How much attention do you pay to critics' reviews?

[Anjuli_Bai]

I wonder though how with a paper like the metro, which I imagine most people are reading for free on the train (as opposed to via the website), they come to the decision to drop the arts coverage. I guess they carry out surveys and find out which pages people are skipping.

 

Regarding the original question, I don't pay any attention to reviews really, but I do appreciate the features and interviews national newspapers can provide, particularly the guardian and telegraph. Anyone can write a review, so I wouldn't care if they disappear, but not everyone can conduct an interview with Tamara Rojo, or be given access to the pointe shoe room at the ROH, for example.

 

It is true that anyone can write a review in the same context that anyone can write about anything even if that includes writing about how much they don't know about the subject.  

 

But not everyone can write a review with knowledge and discernment.  A review is not just a statement of what the critic thought about the performance - but why.  It is also an opinion filtered through an historical, knowledgeable perspective.  It is not just a statement that Mary Jones gave an excellent performance of Giselle.

 

Why was it excellent?  What aspects of the character did she illuminate?  Is the Giselle of today different than 30 yrs ago?  How so? How might Giselle need to change to fit the expectations of an audience today?  Should it?  But, perhaps Mary Jones did not dance well - but she shows promise - why?  Should Giselle still be considered an important touchstone for the ballerina?   Were the production values up to standard?  The orchestra?  

 

I don't think anyone could take on those issues.  They might not be of interest to you and/or the general ballet going public and so its fair for the news publication to elilminate the coverage -but not because anyone can write a review.

 

On the other hand - it might be said that interviewing is a different skill.  A good interviewer doesn't need to have an intimate knowledge of either the interviewee or the subject matter.  Certainly useful - but not necessary.  

 

I don't think one can conflate the two skills.  

[alison]

Anyone can write a review,

 

Go on, then ...  (You really asked for that one!)

[Fonty]

I wonder though how with a paper like the metro, which I imagine most people are reading for free on the train (as opposed to via the website), they come to the decision to drop the arts coverage. I guess they carry out surveys and find out which pages people are skipping.

 

 

 

 

Well, if they carry out surveys, I wonder who they ask?  This is supposed to be a newspaper covering all aspects of the life in a big city.  I used to rely on the Metro to tell me when are where something was on.  They often used to review the smaller, fringe performances, which was very useful.

 

If they wanted to drop something, I would have thought the reviews of last night's tv could go. 

 

The sports coverage in The Metro is the same.  Pages and pages and pages of football - matches that have been played, future matches, managers' rivalries, interviews with new players, interviews with old players, speculation....the list goes on and on. 

 

But tennis merits a couple of lines, usually.  And only then if Andy Murray is still in the competition. 

[MAB]

The four pages of celebrity gossip could go or at least be reduced to two, it's supposed to be a news paper after all.

[alison]

But tennis merits a couple of lines, usually.  And only then if Andy Murray is still in the competition. 

 

LOL.  But then they completely failed to report on his breakup with Ivan Lendl - or was that the Standard?

[chrischris]

It is true that anyone can write a review in the same context that anyone can write about anything even if that includes writing about how much they don't know about the subject.  

 

But not everyone can write a review with knowledge and discernment.  A review is not just a statement of what the critic thought about the performance - but why.  It is also an opinion filtered through an historical, knowledgeable perspective.  It is not just a statement that Mary Jones gave an excellent performance of Giselle.

 

Why was it excellent?  What aspects of the character did she illuminate?  Is the Giselle of today different than 30 yrs ago?  How so? How might Giselle need to change to fit the expectations of an audience today?  Should it?  But, perhaps Mary Jones did not dance well - but she shows promise - why?  Should Giselle still be considered an important touchstone for the ballerina?   Were the production values up to standard?  The orchestra?  

 

I don't think anyone could take on those issues.  They might not be of interest to you and/or the general ballet going public and so its fair for the news publication to elilminate the coverage -but not because anyone can write a review.

 

On the other hand - it might be said that interviewing is a different skill.  A good interviewer doesn't need to have an intimate knowledge of either the interviewee or the subject matter.  Certainly useful - but not necessary.  

 

I don't think one can conflate the two skills.  

 

I would get that kind of feedback from here, and a couple of blogs if I was really that interested.

[Odyssey]

There is something very satisfying about reading a reviewer who is an accomplished writer and blessed with a pithy turn of phrase. I enjoy reading comments that crystallise the impressions your mind has been grappling to formulate.

[SMballet]

Joining this conversation late, just to say that I like reading reviews, and often really love reading them, but I don't "pay attention" to them when deciding what to see, or what to think about a performance. I actually deliberately avoid reading (professional newspaper) reviews before seeing a performance, as I don't like being affected by them. But I definitely read this forum before going to see anything, and am far more influenced and informed by what I read here, perhaps because of the multiplicity and diversity of views, than I ever am by any professional critic. Having said that, I like the two Guardian critics very much, and always enjoy reading what they write after I have seen a performance; and I like reading their reviews of things I have not and cannot see. I enjoy reading dance criticism and reportage in all forms (though, as I've said before elsewhere on this forum, I don't enjoy reading the snobby FT and NYT critics).

