sounds like you're saying they need another carol marvin, just as long as its not her.
I may misunderstand ----- Original Message ----- From: "lisa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kent williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "313 list" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:45 PM Subject: Re: (313) Future of Movement > Hiya Kent - your post has me thinking a few things ... > > I give Derrick credit for driving around as he did that day, asking for > donations. My impression of it was somewhat grassroots and showed that > he was willing to do pretty much anything to make this work. I'll never > fault anyone for caring. No matter what went on behind the scenes to > bring this about, it was both sad and inspiring to see someone do this. > > I would suggest to those involved (planners, artists, sponsors, etc.) > that it would be a good idea to sit down and hold a formal & private > "retrospective" for Movement 04. That's where you review your original > goals/objectives against what really happened. People get to have a say > as well (it's important to talk about what went well & what didn't in > equal measure). At this time you would also talk about ideas for what > might be done differently or occur next time. It would be a good idea to > have someone experienced in facilitation run the session who was not > involved in the festival, that way they can be objective and help keep > it balanced. As you might imagine, these sessions can easily get out of > hand. > > I can tell you there is always a debate (amongst those who do this kinda > stuff) about how this should be done. Should the planner know the > content/project intimately or be an outsider? My opinion is that it > works best if the person is an outsider *but* someone able to understand > just about anything that goes on (i.e., you can ask the right questions) > and make it happen. The best arguments for an "objective" person is that > they can see things that others cannot, if only because they are an > outsider and they don't let ego and politics get in the way (if they're > good, that is - LOL). > > Another argument for having a person dedicated to planning/management is > that others can focus on doing what it is that they want to or are > supposed to be doing, instead of wearing so many hats that their head is > spinning and it ends up being an unpleasant time for all (at no fault of > anyone other than the situation itself). Of course there has to be > status meetings and such, otherwise things get out of hand. > > Sorry if this is kinda geeky, but I think that if it can work for > complex, multi-million dollar projects, then some of the ideas can help > with any large undertaking, like a festival. > > Lisa > > > Kent williams wrote: > > We can go on and on about Movement, and I don't intend to do that here, but > > I have a few things to say on the subject: > > > > 1. There has been much criticism of Movement '04, some of it valid and > > constructive, but every picture I took at the Festival had people smiling > > in it. There was a vibe there that is rare. That, to me, is the most > > precious thing about the Festival. > > > > 2. Without discounting in any way the time, money, and heart Derrick May > > put into the festival, the disorganization and last-minute drama didn't > > help. There needs to be someone involved with the festival who can sell > > it to large-dollar sponsors, manage logistics, and get ahead of the curve. > > Booking the lineup is the fun part, and only about 1% of the job. > > > > Kevin Saunderson seems to be poised to take on this role. I don't know > > Kevin personally, but in the press conference he seemed calm, articulate, > > and tactful. The fact remains that these guys are at the top of their game > > in the studio or in the DJ booth, but the skills required to put on a 3 > > day festival are completely different. > > > > Beyond that, everything I have to say about the festival has already been > > said by Brian Mccollum in the Free Press. > > > > http://www.freep.com/entertainment/music/move1_20040601.htm > > > > > >
