Suggestion:

• Perhaps a monthly feature highlighting a single group – its history, agenda, performance space, organization, etc
• A broader base of interview across the DC community theatre scene.
• More interviews?
• More in-depth articles about promising/new upcoming community theater productions. Features on key people in community theater around the area.

So it sounds like more in-depth behind the administrative scenes of a theater group would be useful. We’ll see what we can do. Would anyone like to volunteer their organization for a few in-depth interviews?

Suggestion:

• More ads.

Uhmm, what? I’m not sure if this is a serious suggestion, or a satire. While we definitely need for the site to generate more of an income, we aren’t selling out our current inventory of ads. So, adding more ads doesn’t make sense.

Suggestion:

• More pictures of productions.

OK, that is fairly simple to do. We’ll start doing that.

Suggestion:

• A separate RSS feed for the auditions pages as it’s updated.

Now that is a great idea! It would involve some serious reprogramming to our database, but is probably feasible. Are you subscribed to our current RSS feed for the entire site?

Suggestion:

• More information about auditions. I suppose you have to get the information to pass it on. We at (local community theater) will try to see to it that you do.

That is a major headache for maintaining the site — keeping the audition information up-to-date. So, if you update your web site, please send us an email letting us know of the change. Or, if you have to change the audition schedule, make sure you also update your web site. It gets confusing sometimes when we are told one thing by a director, but the “official” web site has the wrong information.

Suggestion:

• Sometimes when the performance schedules are listed — it lists 12:00 as the performance time — regardless of the actual time.

As hard as this might be to believe, some groups forget to put the time of their show on their web site. When we can’t find a time, we leave the time as midnight, figuring it is safer to have an obviously wrong time showing on the site, than guessing at the time and being slightly wrong. Usually we will contact the group and ask for clarification and never get a response.

Suggestion:

• More articles by area actors/directors/tech people.
• The opportunity to be a reviewer– much like WATCH has multiple people watch and critique a show

We are always looking for more people to write for the site. Reviews, interviews, columns, you name it, we’ll probably have an audience for it. Contact us!

Suggestion:

• Basically I’d like to see honest reviews of what you see and not “Oh they did a great job”. Grow a pair.

OK. Tell us who you are, and we’ll come out to your next show and give a flat-out, no holds barred, honest review of the production. Do you really want that? We will be honest without being vindictive.

When we were first starting out, we got some advice from another local theater reviewer: “Never say ‘you shouldn’t see this show.’ There is always something that is positive in a show. If you are too negative, the theater won’t allow you back.” So for our first couple years, that’s what we did. And there were a handful of productions that we saw that were horrible. But we nuanced, and searched, and shared some of the positive things we saw in the show. I remember one show we saw that was pretty poorly put together, and we agonized over the review. Eventually we posted a brief review highlighting a couple of bright spots, and mentioned some of the significant problems with the show. We met one of the actors a few weeks later, and he complimented us on our review. He said we were very fair, and that working on the show was a horrible experience.

Looking back at our early reviews is embarassing. But I believe we have grown and improved since 2005. Hopefully, you also have grown and improved at your craft since 2005 as well.

Thank you

Thank you very much for taking the time to contribute to our survey. As always, we are interested in your thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Leave a comment, or email or call us.

60% of responses said No. Their reasons included:

1. There are other resources already out there that provide professional theater information;
2. Fears that community theater information would get lost within the professional theater info;
3. Fears that SBR would lose its unique position in the community theater niche.

40% of responses said Yes. The reason cited most frquently was “it would be nice to have all the information in one place, especially for people who want to move on to the professional world.”

One very interesting point someone raised was “The audience usually does not know if the cast is paid or not.” That’s a great point, some professional theaters may only pay their actors a very small amount, but should those groups be lumped together with the Kennedy Center or Arena Stage productions? The term “professional” theaters is such a broad phrase. There are some community theaters which do much better work than some professional theaters. Maybe using those terms is misleading.