I do think that professional criticism has its value, but if I were forced to choose b/w professional critics and non professional reviews written by all of you here, I'd much rather go with the latter. Maybe it's a generation thing. Maybe when I'm older I'll appreciate professional critics more, but for now, many of them just seem so... out of touch. (NOT the Guardian two though)

Edited March 31, 2014 by SMballet

[MAB]

But the FT's critic does have an engaging prose style, something none of the others have.  I don't see the point of these very mundane, poorly written crits and a number of them have an agenda.  One woman I never read because I know exactly what she will write in advance, so much the pet of one particular company she is.  What happened to the aim of subjectivity?

[Jan McNulty]

Does the FT's critic not also have an agenda? 

[Fonty]

But the FT's critic does have an engaging prose style, something none of the others have. 

 

Oh yes, indeed.  I always look forward to that review, because somewhere in it there will be a line that makes me laugh.  But I don't always agree with him. 

 

I enjoy reading the various opinions of the different ballet critics, particularly when it is a debut performance.  But it doesn't really influence me in terms of what ballet productions or performers I will see.

 

On the other hand, there are certain cinema critics that I read if I am undecided whether to see a film or not.  I know their taste is similar to mine, so if they like it, then I will too.  Likewise, drama productions.

 

I believe critics are vitally important because they draw attention to something that I might otherwise forget about or not notice in the first place.  But I treat them in the same way as reviews on Trip Advisor - interesting, and sometimes helpful, but I would not base my final decision purely on their opinions. 

[Bruce Wall]

Points well made, Alison.  I don't blame the journalists themselves.  They are simply - while they can - striving to make a living.  It is the Editors who appoint them and look after (e.g., are responsible for) the potential conflicts for the paper/media that I think should bear the brunt of concern here.  That makes Ms. Crompton's situation particularly challenging I fear.  In her regard it would really boil down I suppose to the editorial board/owners I imagine.  In certain areas (such as the one in which I dwell) her conflicts would be immediately outlawed as a simple point of practice, I fear.  Certainly I wouldn't get away with it ... or not for very long - that's for sure.  

 

While realising that budgets are finite, I would imagine that the said editors could find (if they wished) informed journalists to do the interviews/features if the named staff themselves preferred to review and/or vice versa.  Certainly there seem to be many talented and informed writers floating about on line.   

Edited August 8, 2014 by Bruce Wall

[Jan McNulty]

Bruce Wall wrote this:

 

I had one additional point of concern this morning.  Am I alone in being somewhat troubled by the fact that the two most prominent and positive reviews of this programme - as featured in today's links - are written by reviewers - and in The Daily Telegraph's case the woman who is the overall Arts Editor - who have previously had dinners with and, in the Guardian's case, shared a preparatory class aside the two stars of this production?  Years ago I remember chatting with Clive Barnes and his saying that he felt it was "mandatory" - in order to keep an objective critical stance on behalf of his readership - that he not do interviews, other features or in any way socialise with any of the personnel responsible for any of the productions (be they dance or theatre) he would be reviewing.  "Other people can write those," he quipped.  He even said that he turned down social invitations if he was aware that any such would be attending.  I must confess I was myself concerned when Sarah Crompton (ref The Daily Telegraph) showed up to do the pre-class interview and commentary with the Mariinsky Acting Director on the live class feature.  Other people (if I recall correctly) took those roles for the Telegraph last year when the paper featured similar video outings with the Bolshoi.  (Perhaps she won't be reviewing any of the other items of the Mariinsky fare to be presented.  That would, in my estimation, be prudent.)  Indeed, neither of these women made ANY reference to their associations in their SOLO FOR TWO reviews - and both, I believe, have additionally written features.  Perhaps this is just a sign of our times.  They may well now be right (I don't know) and certainly must be (rightfully I think) fearful for their positions given the overwhelming and current industry trends.  Within the next decade or so such posts may well be entirely non-vocational.  The internet does offer such wonderful succour in terms of alternative resource.  Just look at Bruce Marriott's gloriously rich DanceTabs!!!  We are, I think, so lucky; so very blessed.

 

on the Osipova/Vasiliev Solo for Two thread

 

and MAB responded:

 

You are not alone in being troubled by certain critic's alliances, I've been aware of this for some time and never cease to regret that the likes of Clive Barnes, John Percival et al, with their personal codes of conduct, are a thing of the past.

