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!"