Commenting on reviews

[aileen]

I would like to be able to comment on reviews posted on this site. You used to be able to do this in the reviews section but this can no longer be done. Could this facility be re-introduced? Alternatively, could a sub-forum be introduced linking to the daily reviews?

 

This request was prompted by Louise Levene's review of the RB's current triple bill in The Telegraph. She is critical of several dancers, both named and unnamed, but her most scathing criticism is reserved for Nehemiah Kish whom she descibes as "doltish". I am aware that the word has two meanings, one arguably more unflattering than the other, but I find this description of him just plain rude, and I say this as one who is not a particular admirer. I know that people on this forum, myself included, often post quite critical opinions of productions and individual dancers but this forum, whilst not private, does not have the huge audience that a critic in a national newspaper has. I suppose the question is, how rude should a (professional) critical be allowed to be?

[Jan McNulty]

You can still comment on the reviews but in this forum rather than the links forum. The easiest way to do it may be to open up the review in the links, copy the review URL and paste it into the post you wish to make here. Perhaps copy and paste the sentence or two that you wish to comment on. Then make your comment. This will give a topic that people can discuss without having to move between 2 threads.

 

For example:

 

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/lifestyle/arts-entertainment/theatre-reviews/theatre-review-the-nutcracker-leeds-grand-theatre-1-5279801

 

"They have a grandstand seat for the national dances with Sebastian Loe and Kevin Poeung, hot favourites, dancing."

 

I am glad that the reviewer has recognised the talents of these 2 dancers.

[Jan McNulty]

Aileen, you have highlighted a hobby horse of mine.

 

I prefer professional reviewers to be honest but not personal and rude. I have read some appallingly rude reviews that have been little more than personal insults over the years and I think they are downright unprofessional.

 

I don't expect people to write glowing reviews of everything, I don't mind critical reviews but I mind very much the personal attacks that occasionally appear in the press.

[Tigerlily]

Aileen (and Janet), I think you are spot on here. There is a difference between criticising a particular dancer's technical accomplishment (or otherwise!) or dramatic interpretation of a particular role, and criticising the individual, and for me this particular review crossed that line.

 

Saying that, I haven't seen Nehemiah in In The Night as yet (I'll ge tthe chance to on Wednesday!) but I have enjoyed many other performances where he was dancing, both with the Royal Ballet and before. In particular I remember his first performance with the RB in Swan Lake with Zenaida - I thought I was pretty much swanned out by that stage, but by the final curtain I was in tears...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[toursenlair]

Nehemiah Kish whom she descibes as "doltish". I am aware that the word has two meanings, one arguably more unflattering than the other,

Forgive me for putting my lexicographer hat on for a moment and going off topic, but may I ask what your understanding of the two meanings of "doltish" are?

(Poor Nehemiah!!)

[aileen]

1. heavy, dull (in a physical sense)

2. dull, stupid (intellectually)

 

I would think that if you called someone a "dolt" (the noun) you would be saying that s/he was stupid (and probably in the sense that s/he couldn't help it ie s/he wasn't very intelligent). Others may disagree. I certainly find the use of the word "doltish" pretty extreme (and insulting) in the context of a review by what I assume is a professional critic.

[aileen]

Actually, I would be interested to know what qualifies someone as a ballet critic as opposed to someone who is paid to write reviews. If someone has actually been a ballet dancer (I think that Luke Jennings is one) then s/he is able to comment from a position of knowledge on the technical aspects of a performance at least. I assume that most dance critics were never professional dancers though. I mean no impoliteness when I ask: what gives them the knowledge and the authority to write their reviews?

[toursenlair]

1. heavy, dull (in a physical sense)

2. dull, stupid (intellectually)

 

I would think that if you called someone a "dolt" (the noun) you would be saying that s/he was stupid (and probably in the sense that s/he couldn't help it ie s/he wasn't very intelligent). Others may disagree. I certainly find the use of the word "doltish" pretty extreme (and insulting) in the context of a review by what I assume is a professional critic.

 

That's interesting. All the dictionaries give only the "stupid" sense. I wonder if the "heavy" sense is a new one. Anyone else use it this way?

I agree it's insulting.

[toursenlair]

Actually, I would be interested to know what qualifies someone as a ballet critic as opposed to someone who is paid to write reviews. If someone has actually been a ballet dancer (I think that Luke Jennings is one) then s/he is able to comment from a position of knowledge on the technical aspects of a performance at least. I assume that most dance critics were never professional dancers though. I mean no impoliteness when I ask: what gives them the knowledge and the authority to write their reviews?

