Commenting on reviews

[capybara]

Actually a friend who saw that performance was telling me about it yesterday in terms of what I would call rather outright languge: he didn't mince his words.

 

That is why I have hesitated to post on this site about what was otherwise a superlative company show by ENB on Wednesday night.

[billboyd]

Yet, the critics are divided re Tamara's performance.

[SusanR]

In my opinion, Kish is a dish & not 'doltish' at all. Imagine how the poor man must have felt had he read that review! I have enjoyed several of his performances & feel he does not deserve such rudeness.

Susan

[aileen]

Shall we call him "Kish the Dish" from now on?

[SusanR]

Definitely Aileen!

[GTL]

That is why I have hesitated to post on this site about what was otherwise a superlative company show by ENB on Wednesday night.

 

I think that most of the audience felt the same at the curtain calls: I reckon the loudest acclaim was for the orchestra, for Vadim Muntagirov and for the company. In general, though, it was a really impressive evening and ENB's Director and her predecessor can take great pride in that achievement.

[balletla]

Is it usual for someone who is artistic director to continue to dance lead roles in their company? Seems like the footballing equivalent of a 'player manager' - not really a good idea.

[Jan McNulty]

There is a precedent at ENB - Peter Schaufuss.

 

Does the man in charge in Berlin also still dance (or did he when he took over)?

[balletla]

Shall we call him "Kish the Dish" from now on?

Kish is most definitely a dish!

[toursenlair]

There is a precedent at ENB - Peter Schaufuss.

 

Does the man in charge in Berlin also still dance (or did he when he took over)?

 

Vladimir Malakhov does still dance in Berlin, and did even more when he started. Most dancers have already retired from dancing before they are appointed AD's anywhere so it's usually an age thing.

[Paul N]

A couple of Crisp-isms from his 2001 interview on Ballet.co:

 

"Most criticism is trumpery and pointless, based on ignorance rather than knowledge."

 

and

 

"Oh, no unprejudiced criticism is worth reading. Or worth writing. Prejudice is what makes a critic interesting."

 

That second quote keeps getting dragged up - I've never really got on that well with it. Mr Crisp's recent ENB Sleeping Beauty review reads to me as unprejudiced, but it's revealing, and who is going to come along and say it's not worth reading or uninteresting?

[Anjuli_Bai]

The dictionary says thus of "prejudiced" -

 

1.

an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2.

any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3.

unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

4.

such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

5.

damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

 

Why would I want to read something that was "pre-judged?"

 

Opinionated - yes

 

Prejudiced - no

 

Or am I missing the point somewhere?

[chrischris]

I've just found this thread, and found some of the comments really interesting. I said on another thread that I never really pay much attention to critics, being of the generation where news and views are sourced from social media and traditional reviewers are largely obsolete and seem quite pretentious, and I do think it would be interesting to look back on this thread in 10 years time to see whether publications still have professional critics (or whether the newspapers mentioned still run print editions).

Edited March 2, 2013 by chrischris

[Ian Macmillan]

Chris: Your final point about where print journalism, including professional criticism, may be in 10 years or so is a question that has been addressed a fair deal over the last 2/3 years .... mainly in the prints themselves, but also in our ballet.co predecessor.  It's a valid and serious issue, and only time will tell how it plays out but, for now, I wonder if you feel that matters of that kind can be adequately dealt with in 140 Twitter characters or on a Facebook page?  And as for Dance as a topic, how substantially do you feel that is treated on social media?  Much of what I see on Twitter appears to consist of members of the public and certain dancers locking into a self-congratulatory loop.  That has its place in the great scheme of things and I don't doubt for a moment that it works well for those involved but, if the links often given to printed articles were stripped away, I wonder how much substance would remain?  Just a thought .... from someone who, at a guess, is of a different generation!

