But with all due respect to you and all that you are doing, you were on stage and on the panel giving feedback. I was in the audience. I had a different experience from you – and that is what I am happy to call a truce on.

I don’t have any quibble or difficulty with public feedback IF it is presented in a very even way. But not listing the authors background (skipping over them in fact when introducing everyone) did not put them on an even footing. Aspects of the panel to me, as audience, on that day felt a little like an Australian Idol-esque dramaturgical session. I didn’t feel that the conversation was evenly balanced.

And I don’t think they were judging Hilary – or Phillip – but the work. And Kris, we both agree that the work is the most important thing.

I really just reflect what I see Kris – and on that day I saw a panel of men. Just noting it, that’s all. And it may well be remarkable – if it is, as you say, that women out number men in positions of creative power in Musicals. I’ll be keen to see the stats on that, as a point of my own education and re-assessing my impression.

No, let me clarify Kris, that I’m not Matthew because hes young, or a man, or because you assume that I don’t agree with the things he said. I was appalled at his tone and what I read as righteousness in the face of being unprepared and not knowing that Hilary wrote the lyrics.

I take your point that I see that my experience at your 40 minute session may not be emblematic of how NMA run their open feedback sessions. But the mixed message is – that I shouldn’t judge it, or your methodology, because there was/is nothing wrong with it anyway. And Kris, that’s fine. I just happen to disagree with how I saw the conversation unfolding that day.

I think there is room to refine and develop the public dramaturgical feedback method – for all genres of performance writing. It’s the HOW, not the WHAT, nor the WHO that I felt uncomfortable with.

And I don’t think I am throwing the baby out with the bathwater in regards to NMA. Not at all. I have not judged and walked away in a huff – infact if I wasn’t excited with it’s mission and potential I wouldn’t suggest that there is refining to be done. And if I didn’t think it was worth people thinking and knowing about I wouldn’t waste my time thinking or responding to it. And very much look forward to what will be achieved by NMA in the future.

But with all feedback – like panel discussions, like dramaturgical sessions – this is only my opinion of what I saw, one day, at one time, in one place, and I am bound by my tastes, experience and context. And I don’t claim to speak on behalf of anyone (writers, audience, musical theatre practitioners…) but myself.

And anyone who reads this, knows that, knows my tastes and prejudices and my vested interests and my passions – and I am absolutely sure they take things I say with all those things in mind. And I am very happy for anyone reading to disagree with anything and everything I say/write. I post all comments – all perspectives because I believe in the power of conversation to develop and change our world – I just want to make sure all conversations are as respectful and productive as possible.

What I felt was unfair in your post (though an all out attack might be a bit severe) was the fact that you were willing to judge the process of New Musicals Australia (or at least one of our programs) after experiencing 40 minutes of our work. It is obviously absurd to suggest any idea of sexism in your work – but you were willing to open the door to that claim to us after experiencing one panel. Mathew was there to provide a counter-point to what could be a bunch of very similar viewpoints – but instead of acknowledging that, you attack him for not holding the same deferential perspective that others held.

And finally, you present the inappropraiteness of a panel “judging” Hilary in a public forum – while at the same time judging NMA in a much more public forum of the Internet. I might be an unreliable witness, but my experience of that panel was four peers offering praise and feedback in front of an audience of potential writers (and Hilary’s supporters), and the benefits of it to the show and to the audience at large were clear.

Anyway, I vote calling a truce, because I don’t feel we disagree on any important points. I just feel if we want success with new work in Australia we have to play the long game, and judging any organization’s outcomes based on one session seems illjudged.

I don’t think my note was intended as an all-out attack – but I certainly read some of your comments as such. Perhaps I am a fragile beast? Perhaps I am overly sensitive or overly compassionate? Who knows. But I did read some of your tone as more than defensive and more than gently setting me straight on a few things.

And Kris, I want to clarify that I am not speaking on behalf of Hilary or Phillip. It would be very presumptuous of me to do that. I am only speaking as an audience member. One audience member and how I felt watching that particular and specific discussion. I have no idea and will not and can not comment on your other sessions during the weekend. What people did or did not do – how and what they were surveyed on – I also don’t really find relevant to my response.

And also clarifying Kris, I am all for opening the doors and hosting dramaturgical discussions in front of an audience – they are something I am well versed in having run Off the Shelf in Sydney and worked on numerous open developments in Canada. I am also pro development, pro-feedback and pro-criticism. My quibble is with the format and tone of the discussion – not that it exists, or was rigorous or conflicting or detailed. It’s the methodology and tone that I found inappropriate for an audience to be privvy to. Especially a silent audience who was not invited to participate.

