The arts invoke countless emotions in the audiences and an art review’s “raison d’être”  is to elicit those emotions from the readers even when they were not presented at the performance. A concert’s review does exactly the same purpose, except that experiencing music is something so abstract as the music itself and that the music reviewer’s mission becomes a thousand times harder. Trinity Church Calls; Composersrespond by Steve Smith and A Tighter, Lighter, Smaller Mahler by Allan Kozinn offer different styles of reviewing along with their pros and cons.

In his article, Steve Smith talks about the arduous task of contemporary composers competing with their ancient predecessors Bach, Brahms, Mahler in commemorating the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attack. Although giving certain applause to the ancient composers in the opening paragraph, Steve Smith signifies the many performances by contemporary artists given to the Trinity Church for their commemorating concert, one of which was ultimately chosen by it, Moran’s “Trinity requiem.” Asides from the occasional drops of musical jargon into the review, Steve goes right into the details of the performance and the emotion each reveals with unswerving manner. “Crashing” organ chords resonates the sounds of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers; gentle “dissonances” and “nervous” repetition of the chorus reanimate the scene in which the whole world was watching the event with unanimous prayers and hopes for the victims; the organ dropped out after offertory based on Pachelbel’s Canon, leaving only the cello playing elicits from the readers grief, redemption, diminishment, and loss as if we were there again, shocked at the debris that is left after the attack. In short, Steve Smith’s expert musical perception and compelling vocabulary express the grief that was the purpose of the performance.

Allan Kozinn’s review tackles a different event that is more professionally involved, the centenary commemoration of the premier of Mahler’s “Das Lied von der Erde.” The Orchestra of St.Luke celebrated this occasion by performing the reduced version of “Das Lied” by Schoenberg and Riehn. Allan elaborates the immediate effect of moving from Mahler’s full score to Schoenberg and Reihn’s trimmed version, lauding its “benefits as obvious as the compromise.” Furthermore, he compliments the orchestra for having managed the best of their ability to handle the transition. Allan seldom brings out out small setbacks of the performance objectively and helps underscore the success of the performance, like in this critic: “Granted, certain strands are eliminated, or slipped into one of the two keyboard parts. But the essence is here, and it works.” He uses strong, opinionated language and adjectives such as “understandably,””obvious,””freshly,””hefty,””strong,” throughout the review to convey the voice of a true music critic. “Street” terms like “under the hood” and “tight” are used twice to induce a comic relief in the overall heavy and professional review.

As the arts can bring out countless interpretations, so do the style of reviews varies accordingly. Steve Smith and Alan Kozinn handle different topics in their reviews yet their opinions as art critics both strive to excite in the readers the emotions that they had felt while attending those performances and to help them participate in such events in the future in order to truly experience them by themselves.

Many writers and journalists have different styles of writing and use those styles in order to capture the attention of their readers. However, what determines whether or not a journalist is effective is the way he/she is able to implement his/her respective style in order to attract readers. Some reviewers or journalist are more effective at accomplishing this then others and that’s what separates them as the elite.

In his review, A Play That Will Not Come to Dust While It’s a Troupe’s Lucky Charm, Ben Brantley reviews the play Cymbeline and begins by giving a couple of details as to the plot of the play. He gives the reader a glimpse of the play without giving away the entire play, because if that was the case why would one want to see a play if he/she already knows what will occur. He uses many descriptive words and phrases, such as “credibly portraying incredible feats of derring-do” and “bringing elaborate battle scenes to life,” to give the reader a sense of what to expect while watching the play. By doing so he is able to establish an emotional relationship with the reader and connect to him/her in a more effective manner. He then goes on to give us some details about the set of the play and the cast that starred in it. Brantley ends his review by offering his personal opinion on the piece and by noting some aspects of the play he really enjoyed. He comments that the actors didn’t goof around and that they were able to portray the piece in a way that “the play itself really was the thing.” In my opinion, Brantley wrote an excellent review on the play and not only described its plot, but was also able to establish a connection with his readers.

Neil Genzlinger, discusses the play “Temporal Powers” in his review, A Couple’s Big Break That’s Not So Lucky. He was able to draw me in by beginning his review with a question, however, as I continued reading I realized that he was not as effective as Ben Brantley. Genzlinger starts off by bringing up another play performed by the same company and gives a comparison between the two. He then goes on to summarize the play without lending his opinion as to how he felt while watching the play. Genzlinger failed to establish a connection with his audience and ruined the entire play for the people who were interested in seeing it. He finally ends off by offering his opinion on the piece, but it is too late. By summarizing the play he has lost the attention of the reader and has established his review as an ineffective one.

As you can see, the technique a writer decides to use is very important and can establish him/her as a great journalist or one who is unsuccessful. Reviewers must pay careful attention to the style and methods that they choose to use because it can either lead to their success or their downfall.

A reviewer’s job is to inform us about the positive as well as the negatives of the thing they are reviewing. In the example of a video game review they must tell us why we should buy the game as well as what the problem is. I read a review for Shadow Cities by Seth Schiesel and one for NCAA 12 by Lang Whitaker. I thought that Schiesel’s did a much better job of reviewing his game.

Whitaker started his review off with a story about his gameplay that left me very confused while i was reading. I actually had to pause to see if I was reading the right thing. When he finished his whole story he didn’t even explain what feature of the game he was talking about. He went on to just list a bunch of features of the game that I could have found by going to the games website. However the biggest problem I had with Whitaker’s review was that he never said anything negative about the game. I have played many video games in my life and know that none of them are perfect, Whitaker however failed to mention any specific problems with the game.

Schiesel on the other hand did a great job of explaining what the game was. He explained exactly what was going on and what your objectives were going to be. He talks about how the game is really the first of it’s kind. Schiesel also does his due diligence and explains to us some of the faults of the game. He gives you some reasons to be cautious about buying the game but then reminds you that the problems he described are things that will probably be fixed and even if not are not good enough reasons to stop you from buying the game.

When reading a review for a video game I would like to know that i am getting an unbiased opinion of the game from people who just love to play video games like me. While reading Whitacker’s review of NCAA 12 I felt like i was just reading a promo for the game. On the other hand when I read Schiesel’s review of Shadow Cities I felt like if I bought the game i could know what to expect both the bad and the good and thats what makes a good review.

In the article “‘Sleep No More,’ but Move Nonstop,” Gia Kourlas writes a strong review of the play “Sleep No More.” The article opens with a brief description of the play that explains how much movement is involved. This description gives the reader a good understanding of what the play is about and what the audience experiences watching it. The article goes on to include quotes from people involved in the play then respond to the ideas proposed in the quotes, giving the reader a second opinion with more information. This method makes the article seem valid and thoughtful, making it a strong review.

Ben Brantley reviews “Cymbeline” in a way that is not as strong in “Simply Shakespeare, No Tangled Web.” He begins his article with a reference to “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark” that jokes about the problems faced by both plays. This beginning fails to properly introduce the play that Brantley is actually reviewing. Throughout the rest of the review, Brantley describes the play in a way that feels too positive. He doesn’t discuss any negative aspects of the play. Instead, he points out things that may seem to be bad but either explains why he actually liked them or doesn’t explain them at all. For example, he writes that “despite the doubling, tripling and quadrupling of roles, I have never seen a “Cymbeline” as easy to follow as this one.” The topic of actors with multiple roles is one that he does not talk about very much. He touches on it slightly more before this quote, simply describing the situation, but he never talks about possible negative impacts of it. Instead, he simply shakes of the idea with the quote, saying that it is not an issue. Brantley’s writing style and method make his review seem as if it is not very serious and lacks any negativity, something that is very important in a review.

