Big Shot ****
Attempts on Her Life ***
Half a Sixpence ***
Happy Girl ***
Ada **
Clickbait **
Ursula Invents Old Woman **
Showing posts with label on being a critic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label on being a critic. Show all posts
Monday, 17 August 2015
Saturday, 7 March 2015
My Vulgar Hatred of The '90s
I was glad to hear that I am not the only person I know who hates the 90s.
I don't know what I find more annoying about the pop music of the 90s, the fact that they constantly shat out lyrics that would be insulting to the intelligence of even the ditzy 14 year old girls that bought it, cases in point:
The 2000s was definitely better. People who played their own instruments dominated the charts even if it was boy-band-metal such as Linkin Park or pop punk stars such as Sum 41 and Bowling for Soup.
At least the 2010s risque and unashamedly id, hedonistic and indulgent (Gaga, Kesha, Nicky Minaj, et al.) All right, most of the pop music of our era it is a bag of balls, but at least it isn't the "oh we are so nice and innocent and sweet, and completely asexual" which was the staple of the 90s, and of course, completely disingenuous. There was nothing more satisfying than when these good little boys and girls were exposed for taking recreational drugs at parties or behaving indecently. It broke the façade.
Much of the disco music of the 90s was simply 70s disco music less the typically well arranged horn and string elements, or 80s disco music less the variety of synth or which was by this point considered "cheesy." We also said goodbye to the overblown rockist power-ballad with attendant guitar solo in pop, also to be considered mawkish and dated. I remember remarking once that M People's single One Night sounded remarkably 70s, only later to discover that it bore a striking resemblance to 1975 number Highwire by Linda Carr and The Love Squad. Likewise One For Sorrow, a track by an innately disposable and all but forgotten 90s band, Steps, is a dead ringer for The Winner Takes It All by Abba.
Of course was a lot of great music in the 90s outside of the charts, although I have thought compared to 60s and 70s and to a lesser degree 80s it was on "The Downward Spiral." For each Nine Inch Nails there were a dozen Stabbing Westwards, for each Nirvana there were six hundred Silverchairs, a thousand clone bands who tried and failed to carry the movement forwards by replicating the sound of what they liked. For each Alanis Morisette or Cheryl Crow a thousand chart-topping acoustic acts have to have been forgotten in time, and you really have to shake your head in dismay.
I don't really listen to contemporary rock so I don't know what it going on with it, but nothing I have heard so far has really grabbed my attention so maybe I have simply stopped paying attention. The crucial difference is, thanks to the advent of the internet, I can listen to virtually anything I like the sound of, from anywhere in the world, at any time - and from any time. Regardless of whether you happen love or hate the music of the 90s, you have one distinct advantage over your 1990s counter-part (or former self.) You can always get access to whatever music floats your boat!
I don't know what I find more annoying about the pop music of the 90s, the fact that they constantly shat out lyrics that would be insulting to the intelligence of even the ditzy 14 year old girls that bought it, cases in point:
- "oh baby you're so fine, I'm gonna make you mine, your lips they taste so sweet,"
- "you are my fire, the one desire, believe when I say, I want it that way,"
- "you drive me crazy, I just can't sleep, I'm so excited, I'm in too deep, crazy, but it feels alright, baby thinking of you keeps me up all night"
- and etc. ad infinitum.
The 2000s was definitely better. People who played their own instruments dominated the charts even if it was boy-band-metal such as Linkin Park or pop punk stars such as Sum 41 and Bowling for Soup.
At least the 2010s risque and unashamedly id, hedonistic and indulgent (Gaga, Kesha, Nicky Minaj, et al.) All right, most of the pop music of our era it is a bag of balls, but at least it isn't the "oh we are so nice and innocent and sweet, and completely asexual" which was the staple of the 90s, and of course, completely disingenuous. There was nothing more satisfying than when these good little boys and girls were exposed for taking recreational drugs at parties or behaving indecently. It broke the façade.
Much of the disco music of the 90s was simply 70s disco music less the typically well arranged horn and string elements, or 80s disco music less the variety of synth or which was by this point considered "cheesy." We also said goodbye to the overblown rockist power-ballad with attendant guitar solo in pop, also to be considered mawkish and dated. I remember remarking once that M People's single One Night sounded remarkably 70s, only later to discover that it bore a striking resemblance to 1975 number Highwire by Linda Carr and The Love Squad. Likewise One For Sorrow, a track by an innately disposable and all but forgotten 90s band, Steps, is a dead ringer for The Winner Takes It All by Abba.
Of course was a lot of great music in the 90s outside of the charts, although I have thought compared to 60s and 70s and to a lesser degree 80s it was on "The Downward Spiral." For each Nine Inch Nails there were a dozen Stabbing Westwards, for each Nirvana there were six hundred Silverchairs, a thousand clone bands who tried and failed to carry the movement forwards by replicating the sound of what they liked. For each Alanis Morisette or Cheryl Crow a thousand chart-topping acoustic acts have to have been forgotten in time, and you really have to shake your head in dismay.
I don't really listen to contemporary rock so I don't know what it going on with it, but nothing I have heard so far has really grabbed my attention so maybe I have simply stopped paying attention. The crucial difference is, thanks to the advent of the internet, I can listen to virtually anything I like the sound of, from anywhere in the world, at any time - and from any time. Regardless of whether you happen love or hate the music of the 90s, you have one distinct advantage over your 1990s counter-part (or former self.) You can always get access to whatever music floats your boat!
Friday, 16 August 2013
The Critic: Burning Out at Festivals.
Sometimes when you have seen average show after average show it becomes hard to tell if something is really bad, or you are just bored of mediocrity. One begins to merge into the other. In this instance a great show is an oasis in the dessert which brings you back to your senses. See one as soon as possible if you want to savour any hope of remaining objective and judicious. Take recommendations if you have to, read other reliable critics to know what to go to. It is essential to have this nourishment to keep your writing fresh, if not your sanity!
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Star Ratings
At best star ratings can be considered a necessary evil.
They not only de-emphasise the content of the review, including any constructive feedback, but they say nothing about how, why or to whom something is good, excellent or poor - not to speak of the grounds upon which something is being judged, nor by which measure stick or what parameters.A four star show on the professional stage is a five star show on the amateur one.
Everything must be judged in its appropriate context, and something may seem more or less pore in comparison to similar works, or the time and place where it is being written or performed. The body of a review leaves some space to give some of this context, but a star rating does nothing of the kind.
There is much difference between a "very good" 3* show and a "not poor" one. Likewise there is a breadth between a truly excellent 4* and one that made it because it is clearly a leap ahead of most of what the 3* shows have been, thus it is the tone of the piece will dictate what side of the star rating the show in on, not the star rating itself.
They not only de-emphasise the content of the review, including any constructive feedback, but they say nothing about how, why or to whom something is good, excellent or poor - not to speak of the grounds upon which something is being judged, nor by which measure stick or what parameters.A four star show on the professional stage is a five star show on the amateur one.
Everything must be judged in its appropriate context, and something may seem more or less pore in comparison to similar works, or the time and place where it is being written or performed. The body of a review leaves some space to give some of this context, but a star rating does nothing of the kind.
There is much difference between a "very good" 3* show and a "not poor" one. Likewise there is a breadth between a truly excellent 4* and one that made it because it is clearly a leap ahead of most of what the 3* shows have been, thus it is the tone of the piece will dictate what side of the star rating the show in on, not the star rating itself.
Wednesday, 14 August 2013
Relationship Critic
Once
in every critic's Fringe it becomes necessary for them to go out for a
drink with the actor of a one man show and his girlfriend to give him
extensive feedback on the production, and end up giving the two an
impromptu relationship counselling session lasting over an hour when a
conflict breaks out. Oh, wait a minute - that's not every critic. That's
just me.
Sunday, 11 August 2013
How long does it take to become a good critic?
