--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
operanorth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following: http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/jul/03/lee-hall-opera-north?CMP=twt_fd
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jul/04/opera-beached-pulled-school-protests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I grew up in the East Riding so I suspect that I am less confused by the opera north situation than many of my friends in London. Less confused but no less disgusted I should point out.
Its easy living in the south surrounded by diversity of all kinds to forget that there are large swathes of the country that are not. In this environment lines such as "I am a queer" and "I prefer a lad to a lass" have an incendiary quality that we struggle to understand from a southern perspective. This is especially true when primary schoolchildren are exposed to them. For more people than you would imagine this is still the presentation of a minority lifestyle which gives it an undue credence and risks spoiling their children.
This bigotry makes me angry, I would imagine it does so for many people and it is important to be angry about this. There are no shades of gray in this argument (as currently presented) but the body at fault does not seem to me to be Opera North but the parents and school involved.
It is the policy of the government to support and promote equal rights for homosexuals. If you ask the state to educate your children you have to accept this. If you don't like that then your options are to educate your kids privately, or live somewhere else. The state is under no obligation to tolerate your homophobia, this is a simple and crucial point and one that should have been made by the school.
This also is the same for those who teach, in your professional capacity you are also obliged to support and promote equal rights for homosexuals, in issues pertaining to equality you are beholden to the state not too the parents of the children. If you don't like that then pick another career or go private.
Progress is slowly made in the East Riding and will be entirely retarded if the government allows a 100,000GBP of taxpayers money to be wasted because a school isn't prepared to adopt an appropriate attitude towards homosexuals. A great deal of pressure should be placed on Ed Vaizey to ensure that the project continues with the lyrics pertaining to homosexuality intact. Otherwise it is hard to see how Mr Vaizey can honestly suggest he is complying with this:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/working_with_us/7266.aspx
UPDATE - Opera North have posted a response on their website (http://operanorth.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/opera-norths-focus-on-bridlington/), it doesn't help their case and it might have been better for them to simply start backtracking on the decision. Their assertion that the school doesn't start teaching PHSE till the age of nine and so the performance would be unsuitable for the youngsters casts homosexuality in the same minority/different lifestyle bracket as mentioned before. It is no defence, insulting, and will only inflame the situation.
The assertion that "a celebratory performance of the last two years" is an appropriate replacement for the opera ignores the reality that the opera was pulled because of homophobia on the part of East Riding council and (no doubt) some parents. If you are going to take 100.000GBP of taxpayers money to put on a community performance you have to support the cultural outcomes outlined in the linked document above, if you can't or won't you shouldn't take the money.
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Friday, 8 April 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whogetspaid?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following: http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/shenton/2011/04/the-economics-and-economies-of-the-fring/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ShentonStage has a interesting blog this morning about the economy of the fringe - a couple of things are worth noting.
First, there's a great inversion of usual "who gets paid first" row. The usual way this old altercation plays out is that a producer or director does a "letwin" (http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:82d3a14d-cdc4-4cba-908e-e1abe0ec87b4) and admits that they prioritized paying the actors last and equity (and a lot of actors who stopped paying their equity subs years back) get enraged.
This time however @ShentonStage admits to paying the actors first and the technicians get enraged (NB - I'm guessing BECTU didn't get involved but based on my inbox I think they're a little busy trying to take down NewsCorp).
As someone who hovers around both camps (I direct, and pay my bills with technical and production management) I understand the anger, but I think that we all waste a lot of time with this argument by presuming that if we aren't being paid its because people aren't respecting our artistic talents.
We need to differentiate between being disrespected as artists and whether we are paid. Last time I put a play on I didn't pay my actors or creatives but I paid my lighting and sound operators - why? Because every night my set, lx sound and costume designers got their work shown to the public and press, the actors got a theatre, a set, lighting, sound and as many industry comps as they liked and I got reviews and my work onstage.
What none of us needed was for our work to be ruined by a sloppy sound operator or a lighting tech who doesn't notice a crucial blown lamp - it was no disrespect to my creatives and actors that they got paid last, it was respect for their work.
