The software my company produces has a media monitoring component that pulls news clips from various media outlets. In the demo system I use for training, I track music groups in the Baltimore/DC area. Part of my daily organization of the software requires me to look at the clips, so I read A LOT of concert/performance reviews. When I read a review of a show/concert that I was a part of, I tend to take the reviewer's comments as fact, since my perception of the performance is skewed by where I stood on stage, the fact I'm in it, etc. There are times that I disagree with the review (both good ones and bad ones), but since I wasn't part of the audience I don't feel like my opinion or perception has much weight. I never really take reviews to heart, but it is interesting to read them.
However, I feel a bit differently about reviews of performances that I attend as an audience member. I think I have a fairly discerning ear- based on my musical experience as both a choral singer, horn player, and countless hours of listening to classical music. I have been to performances that I have not enjoyed, and I used to wish that God hadn't provided me with such a musical ear because it can make the music I hear sometimes at church painful (as much as I love my church they don't seem to understand that just because someone wants to sing doesn't mean they should...). So when I go to a show, enjoy it, and think that quality of the music was top-notch, I'm often shocked to read negative reviews from big name publications.
Take Washington National Opera's production of La Traviata for example. I attended the simulcast and thought the peformance was fantastic. The Washington Post review used adjectives like "adequate" and "thin" to describe the performance and the lead performers. I did hear a few issues here and there, but OVERALL I thought the performance was splendid. Granted, my ears were at a bit of a disadvantage with the stadium sound system instead of hearing the music live...but still. Shouldn't a reviewer present an overall impression instead of picking apart tiny issues here and there? Did people enjoy the opera? Was it moving? Were the singers great OVERALL? How about the sets and the staging? Were they visually pleasing? I guess I think negative reviews should be reserved for really terrible productions and singing...not performances that were excellent overall, with a few minor issues here and there...but nothing that detracted from the overall performance.
In a day where interest in the arts is waning, I think it's imperative that people be encouraged to attend musical performances. When a negative review is written for what was overall a good production, it might prevent people from attending that production....or even attending another production by the same company/music group. Reviewers should realize that the lack of interest in the arts puts their jobs in jeopardy as well.
Now don't get me wrong... a poor performance deserves a negative review. I've been to some performances that were terrible...and was stunned to read a rave review later (usually in small community publications). It's just that, especially in the Post, I read very few positive reviews. A lot of the groups in the DC area are world-class....so I can't imagine that they put on that many poor performances! So, if you happen to read a picky/negative review of a performance...don't let that stop you from attending! It could be that the reviewer is just a bit caught up in their own musical knowledge and can't enjoy a performance for what it is!
No comments:
Post a Comment