So that's a new record for me. Writing 7 reviews in one sitting.
I reckon it takes writing around 100 reviews before you get the "hang" of it. That is, if you ever truly get the hang of it, which most of us don't think we ever do. At least it's likely to take writing that many before you can be consistently concise, get your point across, say everything that needs to be said, and of course - a most important discipline - to distiguish between what needs to be said and what you just fancy saying (because it's clever, or you noticed, or it's a bugbear, or..., or..., or..., - will the reader care as much as you do?)
Being a critic isn't mostly glamour and fun, what glamour and fun there is comes in exchange for taking care in, and caring about, your writing.
I reckon it takes writing around 100 reviews before you get the "hang" of it. That is, if you ever truly get the hang of it, which most of us don't think we ever do. At least it's likely to take writing that many before you can be consistently concise, get your point across, say everything that needs to be said, and of course - a most important discipline - to distiguish between what needs to be said and what you just fancy saying (because it's clever, or you noticed, or it's a bugbear, or..., or..., or..., - will the reader care as much as you do?)
Being a critic isn't mostly glamour and fun, what glamour and fun there is comes in exchange for taking care in, and caring about, your writing.
Tuesday, 6 August 2013
Fringe 2013
Ahhhhh now this feels like the fringe. One hour between shows and being across the road in Pret a Manger having a filer coffee and trying to sneak in some writing so I have less to do when I get home!!! This is the way it was meant to be for us behind the pen, in a constant state of feeling like we're in a rush.
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Preliminary thoughts for my dissertation
On some level we want to say that the great compositions
of, say, Beethoven are in some way 'better' than those of say, Katy
Perry whom we had a look at in MMA last year with Martin Dixon
(if you happen to think she's a great contemporary composer you may substitute some other name which fits the bill of simply composed/kitsch music.)
On one hand it's hard to say that it's an objective judgement of quality, because all aesthetic experiences fall into the subjective experience of the person receiving them. On the other hand we know we are making a distinction between we say music is 'bad' music versus music which is 'not my kind of thing.'
Personally I hate swing music. Despite liking something in almost every genre of music I've never been able to cultivate a taste for Swing. But I'm not willing to turn around and say that Quincy Jones was a ‘bad’ arranger when working with Frank Sinatra - he's clearly extremely competent. I just personally don’t like it.
On Sunday night I heard two folk singers sing a song together where each of their parts was incredibly sophisticated with little riffs and inventive harmonies – I was impressed by the counterpoint because I thought (“knew”?) it was qualitatively 'better' than if they'd just harmonised in thirds. Not that harmonising in thirds would be “bad” or “unpleasant” – I just felt like what I was hearing was superior.
While the lay patron could also notice a difference in complexity and might likely agree that the more sophisticated, sung by more practiced singers, was the “better”, it seems I've cultivated a taste that allows me to make more complicated value judgements than non-musicians. I can make a distinction here between say, Burt Bacharach, the composer of great pop tunes, and Burt Bacharach the extremely competent and innovative arranger/composer whose use of complex rhythmical phrasing which was rare in pop music, expressive chord changes and ingenious sequences tantalise my ear as a musician.
This impulse may sometimes lead those of us who know a bit about music hear a song and think - "that would be better if only..." [it included such and such an obviously missing vocal harmony, or they chose this note or that chord instead of the one, or they took] ...
What are we saying? We're not just saying we'd prefer it, we're arguing that we have a qualified opinion on what would improve the piece of music.
But improve the music how? And to what ends? Is it because the pleasure of enjoying more sophisticated music is greater than enjoying pop on the cosmetic level?
As a theatre critic I have to make value judgments and try to offer feedback, which is hopefully useful - either to the company or the patrons. Both if possible. ("I particularly like the ones which, from beneath the veil of the plot, reveal to the experienced eye some subtle truth that will escape the common herd," - Voltaire in The White Bull.) I have no doubt that the highest achievement the critic can manage is to point out some subtlety of genius that escapes 'the common herd' so that when they read my writing they have an “Ah!” moment – “Oh my god that is so true/observant.” This act of enlightenment forever changes the viewer and opens their eyes to watching out for similar phenomena in future aesthetic experiences. Their taste is more cultivated. Their standards have been permanently raised.
