it’s 2007 - but you tell ‘em old timer. rage harder.

also, this to me sounds like the words of an arrogant child:

“If you didn’t know about me before, then hey that’s part of the problem. Because I am the one who has kept track of this stuff over the years, and if you had come to me beforehand it’s a whole lot different than coming in and declaring (like all those who have come before) that you will finally make use of the internet.”

don’t all answer at once now..

however- we never claimed to have the internet strategy for the fringe. the fringe needs someone like you constantly, meticulously updating their site, they don’t need an internet strategy from an outside site- that’s never what we aimed to provide.

so maybe you should help Geoff with his insane and largely volunteer task of updating the website while producing the fest. however, from my brief encounter it seems like your bitterness drowns out the useful stuff sometimes, and maybe leads to mistaken assumptions, so that might make it hard for them to bring you into their fold (if you’re saying you’re being locked out).

small thing - i don’t own a fancy laptop- some indyish volunteers (like the great one who tried to help people find our reviews) have laptops they were generous enough to have at the tent and which they let us, and anyone, use. indyish doesn’t own a laptop or projector. we’re some broke ass arty nerdy bloggers. another thing you’d have found out if you spoke to us a bit more or asked us anything.

and lastly - please note- i refuted some of your criticism, but didn’t complain about being criticized, (aside from an ouch!) again, i appreciate the challenge of critique and the wide space of them web for everyone to have theeir say, and will take advice you have into consideration for next year. keep it comin, i can take it.

keep up the good work documenting the fringe Michael, and thanks a lot Geoff!

I have two arguments. One is that while I won’t deny the peripheral
stuff brings in an audience to sell beer to that helps to fund the
Fringe, the peripheral attendance dwarfs the actual Fringe, ie
the shows people pay money to see. So people can “go to the Fringe”
without actually going to the Fringe. The Beer Tent used to be a
place to hang out between shows, and talk about those shows, indeed
you couldn’t even get into the tent in the early days without a ticket
or program. It was also a place for the troupes to try to lure
an audience for a specific show from the existing pool. I will always
take note that while I knew about the Fringe the first year, it was
a group from Syracuse in 1992 performing outside the Beer Tent that
actually “explained” the Fringe to me. A few years back, someone
with the Quebec Drama Federation said something about how we can’t
use the Beer Tent to discuss things, and I find it interesting that
they no longer set up at the Fringe. Maybe if we were talking about
this instead of gushing about how big the Fringe had become, we could
do more to actually get more paid admission to the shows that are
the actual Fringe.

But second, precisely out of seeing shows in the early days that
had lousy attendance, I went right from the beginning, certainly 1996
and to a smaller extent 1995, to make use of the online world. The
very first thing I wrote about the Fringe was to criticize a posting
of Buzz that couldn’t be read by all, something that couldn’t be afforded
when you needed new ways to reach the audience at home. But I also posted
some things about the dance shows, two of which had already been at
Tangente but were pulling low audiences.

So when I went home every day in 1996 and posted extended passages about
things that were going on, it was an attempt at conveying the essence
of the Fringe to people who hadn’t yet come to the Beer Tent. And when
I posted that last minute announcement of an extra show of Machomer to
benefit the Fringe, I was writing the book about what we should be
using the online world for.

In 1996, the Buzz either didn’t get online, or was sporadic. So I
started printing out what was appearing online, and taking it to the
Fringe Boss, so at least that was taken care of. I did that for years,
yet nobody caught the clue that maybe they should ask me about what
to do with all this.

I practically get thrown out of the office in 1999 for trying to find
out when the artists arrive; of course I’d write about it. The
next year I wrote down some of this stuff, but it still didn’t get any
hit.

I turn around and putting it online, and then use real content to prove
that one can put things up on a dime, changing it to reflect things as
they happened.

Blork did wonderful reviews of Fringe shows starting in 1999, depth
that we won’t see in the papers. Yet, basically he never got linked
from the Fringe site, and the losers are the artists who needed that
intermediary. You try running around trying to find artists when you
aren’t given the time of day from the Fringe, and then if you’re lucky
you find them and they want to know about that sort of thing. The woman
doing “See Me Naked” in 2002 put stickers on her existing posters to
point to the review. But I also recall not finding some of the other
acts that had reviews.

There was the time I found some right wing group wanting the government
to stop funding the Fringe, because the group objected to some of the show
titles. I email to the sinkhole of the Fringe, and no response. Patrick
later basically shrugs. At least one of the shows mentioned, I could get
ahold of, and she wrote about it in her column in Hour. I wasn’t worried,
but I thought it was a great promotional hook for the acts that got
mentioned. Then months later, the Fringe sends out email acting like
they’d suddenly found the group. If you don’t do constant searches,
you don’t have a clue of what’s happening.

