WA Grand Finalists - Storm The Stage

Tue, 10 Oct 2006, 09:50 am

Melz19 posts in thread

Congratulations to all WA Semi Finalists in the Storm The Stage national competition for 16-19 year olds.

The WA State Finals were held on the weekend at WAAPA and the finalists will be competing in the Storm The Stage National Grand Final presented by Burswood Entertainment Complex on Friday November 3rd - you can book your tickets through the Storm The Stage website: www.stormthestage.com.au
For more details on the National Grand Final you can also go to www.tazpublicity.com

CONGRATULATIONS TO:

Drama:
Claire Lovering
Kirilee Lennerts
Milu Shurman
Montana Perrin

Musical Theatre:
Briallen Clarke
Dara Hartman
Julian Goncalves
Tyler Jones
Anthony Pepe

Thread (19 posts)

Threaded Flat

MelzTue, 10 Oct 2006, 09:50 am

Musical Theatre:
Briallen Clarke
Dara Hartman
Julian Goncalves
Tyler Jones
Anthony Pepe

Walter PlingeWed, 11 Oct 2006, 11:04 am

storm the stage judges

hi Congrats to the finalists. i wasn't there on sunday, but i heard from some people that the judges weren't very qualified? i think the people behind this event should be congratulated for getting it going. but surely to make it a top class event in the future can't they get full time industry professionals to judge at the semi finals stage? I think it would give the event far more cred. Did they try to get people like Tom Gutteridge or Marcelle Scmitz and were knocked back? If so, that's a surprising pity. I was told that one of the judges knew one of the finalists well, and had trained them in the past. I'd like to know what other people thought of the judges. What do other people think?

Walter PlingeWed, 11 Oct 2006, 12:28 pm

Methinks one Jake Newby is

Methinks one Jake Newby is spouting sour grapes that he wasn't asked.

Daniel KershawWed, 11 Oct 2006, 05:16 pm

adjudication

To begin with, as the posting was not from an account, we can not conclude that it was from Jake Newby. Although, I can also see how it can be Jake, because the post was a criticism of a subject he is experienced with â€“ adjudication. Whether you agree with Jake or not, his comments should not simply be put down to a case of sour grapes â€“ we can not determine that from one post on the internet. However, it is fair to be critical of his motives. He may be irritated he wasn’t asked to be a judge. But it also should be noted that, if the judges were not as experienced as they ought to be, he has just cause to be annoyed, doesn’t he? There has been some negative feedback regarding Jake’s adjudication at Bunbury? Therefore, using the same logic, can we dismiss that as sour grapes? No. Although I do think some people were upset because he disapproved of some productions (some comments, I thought were valid). On the other hand, I do agree with Stingers remark made on another thread that he did not clarify what the distinction between best director and best production was. I was present for most of the adjudication at Bunbury, and found, even before he gave me glowing feedback, that his judgements were sound and rational. I respected his opinions because he a) had experience (in all fields of theatre) and b) critically engaged with each production and c) had a great knowledge on theatre history and theatre practises. Last year, Bunbury had Stephen Lee as the adjudicator, whom I also respect as a judge, even after he gave some very strong criticisms about the play I was in. I was not upset about the feedback, because he is a man who definitely knows what he is talking about and I agreed with his comments. I go to competitions because I want to improve as a theatrical artist, not be given sugar covered responses that make me feel good for a little while. I do not want to be in a competition where the adjudicators lack experience. It’s patronising and demeaning. I would liken it to a high school teacher who thinks that the students did really well, considering they were just students. If I personally find myself in a position like that again, I will simply pull any production of mine out, preferring to boycott the event, rather than being the subject of mediocrity. Read into that however you want, sour grapes or not.

who caresWed, 11 Oct 2006, 06:45 pm

Jake Newby is in Europe.