Another interesting point was “If ShowbizRadio becomes known for having the latest on the DC theater scene it will provide exposure for the community theaters to an otherwise unreached audience.” So by having information on the SBR web site for all of the local theaters, we may be exposing people who are looking for information on the professional theaters to theaters in their local community.

Our current plans are to continue to slowly build out the site, incorporating professional theater information. I don’t think we’ll start reviewing professional theaters, but if we get enough people writing reviews for us, that would be an option to grow into.

Next: What would you like to see on ShowBizRadio that isn’t there currently?

98% of responses said “Yes, community theater should be reviewed.” We had one response say “No,” but their comment makes me think they accidentally chose No instead of Yes:

• Given the high level of talent in this area as well as the great number of theaterical options, audiences attending community theater productions expect a higher quaiklty level than is normally expected from community theater.

One response included this statement: “If a theater company doesn’t want to be reviewed, they shouldn’t invite the press.” Very few community theaters maintain a true press list. This is mostly a result of the volunteer system, where each production has an entirely new set of designers and volunteers working to pull the show together. Of the 50+ community theaters in the region that we cover, fewer than five regularly send us press releases or invite us to review their productions. If one of the purposes of a review is to serve as a publicity function, community theaters must do a better job at keeping press aware of what is happening in their theaters. Feel free to send press releases to us.

A collection of the responses is below. Note how some of the opinions given directly contradict one another:

• Those attending have a right to know what a professional critic likes or dislikes about a performance.
• Adds legitimacy to the effort. Provides stimulus for quality in production efforts. Brings needed attention to the public.
• It provides a good source of free advertising for the community theatres working under constrained budgets.
• Criticism is fine, but, if the reviewer has a problem with the play itself, then that should be directed at the author and not the community theater director or actors
• To help guide the theatre lover as he or she decides which production to attend — one cannot attend them all!! I think it also helps not only the public but the performers gauge their performances.
• To celebrate the creation of quality theatre in the not-for-profit sector.
• community theater, like professional theater, exists to be seen, enjoyed and reacted to by an audience. Reviews are an important part of that for the theater creators (who will get an idea of how they did and where they can improve) and for the audience (who will get an idea of whether or not a particular show is suited to them).
• Actors and techs use reviews as constructive criticism of their work to improve. Positive reviews build audiences and thus substitute for paid advertising which most community theaters cannot afford.
• Many of these actors are aspiring pros. Besides, all acrors have the same responsibility toward the audience.
• Just because we are unpaid volunteers does not mean we should be allowed to put on crap! Review standards for community theatre should not be as stringent as those for professional productions but should still have standards to adhere to. Reviews let people know if a production is up to community theatre standards. Some community is as good and sometimes better than professional productions; reviews should let the public know that as well!
• Public criticism is not the same as a review. Reviews can be positive or not positive. If there is an axe to grind, however, do it in private.
• Absolutely. As a performer, I think reviews are essential to the ego. Both to encourage and to keep in check. Also, there is nothing more gratifying than putting 4 months of your life into a production and seeing your effort praised in a review. Bad reviews can suck, but it’s all part of the game. There are good shows and there are bad shows and that’s just the way it is – we all think it, reviews just put it in black and white. If we leave it up to our friends and family to “review” our shows, all we’ll ever hear is “you were great” when sometimes, that’s not necessarily the case. Also, while the volunteers may be unpaid, the patrons are still shelling out money to see the production and they have the right to know beforehand if it’s going to be a gem or a lemon.
• Despite the fact that community theater is volunteer (and community-based), all of us community theater actors enjoy reviews, good or bad, because it’s how the public views the show and us.
• Volunteers want feedback too.
• Yes – however, perhaps the reviewers should be cognizant of the unpaid/volunteer status of the participants. Not that negative or constructive comments should be disallowed or censored, but should be included in as fair and non-derogatory a manner as possible. Many times, weaker performers are those with minimal, and sometimes no, experience who are “testing the waters” or have been asked to fill in a hole where no other performers are available. Reviewers should be focused on identifying the strongest elements of amateur productions and should rightly call out those elements that deserve attention from amateur and professional producers. Silence or reticence on weaker elements can be readily interpreted by a knowledgeable reader.
• I like reading (hearing in your case) others reaction to a production.
• It’s an unbiased critique of the performance. Any performing artist must seek criticism to improve and grow. On top of which the critic is providing expert feedback on behalf of the target audience.
• Deep down, the people who spend so much time on a project that consumes their life, want some kind of feedback on their project.
• Yes — but please keep in mind that these individuals are NOT professional actors.
• Yes, but consider all aspects of venue and history of theatre
• Because though they are not being paid, it is a show non the less.
• Community theater is a huge presence in this particular area of the country, and people spend almost as much on tickets to community as professional theater. Everyone has a right to know if a show is put together well.
• While I am not greatly in favor of community theatre being reviewed in general, I feel it is okay to review community theatre as long as the reviewer does not treat it as if it were a professional production. Keeping in mind that all are volunteers, reviewers’ comments should be given in a kinder way, and always readers should be reminded that this is only ONE PERSON’S opinion. Unkind remarks made to a sensitive young person, for example, who has to go on and do several more performances, just shouid not be permitted. Also, community theatre reviewers should refrain from such comments as “I would skip this show if I were you.” If they do not care for the show, that will be reflected in the comments.
• We in community theatre as in all theatre rely on an audience. A good review is the best publicity available. People that don’t like reviews are usually involved in a bad production.
• There is GREAT community theatre, and there is HORRIBLE community theatre…just like professional theatre. If people are going to see a show because they know someone, they will see it anyway. If someone is trying to decide whether they should see a show, a review helps.
• Community theaters strive to be considered legit. Only few theaters will put on shows they think are less then best. They work just as hard as a lot of professional theaters.
• I disagree with anyone who falls into the line of thinking that community theatre should not be reviewed. If you don’t want to be reviewed then just don’t read it.
• We’re all being reviewed- whether or not those reviews are public is the only question. Most of the shows we’re talking about are already subject to review of some sort (e.g. WATCH, Ruby Griffith, etc.) If a performance is halfhearted, or a production has serious deficiencies, pointing that out might help educate and create better performances.
• Why not. The caliber of a lot of theaters is as high as that of “paid” professionals. If a theater company doesn’t want to be reviewed, they shouldn’t invite the press.
• People are still paying money to see these shows, right? Then they should be able to get an idea of the quality of the show before they shell out their money.
• I see nothing wrong with it and think giving audiences a forum to discuss is great, but do think some responses need to be screened. Some people just get plain rude.
• How else will we improve if we do not hear what others think about our productions? Criticism can discuss both strengths and weaknesses of productions
• To bring in audiences and bring notice to performers worthy of mention.

Please share your thoughts about reviewing community theater as a comment, or contact us directly.

Next: Should ShowBizRadio include schedule, audition information, and reviews for the professional theaters in the DC region?

According to Edwin Wilson’s The Theatre Experience criticism should answer: “(1) What is Being Attempted? (2) Have the Intentions Been Achieved? and (3) Was the Attempt Worthwhile?” The third question is a more personal question that the first two, but it seems is the one that most people want to know about. But being a more personal question (and answer) a show that I consider to not be worthwhile might be a show that you consider to be very worthwhile. A lot of the feedback we’ve gotten on the site is that we don’t take a stand on shows. That’s a tough request, since I am different from you.