When it comes to giving negative criticism, much of what I write is all but ubiquitously noted by the audience, the lay person may notice and cringe. At other times I notice things most do not, but as far as I’m concerned they are extremely important, perhaps to the fidelity of the writing. A common example is that often the actors have not sufficiently noted what is said about their character by other characters in the script, and disregarded these hint in their portrayal. Such things may often escape the regular theatre goer because an actor’s performance can be internally consistent without while making this error, so in this way having a cultivated taste could be seen as a liability when it comes to gaining pleasure from an aesthetic experience. Then what nonsense does this make of striving to enlighten people just do they can enjoy theatre less? Surely we want them to enjoy poor theatre less so that they can enjoy good theatre more.
The companies may appreciate such feedback because they want to be 'better' - they appreciate there is somewhere to go. If not what would be the point in improving? Why strive to be capable of a Goldberg variation when any pleasant sounding two-part invention will do?
And then, sophistication isn’t synonymous with quality either. We often also appreciate “the beauty of simplicity.”
What is more, if some of the modernists are to be believed, pleasure is not necessarily even the critical point of the aesthetic experience.
I recall Martin Dixon saying, 'Is that all you want from music?' - paraphrasing the essential sentiment of Adorno as he did
My response is to say, as a thinker living in post-modern times, “may many flowers bloom.” Perhaps pleasure is not the critical point of the aesthetic experience in some cases, and in other cases it is.
While I could never “cultivate” a taste for swing, I once had no taste for Opera but developed a love for it. Most peoples experience of Schoenberg or, "worse still", the more impenetrable moderns is that some study plus considerable exposure is required to "get it".
Adorno commented on the relevance of the techniques used to the music at hand (I will cite an example in my essay most likely as I remember reading him comment on such and such a chord in chamber music being appropriate, but not in such and such another genre.) In this observation he is not alone. His remarks are actually very mainstream: in contemporary times the synths so synonymous with 80s pop music sound disastrously “cheesy” except in pastiche. The “choir” or “harpsichord” settings on your keyboard, anathema to a hard rock band, sounds perfectly appropriate and apt in the European “Viking” or “Gothic” metal genres. Simon Frith, in his essay on “bad music” refers to the kind of “genre confusion” involved with “getting this wrong” as ‘ridiculous music… the gap between what performers/producers think they are doing and what they actually achieve.” Certainly this makes a credible argument for calling music bad that does not draw upon the sophistication of the material – music can be both sophisticated technically and “bad” or “cheesy.”
Adorno’s argument that immanence through self-reference makes music better is extremely compelling, and yet it seems to be presented as self-evident and without argument, which makes it difficult to justify in under the Western analytic tradition. That is the problem I will face if I wish to make use of any of Adorno’s arguments for what is good or bad in music.
(if you happen to think she's a great contemporary composer you may substitute some other name which fits the bill of simply composed/kitsch music.)
On one hand it's hard to say that it's an objective judgement of quality, because all aesthetic experiences fall into the subjective experience of the person receiving them. On the other hand we know we are making a distinction between we say music is 'bad' music versus music which is 'not my kind of thing.'
Personally I hate swing music. Despite liking something in almost every genre of music I've never been able to cultivate a taste for Swing. But I'm not willing to turn around and say that Quincy Jones was a ‘bad’ arranger when working with Frank Sinatra - he's clearly extremely competent. I just personally don’t like it.
On Sunday night I heard two folk singers sing a song together where each of their parts was incredibly sophisticated with little riffs and inventive harmonies – I was impressed by the counterpoint because I thought (“knew”?) it was qualitatively 'better' than if they'd just harmonised in thirds. Not that harmonising in thirds would be “bad” or “unpleasant” – I just felt like what I was hearing was superior.
