PERFORMERS AND CRITICISM

posted by James Reel

Blogger and critic Lisa Hirsch wonders why on earth performers would care to read reviews:

What if you get a bad or equivocal review? I'm convinced that performers don't benefit from reading these. I've been on stage enough times myself, as a chorister or flutist, to know perfectly well that most performers have a very good idea of how well they did on a given night. I am always more aware than anyone in the audience of the errors I've made or that the chorus or orchestra has made or where somebody really missed a cue badly (including conductors who forget to throw a cue the chorus is expecting). Is a performer going to learn much from reading a critic who says the tenor blew the high note or the bass has a wobble or something else like that? I think not. A couple of people have said things to me along the lines of, well, a performer might learn something and change from reading reviews. I don't buy that. Reviews are not pedagogical. A review is one person's perception of what happened in a particular theater or concert hall at one performance. It's a snapshot, and that's it. It has real value as a bit of history.

She's largely right, but I do know of a couple of instances when a performer has taken my reviews to heart. It helps that I try not to be mean-spirited, which lessens the entertainment value but is more constructive in the long run. An actor once told me, "Most of us respect you, except for the people who hate your guts." I'm satisfied with that balance.

I'm reminded of the famous English actor--I can't remember which actor--who said that it's perfectly acceptable never to read negative reviews ... as long as you don't read positive reviews, either.