A Rather Disconcerting Issue

Sathej · Post by **Sathej** » 21 Apr 2008, 10:35

This is about an issue that I have been facing in recent times.

We are all ardent connoisseurs of Carnatic music and the posts we make about concerts, writing the song lists/our views are almost always done with the intention of sharing details about a concert and our experiences as a Rasika. Now, a problem that has been plaguing me (and I suspect maybe atleast a few others too) is when artistes/people related or known to artistes start contacting members in the forum. True, there is a thin line separating information-supplying and advertising. It is acceptable if occasionally, information is passed on about concerts schedules and so on. But, beyond that, there is quite some hurt caused when people start mailing/contacting you and question on the lines "In a so-and-so review, why did you write poorly about Artiste X? He/she is highly talented. It is a penance for the artistes. Several eminent people have already praised the concerned artiste and he/she has won several awards. How are you qualified to write about him/her?"

It is indeed true that a Rasika (usually) is at a level lower in knowledge than a professional artiste. But that would no way imply that the former cannot write/speak what he/she thinks or the latter is ever-infallible. When some artiste commits a mistake on stage, and mention is made of it in a review, I personally don't think it is wise to mail the reviewer and speak in rather impolite terms. The person concerned could rather take it up in a place where the point was made and argue on technical grounds. As regards a qualitative opinion, that so-and-so artiste wasn't that appealing on that day, I again don't see any reason why an opinion always has to be favourable. Opinion on such is highly subjective and each one is at perfect liberty to feel good about somebody's singing/playing and not-so-good about somebody else's.

Mailing/trying to contact and persuade somebody to start writing good reviews is highly disconcerting and frankly makes the Rasika lose all the respect for the artiste. For instance, suppose I write "I didn't find the artiste X appealing on so-and-so day." Now, if the artiste/some acquaintance mails me and says that I am biased or I am ignorant to comment, then, I would lose quite some respect I have for him/her. On the other hand, if there were no such attempts, I would still retain respect for the artiste and write an honest opinion the next time. But if there are mails and such, one is left with nothing but disregard for the artiste concerned.

Sathej

rbharath · Post by **rbharath** » 21 Apr 2008, 10:53

Beautifully put.!
brillianto!

this is something, i have faced. not just once, but very many times. and some of these mails can actually shatter you. as a person who shares concert lists and comments in public, one really needs to be very-very-thick-skinned to be able to tolerate all these comments on mail/public fora/even personally at times.

handling them on emails is easier. i have confronted with such people in flesh and blood. it is just not possible to make these people understand that you can have an opinion which need not be the same as what they think. I do fight back on occasions. however, beyond a point, it makes no sense to take to them.

one can go on and on writing about these charecters, but, would it make a difference?

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 21 Apr 2008, 11:18

Guys - I sympathise with your views. I have encountered this, directly from artistes who I have reviewed even. Not being one to bother with arguing, I decided it was better not to write reviews but just provide the song list.

10yearslate · Post by **10yearslate** » 21 Apr 2008, 11:39

Sathej and RBharath,
I haven't read your reviews and therefore if what I say doesn't fit your profile, my apologies in advance.

I am not an artiste, and listening as I do from the heart, my lack of 'technical' knowledge, in my view does not qualify me to write reviews, and I therefore never will.

Which I think leaves me in a good position to present a neutral viewpoint.

Just as a professional musician needs to have some qualification (years of saadhakam, ability, divine spark, whatever) to perform on stage, so must a reviewer to broadcast his/her opinion in a public forum.

Confining myself to reviews in mass market media (includes the internet), I would suggest that only those who have a formal qualification in music appreciation be allowed to write reviews. This allows an informed, considered opinion on the performance. It also influences public opinion in a constructive manner.

This is certainly the case in the west. All the reviews I have read re Western Classical Music are wonderfully weighted analyses of what was performed-nary a comment on (the late) Pavarotti's coat tails stretching across his backside or Domingo's spreading girth.

Contrast this with our reviewers' superfluous comments on the artistes' jewellery, make-up, clothes, naamam-s etc.,Either that, or monotonous and inane reviews using the same words from forty years ago ("yeoman service" springs to mind)

No wonder our artistes are frustrated at not being judged by equals.

ganesh_mourthy · Post by **ganesh_mourthy** » 21 Apr 2008, 12:33

This is a completely new subject very much worth discussing and away from our cliched topics like who is the best looking artiste and which artiste sings with gracefull body language and who walks provocatively.

Sathej, It is indeed unbecoming to an artiste to request someone to make amendments to a review either directly or inderectly.

I once heard a very veteran musician arguing in a TV interview that musicians live their lives for music , think music always , music is divine, and work all their life serving the community and hence their life is noble and much above any other job.

What a hypocricy! Musicians are employed in music Universities , in Doordarshans, for which they get monthly pays, they sing in Sabhas , marriage halls , go overseas and they make money bargaining every money they feel they deserve to be paid . Then comes recordings and copyrights, let alone the ads some do.where is Divinity at all?

Once you make a living out of it and look for financial prospects out of your musical career then it becomes a profession as good as any other profession like a software engineer, a solicitor, or a professional sportsperson etc.

We can discuss musicians' skills and professionalism as much as we discuss a tendulkar or federer.

I even have heard influential musicians paying the sabhas to stop another talented musician to gain platform and come to limelight.

THIS MUSIC IS DIVINE but a mere profession for many artistes who makes a luxury out of it as much as any profession . Of course you toil and moil in your formative years and so do everyone in other professions.

When this is the case and when the artistes have chosen to sing in the public , they are vulnerable to be commented and assessed for every penny they are getting paid. . This is freedom of thought and speech.

WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING SOMEONE WHO SINGS FOR THE PASSION AND LOVE FOR MUSIC AND SINGS IN THEIR OWN PRIVACY.

If an artistes wants to be a public figure , make a profession out of it and enjoys singing before a huge crowd , he or she should welcome the reviews and comments of anyone listening and they are open to criticisms.

A request to members. I do come across people being influenced by others in a subject they are not enough knowledged. It is always good to write when you understand the musical system fully and the criticism shoudl be entirely yours where you are able to discern and avoid being a mouthpiece to someone else's arbitrariness. I woudl not discuss or try to review a Maria callas or Renata Tibeldi. My discussions woudl be within my musical interests and knowledge that I have cognized.

Artistes should learn to acknowledge comments healthily. . Learn to neglect the one that you feel that is completely absurd.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Apr 2008, 14:21

This is a bit of an eye-opener.

Of course I'm aware of how much flack the professional critic has to take; we deliver some of that flack in this very forum. But I was never aware just how much courage it must take on the part of members such as rbharath to continue to give us the benefit of their views, reflections and opinions on concerts. Perhaps I'd be more aware if I read more reviews of the many concerts that I have not attended.

rbarath, and others, please do not be discouraged.

Oppressors of free speech; be discouraged!

ganesh_mourthy · Post by **ganesh_mourthy** » 21 Apr 2008, 14:49

I have a read a few reviews of Sathej , if not all , and I dont ever see anythign negative in his wrtiing ever. It is usually the songlist followed by this and this song is good and this and this alapana and raagam is good. It is usually superficial and usually with selective positive points without maligning the artistes. Does that still hurt or disturb any one ?

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 21 Apr 2008, 19:02

Sathej/Bharath/Vijay/Rajesh/Revanth/Mahavishnu and everyone else who reviews concerts and posts here: We depend on your yeoman service to give us unbiased and straight-from-the-heart reviews. I have all but stopped reading reviews in the Hindu because they are filled with useless and tangential verbiage. I was not aware of the pressures that can be imposed on you. I really appreciate the trouble you take to provide us with your frank views. While we may call it a review, it is truly your (point of) view. We understand it, and so should the artists. If they do not, they are just too insecure and you should ignore their messages and not let them affect you in any way! In an ideal world, an artist thanking you for your (re)views should also be treated with the same indifference. As Bharath says, ANYONE (not just reviewers) posting on these public forums can annoy someone, and it does behoove us to develop a thick skin before we start posting (to quote a couple of my favorite authors, the cousins knows as Ellery Queen) - we need to develop skin that is 'one part rhinoceros hide, and three parts armored plate'!

Vocalist · Post by **Vocalist** » 21 Apr 2008, 20:43

This issue reminds me of when a certain founder of a prominent musical organization, as an artist, herself pounced on bala747 for a comment he made about one of her concerts in a random thread, back at Sangeetham.

Having said that, it also reminds me that I experienced the other end of the scale - very positive replies from a few artists themselves, even if I wasn't the reviewer. But that was back in the time when I wrote a very small number of (online) reviews on a few concerts, and albums, and I'm sure a few of the regulars would remember me constantly making observations, comments, replies etc. for reviews.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 21 Apr 2008, 21:07

I am sorry - I am not as sympathetic to reviewers because his/her position is pretty advantageous to begin with. A person's work is out there for the reviewer to elevate or put down. And with web reviews, you have the additional comfort of a monikor, usually anonymous (although I do realize that once you get "popular", this is a small world and you do become visible).

The reviewer can offer "after all I am just sharing my experience, my views" - but that is too easy a way out! You are doing it in open - not just sharing it with your friend(s) in a conversation over a cup of coffee. So instead, it is like using a megaphone and walking the streets, voicing your opinion. You are also putting it under the framework of a review - with song list. And unlike conversations shared with a friend, what you say stays put in print or a website archive for days, months and beyond. So when you think about it in that context, then you should realize what kind of an effect a good or a bad word can have. You should realize what weight it can carry and how potentially influential it can be. Even if you never intended it, a couple of bad reviews of the same performer can easily shape opinions of 10 others. And maybe that explains why the affected personalities feel hurt enough to raise it as an issue. I am not necessarily justifying them but just simply explaining why/how things can get uncomfortable (for both parties).

Anyway, I think the trend of the review tone and content was set by the "great" (:rolleyes:) subbudu!

Although I must confess, I hold a fairly radical (and most probably extremely minority position) on this. In general, I do not think a reviewer's opinion really can have a positive effect on the artists and the art form. At best it is one person's view - and so does one really have advertise it in a public forum (newsmedia, website) and frame it like a review? At the least can it be more informal? Or at best - a simple email to interested friends may suffice

? Coming to their effect on the art-form: IMRO (in my radical opinion), A reviewer can almost never serve as a peer to the artists - their gurus (and peers in the field) do that very well and are way more qualified for that. If a reviewer's position is in high contrast to most of the audience who attended the concert, the reviewer simply is irrelevant. This is where Hindu has become and why people avoid its reviews. Of course, the reviewer can (and usually does) claim "but my view represents the true value of art form etc. I know what is best. The artist and all the people here are clueless". IMO that usually can be dissected to expose personal preferences - and I again ask "then what is the need to advertise it publicly? What are you trying to achieve by it? Can you share it in a less public forum?"

Of course does this mean that i find reviews completely useless? Cant say. I do scan the song lists to see what is being sung (as main, what is elaborated etc.). Also I would think on a macro level, reviews on an artist I have not seen yet, do shape my decision as to whether I should catch them or not. However, I think more of that is made using info from other informal sources too. But beyond that - I do not find them useful.

Arun

Suji Ram · Post by **Suji Ram** » 21 Apr 2008, 21:46

While I read the concert reviews here I usually don't make judgement on the artist at all.
I look for how to enjoy a concert , the technicalities, the education I get in this art form.

Today if I sit up and pay attention to every bit in a concert, it is what I learnt here on this forum from the reviews. Otherwise I usually would have drifted away...
What more can be expected of a rasika?

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 21 Apr 2008, 22:09

Fine. The Forum can go without the Conert Reviews section. Reasons?
1. You at least need to have the knowledge of a professional musician or a musicologist to be a reviewer..
2. A forum review is as widely read as one from The Hindu.
3. Forum reviewers break the hearts of the performers, but the newspaper ones are fine.
4. RasikAs can only feed off the fodder of newspaper reviews. We have to keep mum, by which I mean we have no right to discuss even the merits in the concerts we attend.
5. Performers only want rasikAs. They do not care about their responding to their music. As often stated, we pay for the tickets, they perform for us and there ends the deal.
6.We can try applying the same rule to other threads too. Then, a mere trickle of postings would make it all easy for us to finda thread in a jiffy.

