 2011)

Esoteric said:


> I just remember having deleted a cue once in a show and the SM called lights 6 go and freaked out because she never called lights 5. So now I don't ever even delete cues. If I don't need cue 5, I copy cue 4 into cue 5, so the SM can continue to call it.
> 
> Mike


 
Thats way more work that i am willing to put into it. I usually write a ton of cues at first, then delete them as I see a need, and leave myself room for expansion if needed. I have heard that it is sometimes convenient to add some sort of cue number modifier when the cue in question is say a video cue fired by the lighting console, For example, possibly cue 3 and 3.1 run at the same time, 3 changing lights, 3.1 doing some sort of video thing.


----------



## jglodeklights (Jun 18, 2011)

shiben said:


> This situation should rarely happen if you are doing it right, and if it does, you did your job poorly and deserve the fun time re-recording 100 or so cues into the next whole numbers point numbers.


 
I think this is a rather broad statement. There WILL be that time at which a director decides to add back in several lines and blocking that were originally cut; thereby screwing you. Or their idea changes completely and you will NOT be able to convince them otherwise. It may suck, but it is your job as their subordinate, even in this collaborative process, to subject yourself to their vision (at least so far as they know). You haven't done your job "poorly" by not predicting and planning for this situation, it merely is. That said, situations like that open the door for reasons we should leave leeway between cue numbers and why it is excellent that current technology allows us more digits in our cue numbers to further expand this leeway.

And Esoteric, did you inform the SM that Cue 5 was cut? The only time that I've had problems with SM's freaking out was when it was MY FAULT, and I didn't inform them that I had cut or added a cue(s). If an SM has a problem with numbers being skipped, they are either a neophyte that probably should not be the lead SM in charge of calling, someone who probably doesn't fully understand this business and its nature, or someone who has a rather low limit on their ability to fulfill the position of Stage Manager within the grand scheme of the position.


----------



## lightingguy1 (Jun 18, 2011)

I don't know if this has already been said, but if you had to put a cue between 11.23 and 11.24 couldn't you link cue 11.23 to a cue number thats hasn't been used yet?.....Then link it back to 11.24? 

(i.e. link cue 11.23 to cue 600 - Link Cue 610 to Cue 11.24)


Hopefully I haven't missed a post!
-Lightingguy1


----------



## shiben (Jun 18, 2011)

jglodeklights said:


> I think this is a rather broad statement. There WILL be that time at which a director decides to add back in several lines and blocking that were originally cut; thereby screwing you.  Or their idea changes completely and you will NOT be able to convince them otherwise. It may suck, but it is your job as their subordinate, even in this collaborative process, to subject yourself to their vision (at least so far as they know). You haven't done your job "poorly" by not predicting and planning for this situation, it merely is. That said, situations like that open the door for reasons we should leave leeway between cue numbers and why it is excellent that current technology allows us more digits in our cue numbers to further expand this leeway.
> 
> And Esoteric, did you inform the SM that Cue 5 was cut? The only time that I've had problems with SM's freaking out was when it was MY FAULT, and I didn't inform them that I had cut or added a cue(s). If an SM has a problem with numbers being skipped, they are either a neophyte that probably should not be the lead SM in charge of calling, someone who probably doesn't fully understand this business and its nature, or someone who has a rather low limit on their ability to fulfill the position of Stage Manager within the grand scheme of the position.


 
I dont know, I think someone has dropped the ball in a pretty big way if you add 99 cues to a section between 2 whole numbered cues. I mean, I can see if you added a bit of dance number back in you might have that many cues, but I would hope for the dancers sake that someone knew about this during the programing process. It just seems to me that if you know the show well, program your cues using every odd number, and avoid making cue 1>3>3.11>3.12>4 or some other point cue type of thing, you would have enough wiggle room to add the cues you need. Honestly, I think if you need to add a hundred cues to a section being added in last minute, something is seriously wrong.


----------



## MarshallPope (Jun 18, 2011)

It isn't really an issue of having to add 100 cues, but having to add a number of cues in an unfortunate order. You add cue 4.5 and then 4.3 and then 4.4. Later, you have to add 4.45. Then, 4.43 is added, then 4.44. Maybe the next day you realize that you need one more cue in there. Where does it go? You only added 6 cues, but now you are out of room.


