Questions about review content - From FAQ's

February 13, 2006

Back to Frequently Asked Questions

Question: I would like to bring attention to this review about Pierce Arrow. I certainly hope that you screen the reviews before they are placed on your site. I currently work for an international publishing company with an extensive background in the music industry (Rock n' Roll). I was researching the Branson area when I came by the below post:
_____________________________________________________________________
http://www.bransoncritic.org/Branson-show-Pierce-Arrow.htm
P.W.
Tennessee
Branson Show: Pierce Arrow
Recommendation: No
Ratings: 2 of 5
March 27, 2005
06:00 PM

I have been to Branson each summer for the past 9 years. This past summer we decided to see Pierce Arrow. Let me just say that I heard so much praise
over that show but was overall disappointed. The only good thing about their show was the stage set up and, lights and comedy.
The comedian is wonderful, I love the preaching skit it was funny. Kim Boyce can't sing that style of country if her life depended on it. The quartet's harmonies were sloppy and they focus on each other more than they do the crowd. None of their voices blend well enough b/c they all have such total different styles.
Dan is no longer the lowest bass singer and he isn't even a bass singer. Dan is a growler in my opinion. I just found this website or I would have reviewed sooner. They have nice special effects and lighting but that's all.
Every time they start to sing a medley of songs here comes the comedian. To me that makes it look like they can't sing the songs well enough so they have to have a distraction from their harmonies. I also saw Grand Jubilee while there.
Now they have less special effects but the quartet is so incredible they don't need all the extra stuff to keep the audiences attention. Their harmonies are
wonderful. The guys in Pierce Arrow don't even seem to be as sincere as what they let on. To me it is just an act they have for the audience. I don
not recommend this show at all. My experience there was not as enjoyable as I had hoped.
_______________________________________________________________________

I understand that everyone has their opinion, but it appears that this individual has alternative motives. Why you ask?
1. Very cruel personal attacks against the performers.
2. Refers to Dan Britton as Dan. How often do audience members refer to the cast on a first name basis?
3. Finally, during the review the "reviewer" states that the cast is not as sincere as they let on...it's just an act. Again, how would an audience member know?


In closing, I ask is this a legitimate review, or simply an an ill advised advertisement for the Grand Jubilee Show? And could you explain how the review fits your review criteria? You also list as guidelines that you will edit the responses. Obviously, this is not the case since there are both grammar and spelling issues in the post.

"Submission Guidelines: (Violation of these rules will result in either your submission not being published or in being deleted from the site)

All opinions and professional-style reviews are welcome.
Make sure your review is FAIR. All shows have positive aspects as well as some negative. Concentrate the review on the positive and make sure any criticism is constructive; helpful.
As best as you can, cover all aspects of a show:
-Seating: Adequate, comfortable, etc.
-Music: Tell us the name of some of the songs?
-Comedy: What was funny?
-Acting:
-Hold a child’s interest? Example: Is the show so quiet that a restless toddler would distract the other show goers?
Please tell viewers of your review what to expect when they see the show. Give them some of the "goodies". You know, the stuff you would want to know before you see a show. Have fun!"

I attended the P.A. show and was wowed by every aspect of it. I certainly hope that you review the above and choose to eliminate the review from the your site.

Thank you

Ryan M.

Answer - Thank you for writing and you are correct that the review you are concerned about was not checked for grammar and spelling.  However, the review does fit the submission guidelines in every other way.  We give guidelines, not rules about what a reviewer can include in their review. In other words, one reviewer may concentrate on the theatre and the music, but not write much about the acting, whether the show will hold a child's interest or about the comedy.  That's why it we wrote in our submission guidelines, "as best as you can, cover all aspects of a show..." At this time, NOT covering all aspects does not get a review booted.

You brought out three points that you feel should disqualify the review. I will address each of these:

1. "Very cruel personal attacks against the performers." Actually Ryan, a cruel personal attack is more akin to, "Kim Boyce is fat and ugly," or "I spoke to her after the show and she is stupid." While I would agree that Ms. Boyce is quite lovely and probably intelligent, the reviewer criticized her singing and performing, which is fair, even if she or he didn't do it in the nicest way. Have you ever heard Roger Ebert review a movie that he hated?  Have you ever heard him apologize later for not criticizing it 'nicely'? By the way, the reviewer did find several things to commend about the show, which added balance.

2. "Refers to Dan Britton as Dan. How often do audience members refer to the cast on a first name basis?" I don't really see why the reviewer cannot refer to 'Dan Britton as Dan,' since no other cast members are named 'Dan', are they?  This was not a formal review for a newspaper or magazine, just a humble show-goer slamming out his or her thoughts on their computer. 

3. Finally, during the review the "reviewer" states that the cast is not as sincere as they let on...it's just an act. Again, how would an audience member know?  Ryan, I really don't understand this point.  First of all, the cast ARE acting.  Obviously, they don't just perform the show when you see it. It takes a lot of work to perform the exact same act 1-3 times a day, several days a week for several months out of the year.  Some actors and entertainers are better than others at making each show seem like it was the first show they performed.  This reviewer felt an 'insincerity', like it was forced.  That's their viewpoint.  "How would the audience know" you ask? If you're a breathing human being, you ARE qualified to give an opinion on someone's acting abilities. 

What qualifies Roger Ebert, Michael Medved or the Academy of Motion Picture Sciences to opine on someone's acting? A PhD in movie-watching? (I'll go for that degree, if there is one).  Okay, maybe they do know more about the dynamics of arts and entertainment than the average layman, but the average layman still has the right to say, 'I loved it!' or 'That stunk!' As a side note - critical reviews are helpful if someone is humble. If the criticism is valid, then maybe it can be applied.  For example, we get complaints about the layouts, graphics and fonts used on this site.  We don't spend time emailing people saying, 'You're wrong, take it back.'  We see if we can apply the criticism.  Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't.

You then made the statement, "...is this a legitimate review, or simply an an ill advised advertisement for the Grand Jubilee Show?"  Since I'm not clear on what this means other than the reviewer was using another show as a comparison for something specific, all I can say is you must have an insight to the politics and intrigues of Branson, MO that we're not privy to. 

- In closing, I hope this helps to clarify why a review may or may not be published. In the almost two years since we've had this site, this is probably the fifth request we've had to remove a review.  That's not many but for those who disagree with a certain review on this site, use this as a model for why the review is there and why we won't take it down. The best antidote to a negative review is to write your own positive review, which Ryan did do.