Looking for New York reviewer
Greetings everyone! Is there anyone in NYC who would like to write reviews of concerts at Lincoln Center? In exchange, you would get tickets to the concert, as well as a well-promoted blog!
Let me know, and you are welcome to e-mail me directly!
I can do it! And I don't even need to see the shows!
Very good! I was thinking along the same lines but didn't have the chutzpah. Isn't something a bit wrong when every player is indistinguishably wonderful?
"While the whole show had a tendency to the average, even the viola section could not especially stick out. The trumpet solo in the second movement was performed by the solo trumpet."
Add accomodation, tickets VIE-EWR-VIE and shuttle transfer, and I'm in! While on airplane, I'll polish on my English. Promise!
It's not the playing I'm chiefly complaining of (although one becomes increasingly aware of the limited number of ways in which a violinist can interpret the old war-horses) but the poverty of imagination amongst reviewers. Nobody would know the difference if you substituted a robot. But a review isn't just about the performers and a concert isn't just a violin concerto with trimmings; I think you need to know the whole program exceptionally well to justify expressing your opinion. I couldn't do it.
"Nobody would know the difference if you substituted a robot." Nobody would notice if you constructed your "review" from a catalog of plagiarized phrases either. :)
Steve & Paul - exactly what I keep telling a friend who does reviews as part of her living. That way she's an expert in music, opera, theater, literature, painting AND sculpture! Of all epochs, without any doubt. Not bad, huh?
Nuuska, your comments were supple and wry. (Oof ... can't help myself.)
Why do reviewers have to be experts? I agree that they shouldn't try to appear to be experts if they aren't, but I don't agree that they have to be.
It's helpful to have an expert, if you want any interesting insight in a review. I tend to think of reviews more as a way to bring people there, to point out what was interesting or new or noteworthy. I feel that a review can be enlightening and educational, in the way that a performance can be. I'm not too keen on the old-fashioned "criticism" model.
Laurie, totally agree!
@Laurie - if reviews are considered a way of advertising and promoting, maybe even glamorising classical music, why not publish them before rather than after the concert? OK, that would make them previews, but I'm more than half serious. How about a straightforward description of the music, the times and fortunes of the composers, a short biography and interview with the principals who will provide the necessary "expertise" that the reporter may lack? We're now only too well accustomed to the fact that we don't need to be "expert" to express and broadcast our value judgements, which I think is hugely detrimental to the health of our culture.
That’s called a “preview” and it is a valuable kind of article. But a review covers and describes the event, gives the reader a sense of what it was like to be there live. And then ideally, it also adds some educated perspective - but not snobby criticism - as well! A good review is not really to “advertise and promote” per se, but I might use the words educate, invite and yes, advocate for the art.