I have to say that the real key, in my opinion, is to remember that a chain is only as strong as its’ weakest link. The amateur groups can have all the passion they want, but the show will only be as good as their poorest actor or their cheesiest sound effect.

I’m not going to say that my recreation group is perfect (far from it), but every member has their own strengths, which continue to get stronger each performance. I have been to recreations where the “actors” were not even good readers, let alone actors. I saw a performance of Lights Out “The Dark” where the sound of bodies being turned inside out was approximated by fingers SKREEKing on an inflated balloon…not quite the chilling wet-sugical-gloves-and-wooden-berry-box SFLURKRUNCHKRAKSQUISH that should have been done. It was FREE, and I felt cheated. Ouch.

The recreations in Cincy that I’ve seen and participated in, do happen to have something different in them - PROFESSIONALS. I must say that the real OTR actors are really something! The essentially lost art of live audio drama is made to look easy by these pros. They effortlessly go into character, perform their lines, cover their flubs, occasionally ad lib - makes a lot of us think that anyone could do it. NOT SO. I am so impressed by what they do!

Another time, a sci-fi recreation that my sister was acting in was going really well - I was in the audience thoroughly enjoying it…all the acting was top-notch, the pacing was great, I was all caught up in it…my pace quickened as the creepy show neared it’s peak…and ALL AT ONCE - some stupid goofy song blared out of the speakers (Spike Jones “Cocktails For Two”?!?)! The sound guy had cued the wrong sound. Absolutely ruined the show. Sigh.

Again, not that this kind of stuff can’t occasionally happen (hey, the first “Sorry Wrong Number” was goofed up, right?), but the difference was that back in the day, EVERYONE involved was a PROFESSIONAL. Knew what they were doing. Had a backup plan in case something went wrong. Was good enough that they could help someone else out if they were lost. LOST THEIR JOB IF THEY REALLY GOOFED UP.

Not so much of that going on today.

Anyone producing or performing audio drama today is going to have to identify their weaknesses, and fix them. The ENTIRE SHOW (script, acting, sound effects, music, pacing) will have to be EXCELLENT. It’s the only way to allow quality comparisons to real OTR. It’s the only way to prove that you actually care.

Give your audience the BEST.

Enough. I would prefer hearing from someone else on the subject now; perhaps someone who can articulate a position without resorting to cheap personal attacks.

Charlie, if you read my response, I suggested alternate activities for you, if you do not want to be at a re-creation. Doesn’t that mean that I DO have enough tolerance to accept that you are not interested in seeing re-creations?

Finally, if I have never done it, and you have never done it, I never suggested “teaching” you how to do it. I am not so sure that “how it was done” was such a big, dark, mysterious secret. And how would you know, if you had never done it either?

Besides, it’s clear to any intelligent reader how strident and intolerant his positions are (apparently if Mr. Lubin hasn’t personally witnessed your attendance at an OTR convention, you have no right to an opinion, even if you have been a professional actor/director), while in some cases making my points for me.

(*shrug*) Again, I hope Mr. Lubin enjoys his amateur acting performances. I only hope he some day finds enough tolerance to accept that some of us aren’t interested in seeing those performances. Like I said, unlike even the worst of the legitimate Old-Time Radio actors, he has nothing to teach me about how it was done. He never did it himself.

The tone that I used in disagreeing with Mr. Greenwald is in itself subject to interpretation and really has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments. We bring up “tone” when we fail to support our arguments. I have been told that I sometimes debate with a non-too-friendly tone. That is perhaps because I was a college debater, but it probably is more likely because I do not argue any points frivilously. I argue only when I feel that the issues are vitally important and when the person I am refuting has either misstated the facts or lacks credentials and experience to expose his arguments to warrant the demeanor of expertise in which he ponificates his views.

In Mr. Greenwald’s criticism of contemporary re-enactments of old radio programs, his position was that they were all poor and could never measure up to what had been performed originally on radio. I refuted his argument, first by giving my own credentials: seeing the original shows; seeing the re-enactments during years of attendance where they were done; and participating in them myself. I asked Mr. Greenwald if he had seen the originals, and if he had seen the re-enactments. He never answered me on the former, and I do not remember ever seeing him at any OTR Conventions, whether he himself alleges to have been there or not. Neither does anyone else. In financing his Sherlock Holmes shows, he has worked with very accomplished radio actors, and they are always excellent.

Charlie’s support of his opinion introduces the great influence of having done so many shows, each week,for decades, and believes that that makes them so much better than some professional animation and voice-over artists of today. Practice and practice and more practice are only helpful to a point. It guarantees nothing. Then, some directors realize that that is as good as it is going to get. Acting is an art, not a football game. In an art, practice does not necessarily make perfect. And whether we use the word re-creation or some other word, we do not use the word to prove the excellence of a show. We use the word so that all concerned will be on the same page in understanding what is being said. The word “re-creation”, in itself, has no value judgment implied.

I certainly do not do re-creations because I have some misguided opinion that I am keeping radio alive. Most of us who do them do so because we enjoy acting, just as stage actors perform, many without pay. We love it. If Charlie does not like them, there are plenty of other things to do at Holiday Inn, Newark: speak to guests in the lobby; go to the dealers’ rooms; have a piece of pie in the coffee shop. But we who are doing them are doing so because we love them, not because we feel we are professionals. And certainly not because we feel that we are “re-creating” something that had been done before.

Now Charlie writes this very dogmatic statement: “Someone who voices an animation is using a different skill-set than a radio actor; same with any other voice-over artist. Whether we like it or not, it is impossible for anyone today to acquire the tools required. Period.” What skill set are you referring to? Describe.

Sounds good, but I would like to see some proof of that. Too bad Daws Butler, June Foray and Janet Waldo cannot be polled about that statement.

When Charlie says:>>consider the number of people who actually hear your productions, that is like saying that if no one is in the forest, a tree falling makes no sound. Whether you are heard or not by an audience does not make an artform dead and buried. Old time radio may not be listened to anymore as it used to be, but doing re-creations is also an art form, and as far as whose listening, I haven’t seen them banned from the conventions. More people, even younger people, are showing up at conventions, and filling auditoriums where conventions are performed, and that is not just to see the minute smattering of an OTR performer mingled in with contemporary actors. Conventioneers love re-creations!

I must react to this stetement of Charlie’s:>>I’d bet even Mr. Lubin, were he to be honest, would admit to seeing amateur “re-creations” that were, to be charitable, not quite up-to-snuff. Or maybe not; maybe his love for audio theater allows him to more easily suspend his critical ear, and if so, I almost envy him.

So now, my opinion is based on whether I can be honest or not? Charlie, I have seen re-creations that were so bad, even you would not believe it. The majority of them contain performers who are not even good stage actors. I have been embarrassed to have my name associated with them. I have stopped directing because they do what they wish, and I am asked why I had them do that, as a director. But I have seen great re-creations as well. And I have seen poor performances on the radio in the 40’s. I have seen clips where copious critical notes were given by angry directors to OTR performers. I refuse to believe that it is all black or all white, that all re-creations are bad and that all original OTR performances were great. Not in my experience.