Comments for Amass for the Dead: "Elegies: A Song Cycle," at the Village Theatre through May 24 at http://www.rcreader.com , comment 1 to 31 out of 20 comments http://www.rcreader.com Tue, 21 May 2013 13:31:12 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-777 Koo-koo ka-choo! - The Walrus Thu, 29 May 2008 15:02:22 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-771 I agree strongly with those who say that performances must stand or fall on their own. That's what a performance is. The critic is placing another artwork in relation to the performed artwork. Great reviews stand on their own. A criticism of the critic and critique are further removed from the reality of performance. The actor/singer often has the illusion of being both an observer and an actor at the same moment. Even if they can pull this feat off, their observation is quite removed from that of a critic. As a performer, one should work to take ego out of performance. One simply is the part. You are an instrument, a tool. This is impossible, but still the goal. My best performances had nothing to do with what anyone else thought. I knew that I had done a good job. Who cares what anyone else thinks. That an audience or a critic enjoys it is gravy only if I understand that I have done a great job. What's the point of a dense or easily pleased critic? As a performer, I prefer to use the critic as a tool. A second set of eyes. To demand that those eyes see what you see is to render the tool impotent and the author/artist mute. What's the difference between PR and art? A great performance can occur in front of an audience of any size. I have sung beautifully to the air itself. I have had the greatest joy from one response from one audience member than heaps of reviews or applause. - schqc Wed, 28 May 2008 14:02:39 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-766 Iowa City Actor - I think you do make a good point. I broke down and posted in regard to a show I'd directed a couple of months ago...and I've felt a ton of regret for doing so ever since. Your comment spurred two thoughts that date back to my film school days. After waiting anxiously for an appearance by some much-admired film director on a late night talk show, a fellow student and I who had watched together were thoroughly let down. Turned out our hero could make great art...but couldn't really discuss it. At least, not on late night tv. We got to talking about the possibility that maybe we shouldn't expect our artists to also be philosophers/analysts/whatever. Which prompted my friend to mention something he'd read a long time before, while researching a paper about the early days of films. He claimed that, when the first silents emerged, the producers or whatever "powers that be" existed at the time, chose not to list the names of the actors playing the roles. The reason being that they feared too much power would shift to the actors. However, the public clamored to know the names of their favorite performers...who was she? Who was he? And thus, the star cult in films was born. I don't know for sure if my buddy's claims were completely serious or if there was a little invention going on there. But, from time to time, it has made me wonder...what would it be like if we didn't credit any of the artists? Didn't list actors names, or directors, or technicians. What if the show was just The Show? Hey...I'm not saying it would necessarily be a good thing! (And I seriously wonder how many people would drop out of the business immediately!) Writers for sure would stand to be screwed if their name wasn't attached to their work. But still...it's an interesting thought, isn't it? Back to the topic (or one of the recent topics): My personal preference for "discussing" theater is in person. If only for the reason that, as I.C. Actor mentioned, these forums do tend to reduce things to sound bites. Without voice, without intonation, and the chance to immediately clarify our words in the case of misunderstandings, I find online commentary all too often becomes reduced to niggling over minor matters. What looms large to one reader is sometimes a comment tossed off hastily, with no more than a passing thought, by the writer. And now, I'm reduced to using the dreaded emoticon to indicate my tone -- ;D Gee...I often wonder how Jane Austen got by without filling her novels with smiley faces and frowns! - Jennifer Kingry Tue, 27 May 2008 12:16:32 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-765 Iowa City Actor- If you'd like to find the time and location to create a face to face meeting amongst every theatre artist in the QC, be my guest. The truth is that these conversations have been going on at houses and bars and cast parties for years and they've finally been put out on a public forum. If you don't like it, don't participate. A question - is it not possible to create one's own art AND discuss others' attempts? Most of the people who comment on this board are regular contributors to the QC theatre scene. We are people who spend plenty of time creating art and love it so much that when we aren't trying to create it, we love discussing it. I for one have enjoyed the sparring sessions that take place on this board and look forward to many more. - Theatre Fan Tue, 