As artists we need to be able to recognise that the fringe runs on private individuals paying for productions and recognise that when money is tight our art should be respected and fully supported long before we are paid. If you would rather get paid than act on a set that does full credit to the performance then you've the wrong attitude for the fringe, if you would rather get paid than be able to hire the spot and hazer that will make the end of the play look phenomenal you've got the wrong attitude for the fringe.
One final point, @ShentonStage suggests that
"The performers and creative team are apparently self-subsidising it; but in fact that often means that it’s the public who are footing the bill, too, not just at the box office but through their taxes, who are paying for many of its participants to work for free via the fact that many of them are claiming benefits."
We are living under a Tory led coalition government in the midst of a downturn. Our public services are under massive and enormous pressure, if you are claiming benefits so that you can put on theatre you are just another miserable benefit cheat.
There is no excuse for signing on to make art, and there should be no tolerance for it in our industry. You may not feel the ArtsCouncil is enough of a presence on the fringe and I agree with you (last post:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/08/fringe-theatre-actors-career-path) but that does not give you the right to take money from the hospitals, schools and other vital public services that are all being pitilessly squeezed so you can stage your "hilarious" one man show about the life of Valerie Solanas which you perform using noting but a anglepoise lamp, two oranges, a cucumber with a johnny on it and a blow up doll with Andy Warhols's face in a bar in Shoreditch.
I am sorry to say that it also doesn't give you the right to perform a incredible piece of relevant political theatre in a respected fringe venue either - however noble the message, not when library's and community centres are closing.
005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whogetspaid?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following: http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/shenton/2011/04/the-economics-and-economies-of-the-fring/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ShentonStage has a interesting blog this morning about the economy of the fringe - a couple of things are worth noting.
First, there's a great inversion of usual "who gets paid first" row. The usual way this old altercation plays out is that a producer or director does a "letwin" (http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:82d3a14d-cdc4-4cba-908e-e1abe0ec87b4) and admits that they prioritized paying the actors last and equity (and a lot of actors who stopped paying their equity subs years back) get enraged.
This time however @ShentonStage admits to paying the actors first and the technicians get enraged (NB - I'm guessing BECTU didn't get involved but based on my inbox I think they're a little busy trying to take down NewsCorp).
As someone who hovers around both camps (I direct, and pay my bills with technical and production management) I understand the anger, but I think that we all waste a lot of time with this argument by presuming that if we aren't being paid its because people aren't respecting our artistic talents.
We need to differentiate between being disrespected as artists and whether we are paid. Last time I put a play on I didn't pay my actors or creatives but I paid my lighting and sound operators - why? Because every night my set, lx sound and costume designers got their work shown to the public and press, the actors got a theatre, a set, lighting, sound and as many industry comps as they liked and I got reviews and my work onstage.
What none of us needed was for our work to be ruined by a sloppy sound operator or a lighting tech who doesn't notice a crucial blown lamp - it was no disrespect to my creatives and actors that they got paid last, it was respect for their work.
As artists we need to be able to recognise that the fringe runs on private individuals paying for productions and recognise that when money is tight our art should be respected and fully supported long before we are paid. If you would rather get paid than act on a set that does full credit to the performance then you've the wrong attitude for the fringe, if you would rather get paid than be able to hire the spot and hazer that will make the end of the play look phenomenal you've got the wrong attitude for the fringe.
One final point, @ShentonStage suggests that
"The performers and creative team are apparently self-subsidising it; but in fact that often means that it’s the public who are footing the bill, too, not just at the box office but through their taxes, who are paying for many of its participants to work for free via the fact that many of them are claiming benefits."
We are living under a Tory led coalition government in the midst of a downturn. Our public services are under massive and enormous pressure, if you are claiming benefits so that you can put on theatre you are just another miserable benefit cheat.
There is no excuse for signing on to make art, and there should be no tolerance for it in our industry. You may not feel the ArtsCouncil is enough of a presence on the fringe and I agree with you (last post:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/08/fringe-theatre-actors-career-path) but that does not give you the right to take money from the hospitals, schools and other vital public services that are all being pitilessly squeezed so you can stage your "hilarious" one man show about the life of Valerie Solanas which you perform using noting but a anglepoise lamp, two oranges, a cucumber with a johnny on it and a blow up doll with Andy Warhols's face in a bar in Shoreditch.
