[NEohioPAL] Reviews on NEohioPAL

[Bob Abelman]

David, Martin and other readers concerned that the posting of theatre reviews violates the spirit of NEohioPAL:

Read the NEohioPAL Mission Statement (in bold)  It notes that the list exists: 

1) to promote cooperation & support within the performing arts community.  Make no mistake.  Theatre critics love theater and tend to be its strongest and most vocal advocates, even in their negative reviews.  The posted "Pippin" review--which apparently inspired this flurry of response postings --most certainly expresses disappointment in this production and some of the performances.  Nonetheless, it also takes absolute delight in this musical, reinforces the high standard of theatre typically found at Cain Park, notes the potential of this cast and staff to generate a stellar production, and isolates individual performers who were flat-out brilliant.  Most reviews are balanced and highly supportive of the performing arts.  Even the negative ones. 

2) to provide a forum for critical opinion and educational essays in order to promote free discussion of our work.  Despite David's claim that a negative review is a detriment to the business of a local theatre, most critics would agree that the hue of their reviews does not significantly impact theatre attendance one way or the other.  Even the powerful critics for the New York newspapers, who unanimously showed praise on the recent Broadway revival of "Journey's End," could not generate any audience whatsoever. No, critics inspire and faciliate discussion.  Keeping local theatre as a topic of critical discussion and public debate is very important for the future of local theatre.       

3) to provide arts organizations and individual artists an easy way to publicize their events thereby making the whole performing arts community immediately aware of opportunities.   Knowing that a review may be negative, theatre owners and public relations managers continue to invite critics to their opening nights.   No matter the hue of the review, it is all publicity.  Martin suggested in his posting that reviewers should leave their reviews to their original outlets, "because it is the ticket-buying public that needs the information, NOT subscribers to NEOPAL (sic)."  I don't know more avid theatre-goers than those who participate in the performing arts and subscribe to NEohioPAL.  They are also most appreciative of a well-written review.

4) to create an environment where performing artists can get assistance from their colleagues for performing arts related issues - borrowing equipment, selling equipment, finding a prop, etc.  Yeah.  Well, I got nothing on this one.

David and Martin noted that Tony Brown does not post on NEohioPAL, as if that should be a deterrent for all other critics.  Critics write to be read and, while Tony has the luxury of writing for a paper with a huge readership and a web presence, many other critics do not.  Most of what is written in posted reviews is interesting and entertaining, but unavailable to the featured performers and many other NEohioPAL subscribers not within the readership of these smaller papers.  NEohioPAL levels the playing field.

David and Martin also noted that they would pay to watch MaryAnn Nagel and Corey Mach sing the phone book. I would too, even after reading my review.  They're great.  But if they did not sing the phone book to their potential or to the expectations of their audience, I'd be the first to call them on it.  I would then post it on NEohioPAL.  Will readers no longer use their phone books?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.neohiopal.org/pipermail/neohiopal-neohiopal.org/attachments/20090808/3bc8c558/attachment-0004.htm>