[chrischris]

Chris: Your final point about where print journalism, including professional criticism, may be in 10 years or so is a question that has been addressed a fair deal over the last 2/3 years .... mainly in the prints themselves, but also in our ballet.co predecessor.  It's a valid and serious issue, and only time will tell how it plays out but, for now, I wonder if you feel that matters of that kind can be adequately dealt with in 140 Twitter characters or on a Facebook page?  And as for Dance as a topic, how substantially do you feel that is treated on social media?  Much of what I see on Twitter appears to consist of members of the public and certain dancers locking into a self-congratulatory loop.  That has its place in the great scheme of things and I don't doubt for a moment that it works well for those involved but, if the links often given to printed articles were stripped away, I wonder how much substance would remain?  Just a thought .... from someone who, at a guess, is of a different generation!

 

It's an interesting point, and I agree that there is a danger that a lot of the comments you see on twitter are just PR, but i'm not sure if, at the moment, professional critics are really contributing anything substantial. When I was a teenager, in the late 90's, I used to save up my pocket money to buy the monthly film magazines and used to read them religiously, as it was, at the time, one of the few places where you could find out about castings and read reviews of the latest releases. With the advent of social media, I don't think i've looked at those magazines in years, as you can gauge opinion on things like twitter and FB, and the long, detailed in depth reviews now appear on blogs, often written by people who are more knowledgeable about the genre than the professional critics. Similarly with music; I don't think i've read NME or Q in about a decade, and most of the music I listen to know i've picked up from social media, or have been sent over social media by friends in different countries recommending things. I think traditional media still has its place, but I often feel that newspapers, magazines and radio are now responding to public opinion and social media, whereas in the past, traditional media led the way.

 

I'm new to ballet, and i'm not sure what kind of impact the loss of newspapers etc would have on an artform which is relatively niche, but to be honest, i've learned more about ballet in the couple of months since I discovered this forum than I have in the last year or two of just following ballet through the newspapers, so for me personally, it wouldn't be a great loss.

 

I think the next few years will be interesting. For example, I love tennis and athletics, and there is a huge issue at the moment with a lot of the athlete interviews and match reports being covered by bloggers and general sports fans on social media and forums, reducing (and sometimes completely eliminating) the need for professional sports writers from the major publications to attend events; in a lot of cases their articles and reports are already out of date the minute they are published. They argue that if they don't attend events, player interviews and press conferences simply won't happen, and want the access of bloggers and laypeople curatiled, but how do you stop it? I would imagine ballet might face a similar problem.

[Ian Macmillan]

Chris:  Thanks for expanding on your earlier post.  I guess that you and I are just in two different places - an accident of history or chronology - and I can't say that you or, I imagine, the very many others like you, are wrong.  Anno Domini suggests that the future will be in all of your hands rather than mine and, as you ask:  "How do you stop it?"  What I'm doing right now, addressing you electronically, would have seemed impossible when I was 21, so who can say what the next 50 years will bring?  For now, I'm delighted to hear that your finding this Forum has added something to your daily round - we've probably got more in common than we'd think at first blush!

[simonbfisher]

What a fascinating read this thread has been!

 

A few disconnected thoughts (well, it is past ovaltine time) :

 

- I assume that critics of a particular art form do it not for money (alone) but because they love the subject and want to see it perfected; their encouragements and tut-tuts must be to that end, surely? A bit like teachers pushing and cajoling in their written feedback to pupils' work or as they now say "assessment for learning" - heavens I'm glad I'm out of the classroom!

 

- I don't know if they count the number of Swans they have seen expiring, but in my book experience of ballet - watching it if not performing - is what gives a critic(ism) validity. Yes, there is interest in seeing what a first reaction to a ballet piece is from someone who has never seen any before, but that is different from informed criticism. It has its own validity but on a different page, as it were.

 

- In my own case, it is certain that the longer I live and the more I manage to see, the more fun my internal critiques are, so a venerable critic is likely to bring us more than a newbie.

 

- Finally, I really cannot see a big difference between all the wise words on here (I do NOT mean my own) and those in eg the newspapers - a lot of the people on here have really made me think and see things more clearly during all my lurking time, and I'm very appreciative of these "citizen critics".

 

Long may you/we post!