While the lay patron could also notice a difference in complexity and might likely agree that the more sophisticated, sung by more practiced singers, was the “better”, it seems I've cultivated a taste that allows me to make more complicated value judgements than non-musicians. I can make a distinction here between say, Burt Bacharach, the composer of great pop tunes, and Burt Bacharach the extremely competent and innovative arranger/composer whose use of complex rhythmical phrasing which was rare in pop music, expressive chord changes and ingenious sequences tantalise my ear as a musician.
This impulse may sometimes lead those of us who know a bit about music hear a song and think - "that would be better if only..." [it included such and such an obviously missing vocal harmony, or they chose this note or that chord instead of the one, or they took] ...
What are we saying? We're not just saying we'd prefer it, we're arguing that we have a qualified opinion on what would improve the piece of music.
But improve the music how? And to what ends? Is it because the pleasure of enjoying more sophisticated music is greater than enjoying pop on the cosmetic level?
As a theatre critic I have to make value judgments and try to offer feedback, which is hopefully useful - either to the company or the patrons. Both if possible. ("I particularly like the ones which, from beneath the veil of the plot, reveal to the experienced eye some subtle truth that will escape the common herd," - Voltaire in The White Bull.) I have no doubt that the highest achievement the critic can manage is to point out some subtlety of genius that escapes 'the common herd' so that when they read my writing they have an “Ah!” moment – “Oh my god that is so true/observant.” This act of enlightenment forever changes the viewer and opens their eyes to watching out for similar phenomena in future aesthetic experiences. Their taste is more cultivated. Their standards have been permanently raised.
When it comes to giving negative criticism, much of what I write is all but ubiquitously noted by the audience, the lay person may notice and cringe. At other times I notice things most do not, but as far as I’m concerned they are extremely important, perhaps to the fidelity of the writing. A common example is that often the actors have not sufficiently noted what is said about their character by other characters in the script, and disregarded these hint in their portrayal. Such things may often escape the regular theatre goer because an actor’s performance can be internally consistent without while making this error, so in this way having a cultivated taste could be seen as a liability when it comes to gaining pleasure from an aesthetic experience. Then what nonsense does this make of striving to enlighten people just do they can enjoy theatre less? Surely we want them to enjoy poor theatre less so that they can enjoy good theatre more.
The companies may appreciate such feedback because they want to be 'better' - they appreciate there is somewhere to go. If not what would be the point in improving? Why strive to be capable of a Goldberg variation when any pleasant sounding two-part invention will do?
And then, sophistication isn’t synonymous with quality either. We often also appreciate “the beauty of simplicity.”
What is more, if some of the modernists are to be believed, pleasure is not necessarily even the critical point of the aesthetic experience.
I recall Martin Dixon saying, 'Is that all you want from music?' - paraphrasing the essential sentiment of Adorno as he did
My response is to say, as a thinker living in post-modern times, “may many flowers bloom.” Perhaps pleasure is not the critical point of the aesthetic experience in some cases, and in other cases it is.
While I could never “cultivate” a taste for swing, I once had no taste for Opera but developed a love for it. Most peoples experience of Schoenberg or, "worse still", the more impenetrable moderns is that some study plus considerable exposure is required to "get it".
Adorno commented on the relevance of the techniques used to the music at hand (I will cite an example in my essay most likely as I remember reading him comment on such and such a chord in chamber music being appropriate, but not in such and such another genre.) In this observation he is not alone. His remarks are actually very mainstream: in contemporary times the synths so synonymous with 80s pop music sound disastrously “cheesy” except in pastiche. The “choir” or “harpsichord” settings on your keyboard, anathema to a hard rock band, sounds perfectly appropriate and apt in the European “Viking” or “Gothic” metal genres. Simon Frith, in his essay on “bad music” refers to the kind of “genre confusion” involved with “getting this wrong” as ‘ridiculous music… the gap between what performers/producers think they are doing and what they actually achieve.” Certainly this makes a credible argument for calling music bad that does not draw upon the sophistication of the material – music can be both sophisticated technically and “bad” or “cheesy.”
