Symphony audiences have been "skewered" toward older folks for a long time, ever since local symphony groups stgarted popping up after world war II (many of them led by refugee European conductors looking for a job!) And younger folks have been regularly replacing the older people for over 60 years, so your assertion is basically untrue. Did you bother with any research (American Symphony Orchestra League and other sources) to find out if that statement wasa actually based in reality?
And Sanford reveals the surface of the hypocrisy that undergirded the phony "stands" and opportunistic "convictions." Sometimes, Mr. Sanford, it's better to keep quiet than to say anything when asked to characterize others. More often than not, you end up describing yourself.
If you think John Cena is a great wrestler, I've got a bridge to sell you. Actually I should have written "wrestler", for those scripted encounters in the "ring" bear little relationship to wrestling. They resemble nothing so much as the pretend tea parties that little girls like to assemble at a certain age. But that Hunter should be drawn to them is no accident. They also resemble libertarian politics, with its scripted responses and never-ending battles with straw men. If Ron Paul could manage to shed the people around him who are determined to use him (and it now appears that Hunter will lead the pack, which is sad, because a man of serious purpose will be left behind in the debris), he might have an honest chance to serve his country in a meaningful way.
Hunter is far from alone in being thrilled by Cena and his buddies. Millions of gay men watch every night as well, and for good reason. Most of the supporters and promoters behind the scenes are gay, as are a large number of the actors, which is not to say anything bad about them or those who watch. But it does tell us a good deal about why Jack is so keen, no?
This is one of the most pathetic reviews I've read in a long time, although perhaps it should not come as a surprise after the Spoleto reviews showed such a deterioration in quality compared to past years. After the reviewer said that Emile de Becque and Nellie Forbush's relationship was thrown into "inexplicable" turmoil, it was clear that not only had he not had his listening ears on, but that he was probably blind as well. Then, to spend so much time and ink on the losts potential of "Younger than Springtime"....well, it went from bad to worse.
Over the past two years, this paper's arts coverage has gone to hell, to put it bluntly. For a while, the entire community could look to CP for insight in understanding challenges. But superficiality has swamped the coverage and incompetence and ignorance (as well as pretension - see under Sharbaugh, Patrick) have drained the commentary pieces of any depth.
Perhaps this wasn't a great production of South Pacific, but this review is so lame that it is impossible for the reader to get any reliable sense of what actually happened on the stage. And whatever its failings, the production deserved as much seriousness from the reviewer as the performers put into presenting it.
Is this really the best that the CP can do? Is this the arts editor's reponsibility or the publisher's? Has the paper given up on its community in the face of economic challenges (for example, not a word in recent weeks about the Charleston Symphony and its probable demise - why?)
At last, someone whose mindless enthusiasms (somewhat bleached in Mr. Sharbaugh's prose by his almost total unwillingness to actually take a critical stance on some of Spoleto's misfires) nearly equal Mr. Koob's. Amazing.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper