Jay Richardson, him of Scotsman reviewing fame, has replied to my original blog post regarding reviewers, which I've cut and paste below (he couldn't get the 'comment' facility to work). This, theoretically, is a review of 'reviewing the reviewers'. Yes, my head is hurting now.

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

Hi Stephen. Enjoyed your set the other night. And most of this post is spot-on. But I must take mild issue with a couple of your points as I have pressing work I'm procrastinating from.

Firstly, I think that if the review word count allows the space (and frequently it doesn't) a reviewer can have an obligation to note external factors outwith the comic's control. While acknowledging that it may not be the performer's fault, the reviews are primarily for the punters (specifically at this festival and visiting these venues in the case of many publications) and if they're paying a decent amount of money for a venue where water leaks from the roof every night and affects enjoyment of the gig, that is potentially worth inclusion. Playing devil's advocate, why shouldn't reviews of shows in consistently hot venues note the liquid or confectionary bribes that the comic supplies the audience with to ease their suffering? Sadly, it may have far more bearing on their enjoyment of the show than all of that comic's years on the circuit.

Also, if there's an especially drunken heckler who affects the direction of the show (ie the comic announces that they're dropping a large portion of it to deal with this idiot) it should be worth noting that this was not a typical performance.

Secondly, in the case of John Gordillo's show, I can only speak for the Scotsman. While they obviously respond to buzz about specific shows, that particular review was scheduled long before the Chortle review appeared, so it's not always a case of being dedicated followers of fashion. The online nature of Chortle means that their reviews can appear the following day or so, whereas the same cannot be true of a newspaper where a multitude of factors go into deciding what goes into any day's coverage.

The critical process of reviewing comedy undoubtedly should come under greater scrutiny. But, and I may be wrong here, there seems to have been a greater degree of 'student publication' bashing at this year's Fringe from comics as well. Much of it is doubtless justified when, as you say, a cast-iron headliner like Danny Bhoy or Glenn Wool receive an ill-informed one star review (though is it unknown for a top comic to turn up on the night, decide they don't like the audience and essentially take the money and run? Or begin coasting once they've had all the national reviewers in?). Anyway, I imagine there's very few comics out there who've turned down quoting a ridiculously hyperbolic five star review on their posters because they question the reviewer's experience and credentials.

Yours,
Jay Richardson

Leave a comment • Trackback (0)

Comments:

No Comments for this post yet...

Leave a comment:

Name:

Email:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.

Site/Url:

Your URL will be displayed.

Comment text:

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>

Options:

Auto-BR (Line breaks become <br />)
Remember me (Set cookies for name, email and url)
Allow message form (Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Trackback address for this post:

http://blogs.chortle.co.uk/htsrv/trackback.php/1563

Trackbacks:

No Trackbacks for this post yet...