What a catty, bitchy, and obnoxious article. Salon: why send someone who obviously lacks knowledge, experience, or interest in theatre to cover the most important night of the theatre season? Leave hacks like Mr. Marchese home to watch T.V. instead. Thanks.

" . . .but it wasn't long before people whose names and faces I didn't recognize from shows I haven't seen . . ."

Why in the world are you covering this event if you HAVEN'T SEEN THE SHOWS? Salon doesn't have anyone on staff who goes to the theater? I realize in your exalted capacity as associate music critic, you may not have the chance to get to get yourself to the theater, but, honestly, how interesting did you expect the event to be if you didn't bother to educate yourself about the material? In case you haven't noticed, most plays and musicals are available for viewing eight times a week; the nominations were announced a couple of months ago. Was this a last-minute assignment? You couldn't have fit any theater-time into your schedule?

And, gee, it's too bad that the theater professionals being honored by their peers acted like . . . professionals accepting an honor from their peers. I'm so sorry they didn't tailor their remarks to suit your attention-defective sensibilities.

Really, Mr. Marchese, you--and your editors--should be ashamed of yourselves. This article is just a lazy, insulting and ignorant way to fulfill what your employer apparently believes is its obligation to cover the Tony Awards show (which is mysterious, since it doesn't pay much attention to the theater the rest of the year). You would obviously have been happier elsewhere last night. Salon would do better to find someone qualified to do the job you failed to do.

Because I don't live in New York. I don't get a chance to see any of these plays, ever. Even if I were to visit New York, the chances of me being able to get a ticket (that's if I can even afford one) are more than remote.

And guess what: The vast majority of people are in the same position as I am. We don't give a damn, because it's a self-involved New York-only club, which every year attempts to pass itself off as some grandiose event which we SHOULD be interested in.

This is not a comment about the quality of the plays. There should probably be some award dinner somewhere, attended by a few New York theater critics to recognize the very valid work being done by Broadway artists. But frankly, as a televised event, it feels just like the White House Correspondant's dinner: A bunch of insiders kissing the ass of another bunch of insiders.

Sorry, me no buy...

We are told that award shows are boring, so we are bored. We are told that the Tonys aren't as important as the Oscars, so we don't tune in. We are told that last year's show was better, and so we think it was.

Personally, I thought last night's show was wonderful: plays of substance won. "Legally Blonde: the Musical" got nada. "Grey Gardens" and "Spring Awakening," two musicals that are taking The Musical in new (and exciting!?) directions were honored instead. "Coast of Utopia" and "Frost/Nixon," two plays that are thoughtful pieces dealing with complex socio-political history, were also honored. August Wilson's final work, while not a Tony Winner, was still recorded as a play of cultural importance via its nominations. The numbers we saw were fantastic (ok, except for "A Chorus Line" which I never want to see again. Honestly, how can we miss it if it won't go away!? But that's my personal taste). Fantasia was riveting: who knew an Americal Idol could act as well as belt out a tune? Audra McDonald could sing the telephone book and I would be riveted. Christine Ebersole cracked me up: what genius. And "Spring Awakening"?! Wow.

Yes, theatre caters to a smaller crowd than film. So what? It's one night. It's glorious. (And I am dying to know: who was the dude in the red plaid pegged pants?)

Evidently Justin Bond isn't the only one who thinks theater people are much more boring than music people - a search shows that David Marchese has only ever written about pop music for Salon, unless you count his interview with Duncan Sheik (and he was a pop musician first so he's OK).

How exciting to read little David's very first theater article! Good job! You get a cookie now.

Or maybe I'm wrong - did you do something to make your editors mad? Those meanies made you listen to all those nobodies talk about dumb plays instead of writing about something really cool and important, like American Idol. But at least you managed to catch some tube while you were ignoring everything going on around you. It's not like Tina Fey got her start in live performance or anything.

Salon, no more of this please.

Haven't you noticed - I sure have - that "A Chorus Line" is the grandparent of all reality shows? Of course it deserves a revival, and of course it should be shown on TV.

Theatre is still one of the more important expressive arts. We need to take delight in it. If we write it off, as one of the letter writers to this forum seems to want to do, we lose an essential element of our culture, much like losing the novel form or opera. Obviously it doesn't speak to everyone, more the pity, but those who have little experience with live theatre are truly missing one of the great joys and emotional as well as intellectual experiences our culture still offers. History teaches us that as higher art forms vanish in a society, so does the society.

I am an unabashed fan of the theatre and the Tonys. Unfortunately,I haven't been to NYC recently, but road companies come to my city, and I want to know what has been valued, not just reviewed. I want to see the great talent that is assembled on Tony night. I want to revel in their assessment of each other's work, I want to be a part of this living, breathing art form.

The Tonys, like any of the other awards shows, promotes the work of its artists. So? This is necessary to keep an audience in any art form. While not as expensive to produce as a film a TV show or a pop music concert, a play, especially a musical, can be extremely costly to mount. Audiences are needed to make any art form possible, and promotion is necessary to bring in audience members. Are award programs more offensive than gossip magazines and news stories about drug addicts? Is the promotion of live theatre through the Tonys more offensive than promoting a TV show by gambling on the fate of fictitious gangsters? I would think not.

Thus, we should watch the Tonys, and we should hope that those who choose to review the production would be able to bring some experience and background to their task. Shame on your critic for being been so ill informed before attending and "reviewing" the Tonys, and pity the person who knows so little about theatre that he or she cannot understand why it is important, enjoyable and valuable.