Seriously!
As with every other topic we discuss on the forum, there are a few extreme views, favorable or otherwise on the topic. One by one, we can go shutting off the postings in all possible threads.
I wonder, supposing someone said something not so favorable about an artiste (reasonable or unreasonable) and is overheard by a family member, would he be requested (or be told off) not to return to any of the artiste's concerts?
Without music, there are no rasikAs. Without rasikAs, there is no music.
As for me, I would say--keep the reviews coming, but by all means, shut me up if you feel like it...

Sathej · Post by **Sathej** » 21 Apr 2008, 22:24

Well, firstly, what people write here are essentially not reviews. Infact, the point that it is shaped as a review is not quite right, taking into account the fact that the 'actual' reviews (written by professional critics in papers or elsewhere) seldom carry song lists and almost never mention other details about the song. So, posts made here are not tailored to the 'review' format. Infact, they often present a lot more details than a conventional review.

arunk wrote:Even if you never intended it, a couple of bad reviews of the same performer can easily shape opinions of 10 others.

It is of course undesirable that people get influenced by 'bad' reviews. Having said that, if a performer falters clearly in, say, a Pallavi, it cannot be helped but be pointed out. Otherwise it can lead to a mistaken 'good' impression of the concert and that everything was flawless. About people's opinion being shaped, as Wilde would put it, the very fact that we say something/don't say something amounts to corrupting another person's thoughts. Humans are always subject to influences.

arunk wrote:Although I must confess, I hold a fairly radical (and most probably extremely minority position) on this. In general, I do not think a reviewer's opinion really can have a positive effect on the artists and the art form.

This is rather a deep question. But then, there are so many things that would definitely not have a positive influence on art, yet they continue to be done. An interesting view is whether artistes have any positive influence at all on the art! Does art need artistes? Does 'not writing reviews' have an affirmed positive effect on art? These are philosophical questions and require expert opinions.

arunk wrote:and I again ask "then what is the need to advertise it publicly? What are you trying to achieve by it? Can you share it in a less public forum?"

There is no problem that I can see. As pointed out, if artistes choose to sing in public, they should also be open to public scrutiny and comments. And its not 'advertising'. Advertising would literally imply that the advertiser is genuinely interested in selling his/her ideas. Here, ideas are seldom intended to be sold. Infact, this is a very poor place (from my experience) to 'sell' ideas. There are other avenues for that and a person who posts here stands to gain absolutely nothing, other than the pleasure of sharing.

arunk wrote:Also I would think on a macro level, reviews on an artist I have not seen yet, do shape my decision as to whether I should catch them or not.

I, for one, would never do that. The opinion of somebody matters least to me, though I would wholeheartedly support his/her right to voice an opinion. I shape my opinions based on my personal preferences. And from what I gather, several people read 'reviews' for reasons other than shaping opinions.

Having said all this, when a post made here comments on the lines of "The Alapanai was too short" or "there was a slip in the Trikalam during the Pallavi", I personally don't see any reason why an artiste should contact the concerned person and argue on grounds like "he/she has received so many awards. Several eminent people have praised" and such. If the Alapanai was short, so it was. If there was a flaw in the Pallavi, so it was as well. Technical arguments are welcome but not mere off-point, handwaving,obscure and most of all, behind-the-screen pestering.

Sathej

shishya · Post by **shishya** » 21 Apr 2008, 23:11

My take on this is
1. Please DO NOT STOP posting reviews or songlists -they have immense educational value. When I was growing up, I took a diary with me to every concert and noted down the songlist, main phrases in the ragas and mukthayis that were prformed. It has helped me learn a lot about concert planning. Nowadays I use the songlists from this forum.

2. Reviewers: develop a thick skin

3. artists: develop a thicker skin and take the so called "reviews" with a pinch of salt. You will be performing for the rest of your life and the earlier you develop the thick skin, the better you can focus on the art and development.

The aritists and reviewers need to realize that they have put themselves, by way of their art (and reviews), in public and have to have a right mind to get feedback (both warranted and unwarranted). If the artists have a genuine issue with the review they should take it up in the forum where the review appeared - much like how Sowmya responded to the Hindu review of her MA concert. A review depends not only on the knowledge of teh reviewer but also on the writing style, attitude, and the level of refinement in communication.