I am sorry to say that it also doesn't give you the right to perform a incredible piece of relevant political theatre in a respected fringe venue either - however noble the message, not when library's and community centres are closing.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
liberals+classicalliberals+coalitionfaultlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following: http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6777933/clegg-defines-his-liberalism.thtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/mar/13/nickclegg-liberaldemocrats#block-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was very inspired by the Nick Clegg quote in this @frasernels article and immediately hugely infuriated by what followed.
Cleggs assertion that we must redefine liberty for contemporary British politics is something I passionately believe. My generation is not interested in left/right divisions we are more focused upon results. Tribalism is dying a slow death, politics is moving closer and closer to the centre.
In these circumstances a redefinition of what it is to be liberal is entirely appropriate. But what @frasernels goes on to contend is a prime example of the problematic misuse of this redefinition. Specifically, using it to justify the very ideological obsessions that centrism sought to get beyond. Nelson lays claim to being a liberal and then immediately suggests that "No other device so effectively empowers the masses, or communicates their priorities." as the market.
This classic liberalism led to the free market ideology that I grew up with twenty years ago, it has been a driving force in British politics for two decades and the banking crisis has exposed it as a dangerous fallacy and in no way liberal. The "masses" are in not empowered by the markets. Indeed my generation has been enslaved by the markets - we have paid (with our taxes which the banks traded against, and with our jobs when the markets crashed) for the banking community to get rich and now, when public opinion demands that the markets make recompense, we are ignored.
@frasernels, @asi and all the other free marketeers misunderstand the attempts to redefine liberty and fundamentally misunderstand the electorate. Our generation has been empowered and educated by the internet. We consume a divergence of news sources from across the political spectrum - left and right divisions are increasingly unimportant - what matters is utility and equality. Under these circumstances to be liberal is to endorse a capitalist system but to demand that it works for all. It is to deplore the inefficiency and wastage of local government but demand increased funding for the community groups and artistic centres that fuel progress in society. It is to judge free of ideology, to not see the world as a battle between state and market but to understand and respect both and try and marry the two. Or as Clegg better puts it:
'For the left, an obsession with the state. For the right, a worship of the market. But as liberals, we place our faith in people. People with power and opportunity in their hands. Our opponents try to divide us with their outdated labels of left and right. But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal. We are liberals and we own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics. Our politics is the politics of the radical centre. We are governing from the middle, for the middle. In government. On your side.'
@frasernel's misreading is not limited to think tanks or excellent (if right-wing) blogs such as coffee house. The attempt to sell-off our national forests that was hailed by so many free-marketers as a reasonable policy was a prime example of the way this misguided thinking has permeated through the coalition. Cameron may be broadly centrist and to his mind liberal but his government are not so. The longer the coalition governs the more this separation will become apparent. It is already causing both parties pain, by the time the NHS and welfare state have been reformed along free market lines it may very well destroy the coalition.
Nick Clegg is right to try and redefine liberalism, and he is also right about what it should become. If he is to succeed he must engage immediately and aggressively with those who mistakenly see the free-market politics of the 1980's as liberal. Time has proved this to be thoroughly false and pernicious.
004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
liberals+classicalliberals+coalitionfaultlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following: http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6777933/clegg-defines-his-liberalism.thtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/mar/13/nickclegg-liberaldemocrats#block-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was very inspired by the Nick Clegg quote in this @frasernels article and immediately hugely infuriated by what followed.
Cleggs assertion that we must redefine liberty for contemporary British politics is something I passionately believe. My generation is not interested in left/right divisions we are more focused upon results. Tribalism is dying a slow death, politics is moving closer and closer to the centre.
In these circumstances a redefinition of what it is to be liberal is entirely appropriate. But what @frasernels goes on to contend is a prime example of the problematic misuse of this redefinition. Specifically, using it to justify the very ideological obsessions that centrism sought to get beyond. Nelson lays claim to being a liberal and then immediately suggests that "No other device so effectively empowers the masses, or communicates their priorities." as the market.