[Ian Macmillan]

Training to be a Critic?  A link, possibly of some relevance here:

 

http://danceistheword.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/keep-asking-questions/#more-381

 

Any danger in a Company being behind such training?  Discuss .......

[Ian Macmillan]

"The Future of Journalism - It's Time to Pick A Side" - A professional journalist sets out his case:

 

http://pandodaily.com/2013/03/06/the-future-of-journalism-its-time-to-pick-a-side/

[Ian Macmillan]

A bit more on where Journalism might be headed vis-s-vis writing for websites:

 

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/206285/atlantic-case-raises-question-when-does-it-make-sense-to-write-for-free/

 

I don't know exactly where all of this is going in the longer term but, intuitively, I feel there are significant issues at play.

[Anjuli_Bai]

In the end the only significant issue is the market and that will determine how it all shakes out.  Who is willing to pay for what and if - on the rare occasion that includes quality - we are lucky. 

 

When the horse and buggy was replaced by the automobile we lost something if one wanted a cheaper ride and a slower paced life.  But if one needs a quick trip to the hospital we are glad to pay for that choice.

[chrischris]

With the news that the Telegraph (and the Sun, which I don't read) will soon be going behind a partial paywall, I will need to rely on social media and blogs more than ever, as unless my work get a subscription, I won't be paying to access them, and I rarely buy, or even see, print editions of newspapers anymore.

[alison]

Oh no, when did they announce that?  Let's hope they're a little more generous than The Times.

[patsomerset]

Oh no, when did they announce that?  Let's hope they're a little more generous than The Times.

 

I had an e-mail from The Telegraph this morning.  I gather that non subscribers can view up to 20 articles a month free of charge.  After that there will be what they call a modest charge.  I think that 20 articles a month is fairly generous but this will of course depend on how wide your interests are 

[Ian Macmillan]

As far as the daily Links trawl is concerned, we have been dealing with a New York Times partial access scheme for the better part of 2 years now, with similar schemes increasingly found elsewhere.  Has the Telegraph said anything about exceptions for access via Twitter or Google, I wonder - these can be helpful in increasing NYT access, for example. (That said, and despite the workarounds, the NYT has figured that I've had enough for this month and drew a veil over this morning's Alastair Macaulay piece.  The URL was still visible, however, so a Link could be produced, hopefully with a reasonably correct description!)  There are other approaches out there, too - eg The Australian and the Wall St Journal lock some articles for subscriber access only whilst leaving others open to all.  The Times content, of course, is completely behind the paywall and we have had to ignore it since that became the case a couple of years back.

 

Regulars may also have noted that we now link increasingly to non-newspaper content from some of the better blogs that we've found (eg Valerie Lawson's Dancelines) and, significantly, from internet magazines or journals like DanceTabs, ArtsBeat, Danceviewtimes and, of course, The Arts Desk.  Things are evolving out there and entities such as these are likely to be a part of the future - and it brings us once again to the issue of the future of paid journalism, often discussed here and elsewhere, and for which subscriber access may be increasingly needed if it is to remain viable.  And do remember that the internet entities - even ourselves here - have to be funded by someone.  In our case, enough of you rallied round last summer to ensure the future for a while longer but, as monthly payments are made for use of the forum software, in time we will have to rattle the tin once again.  The expectation that everything online can be 'free' is entirely unrealistic, albeit that in what are still early years, that expectation seems to grow by the day!

[alison]

I had an e-mail from The Telegraph this morning.  I gather that non subscribers can view up to 20 articles a month free of charge.  After that there will be what they call a modest charge.  I think that 20 articles a month is fairly generous but this will of course depend on how wide your interests are 

 

I haven't had one of those yet, although I see the "modest charges" are £1.99 a month for the web version and £9.99 for the fancy digital edition for iPads and the like.  Personally, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people to expect to view an average of 1 article a day for free (The Times please note) - especially given that many things don't make it into the physical editions of papers these days - but I don't see why they should expect to do, in effect, the equivalent of reading a full newspaper online for no charge at all, any more than I think people should be allowed to do loads of viewing of TV programmes via iPlayer without paying the license fee: neither model is economically sustainable in the long run.