 

Sometimes the "dance critic" at a newspaper is whatever reporter they have available to go to a performance.

I would hope this is not true of the Telegraph, however.

[Anjuli_Bai]

If the reviewer means "doltish" in the heavy sense why not use the word "heavy?"

 

The words "reviewer" and "critic" as well as "review" and "critique" - according to the dictionary, have come to mean the same thing.. I'm not sure they always were. I think at one time a review was simply "what happened" whilst a critique was"what the writer thought about what happened.

 

I'm not sure that having been a dancer is an absolute necessity. I can think of several very well known and indeed famous critics who were not. This doesn't mean that technical knowledge of dance is not an important - even very important factor. But there are other important components such as an historical perspective both recent and further removed. A sensitivity and acknowledgement that what one sees on any one occasion is a snapshot in time. The finest artist does sometimes have a less than successful performance. The historical perspective of the critic helps to spot a singular occurrent as opposed to a trend.

 

And, then, just as important is the ability to convey thoughts through words on paper and not succumb to falling in love with one's own words to the detriment of accuracy and thus honesty to both the artist and the audience.

 

I could have said that much more simply as: One needs to write with simplicity and honesty.

 

(But I fell in love with "And, then, just as important is the ability.......")

[aileen]

Anjuli_Bai, I agree that it's not essential that a ballet critic has been a ballet dancer. But if you have not been a dancer then surely a critic has, somehow, to acquire technical knowledge of what one might call the mechanics of ballet, as well as historical knowledge, otherwise s/he is not offering much more than a regular balletgoer could do. I expect a professional critic to offer much more than his/her subjective opinion about how good or enjoyable the production, dancers etc were. All of us on this forum can do that. I just wonder how these critics start out. I suspect that some of them end up in this field by accident, rather than as a result of their knowledge of and interest in ballet. Over time, I suppose that they do acquire a certain expertise and their reviews seem knowledgeable to the occasional balletgoer.

 

[Anjuli_Bai]

Aileen - technique is only a means to an end. The critic is critiquing that end. Some of the most beloved artists are not technically perfect nor even close. But what they do have is connection to the observer.

 

That doesn't mean the writer shouldn't have a knowledge of technique. The fact remains that those who are often considered the best in the field of critique were not themselves participants.

 

That could also be a plus - giving them some distance from the sweat aspect. And, a bit less of the natural sympathy of having a closer relation.

 

People in almost any field often end up there by accident. That doesn't subtract from either their ability or success.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Anjuli_Bai

[John Mallinson]

I would like to be able to comment on reviews posted on this site. You used to be able to do this in the reviews section but this can no longer be done. Could this facility be re-introduced? Alternatively, could a sub-forum be introduced linking to the daily reviews?

We changed the format of the Links forum to make it tidier and easier to read. As Janet has said the place to comment on reviews is now in the relevant thread about the performance (which also avoids having discussion of the performance or programme in two places) - I'm against a sub-forum for discussion in Links as that too would very likely lead to duplication. If the review has no counterpart in this forum then that's a good opportunity to start a new topic.

 

As for 'doltish', either Levene was being very rude about Kish as a man or dancer or, and I think this is more likely, was describing the character he portrayed. I agree, it isn't clear.

[Sim]

"The only drama at the evening performance was supplied by a doltish Nehemiah Kish, who partnered like a man doing battle with a flat-pack wardrobe"

 

This is totally clear to me....she is not referring to Kish's character at all, she is referring to him, the dancer. It's not the first time she's been rude in print; she even had a go at, to paraphrase, 'the sad people who write on ballet forums' a few years ago!! I've never forgiven her for that one!!

 

Regarding the discussion above, someone once paraphrased Shaw's "those who can, do.....those who cannot, teach" to "those who can, do.....those who cannot, become critics". True or false? Interesting comments on both sides of the argument from Aileen and Anjuli....thanks ladies!

[Anjuli_Bai]

"The only drama at the evening performance was supplied by a doltish Nehemiah Kish, who partnered like a man doing battle with a flat-pack wardrobe"

 

This is totally clear to me....she is not referring to Kish's character at all, she is referring to him, the dancer. It's not the first time she's been rude in print; she even had a go at, to paraphrase, 'the sad people who write on ballet forums' a few years ago!! I've never forgiven her for that one!!

 

Regarding the discussion above, someone once paraphrased Shaw's "those who can, do.....those who cannot, teach" to "those who can, do.....those who cannot, become critics". True or false? Interesting comments on both sides of the argument from Aileen and Anjuli....thanks ladies!

 

Does that make a teacher (or critic) someone who ipso facto cannot do? I don't think so.

 

What was it that Shaw could not do that he turned to writing? Or does he exempt himself? I think that is an example of a writer falling in love with a turrn of phrase.

 

How about those who can "do" but cannot teach?

[John Mallinson]

Interesting to contrast Levene's review with that of Laura Thompson in the same paper describing an earlier performance by the same cast: "All are peerless, sublime at that level where critical faculties expire for lack of oxygen." Wow! Emphasises the point that, as we all know, dance criticism is extremely subjective.

[Ian Macmillan]

In this centenary year, from the pages of Nicolas Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical Invective" I give you:

 

Who wrote this fiendish Rite of Spring,

What right had he to write the thing,

Against our helpless ears to fling

Its crash, clash, cling, clang, bing, bang, bing?

 

And then to call it Rite of Spring,

The season when on joyous wing

The birds melodious carols sing

And Harmony's in everything!

 

He who could write the Rite of Spring,

If I be right, by right should swing!

 

From the Boston Herald of 9 February 1924 - by when one might have thought the fuss of 1913 would have died down somewhat, but clearly not so. And where stands such an appreciation today?

 

If all else fails, take refuge in the oft-repeated line that today's newspaper is tomorrow's fish and chip wrapping .... well it used to be, but I rather think the Elf n' Safety tendency may have put an end to that these days.

 

(Nicolas Slonimsky was dedicatee of John Adams' Slonimsky's Earbox.)

[Anjuli_Bai]

Stravinsky wrote the Rite of Spring

He had every right to write the thing

Our ears are not helpless to any zing

We can always plug 'em from the sting

 

He had a right to call it anything

Resembling chirps and tweets of nestling

Not yet melodious in the way they sing

And not harmonizing or yet on the wing

 

For writing this he may indeed swing

But whether on high - or low - is another thing.

 

 

(ok - I'll go stand in the corner)

[alison]

Interesting to contrast Levene's review with that of Laura Thompson in the same paper describing an earlier performance by the same cast: "All are peerless, sublime at that level where critical faculties expire for lack of oxygen." Wow! Emphasises the point that, as we all know, dance criticism is extremely subjective.

 

Not technically the same paper, just the same website: Louise Levene writes for the Sunday Telegraph, and Laura Thompson occasionally for the Daily Telegraph. I believe the latter described her experiences as an "amateur"-ish ballet dancer some years ago (did she perform with Chelsea Ballet, or something?), but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. She certainly has a very positive attitude to her dance viewings - one that doesn't always tally with mine, I have to say

 

I also have to say in Ms Levene's defence (somewhat) that in one of the performances where critics were present, the Kish/Yanowsky partnership did not appear to be having a good evening. Without a link, I can't say whether that was the one she was reviewing.

[Bruce]

One person's 'very rude' or 'scathing' is another's 'telling it how it is'.

 

In general critics talk straightforwardly about what they see and don't pull punches. Half of what they see is not as good as the other half. Talking to regulars face to face that's also what you often get (often - not always - some are besotted with everything!) - or something approaching that with hits and misses identified. But by the time the thoughts hit the forum many of the good bits have often become more magnificent and the bad bits have disappeared or are often very politely excused away... and the worth of the thoughts devalued. Why would I bother to read views that are always rose-tinted?

 

I thought the words were fine and, having seen the same performance, thought the flat-pack wardrobe analogy apt and a good way of summing it up. Wish I had thought of it. But that's her eye and mine agreeing - I know others see it differently. That's taste for you.

 

Clement Crisp and other have been 'rude' for years and while it's not everybodies critical way I defend their right to be affronted in words if they see things that are not as they believe they should be. Over time one gravitates to the critics who seem to better express one own thoughts - ultimately a well calibrated critic can influence if you see something or not. And critics who don't do it for you you tend not to read!

 

All up the culture here is to treat people with respect and I think that's right for this constituency. But elsewhere different rules apply and long may they - regardless of if I agree with the reviews or not.

