In his review, New York Exhales With Mahler’s ‘Resurrection,’ Symphonic Salve, Anthony Tommasini describes the New York Philharmonic’s 9/11 memorial concert. Before he begins to talk about the music he gives the reader a back-story to the performance. This gives the reader a less formal relationship with the author and allows for a friendlier and more relaxed read. There is a part where Tommasini uses musical jargon such as “sonatta-allegro movement” and “quiet tremolos” and while this serves as proof of his knowledge of music and easily understood by a true connoisseur, it was hard to follow. Thankfully most of the article is not in “music-speak” and conveys his passion and understanding of the concert to everyone reading the article and not just to the musically competent. Tommasini’s use of words like frenzy, lustrous, ferociously, and cataclysmic give the reader an understanding of the depth and gravity of the emotions he felt listening to the concert. His review is positive but he is not afraid to point out a few shortcomings in the end. Overall, Tommasini seems like someone who lives and breathes music so his opinions on it are not only interesting but also informative and trustworthy.
The author of Capturing a Yearning Fit for a Prince, Vivien Schweitzer, takes a different approach in reviewing “Music for a Rash Prince — Favorite Composers From the Court of Charles the Bold in Medieval Burgundy” at Bargemusic. Her article is significantly shorter than Tommasini’s and severely lacking in flair or personality. Schweitzer talks about four pieces from the concert each with a one-sentence description of the music and a related factoid about the composers. All in all, it is difficult to even broach the subject of whether or not Schweitzer instills a sense of trust because she doesn’t say much at all. Her review was slightly informative but very dry and boring.
You mentioned how the brief use of musical jargon made part of the article hard to follow but do you think it may have added to the validity of the article? I think it made the article more believable, even for people that don’t understand it, because it proves that the reviewer does understand what he is talking about.
I agree that while reviewing the person must add some of his own personality as well as give a general background of the event
As a musician and fellow music connoisseur, I appreciate it when artists of their field use the appropriate vocabulary to dignify the art to which they are referring to. Tommasini’s piece appears to be better constructed than Schweitzer’s article. Schweitzer lacks the colorfulness in her writing that Tommasini skillfully displays.
I agree with your opinions because I agree that a person needs to develop some sort of connection with the work they are critiquing. This allows readers to gain a better understanding and appreciation of the work the critic is commenting on.
Hey! I think that a review can also “make or break” an exhibition. If the review is dry and severely lacking flair, like you mentioned, it makes me think that the performance she’s reviewing is also dry. I personally would go watch the show that has a more personable review.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1769772980 which is not a hashcash value.
Hey,
I agree with your opinion that Mr. Tomassini’s review is much better written than Ms. Schweitzer’s. However, in a more general sense, I don’t believe that a review has to be wordy or long to be good. Sometimes, it is better to say less, allowing the audience the freedom to form their own opinions.