 

 

Alison suggested:

 

I think Bruce and MAB raise some good points here - perhaps we could take them over to the "Critics" thread, wherever it is? There's certainly something to be said for keeping one's distance from the subjects of one's writing, I suppose. I'm reminded that I recently saw an interview with a well-known tennis player done by a newspaper's tennis correspondent, and can understand the sense behind it, because you'd expect the tennis correspondent to know something about tennis (not necessarily a given, admittedly ...), but that I suppose is a slightly different situation because his job is only to *report*, not to critique. On the other hand, likewise if you don't get the person who's supposed to know something about their subject to do, say, a dance interview, then what happens? Do you get some piece of fluff from some staffer who doesn't really know what questions to ask, for example? Plus I believe that interviews pay better than reviews, and that's probably something to be taken into consideration, especially if a critic is effectively a freelance.

I still have memories of Nicholas Dromgoole, writing for the Sunday Telegraph, managing pretty successfully to avoid reviewing Lesley Collier's performance, even when it was a performance starring her, while they were married ...

[Jan McNulty]

Bruce was posting on the other thread as I was setting this theme up so his post appears above mine when I moved it.  To keep the thread running here is what he wrote:

 

 

Points well made, Alison.  I don't blame the journalists themselves.  They are simply - while they can - striving to make a living.  It is the Editors who appoint them and look after (e.g., are responsible for) the potential conflicts for the paper/media that I think should bear the brunt of concern here.  That makes Ms. Crompton's situation particularly challenging I fear.  In her regard it would really boil down I suppose to the editorial board/owners I imagine.  In certain areas (such as the one in which I dwell) her conflicts would be immediately outlawed as a simple point of practice, I fear.  Certainly I wouldn't get away with it ... or not for very long - that's for sure.  

 

While realising that budgets are finite, I would imagine that the said editors could find (if they wished) informed journalists to do the interviews/features if the named staff themselves preferred to review and/or vice versa.  Certainly there seem to be many talented and informed writers floating about on line. 

[Jan McNulty]

The press seems to be cutting down drastically on Arts specialists so while not desirable I expect it is done out of necessity.  Whether these other interactions should be declared in interviews is an interesting point.

[Anjuli_Bai]

I am very careful to never have any social interaction with any dancer or company which I review.  I don't stand during a standing ovation and I don't applaud.  

 

I might read the reviews of other critics but only after my own has been written and published.

[DrewCo]

I just wanted to say that while I try not to let professional or amateur critics influence me--while also being willing to learn from them (I hope)--I have been impressed at the amount of press coverage dance events get in London as compared to what I tend to find for New York.

 

Trying to find (professional, print) critical comment on the Mariinsky in London, I have found more than I was ever able to find on the Bolshoi in New York just a week or two earlier, especially concerning second and third casts. I don't know how long that situation will last, but I find it enviable. One obvious problem in NY is the minimal number of major daily newspapers altogether ...

[Ian Macmillan]

DrewCo:  As one of those who carries out our daily Links trawl, I would agree up to a point.  I thought there was a good deal of coverage of the Bolshoi visit from Alastair Macaulay in the NY Times.  But over the last six months or so, Leigh Witchel has pretty much disappeared from the New York Post, where he was once very regular, and is now to be seen online from time to time on Danceviewtimes, and Robert Gottlieb is only an occasional contributor to the NY Observer.  But when these critics do write, my impression is that they are allowed many more column inches to develop an argument in depth than is often the case over here these days on our larger number of broadsheets.  (Even Clement Crisp in the FT seems thus limited..... but it may just be that he has an ability to say what he needs in a few well chosen acerbic or laudatory words.)

[John Mallinson]

DrewCo, I too am sometimes surprised by the extent of the London coverage. I keep track of reviews of the Royal Ballet's programmes and this season The Winter's Tale (a new Wheeldon ballet) had 22 reviews online, half of which were from print publications. The average for other programmes is about 12 and I think major visiting companies can expect about the same. The quality and degree of interest is not uniform but ballet criticism seems alive and pretty well here - if not outside London.

[Jan McNulty]

Hello DrewCo and welcome to the Forum.

 

I agree with the points Ian has made (as a fellow links trawler).

 

I think the USA, in terms of newspapers, is a very different beast to the UK in that because of the difference in size we have national newspapers which I don't think happens in the USA.  Of course, while we have local papers these seem to becoming more and more bland as they are taken over by print corporations and there is less and less in depth local news coverage in them.

 

The Arts coverage seems to becoming less all the time as the print newspapers are struggling to compete with online resources.  Of course a major disadvantage of this is that coverage of regional dance events becomes ever more sparse and even coverage in London seems to cover the main events whereas (to my eyes) the NY Times covers a very diverse range of dance.

 

I tend not to have issues about not looking at reviews before I see something because the provinces are so little represented these days!  I do look at the reviews, when there are any(!) after I have seen a performance.