27 May 2008 12:15:07 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-764 a correction: that should have been "every" word. mea culpa. - agrafena alexandrovna svetlov Tue, 27 May 2008 11:48:17 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-763 iowa city actor -- a disagreement: if you are an actor in a production, your performance in that production is, essentially, your part of the "discussion", or at the very least, posing the question for discussion by others. you offer it based on the acting choices you make with ever word you utter, every back story you create for your character. there is no "refraining" for those who act -- they are the ones who become the provocateurs for follow up discussion, discourse, dialogue, confab, etc. etc. (with thanks to roget for being a ready source of scholarly synonyms) - agrafena alexandrovna svetlov Tue, 27 May 2008 11:47:23 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-762 An irony - The community is encouraged to engage in discussion, yet the artists involved are encouraged to refrain from discussion. hmmm.... A reality - This is a message board not a living room. So, naturally this will be a discussion of sound bites not anything meaningful. Whitslinginthedark has a real point in suggesting a face-to-face encounter not a digital one. A plea - Setting all of that aside, can't we all just make our art instead of incessantly talking about it? Do proponents of this conversation (sorry.... um.... colloquy) really think anything is accomplished by all of these words? "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." - Frank Zappa - an iowa city actor Tue, 27 May 2008 10:34:16 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-761 It's a shame that on a discussion board, someone can actually be chastised for bringing up valid discussion topics. I feel your pain Tyson! The reason QC theatre had been boring for so long is that no one stood up to say there can be different ways of producing theatre. That's why it's so exciting to see a new generation of producers stepping up to the plate and trying new things. That doesn't mean they deserve a pass at everything they attempt, however. Tyson has every right as a paying audience member to voice his opinion about what he saw. Even if his post was anonymous, it still provided valid points worth discussing. If we don't question and challenge each other to do better work, how will we ever grow as artists? That being said, I agree with Svetlov that the artists involved in the production would be better served if they were to let their work speak for itself. If you have to explain what you did, it's a sure sign that you didn't execute it well enough the first time. - Theatre Fan Tue, 27 May 2008 08:59:13 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-760 In honor of whistlinginthedark, here are 8 synonyms for the word conversation: chat, colloquy, confabulation, converse, dialogue, discourse, speech, talk Enjoy! - roget Tue, 27 May 2008 08:30:09 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-759 Cairo is the capital of Egypt. - the pharaoh Tue, 27 May 2008 08:25:58 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-758 I agree with...the Russian? (agrafena alexandrovna svetlov). For the most part, anyway. I find the justification for artistic decisions on this forum to be a bit desperate. And Tyson, if you want to have a conversation about theatre, why not have a real conversation and go get coffee with some of these other artists and express your opinions that way? If they accept, then at least you'll know that they're willing to hear what you have to say. And maybe throw in a synonym for conversation in your posts now and then. But then, I'm a picky person too. I don't know. Maybe I should have attached my name to this so my opinion actually has some merit. Oops, too late... - WhistlingInTheDark Tue, 27 May 2008 06:36:00 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-757 Bacon, indeed! :P Perhaps my decision to share my opinions just comes from my desire for conversation about theatre. If that kind of dialogue isn't wanted, I'll back away I suppose. (Though I wonder if it would be an issue if my post had said "I can't believe how amazing this was! Flawless!" But there I go again, trying to get someone to take the bait! :P) - Tyson Danner Mon, 26 May 2008 23:20:58 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-756 I think bacon is a tasty treat! - noodle salad Mon, 26 May 2008 19:57:48 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-755 This "conversation" sounds pretty one-sided to me. Plus I also feel that, when adding your own opinions about theatre companies in town, you walk a fine line. Your honesty could very well jeopardize the harmony of your own. Look at other directors in town, and I think you'll find they tend to keep their mouths locked up tight, and for good reason. - Cathy W. Mon, 26 May 2008 18:14:46 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-754 In the interest of full disclosure - if it's necessary - I'll also note that out of the 7 performers in Elegies, two have been good friends for years, three are new friends, one is a casual acquaintance, and only one is a stranger to me. I've had the pleasure of working with more