That being said, musicians seldom spend resources on advertising their strengths - so an overly negative "subbudu-esque" review will do more harm than good - especially for up and coming artists. How much ever they may want to get past it, sometimes it takes a while for them to get over it. Ultimately this may harm the artists' capabilities and confidence. Keep in mind that artists are sensitive by nature and it is this sensitivity that bring out their best contribution to art. I think a bringing out the swaroopam of a bhairavi or handling the ma and ni of a begada warrant utmost sensitivity.

Sathej, I have always enjoyed your reviews - please keep them coming. However, bear in mind that different people have different levels of senstitivity. My suggestion to you would be to learn from what the artist has to say - if there is any message. Otherwise, ask them to "get over it" in a polite, sugar-coated manner.

We have seen first hand on the Cleveland aradhana thread how difficult it is to take criticism. It is the same of concert reviews. Any process or person that is public will attract criticism - both positive and negative. Be it an event, organization, artist or reviewer. I admire the patience with which sri vkv has been asking for suggestions and to continue the discussion offline via email. Knowingly or unknowingly, he may be concerned about the unwarranted publicity for the inner operations of Cleveland aradhana.

We do not live in a perfect world - these imperfections are what make us human. I think the artists and reviewers have to accept that reality and strive for perfection but not get defensive when its lack is pointed out.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 22 Apr 2008, 00:16

Here is a simple point of view.

We are a group of people with an interest in carnatic music. We discuss carnatic music. We discuss artists, we discuss concerts, we discuss performances.

If any artist prefers that we give up this interest, they will find your audience numbers proportionately reduced. It is actually ridiculous to give a performance in a serious, classical art form, and expect that it will not be discussed.

I hope we can say with some certainty that our interest, and our discussions, and our forum will continue, and that will include reviews and personal opinions about artists and their performances .

There is another side to the coin: that is those who will constantly post to promote, or to criticise a particular artist or group from the standpoint of personal interest or prejudice. However, an internet forum is the place where such people are least likely to continue without challenge or, at least, notice.

manvantara · Post by **manvantara** » 22 Apr 2008, 00:38

Sathej, I agree with what you have written - my respect for an artiste would go down if he/she contacted me (directly or otherwise) about it in defence, instead of initiating a discussion on the technical nuances.

Interestingly, very recently I happened to see S.Sowmya's homepage and noticed her responses to a recent criticism of her alapanas (in three ragas). (http://www.carnatica.net/sowmya/).
Personally, the discussion went over my head

, but I tried to follow what she was saying.

Also, there is a thread on narthaki.com about the responsibility of reviewers (www.narthaki.com) under "Roses and Thorns", which might be worth reading.
If the reviewer is a well informed rasika and not someone dashing out a report after attending just a part of the concert, then the artiste ought to treat the reviewer with respect and dignity.

This reminds me of the long piece on critics, which comes towards the end of the movie "Ratatouille"! It is a beautiful piece - I wish I could search it out and place it here, but cannot do so right now - but it is a very well thought out piece on critics and their work.

ramakriya · Post by **ramakriya** » 22 Apr 2008, 01:29

rbharath wrote:Beautifully put.!
brillianto!

this is something, i have faced. not just once,

ayyO!

I had no clue that this could be happening...

May be I should wake up and smell the coffee ...

(Thanks to the likes of Bharat and Sathej, I have personally learnt so many things on this forum

and elsevhere)

I am also glad I never write reviews , and if at all I do, I will now make sure it will be a mere song list!

-Ramakriya

rajumds · Post by **rajumds** » 22 Apr 2008, 10:20

nick H wrote:Here is a simple point of view.

We are a group of people with an interest in carnatic music. We discuss carnatic music. We discuss artists, we discuss concerts, we discuss performances.

If any artist prefers that we give up this interest, they will find your audience numbers proportionately reduced. It is actually ridiculous to give a performance in a serious, classical art form, and expect that it will not be discussed.

I hope we can say with some certainty that our interest, and our discussions, and our forum will continue, and that will include reviews and personal opinions about artists and their performances .

