30 replies to this topic

[Ari]

The following posts were posted to the old board and did not make the move over here, so here they are:

by To the Pointe, Friday Jan. 14, 3:20 PM:

Mel Johnson, on Jan 14 2005, 12:55 PM, said:

And how would you put a warning on such a forum? 

"WARNING!  99% of everything on this forum is crap!"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

  


I feel that the current level of moderation is correct and ethical.

With no disrespect to anyone intended (and no assumptions made that anyone would do this)...

The problem with "I spoke to X dancer and they said" is that first, how do we know that you really did speak to X dancer, second that X dancer is telling the truth and not interjecting their own speculations (or purposely causing a problem), and that X dancer really wanted this information spread on the internet. If X dancer truly wants their own information shared, let them log on and share it.

Unless it is in writing or confirmed by more than one credible source, as Mr. Johnson so eloquently put it "is crap."

I enjoy this board (and Ballet Talk for Dancers), because I can trust it.

I think that the reputation of this community is far more valuable than the need to have its curiosity peeked.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Oberon, Friday Jan. 14, 3:37 PM:

Once on an opera list, someone wrote a scathing review of Soprano X in a certain role and then a rebuttal appeared, signed by "Soprano X". But the rebuttal included a factual error that made us feel quite certain that the person calling herself "Soprano X" was not really her...and later this proved to be true. It was just one of her fans, defending her.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bart, Friday Jan. 14, 4:08 PM:

RE the gossip issue.  I agree with To the Pointe: " I enjoy this board because I can trust it. "  

Each of us seems to have a much higher standard when evaluating -- and often condemning --  other people's gossip than when passing on our own own.  That's what makes the slope so slippery.  PLEASE keep things as they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by carbro, Friday Jan. 14, 4:25 PM:

bart, on Jan 14 2005, 04:08 PM, said:

Each of us seems to have a much higher standard when evaluating -- and often condemning --  other people's gossip than when passing on our own own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you, bart, for that very sharp insight.  Of course, I never deal in gossip, just in facts.

--Carley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by sandik, Friday Jan. 14, 4:53 PM:

I would suggest that you leave the current rules of engagement alone for now, and see how things shake out.  The gods know we all gossip, on many different levels, but I appreciate the fact-based nature of this site.  It seems to encourage a more thought-provoking quality to the discussion that I enjoy.

Also, frankly, I think the logistics of the transition will be complex enough that you might not want to challenge yourself with a stylistic change simultaneously.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Leigh Witchel, Friday Jan. 14, 7:25 PM:

One other point about gossip we've learned from experience.  It's competitive.  We all try to top each other's stories, or scoop them.  That's another reason to refrain from sourcing dancers - it looks like showing off.  Then someone else has to obliquely hint at an even BETTER friendship or source, and off we go.  That sort of competitiveness, along with "gotta-be-the-first-to-post-itis" has caused problems here before.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Victoria Leigh, Friday Jan. 14, 8:19 PM:

To the Pointe's statement about trust says it all. People can trust this board, and I think it should stay that way. If we open it up to gossip, that will no longer be the case.

[Farrell Fan]

Ballet companies put on the works of Mark Morris, Twyla Tharp, Martha Graham, and Paul Taylor. As I understand it, this is the kind of "crossover" dance that Ballet Alert! was formed to warn against. It's also what has raised concerns about John Rockwell as NY Times dance critic. Nevertheless, the rigid division on our board between ballet and other forms of dance has occasionally led to confusion and acrimony. We might not like it, but it only makes sense that if ABT, NYCB, POB, or any other ballet company puts on the work of a "modern" choreographer, it has to be talked about on our regular Ballet Talk forum and not relegated to the Modern subcategory.

[carbro]

I guess the standard will remain that if the company is known as a ballet company (e.g., San Francisco Ballet, American Ballet Theater, Dance Theater of Harlem), anything they perform is fair game in the main section of the board.  But Paul Taylor Dance Company, Alvin Ailey, etc., would remain in their "special" forum.

We'll deal with it when Taylor's company remounts Petipa's Sleeping Beauty.

[Amy Reusch]

For me, personally, not giving "modern" equal footing is one of Ballet Talk's biggest shortcomings...  I understand the bias, but I still feel it to be a major shortcoming.  Perhaps if Ballet Alert had not superceded alt.arts.ballet which discussed both on equal footing, I'd never consider it a shortcoming.   If onyone could tell me what the "modern" equivalent of Ballet Alert is, I'd be happy to subscribe to it and leave drop the subject here.   Because there is cross-over between the two worlds -- or rather from modern into ballet -- whether we approve of it or not, is it so wrong to be kept apprised of the goings on in Modern?  Sure, we have that subcategory, but it's so clearly "sub" that not much discussion has been spawned there.  Not all of what we find interesting is purely ballet but there are issues common to theatrical dance in general, and I'm sad that the thinking from the "modern" community isn't shared with us.