[patsomerset]

I haven't had one of those yet, although I see the "modest charges" are £1.99 a month for the web version and £9.99 for the fancy digital edition for iPads and the like.  Personally, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people to expect to view an average of 1 article a day for free (The Times please note) - especially given that many things don't make it into the physical editions of papers these days - but I don't see why they should expect to do, in effect, the equivalent of reading a full newspaper online for no charge at all, any more than I think people should be allowed to do loads of viewing of TV programmes via iPlayer without paying the license fee: neither model is economically sustainable in the long run.

Totally agree Alison

[Jan McNulty]

I haven't had one of those yet, although I see the "modest charges" are £1.99 a month for the web version and £9.99 for the fancy digital edition for iPads and the like.  Personally, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people to expect to view an average of 1 article a day for free (The Times please note) - especially given that many things don't make it into the physical editions of papers these days - but I don't see why they should expect to do, in effect, the equivalent of reading a full newspaper online for no charge at all, any more than I think people should be allowed to do loads of viewing of TV programmes via iPlayer without paying the license fee: neither model is economically sustainable in the long run.

 

Slightly off topic but I thought you needed a TV license to use the i-player.  I know you need one if you have the capability to watch tv over the internet.

[patsomerset]

As far as the daily Links trawl is concerned, we have been dealing with a New York Times partial access scheme for the better part of 2 years now, with similar schemes increasingly found elsewhere.  Has the Telegraph said anything about exceptions for access via Twitter or Google, I wonder - these can be helpful in increasing NYT access, for example. (That said, and despite the workarounds, the NYT has figured that I've had enough for this month and drew a veil over this morning's Alastair Macaulay piece.  The URL was still visible, however, so a Link could be produced, hopefully with a reasonably correct description!)  There are other approaches out there, too - eg The Australian and the Wall St Journal lock some articles for subscriber access only whilst leaving others open to all.  The Times content, of course, is completely behind the paywall and we have had to ignore it since that became the case a couple of years back.

 

Regulars may also have noted that we now link increasingly to non-newspaper content from some of the better blogs that we've found (eg Valerie Lawson's Dancelines) and, significantly, from internet magazines or journals like DanceTabs, ArtsBeat, Danceviewtimes and, of course, The Arts Desk.  Things are evolving out there and entities such as these are likely to be a part of the future - and it brings us once again to the issue of the future of paid journalism, often discussed here and elsewhere, and for which subscriber access may be increasingly needed if it is to remain viable.  And do remember that the internet entities - even ourselves here - have to be funded by someone.  In our case, enough of you rallied round last summer to ensure the future for a while longer but, as monthly payments are made for use of the forum software, in time we will have to rattle the tin once again.  The expectation that everything online can be 'free' is entirely unrealistic, albeit that in what are still early years, that expectation seems to grow by the day!

I have just been back to the Telegraph e-mail and no mention is made of Twitter or Google but I am a Telegraph subscriber anyway so perhaps they wouldn't think it applied to me.  I imagine that 20 articles a month might suffice for Balletco

 

I am sure that you will have to ask for funding for Balletco in the future and I am sure you will get the support you need, particularly as we seem to have so many new members lately

[alison]

Slightly off topic but I thought you needed a TV license to use the i-player.  I know you need one if you have the capability to watch tv over the internet.

 

No, you don't - you only need one to watch programmes as they are broadcast.  That's the trouble - with increased broadband provision, people are moving onto watching solely by iPlayer, so they don't need to pay the license fee.  And obviously if lots of people do that the BBC's revenue will go down.

[Ian Macmillan]

And, of interest, I see that one needs a licence if watching a simultaneous broadcast online in the UK or Channel Islands:

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

[MargaretN7]

As I understand it, if you have the capability of watching a live BBC broadcast, ie a computer with broadband link, you need a licence.

When it was iplayer only showing post broadcast, a licence wasn't needed.

[John Mallinson]

Margaret, I don't think that's right. It's only if you actually watch live events via broadband that you need a license.

 

How they hope to police that I can't imagine.