One survey response made the distinction between a reviewer and a critic: “To critique the performance of the show presented … not to critique the script itself.” Wilson defines a reviewer as “someone who reports on what has happened at the theater. He or she will tell briefly what a theater event is about, explaining whether it is a musical, a comedy, or a serious play and perhaps describing its plot. The reviewer might also offer an opinion about whether or not the event is worth seeing…. Their work may lack depth and may not be based on critical criteria discussed above.” The critic “attempts to go into greater detail in describing and analyzing a theater event…. The critic also attempts to put the theater event into a larger context, relating the play to a category (nonrealism or realism, for instance). The critic will try to explain how the theater event fits into this framework or into the body of the playwright’s work. The critic might also put the theater event into a social, political, or cultural context.” (Wilson, The Theatre Experience, 10th edition, pp 74-75.) By these definitions, I think that the reviews published on ShowBizRadio.net are done by reviewers, not by critics. A few times Laura and I have gone into deeper analysis on a show, and we receive insults in response. We described in one review last year some problems we heard with the singers’ voices. We received lots of comments that we were flat out wrong. So we hired a vocal coach to see the show and give us an opinion on the singing (not the script or any other technical area, only the singing). They basically agreed with our opinions we published in our review.

Another survey response brought up the neutrality of our opinions as a credibility issue:

I think you have a real problem with your reviews on your site. First of all, I think you lack a good deal of credibility. It is not credible for someone to both participate in the local community theater scene AND review it. I don’t think you, or your other reviewers, can really give an impartial review on a show that you have worked on, shadowed, or from a company that you have worked with or a show in which you have friends. Other successful reviewers are successful because they maintain a distinct separation of their involvement and therefore, people actually tend to believe that when they say a show is good or bad it is credible.

I think we’re running into an interesting by-product of covering theater as we do. We are covering a very specific niche market, smaller theaters in the Washington DC region. We could be entirely aloof and not try to meet people involved in local theater. But the fact that the people involved are so friendly, and they make the process so inviting, led to us getting involved. I will admit, that my appearance in Providence Players’ The Time of Your Life in October 2006 was initially to audition just to see what the audition process was like. I think our getting experience on both sides of the stage has improved our coverage of local theater. So, yes, it can be hard to say negative things about an acquaintance, but that is fairly rare that we’ve had to do that.

We constantly hear from theaters about how local newspapers are cutting back on their coverage of the arts. If we had to cut back on our involvement, and if we couldn’t have McCall or Lisa Kay write for the site because they’ve worked with people or groups they are covering, the site will be dark very shortly. Some of the survey responses actually encouraged us to have more people writing for the site. Yes, we agree. If you want to write for the site, let us know. We are interested in having more opinion columnists, reviewers, or reporters writing for the site. We do ask that people don’t cover groups that they are very involved in, such as if they are on the group’s Board, or if they have a family member in the show.

Several of the responses that said SBR’s reviews were “not at all useful” also didn’t include a response to “purpose of a theater review.” So some of the people who say our reviews are not at all useful don’t know the purpose of a theater review? Overall, responses to this question ranged widely, although a few consistent themes were evident: (1) A review is free publicity for a show; and (2) to evaluate the quality of a production. Here are a few of the responses we received:

• To give me an idea on whether I would be wasting my time or not to attend a play. While I am not always “bound” by what the reveiwer writes, when he/she and I agree more often than not, it does add some weight.
• Provide an evaluation and render an opinion as to the quality of the performance and execution of a play, musical or review. Unless a work is original, a description of the story should be separate from a review.
• To give the general public good information about performances happening in the community
• Dual purpose — to inform the readers of the fact of the production (a sort of publicity function) so that audiences will attend and to provide an evaluation of the performance
• To help guide the theatre lover as he or she decides which production to attend — one cannot attend them all!!
• Do provide one perspective on a production and to inform the public that it is being performed.
• to give the reader an educated and critical response to the show seen by the reviewer
• Evaluate the acting and production values of a show so that readers can make an informed judgement whether or not to spend scarce entertainment dollars to see a particular production.
• To let people know what a show is about and what the quality of the production is.
• The purpose is two-fold: in the community/high school venue, the primary purpose is to encourage patrons to attend the production. Of secondary interest is the review (as positive as realistically possible) of the performance.
• To know if it’s any good. Worth seeing.
• Reviews are generally a tool of marketing for the theatre industry – in particular, the amateur/community theatres in discussion here. A substantive review delivers minimal plot synopsis, perhaps a brief production history if appropriately interesting, and constructive analysis of a production’s key elements, focussing especially on those attributes that inform a potential customer member of the relative value of the admissions fee to be paid.
• I can say it is not to tell me the story.
• To give the reviews impression of the performance. and provide information to help dertermine if the performance is worth spending time to attend.
• The purpose of a theater review is to provide the public with an opinion of whether a show sucks or not (basically). It gives a little history of the show (why the material is of cultural significance or why the show was written/first performed) and then explores the interpretation of the performance that was viewed.
• To offer your opinion about a performance.
• The purpose of the theatrical review is to inform others about the play.
• To encourage or discourage people to attend the show.
• The purpose of a theater review is to inform the public about a particular show and review their own opinion of it.
• To let the viewing public know if a show is worth seeing, to recognize local talent, etc. It can also help a theater company see where they are going wrong and how to improve. It also encourages people to go see a show when one is particularly good.
• To review the quality and interpretation of the story’s intent and its characters’ traits and actions.
• To let potential audiences know something about how a show has been staged, IN THE OPINION of ONE PERSON, so they may make a decision as to whether to go see that particular show.
• To provide the reviewers opinion of the performance that they saw and to provide some content as to why they feel the way that they do.
• 1. To spread the word about a good show 2. To warn about a bad one 3. To provide feedback to the cast and crew, what they did well and what they didn’t.
• To inform potential audience members of what is going on and what they can expect from a particular performance.
• To give an opinion/viewpoint about a show.
• to help potention audience members decided what shows are worth seeing.
• (1) to provide information to readers, so that readers can decide whether they might like a show. (2) to provide publicity for good shows (3) to critique productions and performances, to encourage better product
• Feedback (whether positive or negative) on what you are doing with your life. Those who are reviewed should learn from it. If you don’t like a certain aspect of someone’s direction/design/performance than you should state it. Maybe they’ll learn the next time around. On the hand, if you do like something it never hurts to reward.

Please leave your thoughts about theater reviews here as a comment. Or contact us directly.

Next: In your opinion, should community theater be reviewed? (Hint: 98% of responses were Yes).

Our top ten most read articles posted in 2008 were:

1. Review of Elden Street Players’ tick, tick…Boom
2. Review of CCT with 2nd Flight Theatre Company’s Bare: A Pop Opera
3. The WATCH Awards nominees for the 2007 season
4. Review of Sterling Playmakers’ Oklahoma!
5. Review of McLean Community Players’ Evita
6. The Cappies Awards winners for the 2007-2008 season
7. Review of the Arlington Players’ A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
8. Review of Reston Community Players’ Urinetown: The Musical
9. Review of the Little Theatre of Alexandria’s 1776
10. Review of Duke Ellington School of the Arts’ The Wiz

Two of last year’s most read articles involved the Cappies. While we have receved feedback from our survey that the Cappies reviews and articles are “not at all useful,” ShowBizRadio will continue to support the next generation of theater professionals by publishing reviews of their productions, and by adding their production schedules to our web site. We are also encouraging the Cappies writers to submit news articles to us about the productions that their schools are doing, such as Emily O’Connell’s November article Behind the Scenes with Bishop Ireton’s Romeo and Juliet.

Update: (12/30/2008 12:35am) We’ve received a fair number of useful and interesting responses so far. Responses like “you suck” are not useful or constructive criticism. We’ll be closing the survey down later this week, so please respond if you haven’t yet. Thanks. We’re planning on posting an analysis of the responses starting on January 5th.