well, what a great thread this has turned into!
<P>i have enjoyed all the posts above.<P>azlan has done a service by differentiating types or reviews, and i've certainly seen these types in action.<P>my only real concern was over this following statement, which i think is probably a lot like the old "ground glass in the pointe shoe" story - we'll ALL heard it, but NO-ONE's ever known it happen - even when you've been in the business for 30 years or more - and neither has anyone else you know......so you have to wonder.....<P>it's VERY popular to hate critics - mindlessly.......<P>actually it's ASTOUNDINGLY popular to hate critics.....<P>here's the statement i'm objecting to, or at least asking that it be taken with a grain of salt. by all means, know what you know and believe what you know to be true. i personally have never come across this:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have read of several instances in which the critic (some VERY notable ones, too) wrote a critique when they had not even seen the performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>btw, in one instance which attracted an extraordinary amount of condemnation a few years back, a very popular band played an expensive concert in perth. i don't know what the venue holds, but i'll guess quite a few thousand (a sports stadium). <P>the arts editor of the daily newspaper (which is a monopoly - no other daily paper in this city), reviewed the show, but had to leave at half time or 3/4, to meet his deadline. obviously he reviewed what he saw, and made general comments on how the show was received. <P>his view was more negative than many of the fans departing at the end of their much-anticipated, expensive evening. when they read his review, it attracted more letters to the editor than ANY other subject bar 2 in the newspaper's history - no political event, war, famine, crime issue or electoral issue had attracted so much public response for many years, nor since...<P>it was hypothesised at the time, that the fans who had 'invested' a lot of money and emotional anticipation in the event, simply were NOT prepared to see it as less than ideal. <P>and i think there's something in this point of view: that, especially with exorbitant ticket-prices, many event-goers are of a mindset to 'have a good time', come hell or high water (!), so are not best placed to objectively evaluate what they are seeing. they paid to be there, and they have a right to experience it & remember it their own way, of course.