The Brooklyn Academy of Music declares they no longer wish to be reviewed by Dance Insider! Is this legal? Can they bar a critic from entering the theatre? I imagine that Dance Insider must be devastated at the prospect of not being able to critique Does anybody know if this is a first? I’ve never read of any publication or writer being asked not to review? :confused:

Dance Insider

I am so upset about the Brooklyn Academy of Music declining to be reviewed by Dance Insider; I’ve imposed a self-imposed ban on myself from reviewing James Kudelka’s ‘contract’ when it premieres at BAM next April! Yes, you read right I am barring myself from entering the theatres of BAM! I do this even though I only review ballet for fun. I believe this is a first in the history of ballet reviewing for profit and non-profit.
Too bad I will not be able to see it. Does anybody know if ‘the contract’ will be coming out on DVD? Or perhaps, I’ll luck out and it will be appearing soon at a theatre near me! Is anybody else with me? I say we all stop reviewing BAM!!!

<small>[ 14 December 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Michael Goldbarth ]</small>

An early Christmas present for us?

Happy Egg Nog! I can’t believe an organization would make the statement that BAM did and then not provide a reason??? But then again, I stopped trying to figure out the world a long, long time ago. I look forward to the day I’ll be able to review ballet for the best company PAST, PRESENT, or FUTURE: The National Ballet of Heaven.

I totally disagree with David’s caustic comments on Michael Goldbarth’s ability as a critic and look forward to reading more reviews from Michael Goldbarth. He is without a doubt a wizard with words! His insights into ballet are nothing short of brilliant! If only I had access to his Muse! :p

Does anyone know exactly what the above means? I assume perhaps this means they will no longer issue ‘free’ press tickets to critics of Dance Insider. It would obviously be impossible and perhaps illegal to refuse entry by a critic of Dance Insider.

I'm not sure what it means, nor do I know exactly what precipitated this situation, but I think it's a shame. Dance Insider, for those unfamiliar with it, provides well-written, timely reviews (and more) that cover the spectrum of dance. It's an important service.

Of course, I agree with all of the above. What happened to ‘freedom of the press?’ Have the Republicans taken over BAM? This is just plain wrong. Does anybody have any further insight into this?

I can't comment on the BAM matter, but two things stand out for me regarding "Dance Insider". Firstly, a senior New York dance administrator was very supportive of DI, because of the breadth of their coverage, often going to places that others would not. Secondly, their extensive coverage of the Martha Graham court cases was one of the best pieces of dance journalism I have seen.

However, in connection with the BAM matter, Paul also claims that "Dance Insider" is: "...the largest dance-specific publication in the world." Comparing a free, online entity with a paper magazine has some problems anyway, but Paul's statistics do not support his thesis, in my view:

- Paul mentions 500,000 hits for DI in October. Hits are often used as a website traffic measure, but one needs to bear in mind that each webpage can generate between 4 and 10 hits. Thus 500,000 hits converts to 50-120,000 pages viewed.

- Paul mentions 50,000 visitors and, bearing in mind the pages viewed number, I surmise that the visitor numbers includes repeat visits, rather than unique visitors ie the actual readership is much lower than 50,000, bearing in mind that DI is updated many times each month.

- Th monthly sales of "Dance Magazine" in 2003 were around 65,000 per issue (MPA), which probably means around 1+ million pages read and at least 100,000 readers each month, assuming that many copies will be read by several people.

- For the record, both the hits and visits recorded for CriticalDance in November were several times larger than the figures quoted for
DI and we are probably not the most visited dance website.

<small>[ 17 December 2004, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Stuart Sweeney ]</small>

I think it is perfectly all right for BAM to decide that they do not "want' any more reviews by a particular magazine, but i don't quite no what that means. I have decided today that i don't want to catch influenza. I have also decided that i don't want to get hit by a truck, etc... I have also decided that I want some things for christmas.
Perhaps what they meant to say is that they have elected not to give backstage passes or interivewer access to their performers/staff? Perhaps there is a personal situation that we are unaware of, and I suppose most organizations can choose to limit access if they want, but i think they have their hands full preventing a review from going to print if it is from a paying audience member.

Maybe it just means they will no longer give press comps to reviewers from Dance Insider.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a disagreement is in private.

I know of several situations on the US West Coast in which dance organizations discourage critics from reviewing their performances by:

- Not offering the critics media comps and access;

- Omitting the critics from the invitation list;

- Asking the publisher or editor not to send the critics.

In each of these cases, the trust between the company and the critic so deteriorated that the company had no choice. But in none of these cases did the critic or the publication make a public deal about it.

<small>[ 17 December 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Azlan ]</small>

I assume the publications in question obviously wrote something uncomplimentary that the companies disagreed with. As long as the criticism was fair and backed up with information supporting the critique, I don’t see a problem. Have you ever heard of a movie company asking a publication not to critique their films? The public has a right to know. Reading a critique can save time and money – assuming the opinion of the reviewer can be trusted.

In danger of oversimplifying, from the point of view of the companies, the critics were unfairly biased and unnecessarily rude in their reviews, failing to see that others may have different or more accessible tastes. From the critics' viewpoint, they felt it was their duty to inform and educate the audience that what they were watching was beneath art.