What do you look for in a classical music/opera review?

Question

I would especially like to hear from the casual fans of classical and opera music what they expect to read in a review of a symphonic concert or an opera performance. 

I'm asking because I'm already familiar with what the die-hard fans want... but somehow I don't think that the casual fans (who most likely far outnumber the die-hard fans) want the same things, namely: analysis of each singer's voice and singing along with conducting and other really music-oriented stuff only people who sit at performances with a score on their lap would care about. So... for those who most likely aren't themselves musicians and are keen on attending performances to be entertained rather than to analyze how it is done, what sort of information would you like to see (that you'd find helpful in helping you decide if you would like to attend the next show) in a review?

Jim T · Accepted Answer

What I want to read in a musical review is whether or not the reviewer like the performance or not.  I do not want to read a synopsis of the story if it is a musical or opera or a history taken out of a book of a  musical only  performance. I want to hear if the singers were flat or sharp and if they did a good job. If the reviewer does not like the performance, or the choice of the  musical composition in question he/she should find something positive to say. Some reviews are always negative, this becomes boring and I will not pay any attention to what this particular person writes in the future.  Most reviewers have ego problems.  Ego is what the Good Lord gives us to deaden the pain of being a fool. Maybe pain killers could be given out at the  entrance to the theater

MissLimLam · Answer

I think I am perhaps too die hard to answer this question... 
Read this:
http://www.ormtatoronto.org/events/review.html

EDIT:
I recall, a month or two ago, reading a concert review in the paper. It was of Jose Carreras. 
This review seemed to focus on how Carreras was getting old, and was unable to sing the "big arias." It also compared him with Pavarotti.


Now I did not attend this concert, but friend of mine did, and they said that Carreras had done very well, and that the repertoire he HAD done that night had been entertaining and fun. 

So rather than focussing on what a performer did not do ("big arias") the reviewer should have commented on what he had done, and spoken of either the musical aspects of those songs, or the suitability of the songs for the performance.

I think what a reviewer needs to keep in mind is that the majority of people do not go to a concert to hear mistakes, they go to be entertained.  So why point out insignificant details, when you could simply be answering the questions: was it entertaining? and was it good musically?

Also NEVER EVER compare a performer to another.

Christine · Answer

So my orchestra just finished a Scheonberg Festival and we played "5 Pieces for Orchestra". In the second movement there is a part where the celeste is playing this really innocent little melody, woodwinds are playing 'scary' chords (as my theory teacher called them), and the flute is doing this weird squeak thing. I don't really know what exactly. But everyone agreed it sounds so creepy. The celeste sounds like a little kids song, but the other elements mixed in are straight from a horror movie. Give it a listen, it's truly evil.

Alberich · Answer

"Doctor John" and I certainly wouldln't qualify to answer your question.  Just stopped by - as he - to star your question; and give your first responder a TU: an honest, intelligent response.

                                                        Alberich

Trending News

What do you look for in a classical music/opera review?

4 Answers