What I had a problem with was HOW this was conducted.

If these discussions are in front of an audience, I think a little bit more putting the writers on an even footing with the panelists would have alleviated some of my concerns.

I am, of course, a huge advocate for the Australian voice -and I hopefully will be made aware of more of New Musicals Australia’s work… so I can continue to support all writers, regardless of genre on their creative pursuits.

I don’t feel writers are fragile beasts, and I think Hilary (thank you for the correction of my typing, it’s hard to tap this out on a phone) would take on board the responses of the panel in the generous way they were offered, and just disregard any that she didn’t find useful. You don’t often get people of that skill freely giving their time to consider your work at such an early stage.

If this was the first time Hilary had written a musical, then I’d hope she take some advice from the trenches, in the same way that I would hope Andrew Lloyd Webber would do so if he ever turned his hand to a new play. But it’s not Hilary’s first musical, and she’s been in the room for these kind of conversations before.

But it sounds to me like your real concern is that there were people there to observe the discussion. In one of the panels that I don’t believe you were at yesterday, we polled the room and tallied more than 20 musicals in development being written by people observing the presentations and discussions. As I said in the intro, the real value of these workshops is to open the door and share knowledge. Hilary probably felt like she was being told a bunch of things she already knew – but her work was a conduit to a wider discussion about the challenges in writing musicals. These are challenges many share, and it is important that authors can more widely be a part of the dialogue about how we build a musical in the Australian voice.

Hopefully the discussion that was had about Hilary and Phillip’s show can benefit more writers than just them.

Thanks for your thoughts on my opinions, and yes they are only my opinions based on how I conduct feedback sessions with writers. Please know, that I don’t ever purport to be an expert on anything. I can only reflect on what I see and how I feel. And I absolutely accept that the feedback provided yesterday in your session was couched in the “my taste” and “my opinion” tone. And that is EXACTLY what I have done here on my blog, I am providing a response and an opinion to what I experienced. I am giving you and my humble readership my opinion, my reflection of what I saw and experienced yesterday in the New Musical’s feedback/panel discussion.

I don’t for an INSTANCE think that Hilary is an sort of emotional or professional or personal creative waif, that she is incapable of receiving feedback – or criticism – or dramaturgical advice about her work. Not at all. What I am commenting on is the way in which it was convened and handled as a public event. And I question what use the audience has of this style of feedback if they, themselves weren’t invited to provide their response or their personal opinion. Was this an exercise in showing the audience how a show can be developed by experts? My main point is that as an audience member, I found this “panel discussion” to be more about the panelists tastes and ideas, than the playwrights. I think Hilary very gracefully asking if she could respond is absolute proof that she can hold her own. I am not protecting her – nor am I suggesting that feedback should not be provided – I am suggesting that how this is done, who does it and how it is facilitated should be reconsidered. What I am suggesting is that greater respect to the writer in this instance could have been offered. I also am suggesting that New Musical’s Australia re-think this public feedback strategy for all writers ( not just Hilary in particular) It just happened that Hilary and Phillip’s show was the one I attended. If it was for anyone else, with any other gender, I would have the same response.

Nope. I do not at all anywhere suggest that Hilary’s capability to handle criticism has anything to do with her gender. In fact, if you have read my views on gender politics in Australian theatre, then perhaps you wouldn’t have made such a statement or an assumption that I would “subconciously” be assuming that Hilary – because she is a woman – needs less critical feedback or less detailed feedback. I do take great exception to that notion – and I think it reveals quite plainly that you haven’t read any of my writings on or about the recent women in theatre debate.

My disclaimer about not seeing previous New Musicals Australia presentations is merely as a “I don’t know if this is the usual modus operandi… but this is the one presentation I have seen.” And If there are women included on a panel here and there – great… but there wasn’t a woman on the panel I saw – and that’s what I was responding to – merely noting it.

The process of development you used yesterday may be something that happens internationally – but all I am suggesting is that as an audience member I found it embarrassing and awkward. I also don’t know if it is right to say that the same process and practice is relevant and appropriate in Australia with the current landscape of Australian musicals. It might be appropriate in America – with their specific set of cultural and artistic practices – but I wonder is it appropriate within our landscape of our specific cultural and artistic practices? I know that Hilary and Phillip have had many experiences receiving feedback (here and overseas) and have spent a lot of time living and creating in New York – so I don’t doubt their familiarity with the aggressive/arrogant mode of feedback I saw yesterday. I also am not defending them, nor do I say that I disagree with anything that was said yesterday – BUT I do have a problem with how it was conducted. My main question is if it needed to happen in front of the audience?

