Didn't see this posted before.
Theatre journalists who are on the First Night Press List-those who see Broadway productions on or before the show's official opening night -have lost the privilege to vote in the annual Antoinette Perry "Tony" Awards.
Tony Award Productions sent a letter July 14 to First-Nighters that reads, "After careful consideration, the Tony Awards Management Committee has determined that Tony-voting privileges will no longer be extended to members of the First Night Press List, commencing with the 2009-2010 season.
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/131109-First-Nighters_Lose_Tony-Voting_Privilege
Good.
Now where's the announcement about requiring voters to see EVERY nominated show? It'd be EASY to do this. It's not like the Oscars where their voting members having HUNDREDS of movies to see and thousands of individuals to check up on. There were SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY voting members and LESS THAN FIFTY shows to see SPREAD THROUGHOUT A YEAR!!
You see, I can't decide if this is a good thing. Of course, I don't know if it'll really make a difference because according to the article, many didn't vote because they were journalists. So...yeah.
I think each voter should have a stamp card & has to get it stamped by the house manager after the show. If they aren't all stamped when they go to vote then their votes get thrown out.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/20/04
This is HUGE and has potential for a whole mess.
Broadway Star Joined: 7/16/08
Anyone that voted for billy elliot to win anything but choreography should also lose their voting privileges.
This doesn't seem to make any sense.
The First-Night Press Listers are more likely to have actually seen each production that is mounted in a season, giving them a more well-informed vote. By eliminating their votes it also increases the weight of the road promoters vote.
Updated On: 7/14/09 at 08:15 PM
Agreed. I don't understand why you wouldn't want the critics to vote; it seems like this is removing a significant -- informed -- portion of the vote, and I can't figure out why that's a good idea.
I agree frogs and emcee, however, there is just one reason why I think it is a good idea. Because they have no involvement in the creation of theatrical productions. They are audience members who have their opinions read. The Tonys shouldn't have spectators as judges. The spectators have their own awards, such as the BWW Audience Awards.
Nominees should receive the nomination from their peers.
Right, but, they're also -- love them or hate them -- a really important part of the business. I was going to say of the community, but I don't think that's exactly as realistically true as it is an idealism. Either way, though, critics are a part of the art, and are far more than just spectators. I think if they're afforded as much power as they are throughout the season, they should be able to weigh in for the top awards. Of course, this is coming from a possibly aspiring critic who also considers it one of her goals to attain a Tony vote.
You can vote for Best Critic.
Thrilling.
The spectators have their own awards, such as the BWW Audience Awards.
Do you serious think Ben Brantley and John Simon's votes should count for nothing more than those of ElphieElleGlinda and SassySeussical on a BWW poll?
No, the critics are getting the boot. By spectator he meant the road voters.
By eliminating 13% of the voting body, the percentage of road voters will increase. As such, the "road vote" will have even more of an impact on votes.
Expect only tourable shows to win awards from now on. Next year's Best Musical winner will undoubtedly be The Addams Family! (I'm only half-kidding about that!)
No, I think he meant critics, because he basically said that critics are no more than audience members -- read: spectators -- and thus should not be Tony voters.
I also want to throw in that this assumption, that critics are no more than audience members, suggests that none of the critics have any sort of theatrical training, which is a poor, incorrect generalization. Sure, some of them just fell into this and aren't particularly trained for the field, but don't forget that a lot of critics working today are trained as directors, playwrights, dramaturgs and historians. How does that make them equivalent to the people for whom things like the Broadway.com Audience Awards are created? I understand that many people don't like the critics and find them to be bitchy and annoying, but that doesn't mean they should be relegated to the same level of importance as any thirteen year old or angry theater queen with an Internet port.
Stand-by Joined: 6/18/08
My problem here is that these critics, who think more in terms of merit than in commercial appeal (like road producers), may be some of the only voters voting for the greatest artistic achievement- the Passing Strange or Grey Gardens of the lot.
I see this as just another move towards the commercialization of the already tremendously commercial Tony Awards.
I agree frogs and emcee, however, there is just one reason why I think it is a good idea. Because they have no involvement in the creation of theatrical productions. They are audience members who have their opinions read.
I can't agree with this in part because what you're saying is that an informed, but potentially objective set of voters is less valuable than voters who have more of a stake in seeing a particular show or cast win. Now I'm not saying that people in the industry can't be objective but I can't accept your premise that it's always better to have insiders voting for their own either.
And, yes, I am also concerned with the greater impact of "road voters" now.
Updated On: 7/14/09 at 11:26 PM
Stand-by Joined: 6/18/08
http://www3.timeoutny.com/newyork/upstaged/2009/07/this-just-in-tony-awards-nix-crix/
Adam Feldman seems to agree- but basically seems primarily scared he's about to lose his job because it is becoming insignificant...
He's just now getting scared that his profession might be head to obsolescence? I mean, yeah, this is a big slap in the face, but people have been saying criticism is dying for years.
I haven't read the TONY article, but I think this is just another way of excluding critics and telling them that their job is becoming obsolete. What a pity, I think critics do deserve the right to vote, or at least as much as the road voters.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/5/09
In light of the quality of theatre criticism nowadays, I'd say that anything that reduces the critics' power is a good thing.
As far as Tony voters not seeing every play, this is one thing I've never understood. One would assume that a Tony voter would so love the theatre that he/she would WANT to see every show. If there are theatre buffs who try to see everything while paying, wouldn't one expect the same from presumed theatre lovers who get to see everything for free?
Many of them are not "theater buffs," though. A good many of them don't even live in NY.
Does anyone think a petition to the entire committee/administration would even be worth a go, encouraging them to institute a system whereas all voters/shows are accounted for? Something along those lines and also stating the severe disappointment for those as patrons in the theatre...?
The larger issue is related to the startling decline of newspapers and magazines in the United States.
Most of you don't even read them anymore--you probably get 75-90% of your information from the Internet.
When the system was first instituted to include critics, reviewers could make or break shows. Some were considered loving appreciators of playmaking and acting, others judgmental tyrants. There were many daily newspapers and many weekly magazines and their collective judgments created word of mouth.
Now, the critics' role in relatively marginable. An online critic with no training might even have more ability to influence ticket buyers than a critic for a weekly paper with a degree in dramaturgy from Yale School of Drama.
A decade from now, there may be no daily newspapers or weekly magazines left.
So why go on letting these dinosaurs be Tony voters?
Videos