Jake Newby is in Europe. He could not have attended even if he had been asked. I doubt very much whether he would be writing a posting from Europe based on a competition with which he has never had any involvement. I ran Storm the Stage for two years and although I would have loved to have had Jake as an adjudicator, we had a great number of judges to choose from including Stephen Lee and Craig Williams.As I have nothing to do with Storm this year, I am not in a position to make comment on the judges for this year. Tom Gutteridge is a judge for the Grand Final of Storm the Stage. Jake would not stoop to making such comments. You may make any inference you like over his adjudication in Bunbury. Simply because someone else has put his name on this posting, does not mean that Jake himself wrote the posting. If I put the name of Hugh Jackman up, does that automatically mean that Hugh wrote the posting? Of course not. Jake Newby would not lower himself to make that type of comment anyway. Grant, I am aware that people put different names on different postings, when they wish to "hide behind someone else's name" . I would be curious as to the laws of defamation however, on this one. Kerri

Bass GuyWed, 11 Oct 2006, 08:04 pm

Identity Crises

Kerri karefully kommented: "...I am aware that people put different names on different postings, when they wish to "hide behind someone else's name" . I would be curious as to the laws of defamation however, on this one." The laws of defamation on this one would probably do bugger all. There is an inference that "Jake Newby" may have written such a post, but as Kerri (WHO KNOWS EVERYONE!) has pointed out, he's elsewhere at present (appearing in a Tortilla in Mexico?) so it's unlikely it is He. Also, please note that it is "jd newby" and not "Jake Newby" who originally put up the post. I think Jake the Lighting Guy is big enough to use his OWN name and SIGN the post. Let us not discount the possibility that there is a perfectly valid "JD Newby" out there wishing to make comments who ISN'T Jake The Lighting Designer/Adjudicator. Also, there's no point chasing "jd"- chase Walter; he made the scurrilous accusation against Jake The Lighting Designer/Adjudicator. I bet that "Walter" isn't their real name either. Frankly, could anyone be bothered with this exercise in futility? Let's just put it down to children behaving like f@*&wits and ignore 'em; just like we always do. El "It ain't braggin' if you can back it up."- Jaco Pastorius

LabrugWed, 11 Oct 2006, 08:22 pm

In a Name

Personally I read "jd newby" to be someone with the initials JD who is a newby to the site.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
who can also sing ... and occasionaly dance
Fight/Sword Choreographer
Virgin Director
UPstageWA Rep

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

Daniel KershawThu, 12 Oct 2006, 11:29 am

Thanks for clarifying,

Thanks for clarifying, Kerrii

Walter PlingeThu, 12 Oct 2006, 11:34 am

Silly People- JD is a

Silly People- JD is a character from the popular television series 'Scrubs'- his nick name in the show is 'newby' because he begins as a new intern at the hospital where the hospital is set- this person is using his name because he is obviously a fan. ahahah I find it quite humerous that clearly no body here is a fan.

Tari-XalyrThu, 12 Oct 2006, 11:41 am

And now. . .

And now after reading this pointless bunch of posts really. (beside the adjudication stuff which I'm not getting involved in) Congratulations to those who have made to finals. I'm looking forward to seeing what you got as I got my tickets in the mail earlier this week! Can't wait. Good Luck to all. :smile: ~ Tari The Writer is a child forever listening at the keyhole of the adult world.

NaThu, 12 Oct 2006, 12:14 pm

I'm a fan... But it never

I'm a fan... But it never occurred to me to link the alias with the character. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

Daniel KershawThu, 12 Oct 2006, 01:12 pm

GET RID OF IT! ANONYMOUS.

I find it quite humerous that you spell humorous like that. I wish the 'anonymous' feature on this website would be taken off. All it does is cause problems. It doesn't envoke free, unmediated speech like it was designed to. Instead it give free range to defamation and more importantly stupidity. Grant, could it be possible to disable this option if there was enough support? Dan.

Daniel KershawThu, 12 Oct 2006, 01:14 pm

Good Point Tari

As Tari has rightly stated, good luck to all the finalist.

Grant MalcolmThu, 12 Oct 2006, 05:25 pm

First we get rid of...