I don’t think I am ageist – nor am I sexist, Kris. I just took great offense to the fact that Matthew didn’t seem to know that Hilary was the lyricist (“is that your department?” he asked…) I don’t care how old, young someone is – I do care if they are unprepared and don’t know the context in which they are providing feedback. I think that matters, wouldn’t you agree?

I think development is tricky, Kris. Absolutely and I applaud all efforts to refine development practice. But I think in regards to the experience I had yesterday, such a presentation can put the audience off-side, and the writer off-side, and even your response to my response on this blog could put me off-side as someone interested in being a punter. Isn’t the ultimate goal to develop and improve the culture of making work in Australia? New work?

Additionally, I believe much can be learned across practices – I think someone dedicated to play development (such as myself) can learn a lot from all forms of artistic development – musicals included. And I believe vice versa. I believe it is how we engage with each other about our platforms that matters most. I wouldn’t dream of discounting opinion from a musical theatre expert on a new play. It’s all storytelling, isn’t it? I also think that innovative dramaturgical practices can develop out of sharing and discussion of what we know and what we don’t (regardless of genre) and where we can find commonalities. For me, it’s not just important that the conversation (or the development or showcase) occurs, but HOW that conversation is conducted.

Is it useful to descend in an all-out attack (or even personally attack and dismiss someone who has written a reflection on their experience on their blog?) or is it useful to try and tease out what and how could work better for next time? And if not.. perhaps it’s best for someone who doesn’t want to have a convivial, passionate, respectful conversation to perhaps politely smile and walk away? (Or completely ignore the things i write on this site.)

Additionally, I hope you will forgive my typo of Dennis’ name – after all – I’ll forgive you misspelling (consistently) Hilary Bell’s name.

I think you are miscasting Hillary as some kind of emotional creative waif, unable to take even the most mild feedback to her work-in-progress. Considering the panel’s responses opened with “I would invest in this tomorrow”, I think she is stoic enough to take the mild feedback presented to her I the spirit I which it was offered: opinion, nothing more, and opinions given by a panel that have very different tastes, something they mentioned a number of times when discussing the work.

Indeed, since you’ve opened the door to discussions of sexism in your blog, I do hope your fears for an author’s emotional vulnerability aren’t subconsciously gender-related, as that would be deeply patronizing for an author of Hillary’s standing, and I’m sure she doesn’t need outsiders sticking up for her as if she is some fragile being unable to consider external opinions of her work (especially when the opinions offered were almost universal praise).

You have mentioned previously in your blog that you very rarely see musicals and while I certainly don’t consider it patronizing that someone who experiences musicals so rarely would hold strong opinions on those who create them, it is disappointing that you in one breath will say that this is the only presentation of New Musicals Australia you have seen, and then criticize the gender makeup of the panel that you’re seeing. I’m sure artists such as Kellie Dickerson and Anne Maree McDonald that were on earlier panels would like me to mention that they certainly ARE female, and would remind me that women currently outnumber men in positions of power in the musicals theatre industry in Australia, something that I don’t believe is mirrored in other performing arts.

The process you saw is something that happens around the globe in the development of new musicals, and while I don’t believe the lack of developmental and feedback opportunities is the sole reason we don’t have a more viable local new musicals culture, it is certainly one of the issues that needs to be solved.

Hillary received some quite contradictory feedback from her panel, and she should pick and choose that which she wants to act upon, as any artist should do with feedback they receive. I hope in a small part she takes on board what Matthew offered, even if she chooses to ultimately not act upon it. Matthew has had his work developed widely across Australia and overseas, and has a lot to offer from his experiences. Surely his background gives evidence of his worthiness to sit on a panel and discuss Hillary’s work-in-progress with her – and if his experience is strong enough, I’m unsure why his opinions are something you want to flippantly disregard? I would suggest it’s that he’s quite a bit younger than others on the panel, but even I wouldn’t propose that you’ve been both ageist and sexist with your blog, Augusta.

Thank you for your strong opinions on how we should be developing new musicals, Augusta – I admire your bravery in holding such strong opinions on an artwork and process that I don’t believe you’re incredibly well-versed in. I know I wouldn’t be brave enough to hold such strong public views on new play development, as I haven’t spent my career in that field and frankly don’t know it well enough.

By the way – it’s Dennis WATKINS. I would have assumed that a student of Australian Theatre history such as yourself would recognize Dennis from his works such as Pearls before Swine and Eighth Wonder, as well as his achievements at the ABC and the Opera House.