Although the Senmore cast appreciates your compliments, there are several points in your article that are completely invalid. First of all, you stated that the sophomores did not have enough of a spotlight. This is completely false because the distribution of the spotlight was extremely fair. Four of our lead roles were led by sophomores, and in fact several sophomores had their own solo songs. Also, you mentioned that the metaphor was about graduating high school. This is not completely true. In the beginning of the year our SING advisers told us that we might not even have a show this year, due to the lack of participation and audience members. The students who were enthusiastic about SING pushed to keep it open for another year. In our show, the circus cast went through the same dilemma. Although it was not expressed in the play, the Senmore cast understood the hidden message. Therefore, our show was definitely not in favor of the seniors, and there is no reason for you to pity the sophomores. Although graduating high school was expressed in the play as a metaphor, this does not only pertain to the seniors. Everybody's goal in high school is to graduate. Furthermore, the "stereotypical ghetto character" was supposed to symbolize the class clown. He was there to offer personality among the circus cast, and add a bit of humor. Finally, as for the "Stronger" scene, it was supposed to look like choreographed chaos. After all, IT WAS A CLOWN SCENE, therefore it was meant as a joke. Even if you did not comprehend that, Mr. Kannon clearly states in the next scene that the performance was simply not well put together and not good enough. With all do respect, I believe you need to get all your facts together before bashing our show. Thanks for watching though(": - Alexa Sousa
I didn't think the review was "bashing" the show. She said complimetary things about it also.
I must agree, in part with Alexa Sousa. Many of the problems with the Senmore production that you mentioned were either intentional or inaccurate. You failed to mention that during the clown song "Stronger", Holly the Ringleader, wonderfully played by Marcenia Milton, fills in for them during the chorus. Whether or not you noticed this, this was done intentionally to increase the obvious fact that this scene/song/performance is terrible. She even abruptly stops the performance, no longer wishing to hear them, thus producing a ruined second chance.Although, I was not at the previous SING performances, I notice that this "both SINGS were terrible and only one can lose" attitude has existed for a while now. This publication was clearly inncurate in many instances.I am deepl disappointed by the editors and writers of this piece for not verifying their information. The show took place twice, you would think the accusations made would have some value.
wow so many people are so overly-sensitive! what do you want the reviewer to do, just say EVERYTHING was wonderful and perfect? That's not a review, that's just flattery!
It isn't being "over-sensitive," it’s defending our show. Putting together a whole show with different song lyrics and teenagers with busy schedules in about two months is an extremely difficult task and for someone to just basically point out how we were simply the worse SING! of the two is extremely rude and unnecessary. "However, a victor had to be chosen." As if both shows were terrible but one was worse.This is, after all, an extremely biased piece. The writer has personally admitted to ME that she hates SING. If someone hates SING so much, why even bother writing a review about it anyone but to spread more negativity to the readers?And there isn't "always" an "unintelligent, stereotypical ghetto character" in every SING. Our SING was the first to probably even do so, but as someone who obviously pays no mind to the performance, the writer perhaps didn't realize that when she wrote that. And "out-of-place?" They are sophomores. It is the seniors year, OUR YEAR. We were once sophomores and we knew where we stood. Even though a great deal of sophomores greatly impacted our show for the better, they have their junior and senior year to "steal the spotlight." This is like saying, "I can't believe Mrs. Watkins is letting seniors do program changes first instead of sophomores, UGH!"Thank you for the small percentage of compliments you gave our show and coming to the show itself (because that must have been a hassle!), but perhaps the future writer of play review shouldn't be someone who hates everything associated with dramatic arts. Just a thought.- Ylli Dema
There is a difference between accurate critisicm and inaccurate facts. I am sure both sides are looking for ways to improve after the various hardships they went through, but this article does seem to present a negative outlook not only on the Senmore SING but on both SING's. The difference between the two is that the Senmore SING, which is dissected much more critically than the Junmen SING,is not reviewed efficiently. I was there at the performance and agree that the alma matter and even the fight song needed considerable work, however other instances in the review detailing mistakes by the Senmores was unfounded.
Aye, check out Jaclyn's haters, making her even more famous. #TeamJaclyn #JoeyKnowsBest #SwagLikeRJ