Ken Davenport — Page 2

Annoying thing # 187: He bought a theater and named it after himself.

JSquared2 said: "Annoying thing # 187: He bought a theater and named itafter himself.

"

Isn't it technically named after his grandfather, who was really Davenport?

Ken was Hjidsah or something. Changed his name.

JSquared2 said: "Annoying thing # 187: He bought a theater and named itafter himself."

Eh, I don't think that's a big deal. Daryl Roth named a theatre after herself. The Shubert and Nederlander organizations all have theatres named after their executives/owners.

Last fall, I wanted to find out more about the creation and production of Broadway shows. After completing a simple search in hopes of finding a few books or websites to guide my curiosity, I was presented with Ken's conference that was a few weeks away. On a gut feeling, I decided that hearing from experts in the field would be an interesting way to perhaps answer my questions. (I have attended other workshops or have taken courses in a variety of fields in a similar way. Several years ago, I even took a weekend course on sustainable farming because I wanted to know more about food production.)

The conference I attended last November was a life-changing experience in many ways. Ken Davenport was the organizer, but he only spoke for perhaps 10 minutes at most. The other presenters and moderators shared their knowledge and insight over the course of two days on a variety of topics pertaining to Broadway. What Ken organized was just amazing. So amazing, that I booked my spot for this year's conference almost immediately after receiving the first e-mail.

Just last week, I attended one of the previews to Gettin' the Band Back Together. As I was walking out with a friend, I noticed Ken speaking with several other people by the entrance to the theater. I waited until I had the opportunity to thank him for the experience last November. Ken does not know me whatsoever, but he was kind and gracious.

When I saw that there was a post specifically dedicated to Ken Davenport, I was surprised. Having only joined BroadwayWorld's message boards not long ago, I did not think I would be replying as much as I have. To be honest, I started replying because I wanted to share my excitement for Girl from the North Country, which I was fortunate enough to see at the Old Vic and on the West End. When I saw so much criticism about Ken from people I assume he has had little to no interaction with, I thought I would offer another perspective. Although he may have marketing and advertising strategies that people oppose, there is risk and creativity in some of these strategies, which should be commended. This is especially true in a field as creative as Broadway. I am so thankful for his conference that he created as another way to bring new people into the fold. I am sure some people scoffed at the thought of a conference about producing Broadway shows when it was first announced, but I know that it was one of the best learning experiences that I have ever had.

(p.s. I am NOT Ken Davenport, or anyone who works for him. I figured I would beat someone to that punch.)

OOTI is not a hit by any measure.

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "OOTI is not a hit by any measure."

The Tony Award for Best Revival of a Musical sitting in Ken's office would seem to indicate otherwise.

Hogan, the comment I responded to was "not a hit by any measure". It may not be a hit financially, but it is a hit artistically and critically.. And if you're going to reply that a hit signifies financial success only, then you can use your definition of success and I'll use mine however incorrect, non-traditional and wrong mine may be in your eyes. And truthfully, maybe it's high time the strict usage of "hit" that folks like you so aggressively defend and cling to should be changed to "financial success" and the more general term hit be applied to a variety of criteria that can define a show's success across various measures. The daily scolding that people get for daring to even imply that a show that hasn't completely broken even has been some form of a hit are among the silliest discussions on here.

@UncleCharlie, I don't want to restrict what words you choose to use; have at it. At the same time, you are on a board where people, you included, are aware that there are terms of art in this business and they have specific meanings. You can take the same position regarding, say, soundtrack vs cast recording, but when you do it is at your own peril.

In my other interest at this time of year, baseball, we also have the word "hit" and it has a particular meaning. Yet someone could say that a batter "got a hit" when his bat connected with the ball and it flew through the air into into a fielder's glove, or when it made it into the fielder's glove but was dropped. That's an error, not a hit.

I'm surprised that I haven't read that baseball analogy for "hit" before, considering the frequency the topic appears (many with your posts, Hogan) I'd be tempted to use it, but not being a baseball fan and knowing the seriousness of stats to its fans, I'm afraid that I'd misuse a term and immediately forfeit my argument!

Updated On: 7/31/18 at 09:55 PM

zainmax said: "Who is ryhog?"

Sorry. I used a name from the "other board" by mistake. Fixed.

Yeah, there's something shady about that website. Very Trump University. But since I don't go on it, all I can say is I'm glad he produces most of the shows he does (Spring Awakening, Daddy Long Legs, OOTI, etc.) and I ignore the bad ones, because most people would probably not take the risk on such money losing ventures. Of course, better producing might make them more financially successful but that's just conjecture.

HogansHero said: "beats me lol

BTW I actually just made up the analogy after I posted and went back and edited it. I'm not sure if it's really original or I just forgot where I heard it. "

You shouldn't use it again Hogan. It's not a good one. No real baseball fan (or even a casual fan for that matter) would ever say someone "got a hit" when they made an out. No one would. If anything they would say they hit the ball hard or got good wood on the ball but never that they got a hit. Your analogy is what someone who doesn't know baseball at all would claim someone else would say to try to make a point. And if you said to a real fan, they "got a hit" that fan would almost always reply "what was it?" cause a real baseball fan knows that hit is a overarching general term and almost always requires further and more specific elaboration and categorization as to whether it was a single, double, triple, home run etc. Which actually is the way the theater industry should use "hit" if it was smart, as a general term requiring more specific elaboration as to whether you are referring to critical or financial success. But far be it from me to suggest what is uniformly agreed to by the entire industry as to the appropriate specific usage of a broad, vague term like "hit" should ever change to make more sense. I realize I am a heretic in suggesting this.

You sound like you really know your baseball. Would love to get your take on who you feel won and who lost with today's non-waiver trade deadline moves.