I'm convinced that I 'd problably make a lousy one.I would hate to give a negative review on a dance performance or a dancer whos just trying out,etc.Some critics get TOO personal and criticize the way a dancer looks,etc.I found one that this board banned(and from reading the critique I dont blame you!).<BR> What makes a good critic or sound criticism of a performance/performer????

Well, here are some past related and controversial topics:

<a href=http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000142 target=_blank>What does it take to be a "well-informed"critic?</a>

<a href=http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000005 target=_blank>The power of critics</a>

<a href=http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000042 target=_blank>Online Live Discussion on Dance Criticism</a>

<a href=http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000098 target=_blank>Limits to criticism?</a>

<a href=http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000191 target=_blank>How well do critics cope with change?</a>

<a href=http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000238 target=_blank>Will the Internet Keep Critics Honest?</a>

<a href=http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000241 target=_blank>Local critics favoring local companies</a>

(Edited by salzberg to fix link)

<small>[ 08-09-2002, 05:09: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

THANKS BUD.

A good critic possesses the following characteristics: breadth and depth of knowledge, passion, honesty, integrity, discretion, understanding, perspective, ability to report, lack of meanspiritedness. A good review a) informs the public b) provides the information that will allow the reader to answer the question: should I go? <P>Some readers will only want to go if the whole thing is terrific in every way. But a lot of us can be enticed by a report of someone on the rise who has caught the critic's eye - whether that be a playwright, actor or dancer, etc. Something in a new style. One outstanding performance. A new company with potential. A good story. My point here relates to the previous discussion of a reviewer's hypothetical dilemma. The critic can't pretend that what was bad was good. Who would trust such reviews in the future? The critic can choose what is worthy to report to the public about a performance.

You're right syr--I'll keep those things in mind.

Just curious--which critic has this board "banned"?

Oh, wait, <I>this</I> board banned a critic? Not to my knowledge! Where did you hear this, Angela?<P>The only username that was "locked" belonged to a former administrator. This was requested by various members to ensure administrative priveleges were not abused. However, the person whose username it was was invited to post under another name which they have.<P>So, no, CD has never banned anyone, let alone a critic.

I found a post--a critique(maybe I mis worded it)which was banned.It was a review of the Nat Ballet of Canada performance and its dancers.

To be exact Azlan, I was surfing the web,and found this critique-I'm trying to remember what I was looking for at the time so I can spot it again.

Two relevant articles from The Irish Times. The first about a seminar on reviewing and the second about an Irish dance writer. <P><BR><B>Dancing with words</B> <BR>There is still a distance between dancer-artists and critics. Initiating dialogue through "reviewing the reviewers" was one welcome suggestion at the Acts of Criticism seminar in Cork, writes Michael Seaver in The Irish Times.<P><BR>There is still a distance between dancer-artists and critics. Initiating dialogue through "reviewing the reviewers" was one welcome suggestion at the Acts of Criticism seminar in Cork, writes Michael Seaver <P>During the Acts of Criticism conference at the Institute for Choreography and Dance (ICD) in Firkin Crane, Shandon, Cork, on Saturday, some dance artists felt that often words were used to legitimise dance in a culture where there still exists discomfort in dealing with the human body. Interestingly, the previous night featured a selection of Irish dance works, almost all of which engaged with text in some form, proving that words are not just restricted to the language of the studio but carry through to the final performance.<P><A HREF="http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/features/2001/1127/fea3.htm" TARGET=_blank><B>click for more</B></A><P><BR><B>The critic's critic</B><BR>From The Irish Times<P><BR>Any debate on dance criticism in Ireland will usually expose the name of Diana Theodores. At present writer-in-residence at the Institute for Choreography and Dance at Firkin Crane, she is also remembered for her work as the Sunday Tribune dance critic from 1984-92. Arriving in Ireland, she was anxious to continue the dance criticism that she practised in the US. What she somewhat proudly refers to as her "nag-ability" persuaded the Sunday Tribune to employ her. <P><A HREF="http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/features/2001/1127/fea5.htm" TARGET=_blank><B>click for more</B></A><P>

I know people (well, maybe not people, actors) who would say that the answer to the question posed by the thread title would be "lack of respiration".<P>Angela, there have been (rare) cases when individual posts have been deleted as having been inappropriate. It is our policy to be <I>very</I> hesitant to do so. No postER has ever been banned from CD and I sincerely hope that no one in the dance world will misconstrue the comments in this thread so as to believe that this has happened.<BR>

LOL=Thanks JEFF!

well, Salzberg, I always believed that my late aunt was a great theatre critic - and now, by definition, you have confirmed it! <BR>=-) Coincidentally her biography reads the same as yours.

Concerns theatre reviewing from an actor's perspective, but some of it might apply to dance critics/criticism as well:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This is what I think makes a learned and fair review: <P>1. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing: A knowledge of history, literature and practice is a minimum requirement, so what is new and what is substandard can be appraised honestly. The more experienced the reviewer, the better. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. <P>2. Know thyself: The reviewer should decide early whether their reviews are chit-chat and personal opinion pieces, or whether they consider themselves serious, thoughtful critics whose job is to inform and clarify. <P>3. Write well: Write with a lively style so readers are entertained and intellectually stimulated. A summary of the plot is not a review.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><A HREF="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/entertainmentstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=1592564&thesection=entertainment&thesubsection=arts&thesecondsubsection=general" TARGET=_blank><B>More</B></A><BR>

Peter Elliott's column, quoted above, is excellent. One important practice he mentions that is not often employed by critics is this:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>[I]f a critic dislikes a piece but knows the audience is enjoying it, they should report that. Likewise, if the critic likes the piece but the audience doesn't, report that, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Of course, the critic's opinion of a work can color his perception of the audience's response. I've known a critic to call a particular piece "the clear winner" of the evening with the audience, when it was clear (to me, at least) that the audience was much more vociferous in its appreciation of another piece.<p>[This message has been edited by djb (edited April 23, 2002).]