This classic liberalism led to the free market ideology that I grew up with twenty years ago, it has been a driving force in British politics for two decades and the banking crisis has exposed it as a dangerous fallacy and in no way liberal. The "masses" are in not empowered by the markets. Indeed my generation has been enslaved by the markets - we have paid (with our taxes which the banks traded against, and with our jobs when the markets crashed) for the banking community to get rich and now, when public opinion demands that the markets make recompense, we are ignored.
@frasernels, @asi and all the other free marketeers misunderstand the attempts to redefine liberty and fundamentally misunderstand the electorate. Our generation has been empowered and educated by the internet. We consume a divergence of news sources from across the political spectrum - left and right divisions are increasingly unimportant - what matters is utility and equality. Under these circumstances to be liberal is to endorse a capitalist system but to demand that it works for all. It is to deplore the inefficiency and wastage of local government but demand increased funding for the community groups and artistic centres that fuel progress in society. It is to judge free of ideology, to not see the world as a battle between state and market but to understand and respect both and try and marry the two. Or as Clegg better puts it:
'For the left, an obsession with the state. For the right, a worship of the market. But as liberals, we place our faith in people. People with power and opportunity in their hands. Our opponents try to divide us with their outdated labels of left and right. But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal. We are liberals and we own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics. Our politics is the politics of the radical centre. We are governing from the middle, for the middle. In government. On your side.'
@frasernel's misreading is not limited to think tanks or excellent (if right-wing) blogs such as coffee house. The attempt to sell-off our national forests that was hailed by so many free-marketers as a reasonable policy was a prime example of the way this misguided thinking has permeated through the coalition. Cameron may be broadly centrist and to his mind liberal but his government are not so. The longer the coalition governs the more this separation will become apparent. It is already causing both parties pain, by the time the NHS and welfare state have been reformed along free market lines it may very well destroy the coalition.
Nick Clegg is right to try and redefine liberalism, and he is also right about what it should become. If he is to succeed he must engage immediately and aggressively with those who mistakenly see the free-market politics of the 1980's as liberal. Time has proved this to be thoroughly false and pernicious.
Friday, 18 February 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
red eye / fringe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/08/fringe-theatre-actors-career-path (article, links and final comment)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearsing tonight I had a striking experience.
The final hour of rehearsal ran between 22.30 - 23.30, it was the only time that I could get the actors in the room together (rehearsing a cast of 18 is a total nightmare logistically). As I sat down to rehearse the scene I realized the actor I was working with had bloodshot eyes - the same as I did.
This weekend is a heavy one for me - I rehearsed till 23.30 tonight I'm back in at 10.00 - 18.00 tomorrow then onto the "day" job for 5-6 hrs of rigging, after as much sleep as I can get I then have to tech/dress three one hour Shakespeare productions.
Looking at the actor I realized that I just had to suck it up because whatever her circumstances were she was working just as hard as me.
As I thought back across rehearsal period I realized that there was only one performer that wasn't working a full time day job as well as this project.
In the article Anthony Alderson sings the praises of the fringe as a place of artistic creation. We must be acknowledge and be proud of this.
But more than this all those of us who are out there making the fringe work should be proud that we endure and stay with it when it would be so easy and understandable if we quit and went home to bed. We're tough fuckers (in a privileged first world society kind-of-way)and we should be proud, (and whilst I will be happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better) I don't believe it was this tough for the last couple of generations of theatre makers that came before us.
I'm 26 and I've given myself four years to make decent progress in this industry and if I don't I'll quit - you have to be realistic - this won't pay a mortgage.
Whether I succeed or not I will always be happy and proud I tried.
@georgemaddocks director
004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
red eye / fringe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/08/fringe-theatre-actors-career-path (article, links and final comment)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearsing tonight I had a striking experience.
The final hour of rehearsal ran between 22.30 - 23.30, it was the only time that I could get the actors in the room together (rehearsing a cast of 18 is a total nightmare logistically). As I sat down to rehearse the scene I realized the actor I was working with had bloodshot eyes - the same as I did.
