Date: |
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 00:08:06 +0000 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Stirling Newberry wrote:
>both reviewers are clearly more concerned with what agenda the work
>advances rather than the work itself...
So? They're reviewers, reporting the agenda is their job. That's what
their readers want, need and expect. Shaw was an example of a good
reviewer.
They are not critics, whose job is to talk about the work itself - which is
what practically nobody wants - unless the critic happens to be Berlioz,
Debussy or possibly Tovey on a going day.
Too much hot air is generated by a basic failure to understand the vital
difference between these two jobs, and even the clear-sighted Mr Newberry
has contrived to conflate the two.
The reviewer must inform and titillate the general reader, the critic
addresses a much smaller audience. Both have their place. Why fuss about
it?
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm
"ZARZUELA!"
|
|
|