How can we use the internet to talk among ourselves when we don’t have
a clue who’s coming to the Fringe? You want to talk “open source” then
knowing who’s coming isn’t privilege, it’s just in case someone can
make use of the information. If lots of interested people can help
the artists, then that gets around the bottleneck of a small number
of staff having to handle everything. Like when Barry Smith needed
a screen for his projector last year, and the Fringe couldn’t/wouldn’t
help him, but a larger pool of people likely would have found someone
with the solution.

So I’d do deep searches, trying to find who was coming to the Fringe,
and I kept a list for a few years. But I shouldn’t have had to,
the Fringe knew very well who was coming. The whole point of trying
to create a list was so then we could get talking, but I spent so
much effort on tracking down who was coming, the next step was
lost. The Fringe came late to putting that early information up,
and it wasn’t until 2005 that they actually put the links to the
troupe’s websites up that early. (Did I mention that finding links
to company websites and emailing them to the Fringe didn’t mean a thing,
the updates were sporadic for a long time?)

But I still really see no indication that the Fringe has an Internet
Strategy.

We’ve seen lots of internet carpetbaggers, that don’t last.

Nothing I’ve done has actually moved me into where I can actually
implement this stuff properly, yet all kinds of people waltz in with
their own agenda and get an audience with the crown.

If you didn’t know about me before, then hey that’s part of the problem.
Because I am the one who has kept track of this stuff over the years,
and if you had come to me beforehand it’s a whole lot different than
coming in and declaring (like all those who have come before) that
you will finally make use of the internet.

I’ve never second guessed the Fringe on the things I complain about.
Because if they’d been talking to me about all this since 1996 they’d
have known there was a deliberate plan and if I was in the loop I
would have at least been able to try to prevent the things I’ve
complained about.

Take a look at the Fringe website. It still chokes if you aren’t
using the right kind of browser. They have links to “blogs”, but
one woman got there for making a passing reference, and then ended
up writing a full page when she noticed the link, and she isn’t
even in Montreal. Kate puts up an entry about a la Presse article,
and that puts her on the list, even though she isn’t actually saying
anything about the Fringe herself. One site has one review, the one one
of your people responds to “for more reviews” (yet oblivous to what
others are posting about the Fringe) , yet not only is the link
bad, but there were no more reviews after the first one. That’s not
“blogging the Fringe”, that’s adding one review to the general collection.
The Fringe was good about keeping the old media stories list updated this
year, but that hasn’t been the case in previous years. But why should
the general population have to do searches to find this stuff? It’s
the artists who suffer.

Despite all kinds of gladhanding in recent years, my work means nothing.
Yet I’ve put all that work into this because I believe in the Fringe,
and I believe in making good use of the internet for the Fringe.

I’m supposed to sit meekly back while someone elses waltzes in? I’m
critical of your presence, ooh I mustn’t do that, but my presence is so
small that nobody even realizes the extent of how much I’ve tried at all
this. Why should your work trump mine?

There’s nothing like writing letters to the Gazette for years
about their tone of coverage of the Fringe, especially dance coverage, and
then seeing echoes of my words in their paper, as if I’m writing a press
release for the Fringe. Or, when I call the Fringe a “performing arts
festival” in my annual call for submissions to the various papers and then
it magically becomes a “performing arts festival” (in the program in
2006). Or my letter to the Gazette two years ago about dance coverage,
they don’t publish them, and now suddenly we get almost daily dance
reviews and it’s Kathryn Greenaway doing them, and that’s who I
specifically mentioned in the letter.

I’ve paid the price. I am critical of the Fringe in these matters, but
the only times I’ve promoted my webpage is when I just get tired of
the lack of internet strategy. Lots of years I’ve put lots of effort into
promoting the Fringe website, when I could have promoted mine. Unlike
you, I’m locked out of getting real information, so what’s the real point
of promoting a webpage that has as near to constant updating as I can
do when I don’t have a fancy and expensive laptop? I started it to
show what we could be doing, I put daily content up to prove that we
could, and while it’s not perfect, it’s far closer to what should be
than anything else happening over the years.

Michael

Good on ya! Lookin’ forward to Indyish @ Fringe 2.0

And, if the critic you’re making reference to is who I think it is, take solace in the fact that in all his years of involvement with the Fringe he has rarely expressed satifaction with our actiities either. Very pro-artist, not so pro-organizer. But he always comes back and contributes a hundred and ten thousand percent… and isn’t that really all the love we need anyway?

Keep it rockin’ and Congrats on making it through this massive challenge with such grace and good spirits.

g.