----------



## jglodeklights (Jun 18, 2011)

shiben said:


> I dont know, I think someone has dropped the ball in a pretty big way if you add 99 cues to a section between 2 whole numbered cues. I mean, I can see if you added a bit of dance number back in you might have that many cues, but I would hope for the dancers sake that someone knew about this during the programing process. It just seems to me that if you know the show well, program your cues using every odd number, and avoid making cue 1>3>3.11>3.12>4 or some other point cue type of thing, you would have enough wiggle room to add the cues you need. Honestly, I think if you need to add a hundred cues to a section being added in last minute, something is seriously wrong.


 
Shiben, you are altering the base of what you are saying. Your argument was not the addition of 99 cues, but rather the renumbering of the 100 cues following an added cue. It is unlikely that you would ever need to add 100 cues, but sometimes, as I said, something gets put in that wasn't there, and that you had no reason to project or expect for it to be there. Thus requiring the addition of one or several cues. This doesn't mean you did your job poorly. It does mean that you probably have had a good learning experience that you will regret later, and next time give yourself more wiggle room. 

OR, you will do as lightingguy mentioned, and have some fun with cue linking, assuming your console supports it. If you are on a SmartFade, especially one with outdated software, you are SCREWED.


----------



## shiben (Jun 19, 2011)

jglodeklights said:


> Shiben, you are altering the base of what you are saying. Your argument was not the addition of 99 cues, but rather the renumbering of the 100 cues following an added cue. It is unlikely that you would ever need to add 100 cues, but sometimes, as I said, something gets put in that wasn't there, and that you had no reason to project or expect for it to be there. Thus requiring the addition of one or several cues. This doesn't mean you did your job poorly. It does mean that you probably have had a good learning experience that you will regret later, and next time give yourself more wiggle room.
> 
> OR, you will do as lightingguy mentioned, and have some fun with cue linking, assuming your console supports it. If you are on a SmartFade, especially one with outdated software, you are SCREWED.


 
The point was if you have your cue list down, say, and you start write it with point cues already in it, and then you need to add a cue between 1.11 and 1.12, this being how you made your entire cue stack in the first place, your screwed and will have to renumber, possibly, depending on how big the show is, copying backward hundreds of cues, or if there is a better way to do it. However, if you do it in a much better and more sensible way, either 1 2 3 4 or 1 3 5 9, you should never have to copy a cue to make a new one. Where you (you being the metaphorical LD, not you personally) got wires crossed with the rest of creative is if you have to copy cues into new ones to make space with a more sensible cue stack. I fully understand the need to add point cues, but if you space them out, adding 1, 2 or even 40 isnt much of an issue. If you need to add over 100 cues to a section after initial programing, I think we can all agree that something has probably gone wrong. Does that make more sense? Posting after work might be making my brain muddled and communication poor.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 19, 2011)

shiben said:


> The point was if you have your cue list down, say, and you start write it with point cues already in it, and then you need to add a cue between 1.11 and 1.12, this being how you made your entire cue stack in the first place, your screwed and will have to renumber, possibly, depending on how big the show is, copying backward hundreds of cues, or if there is a better way to do it. However, if you do it in a much better and more sensible way, either 1 2 3 4 or 1 3 5 9, you should never have to copy a cue to make a new one. Where you (you being the metaphorical LD, not you personally) got wires crossed with the rest of creative is if you have to copy cues into new ones to make space with a more sensible cue stack. I fully understand the need to add point cues, but if you space them out, adding 1, 2 or even 40 isnt much of an issue. If you need to add over 100 cues to a section after initial programing, I think we can all agree that something has probably gone wrong. Does that make more sense? Posting after work might be making my brain muddled and communication poor.



Shiben I believe your stuck on the issue of starting with a show with those numbers in already. I'm currently designing a show right now where I need a lot of things to happen in a very short time. I didn't know I did until I had most of the show written. The cue happens to be 24 and 25 is a BO with about 30 more cues behind it. At the time I thought I could get some space for additional cues by starting at 24.3 and the final look to be at 24.5, Now I'm running into an issue where one of my looks is at 24.41, and I need to add another cue between 24.4 and 24.41 Theres no room to move without renumbering the whole show. In my case its easy as horizon has a renumber cues option that takes them to whole numbers in order. (its a very simplistic system.)