Adorno’s argument that immanence through self-reference makes music better is extremely compelling, and yet it seems to be presented as self-evident and without argument, which makes it difficult to justify in under the Western analytic tradition. That is the problem I will face if I wish to make use of any of Adorno’s arguments for what is good or bad in music.
Wednesday, 22 August 2012
5 Days of The Fringe left.
5 days of The Fringe left. 5 days to see all the shows you don't want to miss. 5 days to hobnob with industry who's whos. 5 days to praise and confound actors, directors, stage managers, technicians, musicians, comedians and those who place themselves somewhere in between as "performance artists." 5 days to buy a bottle of wine for the person whose couch you've last been sleeping on. 5 days to compose a tune you "wrote during the Fringe in two-thousand and twelve man." 5 days to pick-up and say you got a shag when you least expected it. 5 days to heckle a comic and say you got away with it. 5 days to overhear two people saying it was "the best thing they've ever seen" and go see it only to realise they were high or being sarcastic. 5 days to fit it all in. 5 days until you can sit back on your couch and overcome from the cough you've developed from burning the candle at both ends. 5 days till you can turn your eyes to "other projects I've been putting off." 5 days till your feet start recovering. 5 days till you realise a month has passed in no time at all, and you left so much undone before you left. 5 days till reality sets in. 5 days till you realise reality is really not that different at all: just the same thing, with the same feelings, in a different place, with different people, doing different things. 5 days till you can finally relax, or so you tell yourself. 5 weeks before you start having dreams about doing it all again next year.
Recently Published Frigne Reviews:
Bitesize Chekhov @ Merchant's Hall
Salome @ Greenside
The Jhiva of Nietzsche @ The Surgeons' Hall
The Canterville Ghost @ Greenside
Candide @ Church Hill Theatre
Bereavement The Musical @ C Venues
Recently Published Frigne Reviews:
Bitesize Chekhov @ Merchant's Hall
Salome @ Greenside
The Jhiva of Nietzsche @ The Surgeons' Hall
The Canterville Ghost @ Greenside
Candide @ Church Hill Theatre
Bereavement The Musical @ C Venues
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
I lead a second life in Edinburgh, does that not make me a Bunburyist?
Waking up on someone's couch during the fringe
while working as a theatre critic, reviewers pass slung around neck,
feels kind of like being a romanticised caricature of a romanticised caricature. 40 minute walk to first venue, then traversing
the city in between shows for another day. Helloooooo Edinburgh Fringe,
did I really say I need to get more exercise? Please don't put chicken samosas in a box that says vegetable samosas. I fear that after having sufficient to drink
one might forget that they feel out of place... while the company
becomes ever more aware! Thanks for being an awesome friend ♥ The Devil May Care! (but that doesn't mean I have to give a fuck.) Anyone in Edinburgh lend me 20 quid? pay you back on Tuesday or Wednesday. Wallet got nicked last nite. Damn I was really enjoying the Edinburgh fringe weather but seemingly the Hindus were right, and all things must pass. Why do theatre makers think we like resettings
of classics in World War II? what exactly is giving of this bizarre
signal that World War II is a compelling or original period to set
Shakespeare or Sophocles in? Or anything for that matter? It's not! When they said: "Repent, Repent" : I wonder what they meant? The problem with ethics is that the only people really interested in learning about it are already good.
These are just some of the experiences one might have in August when in Edinburgh.
So I've been catching up on review writing today and it's been getting really fun now I'm in the swing of it. I don't always enjoy sitting down and getting started, but when I finish articles I'm often very pleased with my writing and the ways I've managed to get around my concerns of how to approach certain aspects of a production.