Daniel Kershaw wrote:
> I wish the 'anonymous' feature on this website would be taken off.
> All it does is cause problems. It doesn't envoke free, unmediated speech
> like it was designed to. Instead it give free range to defamation and more
> importantly stupidity.
>
> Grant, could it be possible to disable this option if there was enough
> support?

All things are possible although I would prefer they were supported by informed debate rather than a knee-jerk reaction to an occasional post.

I quickly reviewed the last 100 comments from unregistered users.

Characteristion of anonymous postings as all causing problems is entirely inaccurate. It fails to do justice to contributions like the following from Andy Fraser:

http://www.theatre.asn.au/comment/reply/26101/29003

and may be construed as ingratitude by at least one anonymous supporter of yours:

http://www.theatre.asn.au/comment/reply/25857/29151

Nor does registration offer the protections that some people think it might - as evidenced by the few hundred private messages generated by our registered spammers from the Seychelles and more publicly by the vituperative "Vixen" a few months back.

All unmoderated discussion boards run the risk that they might be used inappapropriately or illegally - regardless of whether contributors are registered or not. People contributing defamatory, illegal or unauthorised content can be tracked down whether registered or not.

Stupidity and spelling mistakes are not the exclusive domain of unregistered users.

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

Daniel KershawFri, 13 Oct 2006, 09:37 am

Re: Grant

Grant Wrote: All unmoderated discussion boards run the risk that they might be used inappapropriately or illegally - regardless of whether contributors are registered or not. People contributing defamatory, illegal or unauthorised content can be tracked down whether registered or not. - very doubtful that you could prosecute. Yes, I do realise that some anon. users, like Andy Fraser have very constructive comments to contribute to this site. But, I am of the strong opinion that if people who really want to make a positive contribution to this site would be willing to spend five minutes to sign up. I must stress that this comment is simply not a knee-jerk reaction, but from many posts I have read for anon. readers that add nothing to the discussions besides venting their ill feelings towards other theatre practitioners and companies. You are right however, that before any action could be possible, there needs to be supported through an informed debate.

Grant MalcolmFri, 13 Oct 2006, 10:46 am

Daniel wrote:> - very

Daniel wrote:
> - very doubtful that you could prosecute.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/12/1160246262871.html

:-)

> posts I have read for anon. readers that add nothing
> to the discussions besides venting their ill feelings towards
> other theatre practitioners and companies.

If unregistered posters were the only people venting on the website, fine. But I'm not even sure that the majority of the venting is from them.

It's worth noting that it used to be possible to post new topics without registration. When I changed this with the recent site migration, a number of people said that they will not be posting new items on the website as they do not wish to register.

Personally, I don't think registration is such a big deal. But I do believe it is a barrier to participation. If we want to benefit from everything that this community has to offer, encouraging micro investment in the social capital we're building, then we'll continue to keep those barriers as low as possible, including allowing some types of anonymous contributions.

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

NaFri, 13 Oct 2006, 11:01 am

Speaking as a web admin of

Speaking as a web admin of a similar site, I have found that internet participation is actually incredibly difficult to establish and maintain. There are stats out there that suggest a very small percentage of people will participate in online forums, discussions, polls etc. Considering that most people who visit this site also only post responses if they feel heavily compelled to - perhaps a look at the stats of who posts regularly; I am one of the higher ones, along with Grant and Labrug, et all - and a lot of the posts are restricted to advertisements for shows, auditions, and reviews. Making people sign up will only deter postings, and won't benefit the quality of responses. Good discussion comes from freedom to do so, not by force. Though I do understand and applaud Daniel's motives, I don't agree with the way in which we can improve discussion on this site. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

Walter PlingeThu, 26 Oct 2006, 04:27 pm

Congrats to all the finalists

Woot Go Dara!

Walter PlingeThu, 26 Oct 2006, 08:01 pm

nope

i agree with the judging. I thought it was fair and the finalists are of a very high calibre. Good luck to all.

← Back to Billboard Bulletins