This weekend is a heavy one for me - I rehearsed till 23.30 tonight I'm back in at 10.00 - 18.00 tomorrow then onto the "day" job for 5-6 hrs of rigging, after as much sleep as I can get I then have to tech/dress three one hour Shakespeare productions.
Looking at the actor I realized that I just had to suck it up because whatever her circumstances were she was working just as hard as me.
As I thought back across rehearsal period I realized that there was only one performer that wasn't working a full time day job as well as this project.
In the article Anthony Alderson sings the praises of the fringe as a place of artistic creation. We must be acknowledge and be proud of this.
But more than this all those of us who are out there making the fringe work should be proud that we endure and stay with it when it would be so easy and understandable if we quit and went home to bed. We're tough fuckers (in a privileged first world society kind-of-way)and we should be proud, (and whilst I will be happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better) I don't believe it was this tough for the last couple of generations of theatre makers that came before us.
I'm 26 and I've given myself four years to make decent progress in this industry and if I don't I'll quit - you have to be realistic - this won't pay a mortgage.
Whether I succeed or not I will always be happy and proud I tried.
@georgemaddocks director
Monday, 14 February 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
big soc. / theatre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following:
http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/is-the-big-society-a-small-idea/758
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/02/they_love_it_th.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/feb/14/politics-live-blog#block-18
http://www.theatrepeckham.co.uk/videos.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spent 2009 - 10 working for a organization called Theatre Peckham.
Theatre Peckham is based in the Sceaux Gardens estate in Peckham/Camberwell. In 2009 as we were running a technical rehearsal I went outside to take a call. Stood outside I heard a window smash and saw smoke coming from the nearby block of flats. What was happening was the Lakanal House fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Lakanal_House_tower_block_fire
That night as we ran the show that we had been rehearsing, the artistic director stood up to say a few words. She explained that for her the events of the day showed why Theatre Peckham does what it does. It was, she said: "about community".
Later in 2009 myself and a colleague helped a group of the older kids set up their own production company and write and perform their first play. They got five thousand pounds from Southwark Councils Youth Opportunities fund which went back into the production. Myself and my colleague gave our time for free - it was good experience for us both and we learnt from them as much as they learnt from us.
Was all of this the Big Society? yes it was.
The unpleasant truth is that we cannot just deride the Big Society as an unworkable excuse to justify the cuts. it could and may yet work - working for free has taught me a great deal about myself and about life over the years and (I hope) done some good for the people around me as well. Its been a tremendously positive influence on me and one I would gladly repeat any time.
The crucial error that the Conservatives and David Cameron have made is to buy into the free market rhetoric of the state stifling all innovation, slowing things down and hindering society. What they fail to see the distinction between Local government (which often does all of those things) - and the end organizations that provide for the community with local government money. Theatre Peckham, The Blue Elephant Theatre, Oval House, Peckham Shed, STEP (to name but a few!). These are dynamic organizations that don't have the time, money or inclination to be inefficient. They put up with local government till they get the funding they need and then they go about making a difference to peoples lives.
If the Conservatives want to promote innovation, speed up progress and help people better they should get to grips with local government - not by devolving more power to them but by taking responsibility for what they do and setting out clear objectives to dealing with the endemic waste and inefficiency that is prevalent.
If they want to promote the Big Society then they should strictly ensure that any money not needed to appease the credit markets goes straight back to community organizations that have been forming and maintaining the Big Society for decades.
Cameron has launched the Big Society three times now, each time it bombs with both the electorate and his party and damages him. He keeps trying because for all his faults he is fundamentally a conservative centrist and he wants the Big Society to free us from the state. What this government is yet to understand is that the Big Society already exists and it cares as little about the state as he does.
What it needs is money.
003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
big soc. / theatre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following:
http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/is-the-big-society-a-small-idea/758
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/02/they_love_it_th.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/feb/14/politics-live-blog#block-18
http://www.theatrepeckham.co.uk/videos.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spent 2009 - 10 working for a organization called Theatre Peckham.