 

Finally its also worth noting that its a 4 star review of the company - rare. You can read it here:

http://www.telegraph...den-review.html

[Jan McNulty]

I don't think there is a defence for insulting writing. It is one thing to report on a poor performance but it is unacceptable to do so in personally offensive terms.

 

I don't think it is necessary for a dance reviewer to have been a dancer but they do need to see lots of performances and gain experience that way. Do I remember Clement Crisp commenting a couple of years ago (adversely it has to be said) on how bloggers and poster like myself who are "just fans" not having the experience to comment unless they have seen Swan Lake at least 500 times?

 

I admit I am an enthusiast and I would never claim to be anything other than an enthusiastic poster. I do admire Clement Crisp's reviews even if I don't always agree with him. There are a number of other writers I enjoy reading too. I have got no idea whether they trained in dance or not.

 

Edited to add that Bruce and I were posting at the same time. I still dont think the use of the word "dolt" is acceptable.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Janet McNulty
Edited to add final sentence

[Bruce]

IEdited to add that Bruce and I were posting at the same time. I still dont think the use of the word "dolt" is acceptable.

 

But she didn't say he was a 'dolt' - she said 'doltish'. Very different.

 

If a comedian goes on stage and is not funny (to you) its not personally offensive or insulting to say they were unfunny and colour that in ways that might indicate why or the depth of the unhappiness. Anybody who goes on stage is putting themselves out there. Many get huge plaudits and I don't see why one suddenly can't talk about the opposite when it happens. It should not all be a one-way street of full-on deep love and then pulled punches on poor work.

[Jan McNulty]

I don't think there is a defence for insulting writing. It is one thing to report on a poor performance but it is unacceptable to do so in personally offensive terms.

 

 

 

Well here we go again. Dolt or doltish, IMHO is an insulting way of describing someone.

 

I'm not advocating 5* reviews for everything, merely non-offensive reviews!

[aileen]

I don't think that "doltish" is very different from "dolt". They mean the same thing (IMO) but one is an adjective and one is a noun.

 

As for Clement Crisp's comment on critics versus fans, every critic starts out from a position of relative ignorance, even those who have themselves been dancers. You don't wait until you have seen 100 Swan Lakes. I would be very interested to know the credentials of a lot of critics.

 

As for NK, I feel that he is a bit of a target for criticism as he is new to the RB and has attained the position to which many people feel their own favourites, who have served long years in the company, should have been promoted. He seems to be a fairly regular partner for ZY now. In his defence, is it unreasonable to say that it must be difficult to partner such a tall ballerina (I know that she has many fans on this site)? The reality is that, however good a dancer she is, she is always going to have a very limited choice of partners because of her height, certainly in the RB. A few years ago I saw her in Sylvia and I felt that her partner struggled to partner her in that.

[Ian Macmillan]

For the record and, if need be, further discussion: In today's Links, probably describing the same performance of In the Night as Ms Levene, I note that Judith Mackrell (Guardian) remarks on Yanowsky and Kish as being "unnerving in their mutual ironic reserve." And behind the Times paywall today, Debra Craine has the pair as "strangely disengaged" in the same work. (And whilst we're at it, Ms Craine also notes Mr Kish's "lacklustre Jean de Brienne" in Raymonda Act III.)

 

Personally, were I ever to be within touching distance of Ms Yanowsky, I fear that I'd be so tongue-tied and overcome with genuine reserve that 'doltish' would be a hopelessly inadequate epithet for the situation. And I can say with some confidence that I would be rendered incapable of dealing with any nearby flat-pack wardrobe requiring assembly.

[alison]

As for NK, I feel that he is a bit of a target for criticism as he is new to the RB and has attained the position to which many people feel their own favourites, who have served long years in the company, should have been promoted.

 

Well, I have to say that, for me, no obvious candidate for promotion comes to mind. I'm sure there must have been "imports" to the company in the past who've been welcomed with almost unreserved praise (Rojo? Kobborg?), and there have certainly been others who haven't been. I'm okay with Kish in some things, and less than OK with him in others - but then that probably applies to some extent to virtually every high-ranking dancer in the company anyway.

[Guest Mark]

I wondered who they are.

 

Looking at the national dance awards site I saw there were 30 active dance writers - not sure there are 30 publications - perhaps regional newspapers are included - and ,apart from having an opinion and being able to write, I wondered if anyone knew the background of the dance critics or how they got their job please fill in the blanks and add any others.