And I guess I'd like to amend my earlier suggestion about rearranging the "pro shop" over to the viewers side of the board... while I think the design issues are interesting to the viewers, perhaps the technical craft belongs with the "do-ers".  

However, I still would like to see the administration on this board rather than on the "for dancers" board.  Think of all the SPAC discussion.

And of course, I'm not encouraging malicious gossip.  Sometimes "official" news is so censured that there is less to it.   Is there another board someone wants to point me to where the bits that don't make the press releases are discussed?

[Dale]

Amy, you've hit the modern nail on the head in that we have a modern dance section, but it doesn't get much action.  So, my thinking is, why expand it much furthur?  I like the ballet-central theme of the board.  So much of what I read in mainstream dance magazines (if there is such a thing) is that "it's all good."  And while it might be all good it is not all the same.  I like that Ballet Talk is a safe haven for those of us who want to think about ballet as a separate art form.  However, if we want to post about modern dance we have the separate forum.

There are other dance boards that combine the two and are easily found by a good search engine.  However, most of the other boards I've come across have felt compelled to have gossip policies such as ours.  Several people on the board have asked, "If I can't find out this bit of news here, where can I?" And while I understand that line of thinking, I think the cons of "gossip" outweigh the pros of it in the long run (see Leigh's post regarding the competitive nature of in-the-know posts and the post by To The Pointe).

[Amy Reusch]

Perhaps I should make clear that I'm not in strong disagreement with the other posts, only that I wanted to see the issues "discussed out".  I think many good points have been made, particularly about the vortex qualities of gossip, malicious or otherwise.  Is "scuttlebut" as negative a word as gossip?

[BalletNut]

OK, I'm going to be a flip-flopper and allow my position to twist in the wind according to the tide of popular opinion.   After reading everyone's posts on the gossip issue, it is indeed a slippery slope, and I agree, it would degrade the credibility of this board; it'd be harder to tell what was substantiated or not. Besides, I was looking at an old Dance Mag, and there was a letter in Linda Hamilton's advice column from an NYCB dancer who was, shall we say, unhappy with what was being written about him/her on this board. I guess the point is, to the dancer being talked about, we're brutal enough even with the no-gossip rule.  

[Farrell Fan]

Nobody asked me, but I think Ballet Talk lost something when Ballet Talk for Dancers was split off from it. I suppose it's too late to do anything about that now, since the Dancers board has developed a distinctive, chatty character of its own. But I used to love going from reading a lengthy, erudite account of the performance-of-the-year the night before at NYCB, to a heartrending plea for help about bunions.

[BW]

Farrell Fan, I'm with you. I think there are many plusses to having the boards combined. It offered a more complete spectrum to dancers, students, balletomanes and the rest of us.

Periodically, I can't help myself and remind the BT for D readers to keep their eyes on Ballet Talk, as well. :yes:

[Mel Johnson]

Amy Reusch, on Jan 16 2005, 02:08 AM, said:

Is "scuttlebut" as negative a word as gossip?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Scuttlebutt" is the naval equivalent of rumor or gossip.  When translated in context, it is exactly the same as "water-cooler talk".  The "butt" was the freshwater carrier for the old sailing ships, and sailors who needed a drink would congregate there.  In the evening, when the rum ration was issued, then the entire crew would be there, as the Serjeants-at-Arms were to mix the potent potable with a bit of water to keep those with "no head for spirits" from becoming over-boisterous or ill.  In the Royal Navy, they often squeezed their lime ration into the drink as well and added a little sugar, usually as molasses - the birth of "grog", as the practice was introduced by Adm. Edward Vernon, who was called "Old Grog" from the oiled silk grosgrain raincoat he continually wore as a service uniform.  And of course, too much "grog" can make you "groggy"!

[carbro]

And the sailors were called Limeys because of the abundant use of limes as disinfectant for suspect potables.

But back to topic, I miss the talk that left when we split, and I miss some of the posters who have focused on the Dancers' board to the detriment of this one.  But I also remember days when there was  just too much to handle, and I had to read it all, and oh, my god . . . it's 4:00 a.m. and I'm still reading!!!

Neither solution is perfect.  Every now and then I tiptoe over *There* and snoop around.

[sandik]

carbro, on Jan 16 2005, 09:56 PM, said:

And the sailors were called Limeys because of the abundant use of limes as disinfectant for suspect potables.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought it was because they were given limes as a way to ward off scurvy.

[carbro]

Yup!  You're right.  I was confused.    Oh, those versatile citrus fruits!

[Mel Johnson]

Yup, anti-scorbutics.  The rum works its own way with any nasty old infections that get in there.  And remember, this is 18th-century health and nutrition.  They have absolutely no idea that the little "animalcules and fomites" cause disease.  Germ theory doesn't come along until much later.

[Leigh Witchel]

I'm really glad people are saying what they think - we may not be able to please everyone, but we're better off knowing what you think.

With that, I'm going to ask we get off the subject of citrus fruits and scurvy and back on-topic.