Theatre Peckham is based in the Sceaux Gardens estate in Peckham/Camberwell. In 2009 as we were running a technical rehearsal I went outside to take a call. Stood outside I heard a window smash and saw smoke coming from the nearby block of flats. What was happening was the Lakanal House fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Lakanal_House_tower_block_fire
That night as we ran the show that we had been rehearsing, the artistic director stood up to say a few words. She explained that for her the events of the day showed why Theatre Peckham does what it does. It was, she said: "about community".
Later in 2009 myself and a colleague helped a group of the older kids set up their own production company and write and perform their first play. They got five thousand pounds from Southwark Councils Youth Opportunities fund which went back into the production. Myself and my colleague gave our time for free - it was good experience for us both and we learnt from them as much as they learnt from us.
Was all of this the Big Society? yes it was.
The unpleasant truth is that we cannot just deride the Big Society as an unworkable excuse to justify the cuts. it could and may yet work - working for free has taught me a great deal about myself and about life over the years and (I hope) done some good for the people around me as well. Its been a tremendously positive influence on me and one I would gladly repeat any time.
The crucial error that the Conservatives and David Cameron have made is to buy into the free market rhetoric of the state stifling all innovation, slowing things down and hindering society. What they fail to see the distinction between Local government (which often does all of those things) - and the end organizations that provide for the community with local government money. Theatre Peckham, The Blue Elephant Theatre, Oval House, Peckham Shed, STEP (to name but a few!). These are dynamic organizations that don't have the time, money or inclination to be inefficient. They put up with local government till they get the funding they need and then they go about making a difference to peoples lives.
If the Conservatives want to promote innovation, speed up progress and help people better they should get to grips with local government - not by devolving more power to them but by taking responsibility for what they do and setting out clear objectives to dealing with the endemic waste and inefficiency that is prevalent.
If they want to promote the Big Society then they should strictly ensure that any money not needed to appease the credit markets goes straight back to community organizations that have been forming and maintaining the Big Society for decades.
Cameron has launched the Big Society three times now, each time it bombs with both the electorate and his party and damages him. He keeps trying because for all his faults he is fundamentally a conservative centrist and he wants the Big Society to free us from the state. What this government is yet to understand is that the Big Society already exists and it cares as little about the state as he does.
What it needs is money.
Friday, 11 February 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nokia wp7 / theatretech 110211
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following: http://gizmodo.com/#!5757649/nokia-and-microsoft-are-officially-new-bffs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia joining with Windows five years ago would surely have been a geeks violent wet dream (provided of course Windows had released WP7 back then #geek #notashamed) but now it feels more like a plucky move from two companies on the slide.
Theatre? We'll get there, I promise.
Nokia's got incredible hardware Microsoft unparalleled software but they both have a neutered internet presence and are playing serious catchup.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12343597 - Bing may be standard on Nokias WP7 carrying kit - thats a serious hindrance, practically its a crap ver. of Google which ubergeeks are already noting is not hugely efficient.
The future is online and as a consequence the battle is over who can get you online best and how well online syncs with your device.
Which brings us to theatre - I'm currently directing a radio play - its got a cast of 18+ - all significant parts that need to be rehearsed and whats more rehearsed a couple of times each in big groups.
Casting and scheduling have been a huge task, and all have been done using GMail and the Google App's suite - we share a online calendar, all documents are shared between me and the producer using docs and obviously everything else is handled by the e-mail app.
Our hardware is total dogshit - 2 x Toshiba Satellite Pros - one on XP one on Ubuntu Linux - but it doesn't matter as long as we can get them online all the processing and system strain is taken up there. We've achieved with these machines what could only have been done with small server or networked NAS in the past - and even then only with some serious IT capabilities.
We could run an office with these apps - and its all free.
The one piece of good kit I have is my HTC Desire/Android2.2 - I'm using it as a 3G Dongle right now. It effortlessly syncs with the Google App's - and means I'm 95% on top of my shit 100% of the time.
Word gets around - I had a minor altercation on FB aggressively advising someone on phones the other day (I'm a bit of a cock like that) but the majority view fell with me that Android and HTC were the way forward - industry's pick up on these things. If a tech adverse industry like theatre is starting to realize that Android/Google/HTC is the way forward you can rest assured that the rest of the word has known for a while.