 

Sarah Crompton - Daily Telegraph ?

 

Louise Levine Sunday Telegraph - Think she edited the crosswords

 

Debra Crane The Times - ?

 

David Dougill Sunday Times - ?

 

Neil Norman Express - ?

 

Jeffery Taylor Sunday Express - ex ballet dancer (Festival Ballet)

 

Clement Crisp - FT ?

 

Luke Jennings - Observer - ex dancer

 

Graham Watts - chair critics circle writes on websites?

 

Judith Mackrill - Guardian ?

 

[alison]

Welcome, Mark - we posted at the same time. Judith Mackrell is an ex-dancer, that I do know. Sarah Crompton is, I believe, the Telegraph's arts editor - her byline pops up in various areas, including comments in the sports section.

 

Ismene Brown has what appears to be a major background in music (you'll notice how often she brings up the quality of the music) and, I believe, a more indirect one in dance.

 

Oh, and don't forget - there are numerous people who contribute to Dancing Times, Dance Europe and so on.

[Guest Mark]

Thanks Alison, I guess if you agree with a critic then you think they are good & if you don't then you think they know nothing. I just wondered where they came from and how they got their jobs. I wouldn't buy a ticket on the basis of any review ...do others?

[aileen]

Whether you are a "professional" critic or not, there is no doubt that a person has his or her favourite dancers and will view any shortcomings in those dancers' performances more sympathetically than those in other dancers' performances. Although I have my favourites, like everyone else, I do try to keep an open mind and I have recently been won over by several dancers' performances in roles that I feel were really suited to them, having previously been rather disappointed by those dancers in other roles. Conversely, I have been slightly disappointed by a number of performances by one of my favourite dancers recently (I'm not going to name that dancer). I really feel that it is very important that the dancers are suited to the roles which they are dancing, technically, aesthetically, temperamentally and artistically. Whilst this should always be possible in a large company like the RB, it may be a luxury in smaller companies.

[toursenlair]

Well here we go again. Dolt or doltish, IMHO is an insulting way of describing someone.

 

I'm not advocating 5* reviews for everything, merely non-offensive reviews!

I'm putting my lexicographer hat on again, because the definition of the word "dolt" does seem to be germane to this discussion after all. As someone who defined words for a living for almost 20 years, I would say that

a) dolt means "stupid person". No dictionaries give any other definition.

b ) "dolt" has decidedly negative connotations (it's rare that words meaning "stupid person" can have any other kind of connotations!)

c) there is no difference in connotation between the noun "dolt" and the adjective "doltish". They are both disparaging. Perhaps Ms Levene has some personal meaning that she attaches to "doltish" , but that is not shared by the vast majority of the speakers of the language. Whether she is suggesting that Nehemiah himself is stupid, or whether he just looked stupid in the performance is, I would say, unclear. Probably the latter, I'm guessing. I did think the flat-pack wardrobe image was quite evocative and entertaining (whether it was accurate or not, I can't say, not having been at the performance) but the "doltish" uncalled for.

If someone called me a dolt, or said I was doltish, I would indeed be insulted, and I think everyone on this forum would likely feel the same way. Imagine how you would react if I were to comment on someone's post on this site and call them "doltish"? Imagine she had used some of the synonyms given by thesauruses for "dolt": halfwit, idiot, dope, nincompoop, dumb-ass, moron, etc etc (you get my drift!)

[Jan McNulty]

Thanks Alison, I guess if you agree with a critic then you think they are good & if you don't then you think they know nothing. I just wondered where they came from and how they got their jobs. I wouldn't buy a ticket on the basis of any review ...do others?

 

Hi Mark and welcome to the forum. You dont have to agree with a critic to enjoy their writing. I have frequently disagreed with, for example, Clement Crisp but I do enjoy reading his reviews.

 

Usually I book way ahead so I don't buy/not buy on the basis of a review. If I'm doing something more last minute, I may take note of a reviewer who seems to have the same taste as me. On the other hand when I was a regular at the Liverpool Playhouse many years ago, I would book if the resident reviewer of the Liverpool Echo disliked something and not book if he did - experience had shown that we had entirely opposite taste and opinion!

[alison]

And there's a certain theatre critic where experience has taught me to knock one star off his reviews so as not to be disappointed