« Thank Goodness for YouTube | Main | The Prof Responds to Me About CRADLE »

February 18, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


1. Yes, please. One of the reasons people like Pitchfork is that the writer's have cooler taste than most people. Nobody wants to read a write-up of Josh Groban's new album there.

2. I actually do this fairly regularly if I really love a show.

3. Not sure. I guess there is in the institutional theater scene, where all of the theaters do the same day plays.

Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist

1) it would be refreshing to see a website that's about independent theatre and about dumb Broadway musicals.

2) I didn't send out an email but I posted a Facebook note about this awesome one-man show in London about Tupac Shakur, it was on Monday.

3) no, there's no national theatre scene in the United States. I think it'd make more sense to have "regional theatre scenes." The USA is simply a GIGANTIC nation in term of size and population. Nobody says "national music scene," do they? but rather there's regional scenes for art, dance, theatre, film, music (like "So-Cal hardcore punk" or NYC punk), etc...

Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist

my bad, for number 1) I mean, it would be refreshing to see a website about indie theatre and NOT about dumb Broadway musicals.

Eric Pfeffinger

I love the idea.

1. I think it would be refreshing to steer clear of touring shows and other mainstream behemoths. Excessive coverage of those things is something that actually turns me away from some regional theater blogs. That said, I do also appreciate it on those occasions when someone smart (or at least hipper-than-thou) like a Pitchfork critic weighs in on something big and popular, especially when they find surprising virtues in it. So maybe it doesn't need to be all-or-nothing.

2. I do this all the time when I love a show; my problem is that I love shows too infrequently.

3. Yes and no; I think the theater being made nationwide constitutes a national theater culture. But the locality and ephemerality of theater means that a website devoted to it is going to be less of a consumer advisory--buy these tickets!--than a useful survey and analysis of what's going on. (And, for practitioners, a heads-up of plays they might want to do or people they might want to work with.) Everything's separate, but everything's connected.


1. You do, but, like most everyone else here, I agree that it's an alienation that's okay. If the goal is an alternative news/reviews source, leave the mainstream out. (In my answer to 3, I'll elaborate a bit.)

2. I created a facebook event for a show I really loved, especially because there was a dance party afterwards.

3. Not now, but something like this can help create one. One of the problems is that the alternative scenes are too disparate and too local. If a website with reviews and news from various indies scenes was available, then disparate groups that share an aesthetic could connect with each other, share work and ideas and move us closer to a national network.


1.) I agree that the big budget musicals and Broadway shows don't need to be included. But I think you can include musicals and touring shows that are not the usual suspects. There are writers and composers creating interesting musicals-that don't follow the usual formula and would appeal to audiences drawn to indie work-who can only get their shows produced in indie theater festivals, or at regional theaters with daring and open minded artistic directors. So, I wouldn't write the genre off completely.
2.) Never. But I will post links to websites and articles about a show I love.
3.) No.

lionel frompton

Thanks for your suggestions. My girlfriend and I will be working on this site idea and we'll share it with all of you for more input when we have a working model.

If anyone knows of any sites that bring local theatre scenes together let me know.


One question: What if a new Broadway star comes out of the touring shows? What record will there be of this person's work, before?

Proper indexing and tagging should allow visitors to select what types of reviews they want to read, and exclude the ones they don't. Isn't that better than dismissing entire genres of theatre we don't like? If the NYT continued that approach, would Off Off Broadway would have been documented in a source researchable even now, through libraries or online?

I just don't want to lose sight of the archival responsibility of criticism, failing any academic attempt to keep track.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker