JG

[sdrick]

Does anyone else find the followup ridiculous? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/insider/margaritaville-negative-theater-review-pans.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_cu_20180321&nl=theater-update&nlid=68879462&ref=img&te=1

[Danielle49]

As someone who once worked in arts criticism, I can't believe Green felt the need to write a piece defending what he wrote. He says "it's my job description," so why doesn't he just let what he wrote speak for itself? There's nothing more boring, circular, or self-indulgent than an art critic writing about the parameters of being an art critic.

[haterobics]

WTF is JG?

[10086sunset]

I can't believe how obnoxious this is. 

I'll say this for Mr. Green, he's consistent. 

 

[sdrick]

Haterobics, click on the link and there is your answer.

[TheSassySam]

How lazy is this post? 

A simple, "Jesse Green reacts to his Margaritaville review's criticism" would suffice. 

It eliminates confusion and sets up a discussion. 

[jpbran]

You'll also get more traction with your post/subject if people know what it is. (though I did click, so...) 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

It's probably done on purpose because nobody knows what a thread titled "JG" would be about so it forces us to click on it and the OP didn't do much to rectify the confusion thus forcing us to click on the link and read a bit about it. Then we're already invested.

[BroadwayConcierge]

I was expecting "JG" to be about Jonathan Groff.

But also, I think Jesse Green's article is hilarious. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Honestly, I haven't seen the show, but it seems like one of those where I would have felt compelled to just write "No thank you" as a review.

[raddersons]

Jesse Green's pan's are always far more vicious than shows deserve. I understand when he was writing reviews for Vulture, but NYTimes reviews especially can make or break a show. At least when Ben Brantley doesn't like something, he's eloquent. 

[sdrick]

Like Beetlejuice, it's best not to speak his name. 

[haterobics]

sdrick said: "Haterobics, click on the link and there is your answer."

And waste one of my free NYT articles for the month?! No chance.

[HogansHero]

@Danielle, with your putative pedigree, one would think you would know that JG did not write this because he "felt the need." One would also think that with such a pedigree you would be familiar with the long tradition of "art [and other] critic[s] writing about the parameters of being an art [or other] critic, including major contributions from some of the most respected minds of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries (at least). That it seems you are oblivious to these things makes one question your pedigree. 

@hateroblics, so that this thread is not a complete waste, let me teach you how to avoid using a precious click [and as a result, make them far less precious]: instead of clicking on the link, right click on it and then click on "open link in incognito window" or similar language [and procedure] in the browser of your choice. And voila the link opens with the idiotic paywall none the wiser. 

[BenjaminNicholas2]

I don't see an issue here.  He called crap, crap.  He spoke the truth.

Parrothead opinions on Broadway theater/critics is a nearly laughable thought.  The majority of the folks I've met who love JB are also those I have little to say to for being Trump supporters.

 

I hope this show closes quickly and the talented cast finds jobs in better, longer running shows.

[Andy51]

@hateroblics, so that this thread is not a complete waste, let me teach you how to avoid using a precious click [and as a result, make them far less precious]: instead of clicking on the link, right click on it and then click on "open link in incognito window" or similar language [and procedure] in the browser of your choice. And voilathe link opens with the idiotic paywall none the wiser."

And I would encourage people to not follow the method Hogan outlines for gaming the system.  The NYT is doing vital reporting that is helping preserve the transparency essential to our democracy (in addition to offering other great content).  They need paid subscriptions to do this.  If you want to take what they are offering for free, fine.  But it is pernicious to effectively steal content from them.

 

 

[smidge]

BroadwayConcierge said: "I was expecting "JG" to be about Jonathan Groff.

But also, I think Jesse Green's article is hilarious."

Yup, Jonathan Groff, Josh Groban and John Gallagher were crushed when they opened this thread.

[After Eight]

I say, good for the Parrotheads!

Would any of them ever write as ludicrously pretentious a phrase as "because the point is to let readers navigate by a steady aesthetic star."

And we're supposed to be guided by someone who spouts such bilge?

I'll take a compass, thanks.

[sdrick]

HogansHero said: "@Danielle, with your putative pedigree, one would think you would know that JG did not write this because he "felt the need." One would also think that with such a pedigree you would be familiar with the long tradition of "art [and other] critic[s] writing about the parameters of being an art [or other] critic, including major contributions from some of the most respected minds of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries (at least). That it seems you are oblivious to these things makes one question your pedigree.