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 19, 2011)

jglodeklights said:


> I think this is a rather broad statement. There WILL be that time at which a director decides to add back in several lines and blocking that were originally cut; thereby screwing you. Or their idea changes completely and you will NOT be able to convince them otherwise. It may suck, but it is your job as their subordinate, even in this collaborative process, to subject yourself to their vision (at least so far as they know). You haven't done your job "poorly" by not predicting and planning for this situation, it merely is. That said, situations like that open the door for reasons we should leave leeway between cue numbers and why it is excellent that current technology allows us more digits in our cue numbers to further expand this leeway.
> 
> And Esoteric, did you inform the SM that Cue 5 was cut? The only time that I've had problems with SM's freaking out was when it was MY FAULT, and I didn't inform them that I had cut or added a cue(s). If an SM has a problem with numbers being skipped, they are either a neophyte that probably should not be the lead SM in charge of calling, someone who probably doesn't fully understand this business and its nature, or someone who has a rather low limit on their ability to fulfill the position of Stage Manager within the grand scheme of the position.


 
Nope, I cut it at final tech and at preview she called cue 5 after cue 3, and then freaked for a minute when she realized she had never called cue 4 (which she had been calling since day 1 of rehearsals).

She was the head of the SM department at my University and had at least a decade of experience on the road with touring Broadway shows. As well as over 20 years as a regional SM. Her qualifications were not at issue.

But for six weeks cue 5 came after cue 4, and then suddenly cue 5 came after cue 3. So, I figure it takes me 10 seconds to copy cue 3 into cue 4, and no confusion.

Unfortunately, adding cues there is nothing I can do, and I have seen more than a few experienced stage managers hyperventilate a little when they come across a cue I added during final tech during preview. Its actually kind of funny.

As far as lighting cues that trigger other things, setup cues, etc, I either label them (video, etc) or setup cues are always auto follows so that no one has to worry about them.


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 19, 2011)

And yes, I have had that problem.

I wrote a show once with (for example), 24 25 26, then I had to add a cue between 24 and 25 so that become 24.5, then I had to add one between 24 and 24.5, so that became 24.3, subsequently I had to add 24.4, then 24.45, then 24.43, then 24.44, and then I had to add a cue between 24.44 and 24.45. Luckily for me I was able to combine 24.43 and 24.44 into 24.43 and then add 24.44.

But that has happened to me once in 15 or so years.


----------



## icewolf08 (Jun 23, 2011)

I think it should be noted that until the more modern consoles came out, most people were limited to whole number and single point cues. Having two or three decimal points in cue numbers now just makes people lazy (unless you are programming media servers or pixel mapping on your lighting console).

Every stage manager I know would rather not call point-cues so planning your cue list to accommodate expansion is a good idea. Just because you can add 99 point cues between Q1 and Q2 doesn't mean that you should, or that you should even plan to. Using whole numbers will be one of those things that makes the SMs you work with like you just a little bit more. Sure, sometimes you will need to add a point cue here and there, but as long as you don't have six on every page of the script, life is good. Remember, if you are designing a musical with 500+ cues in it, every called point-cue adds an extra syllable for the SM to spit out in complex cue sequences.

I also hate to say it, but if you add or cut a cue and your SM panics about it, then there is either a problem (or lack of experience) with your SM or there was problem in the way you communicated your intentions to the SM. Every SM that I have worked with, good and bad, has been thrilled when a cue was cut. Cutting a cue means one less thing for the SM to think about.

Every time I have worked with designers who tried to number cues based on location in the script, it worked on paper and totally fell apart in tech leading to major renumbering and annoyed SMs who had to rewrite their books. On the other hand, i have had designers who have left space to add cues, and still had to add x.1-x.9. I the latter case, I have yet to run into a situation requiring renumbering cues.


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 24, 2011)

Like I said Ice, no lack of experience on her part and I let her know three times it was cut. But after 6 weeks of calling it constantly, to suddenly not have it caused a moment of panic. Is it is a week or more until open I will usually go ahead and cut the cue. If it is during preview or final tech, then I won't cut the cue and I will just copy something in so that they can continue to call it.

Never had anyone complain yet about decimal cues (of course I usually only have a handful per 100 cues), I guess they do it behind my back.


----------



## jglodeklights (Jun 24, 2011)

I have to say, it seems unusual for a stage manager to have cues in their prompt book from day 1 of rehearsals. To me this seems like an attempt at prior proper planning, but one that can, as evidenced by your own experience, ultimately lead to some level of confusion and panic.


----------



## Esoteric (Jun 24, 2011)

Yeah, it is just how I learned to design I guess. I get the SM cues as early as possible (usually after the first week of rehearsals) and then we work through the process of the show. I am doing a series of blog posts about how I design on my website that goes over why I do this.

I believe the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. I have only had that happen twice in nearly 15 years, both during college.

But like my college lighting professors said.... There is more than one way to Mecca, doesn't matter how you get there so long as you get there.

YMMV

Mike


----------



## shiben (Jun 30, 2011)

Esoteric said:


> But like my college lighting professors said.... There is more than one way to Mecca, doesn't matter how you get there so long as you get there.
> 
> Mike


 
A very good point...


----------



## StewTech (Jul 9, 2011)

You should do what you are comfortable with, but remember you should also take careful notes of what cue activates which light and at what percentage, and where it's at on the batten, as well as the section it illuminates on the stage.

This way if you spontaneously combust, anyone can walk in and be able to run the show in a half hour.

I always go by 10s, with 5s being blackout. And I take careful notes.

I did do a show once where I used up everything. I needed to add another cue but had no number, so I had to digitally link Q345 to come after Q23.48 

That was a fun mess to figure out.


----------



## chausman (Oct 24, 2012)

*How to program cues effectively*


Grog12 said:


> Most stage managers hate this way of Q'ing. I knew a designer who wrote Q's this way and every stage manager griped....a lot.
> 
> Back to the OP
> 
> First thing to do RTFM.



What method do stage managers complain about?


----------



## chausman (Oct 24, 2012)

*How to program cues effectively*


Grog12 said:


> The one you described based on page numbers. Also a lot of modern boards (and maybe even the Express(ion)) have a system for labeling cue's so you could easily tell whcih one is a blackout...because it says blackout.



I haven't heard complaints, in my limited experience. And Express consoles don't (AFAIK) have a way to label cues, meaning a .5 was an easy way to keep track of them.


----------



## derekleffew (Oct 24, 2012)

*Re: How to program cues effectively*


chausman said:


> ... And Express consoles don't (AFAIK) have a way to label cues, ...


One can edit the showfile in Expression Offline to add labels, then put it back in the console. May or may not be worth the effort.


----------



## Grog12 (Oct 24, 2012)

As Mrs.Footer said earlier in this thread its about giving SM's a break. They have a lot to call and a lot to deal with, so why make it harder on them? I garuntee you the SM's I'm talking about didn't complain to the designer...but they did comlain.


----------



## Dreadpoet (Nov 15, 2012)

Perhaps I am off kilter...but I think this is all a bit much. Your console ops don't much care what page your on so numeration to the page doesn't matter so much to them...Lighting designers (some cases ME's or Board-ops) are very particular about cue numbers as they are the ones who most directly deal with it and have created a sense of how to number cues based on years of experience...Directors just want the lights in the right place when they dang well want them, with little care of numeration. SM should just record the numbers that the designers want and move on. BTW, most modern consoles have labels for the various steps on the console which help the ops and designers remember what the cue is for, so they know where they are at in the stack with out overly specific numbers...as numbers often become arbitrary. As to backstage...I prefer to utilize vocab over numbers to call backstage cues. Finally,...I think designers should cut back on decimal usage when possible as it is just one more syllable that the SM needs to call in their cueing...leading to an overly long call that most ops and backstage would prefer to avoid. I think the SM's job is to make things run smoothly...adjust to the people around you to make their job easier, not make your since of OCD being at one with the universe.


----------

