During the course of my duties for the college newspaper as a writer, I attend premiers and other entertainment based events which are sometimes live.
While attempting to improve my writing through research, I came across this textbook excerpt about the purpose of writing a review of a live performance. http://www.safarix.com/0321015770/ch02lev1sec3#X2ludGVybmFsX1NlY3Rpb25Db250ZW50P3htbGlkPTAzMjEwMTU3NzAvY2gwMmxldjFzZWMz
This textbook states four points that factor into review writing-“the reviewer’s audience, goals, intent and morality.” The audience is the reader of the piece and varies with the type of publication. The goal may be to inform, persuade or otherwise influence the readers. The author suggests that a reviewer’s intent should be rooted in “a spirit of appreciation, with the idea of inspiring broader interest.” And morality is subject to interpretation, but the text’s author doesn’t espouse heartless art bashing just because the writer has a position of influence. The link also says a review’s purpose is to catalog the occurrence of a live event for the readership. I would like to elaborate on this subject from my personal experiences on both sides; as a performer and a review writer.
A live performance is one of the most pleasurable activities because of its social interaction through community and its fragility. I value the artistry because the experience of each live performance will never be duplicated. It is a rare occasion in the lives of all those who participate be they audience or performer.
Unfortunately, I believe many Americans have lost their live audience etiquette. We have gotten so used to on demand taped entertainment that the appropriate reaction to a live performance is in question. We want what we want and we want it now but that sentiment is null in the live arena.
As a case in point, I offer a live concert this weekend in which audience members would not move from their seats despite the lead singer’s blatant pleas for them to dance. It was painful to watch him try to coax some reaction from the crowd as he danced alone during an instrumental break. The audience also struggled to react when applause was appropriate. On many occasions they clapped before the song was finished. (In my playwriting and drama classes the teachers would prompt applause from other students when a performance was complete but outside of the classroom, the uninitiated can be uncertain.)
An apathetic or unsure crowd is horrible and I relate to the performers struggle since I am an artist. Whether I am singing, acting, reading a poem, play or other piece I wrote, dancing, or exhibiting my sculpture-there is nothing more valuable than feedback. In the best scenario, my art would provoke something from the audience so I know that it’s worthwhile. Even if they boo, the artist knows they were affected and have an opinion.
Live performances add to the culture of a community and inspire others even if someone in the audience just believes, “I can do better.”
The manner in which the audience connects with the performer(s) should be a part of any account of the event. The articles’ author was there during that play, concert, reading, or display of artistry and only they can articulate their perception. A review must describe these details since the reviewer is not a robot who simply observes without participating and it requires a judgment not just a plain objective account of actions that transpired.
What methods do you think the best reviewers employ?