I would agree with you if he wrote with any intellect or scholarship.   I assume that you are referring to Dramatic Criticism, and this ain't it.   Kenneth Tynan, George Jean Nathan, Walter Kerr, Alexander Woolcott, Stanley Kauffmann, Robert Brustein wrote dramatic criticism.  Being a newspaper critic is very different.  For a more comprehensive discussion, yet a simple read, I would recommend David Cote's column.  David is a critic that don't always agree with, but he has some integrity.  http://www.theatermania.com/new-york-city-theater/tmu/11-2012/the-role-of-theater-criticism-_63676.html

 

[HogansHero]

Andy51 said: "And I would encourage people to not follow the method Hogan outlinesfor gaming the system. The NYT is doing vital reporting that is helping preserve the transparency essential to our democracy (in addition to offering other great content). They need paid subscriptions to do this. If you want to take what they are offering for free, fine. But it is pernicious to effectively steal content from them."

A few points. First, it's neither here nor there but I have a paid subscription. Second, in the 21st Century, companies make money by providing tools, not content. Third, if you understand the Times model, you are not "stealing." They want their content monetized so they will let you access that content for free via links, although they count the first 10 towards your "free" clicks on their site (which, note, is many more if you have multiple devices.) This is in contrast to the Journal model where you would in fact be stealing to use a workaround or hack, and I have not and would not post such a method. It is not pernicious to give them the clicks they want. Fourth, everyone is not going to subscribe, and lecturing to someone who does not about going in incognito is no different than telling someone it is immoral to pick up a paper someone leaves behind on the subway and read it.

[Andy51]

A few points. First, it's neither here nor there but I have a paid subscription. Second, in the 21st Century, companies make money by providing tools, not content. Third, if you understand the Times model, you are not "stealing." They want their content monetized so they will let you access that content for free via links, although they count the first 10 towards your "free" clicks on their site (which, note, is many more if you have multiple devices.) This is in contrast to the Journal model where you would in fact be stealing to use a workaround or hack, and I have not and would not post such a method. It is not pernicious to give them the clicks they want. Fourth, everyone is not going to subscribe, and lecturing to someone who does not about going in incognito is no different thantelling someone it is immoral to pick up a paper someone leaves behind on the subway and read it."

The Times reported last month that 60% of their revenue comes from subscriptions.  People subscribe for the content.  If enough people accessed that content for free, the company would not survive.  You are right that someone who accesses content through your method but who would not otherwise subscribe does not harm the company any more than the person who picks up a paper someone else has left behind.  But you are describing the method in a forum that reaches thousands of people, many of whom might otherwise be motivated to subscribe.  The more apt analogy would be your making thousands of photocopies of the paper and leaving them all around town for people to read.  And that does strike me as morally problematic.

 

[HogansHero]

@Andy51 photocopying for non-personal use is also illegal, whereas doing what I suggest is both legal and consistent with the intrinsic engineering the Times has designed. 

Websites (and brick and mortar businesses) makes choices about what to give away and what to charge for. That's what the Times has done here. An entry level software engineer could change that in a New York minute if that was judged to be the way to go. 

I think at the root of our "disagreement" on this is your statement "People subscribe for the content." That is contrary to the current reality: people pay for delivery systems, not content. I subscribe so I can nimbly access the paper's content richly and quickly, rather than clumsily and more slowly. That's the selling point. 

I think it is sometimes hard to wrap our heads around the digital world we live in unless we grew up in it. (I didn't.) And analog analogies sometimes help. I can walk around town and eat dinner by picking up samples being handed out in groceries and restaurants. The reason they hand out those samples is because data shows that it whets the appetite and leads to purchases. When I sit down in a restaurant or take food home, eating is an easier and richer experience.

[Lot666]

TheSassySam said: "How lazy is this post?"

Very. Ridiculous, even. Could the OP really not muster any more than a nebulous "JG"?

[dmwnc1959]

haterobics said: "WTF is JG?"

 

Someone was apparently too lazy to type out the ACTUAL meaning of whatever it is, or an accurate thread title, so now over the coming days thousands of people will have to click on the thread to find out WTF JG stands for or what this thread is about. 

 

 

 

[dmwnc1959]

TheSassySam said: "How lazy is this post?

A simple, "Jesse Green reacts to hisMargaritaville review's criticism" would suffice.

It eliminates confusion and sets up a discussion."

 

THANK YOU!!!