While I'm here I guess this would be as good a time as any to link you to the reviews I've written that have already been posted online, please enjoy :-)
The Improvised Musical @ C
Treasure Island @ C Too
Candida @ Assembly George Square
Suite Hope @ Dance Base
Kaya – Dream Interpreter @ Assembly George Square
Anybody Waitin’? @ Dance Base
Mod @ C ECA
These are just some of the experiences one might have in August when in Edinburgh.
So I've been catching up on review writing today and it's been getting really fun now I'm in the swing of it. I don't always enjoy sitting down and getting started, but when I finish articles I'm often very pleased with my writing and the ways I've managed to get around my concerns of how to approach certain aspects of a production.
While I'm here I guess this would be as good a time as any to link you to the reviews I've written that have already been posted online, please enjoy :-)
The Improvised Musical @ C
Treasure Island @ C Too
Candida @ Assembly George Square
Suite Hope @ Dance Base
Kaya – Dream Interpreter @ Assembly George Square
Anybody Waitin’? @ Dance Base
Mod @ C ECA
Thursday, 25 August 2011
Ok cool so here are some guidelines on reviewing I was handed and endow upon you for posterity, they have served me well: - Write in the present tense so much as possible, it makes for a more engagin read
- Avoid the use of "I" <- it's a strange one because we all have egos but it does serve a purpose, there are rare occasions where it's acceptable. Some sites liek BroadwayBaby have reviewers that always use it and they seem less professional. It's a bit silly on one level but that's how it goes.
- Personally I find having a "tack" or and angle to come at it from really helpful, some kind of overarching umbrella that eveything fits into - 200-500 words, but closer to 200 is better that closer to 500, that's the skinny policy because apparently people don't read longer articles online they will stop halfway through, I used to always write nearer to 500 first but I've become more economical over the fringe, partly because I had to becasue I'm seeing so much and partly because I've learned to say what I need to say quicker I see 240-300 as ideal really
- read reviews! It really helps to see how other people are writing to see if you like it or not or if the way they are writing is good what makes it good, if bad, what makes it bad. But in the end it's about finding your own voice.
The Rules of Engagement:
- be polite to everyone, I know you'll have no problems with this
- Don't discuss the show with anyone in the venue or in ear shot of the venue
- Don't discuss shows publically (such as on facebook) until your review is up online, we each have varying levels of how comfortable we are with talking about stuff to close people like pals who might ask before it goes up. Gareth will almost never do it except with us, I've been known not to do it as well but during the year we don't have the writers privelages to put stuff up directly so it can take a while, we're working on trying to come to a compromise to sort that out.
I will subedit your articles before putitng them on the network, not much gets changed but I find having Gareth edit my work helps so hopefully you'll feel the same. Also if you want any mentoring in that process I will offer you feedback, only because I felt I didn't get enough when I started writing as a critic, I always felt out in the cold working on my own a bit so it's up to you, I don't consider myself an expert writer or anything but everyone has something valuable to say.
Superfun!
* insulting to very poor
** poor to average
*** above average to really very good
**** very good to excellent
***** life changing
- Avoid the use of "I" <- it's a strange one because we all have egos but it does serve a purpose, there are rare occasions where it's acceptable. Some sites liek BroadwayBaby have reviewers that always use it and they seem less professional. It's a bit silly on one level but that's how it goes.
- Personally I find having a "tack" or and angle to come at it from really helpful, some kind of overarching umbrella that eveything fits into - 200-500 words, but closer to 200 is better that closer to 500, that's the skinny policy because apparently people don't read longer articles online they will stop halfway through, I used to always write nearer to 500 first but I've become more economical over the fringe, partly because I had to becasue I'm seeing so much and partly because I've learned to say what I need to say quicker I see 240-300 as ideal really
- read reviews! It really helps to see how other people are writing to see if you like it or not or if the way they are writing is good what makes it good, if bad, what makes it bad. But in the end it's about finding your own voice.