than half of them before, and they are all skilled performers. So, I don't feel that my negative opinions about Elegies are in any way personal (nor do they outweigh the positive opinions). I'm confident that my friends in the show all know that, while I may love the artist, that doesn't mean I'll love their art unconditionally. I certainly wouldn't expect that from my work - I love hearing what people don't like. It gives me a chance to examine my own work! Okay, all done with the novel now... :) - Tyson Danner Mon, 26 May 2008 08:45:32 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-753 Yikes...so hostile! Iowa City Actor: I had posted on the other article about this show. I expressed my opinion about the show's lack of a director. I'm not sure why the sarcasm is necessary. I love the conversation that's going on here, and I certainly don't rate my opinion higher than anyone else's. I post on these articles because I think this kind of conversation will make our theatre community stronger. I like to have conversation about other people's shows, though I'm always hesitant to talk about my own work. Unfortunately, (especially online) there will always be people that choose to write the "snarky" comments instead of offering constructive conversation, and that's their right. Though, it's not surprising that those comments usually aren't backed by a name (also their right - people can be very sensitive about their work, and I certainly understand that). I include my real name in my posts because I'm proud of my opinion and stand by it. And yes, I do feel that I take a bit of risk in expressing my honest opinions instead of just telling my friends "Oh it was perfect!". I don't feel that it makes my positive comments any less valid if I have disagreements with how the show is produced. I have to believe that my friends and other theatre artists in the Quad Cities can acknowledge my opinion without thinking anything less of me as a person. I hope we can all continue these open, honest conversations. How can it hurt the theatre community if we're all talking about it? Let's please keep generating conversation!! - Tyson Danner Mon, 26 May 2008 08:35:59 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-752 i have to say that between the actors who perform then come here to defend their work & acting/directorial choices (can you imagine a NYC actor doing that on the NYTimes Forum?! let your work speak for itself, people! that's what artists do -- put it out there with confidence and stop with the explanations already!) and the additional snarky comments of others, this forum is quite interesting to say the least. i find tyson's comments rather measured, to be fair. i would assume that since the QC area is rather small he is taking quite a risk in being as objective as possible (based on his own perspective of course) -- while knowing that he could incur the wrath of others who may be involved in this or other productions by any feedback he chooses to offer up. - agrafena alexandrovna svetlov Sun, 25 May 2008 21:18:56 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-751 Oh thank god we finally have Tyson's opinion. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we were waiting with baited breath for that one... BTW, "your original opinion???" Have you posted before on this subject? Which one is yours? - an iowa city actor Sun, 25 May 2008 18:58:17 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-750 I finally made it to Elegies last night, and I have to tell anyone that didn't go that they certainly missed out. Aside from a few very uncomfortable moments, the singing was outstanding! It was great to finally hear these songs live! (Though I was really looking forward to hearing the songs that aren't on the CD, which were cut in this production. That was a disappointment.) And, while I didn't agree with a lot of the interpretation choices musically, it was SO refreshing to see a production that molded the material they were working with, instead of just being stand-ins for the cast recording. It was very hard to see the performers because the theatre was so dim. However, there often wasn't much to see. I have to admit that I got very bored with having performers just stand center stage and sing their songs. (With a few exceptions like "Joe Papp".) I'll stand by my original opinion here: I think there were a lot of inconsistencies and missing elements that would have been easily corrected and shaped by a skilled director's hand. I just didn't see anything in the finished product that made me believe the collaborative approach was worth it. With those performers, I expected something that would totally knock me off my feet and leave me begging to see the production again. That being said: I'm a damn picky person, and it was still a great start for this young company. (And yeah, I realize this whole thing may come off as me trying to "be a reviewer". Just wanting to share my opinion and hoping to see more conversation about QC theatre!) - Tyson Danner Sun, 25 May 2008 13:07:27 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/theatre/amass-for-the-dead-elegies/#comment-741 Yeap! What he said! (I'm the one behind the bar serving drinks ;D) - Esther C. Thu, 22 May 2008 14:09:21 +0100