           Mr. David Frum gets off to a strong start in his review of “That Used to Be Us,” by Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, a book about the current state of the American nation and economy. He begins the piece, Does America Have a Future?  by providing the backdrop in which the book is set, the premise of the book and a bit of history about the authors thus managing to garner a small amount of interest in the reader. However, as one reads the two-page article, nothing much is said even though there are a lot of words.  Mr. Frum lists numerous examples from the book throughout his piece, seemingly trying to make different points about how the authors depict the current state of America and yet the reader comes away at the end of the piece knowing hardly anything more about the book than what he did at the beginning. This, in my opinion is the biggest shortfall of the review as it fails to provide the reader with enough information about different aspects of the book for the reader to form an opinion. Throughout the article he makes only a single point about the contradictory nature of the book which results from Mr. Friedman and Mr. Mendelbaum being “frustrated optimists” failing until the end to convey a final and decisive opinion. At the very end of the piece, Mr. Frum introduces an entirely new point about the authors being in support of the American elite, a point that seems to be based on personal opinion rather than any direct examples from the book. In the confusion, both Mr. Frum’s and the authors’ viewpoints are lost and the reader is left unsatisfied.

            On the other hand, Janet Maslin’s review of Candice Millard’s “Destiny of the Republic,” a book on former president James A. Garfield’s life and legacy and his place in American history, is engaging, to-the-point, well-written and comprehensive. In other words, Never Seeking the Presidency, Yet Swept Into Office Nonetheless is an excellent review that tells the reader all he/she needs to know to be able to decide whether or not to pick up Ms. Millard’s book. There is a clear viewpoint that is conveyed throughout the piece along with a rousing recommendation of the book that seems sincere and unbiased. A critic’s viewpoint can either be positive or negative, what matters is that the reader get a clear understanding of the critic’s opinion of the work along with additional information that might help the reader form his own opinion, either in agreement or contradiction to the critic’s opinion.  Ms. Maslin’s review does all of this as she uses many intriguing details from the book to strongly recommend “Destiny of the Republic” to her readers. 

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.

To draw the reader in and to have a successful review, the reviewer should provide some knowledge to the topic at hand to create some type of interest in the reader. It is important for the critic to have a firm standpoint whether it be positive or negative. It is crucial to make clear how he/she feels about the piece being reviewed and to make the reader understand, but not necessarily agree, why he/she feels this way.

In Shuffling and Mirroring In a Sort of Simon Says, Brian Seibert gives a short but descriptive introduction of the choreographer Noémie Lafrance and her previous works. By doing so, Seibert shows that he has an interest and understanding/opinion in the works of Lafrance. Seibert then proceeds directly into a description of the project, ‘The White Box Project’, that he is reviewing. He analyzes the methods that Lafrance uses in this dance piece. Seibert clarifies what he is focused on, “the line between audience and performers should blur”; the way Lafrance depicts this aspect of her work compared to her prior projects. He proceeds to make a stand on how he feels about this method. He says, “But Ms. Lafrance has revolted against traditional ways of presenting theater more imaginatively before. This project lacks the visual stylishness….” and so forth. It is clear that Seibert feels this is one of Lafrance’s weaker presentations. I feel as if I am able to hear Seibert’s voice/opinion while reading his review. The review has its own definite character and standpoint; it is firm and therefore I do not question it. He gives a persuasive pull towards his opinion. Not only do I feel that he is believable, he has made me unconsciously formulate a positive curiousity towards the previous works of Lafrance that he says is distinguished by “visual stylishness”.

In Hindu Mythology Comes to Life in the Streets of New York, I am unclear of the direction that the review is heading towards. Is this review making a negative or positive standpoint? Does Alastair Macaulay feel that “Visions of Forever” was a good performance? How does he make me feel about it? Macaulay starts with a lengthy but somewhat pointless introduction. From the title, I assumed I would mostly be reading about the dance presented by Sutra Dance Theater from Malaysia. However, Macaulay introduces with a lengthy description of the Downtown Dance Festival that had little relation to ‘Visions of Forever’ except that it was the closing program to the festival. When Macaulay finally talks about the performance, he is somewhat contradictory. On one hand he says, “although there are real drawbacks…”, “one big problem was a voiceover”, and “a smaller problem…”. On the other hand, Macaulay compliments that it has “an abundance of color and dance detail” and “depicts Hindu mythology with marvelous costumes”. He also has a lengthy positive opinion of one of the dancers, Ms Govindarajoo, and how his eyes ‘kept singling her out’. What is the point he is trying to make in the end? Is he focusing on the detailed dances and successful Hindu mythology representation or the problems that he points out? Is the performance mediocre or do the positive aspects weigh out the faults?