The Rules of Engagement:
- be polite to everyone, I know you'll have no problems with this
- Don't discuss the show with anyone in the venue or in ear shot of the venue
- Don't discuss shows publically (such as on facebook) until your review is up online, we each have varying levels of how comfortable we are with talking about stuff to close people like pals who might ask before it goes up. Gareth will almost never do it except with us, I've been known not to do it as well but during the year we don't have the writers privelages to put stuff up directly so it can take a while, we're working on trying to come to a compromise to sort that out.
I will subedit your articles before putitng them on the network, not much gets changed but I find having Gareth edit my work helps so hopefully you'll feel the same. Also if you want any mentoring in that process I will offer you feedback, only because I felt I didn't get enough when I started writing as a critic, I always felt out in the cold working on my own a bit so it's up to you, I don't consider myself an expert writer or anything but everyone has something valuable to say.
Superfun!
* insulting to very poor
** poor to average
*** above average to really very good
**** very good to excellent
***** life changing
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Advice on Writing Musicals, a critic's perspective
I went to see When The Clown Laughs by Joseph Traynor yesterday, I couldn't review it for The Skinny but I did offer up a couple of pages of feedback for the writer/director/co-star. I've made a more general digest for this blog as I think there's something valuable in it and I spose I should be making posts about what I'm doing as that's the whole point of having this blog.
- Be economical with your scripts. The common runtime of a musical at The King's is around 1h40 including interval! That’s about standard for a musical as that suits people’s attention spans. I certainly wouldn’t stretch to more than 2 hours all in.
While scenes and songs are your children, you will generally find that making cuts of choice selections makes every line count and results in stronger writing overall. Especially look out for explanations that are repeated (does the audience already know this? Does putting this in add anything to the impact?)
For songs, every one should add something to the plotline or have an important impact. They should not just serve to span things out. As a general rule if they do not contribute something significant that can specifically be named and justified they have to be cut. I’ve read about Stephen Sondheim writing over 30 songs for a show and leaving only about 22 of them in at the end, it’s just part of the process and no experience is wasted
During scene dresses instrumental music should usually have some melodic material to it, not just the kind of music that accompanys someone singing. Without the vocal melody on top it sounds bare, it sounds like an accompanyment, which is what it is.
Exercise caution in dealing with themes of incest (particularly in the first scene) as some people find this very distasteful. There are some taboos over being forceful on those issues in our society which can leave a bad taste in the mouth of theatre goers which certainly ought not to be an initial reaction.
When actors have solos they should not be under-directed otherwise half way through the song they end up looking like a fish out of water, as though they don't really know what do do with themselves. Some action can be useful in keeping the audience's attention.Before you put a show into production do some work-shopping and ask other writers and theatre-makers to read your scripts or watch excerpts and comment on anything points that can be tweaked or any repetition that can be snipped to make the overall item stronger.Naturally all criticism is subjective, my only authority is that I see more than most people and write about it regularly.
Monday, 27 June 2011
Critics Writing Manifestos
I spent an enjoyable early evening at the residence of one Mr. Gareth Vile discussing, amongst other things, the nature and purposes of art criticism which culminated in the idea of critics writing manifestos on where they feel the present spirit of art is going wrong and what they think it ought to be doing in order to improve and 'get it right'
I now have an idea for an article to develop on the future of Musical Theatre.
I am very crtical of musical theatre in its present state, not because I hate the medium but because I love it. I have a clear picture of what I think contemporary Musical Theatre could be doing and see what musical theatre could and should be doing today (alongside the present forms in which it exists if not instead of them) and know how wonderful it would be to see it doing that so I will enjoy pontificating on the concept and receiving (even being influenced by) the feedback of others on those ideas. Watch this space.
I now have an idea for an article to develop on the future of Musical Theatre.
I am very crtical of musical theatre in its present state, not because I hate the medium but because I love it. I have a clear picture of what I think contemporary Musical Theatre could be doing and see what musical theatre could and should be doing today (alongside the present forms in which it exists if not instead of them) and know how wonderful it would be to see it doing that so I will enjoy pontificating on the concept and receiving (even being influenced by) the feedback of others on those ideas. Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)