What all this means is better rehearsals, happier casts, more focus on the art, which ultimately is the whole point.
002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nokia wp7 / theatretech 110211
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following: http://gizmodo.com/#!5757649/nokia-and-microsoft-are-officially-new-bffs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia joining with Windows five years ago would surely have been a geeks violent wet dream (provided of course Windows had released WP7 back then #geek #notashamed) but now it feels more like a plucky move from two companies on the slide.
Theatre? We'll get there, I promise.
Nokia's got incredible hardware Microsoft unparalleled software but they both have a neutered internet presence and are playing serious catchup.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12343597 - Bing may be standard on Nokias WP7 carrying kit - thats a serious hindrance, practically its a crap ver. of Google which ubergeeks are already noting is not hugely efficient.
The future is online and as a consequence the battle is over who can get you online best and how well online syncs with your device.
Which brings us to theatre - I'm currently directing a radio play - its got a cast of 18+ - all significant parts that need to be rehearsed and whats more rehearsed a couple of times each in big groups.
Casting and scheduling have been a huge task, and all have been done using GMail and the Google App's suite - we share a online calendar, all documents are shared between me and the producer using docs and obviously everything else is handled by the e-mail app.
Our hardware is total dogshit - 2 x Toshiba Satellite Pros - one on XP one on Ubuntu Linux - but it doesn't matter as long as we can get them online all the processing and system strain is taken up there. We've achieved with these machines what could only have been done with small server or networked NAS in the past - and even then only with some serious IT capabilities.
We could run an office with these apps - and its all free.
The one piece of good kit I have is my HTC Desire/Android2.2 - I'm using it as a 3G Dongle right now. It effortlessly syncs with the Google App's - and means I'm 95% on top of my shit 100% of the time.
Word gets around - I had a minor altercation on FB aggressively advising someone on phones the other day (I'm a bit of a cock like that) but the majority view fell with me that Android and HTC were the way forward - industry's pick up on these things. If a tech adverse industry like theatre is starting to realize that Android/Google/HTC is the way forward you can rest assured that the rest of the word has known for a while.
What all this means is better rehearsals, happier casts, more focus on the art, which ultimately is the whole point.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------
001
--------------------------------------------------------------------
function of bloggers - 110211
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Following - http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2011/feb/10/bloggers-review-previews-theatre - http://distantaggravation.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-could-have-screamed-but-instead-i.html - http://oughttobeclowns.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-to-matt-trueman.html - http://parabasis.typepad.com/blog/2011/02/reviewing-previews.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impassioned and interesting debate re. the practice of reviewing previews. Little to be added save this -
It is pernicious to attempt to apply a code of conduct, or indeed any form of standards or structure to the process of reviewing over the internet. The choice rests with the reader. As a example - I knew that I would not like Spiderman: Turn off the Dark after this http://parabasis.typepad.com/blog/2011/01/spider-man-turn-off-the-dark.html Whereas I knew it would be unlikely to be judged as excellent by a more mainstream audience after this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/8306871/Spider-Man-Turn-off-the-Dark-the-not-so-super-hero-of-Broadway.html -
The internet revolution allowed us to become our own editors - we must trust audiences to do this.
Why this is important is better explained through the work of Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw on videogames over at The Escapist. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1968-Viewers-Choice-Duke-Nukem-Forever By being cynically honest (although obviously passionate about the industry he reviews) Yahtzee gives a accurate run-down of the standards of the games he reviews - fanboys, developers and industry PR don't appreciate the lack of hype - but for a particular end reader (who is none of the above) his work punctures a industry that for too long has been self referential and wildly inaccurate about its products.
Internet blogging must remain a free market to allow a free narrative to permeate - as soon as we decide to start trying to impose practices upon each others blogs (however noble and well meaning we are) we are taking a step towards neutering the very thing that makes the internet and blogging important.
We must trust the readers judgement, otherwise we end up with this anachronistic horseshit: http://www.thedaily.com/
Thanks
@georgemaddocks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)