There is another side to the coin: that is those who will constantly post to promote, or to criticise a particular artist or group from the standpoint of personal interest or prejudice. However, an internet forum is the place where such people are least likely to continue without challenge or, at least, notice.

Well said Nick.

Let's continue to dicuss music. If an artist (or another rasika) has a counter point on the review they are free to post here.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 22 Apr 2008, 15:15

manvantara wrote:This reminds me of the long piece on critics, which comes towards the end of the movie "Ratatouille"! It is a beautiful piece - I wish I could search it out and place it here, but cannot do so right now - but it is a very well thought out piece on critics and their work.

Is this what you were referring to? Truly an Oscar performance from Peter O'toole...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfN_zYKxNQ

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 22 Apr 2008, 15:47

I hope nobody in this forum is seriously considering putting an end to reviewing! As it has been mentioned before, as long as an artiste decides to perform publicly, it is fair game for the public to discuss his music. In fact, an artiste should be worried only if no reviews, good or bad, about his performances ever make it to the forum! The very thought of curbing reviewing is hilarious.

I think it is also important to indicate, as rajumds has, that artistes who feel an unfair judgment has been passed on their performance, should feel free to voice it on the forum as well, instead of resorting to private e-mailing. The reviews that show up on this forum, the reviewers, and the readers are all largely intelligent and would welcome an artiste's misgivings, as long as they are also logical and intelligent (and not reactive and unnecessarily emotional). Sowmya's scholarly countering of VVS's review is a good example.

Of course, when the particular complaint is just an opinion (an alapanai was too short, i.e., or the swaras weren't great, etc), an artiste should be able to respect or at the least tolerate a negative point of view. If the artiste is truly concerned about improving his/ her own music, he/she might ask the reviewer why he/she felt the swaras weren't great, and this might lead the reviewer to try to specifically pin down the reason for his feeling (maybe certain phrases in the swaras were repetitive, maybe it had too much kanakku, whatever). This sort of discussion would benefit both artiste and reviewer (and certainly the other readers).

In short, true musicians should be looking to expand and not stop the intelligent, educative, and genuine discussions about music that happen in this forum.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 22 Apr 2008, 20:57

ragam_talam,
Thanks for posting the clip.
Just because a few performers whine about a negative comment here and there and send unwelcome E-mails, the reviews should not stop coming. Many of us look forward to them. They educate (song lists, I realized at some point, are an effective source for learning and remembering).
Yes, but even with a comment here and there which isn't complimentary, the performer is brought to our attention every now and then with a review and it keeps the artiste visible to us. It is better publicity for him than any paid publicity.
Yes, those who read the reviews are smart enough to know that these
write-ups (rather than reviews?) are by different people who bring their own views about a concert. We can get an idea about a performer by processing all that is said about him. The school or guru (a vital clue), the choice of songs (RTP, taLams), and so on. At least, all this creates an interest in the reader to make him go to hear those whom he hasn't heard before.
The beauty of it is, the reviewers here are as varied as they come (an asset again, as opposed to the same two or three reviewers on a paper or even the less-enlightened ones on some magazines).
Above all, the rasika-reviewers go to a concert in the first place--not to review-- but to LISTEN to good music.
So, what's the problem? I have rarely come across individuals (articulate or otherwise), who go to a concert and not give a 'review' about it in their own fashion as they come out of the hall. This is part of a rasikA's make up, and to emulate most of you, I will 'go cricket' and ask: have you seen the fans filing out of the grounds after a game without exchanging excited comments and engaging in some physical 'replay' of some instants of the highlights of the game?
My personal view: one of the most interesting features of the forum is the Reviews Section where things keep happening.

Back to the clip again.
The critic sees new meaning in the saying of the famous chef. To find a new exceptional talent from nowhere and to speak of him glowingly (giving up all the pretensions of a well-known critic) can appy here too. On theother hand, our critics are not professional critics. They love CM and are interested in nourishing it. They don't do it because they are paid for it.
They keep us informed and keep the performers in the limelight. If an odd member speaks out with rancor, we are after him. If an odd performer behaves the same way, I hope he knows he is doing himself in...

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 22 Apr 2008, 21:36

Perhaps we should make the reviews available to logged-in members only!

I wonder how many artists browse this site to see what you guys are saying! Perhaps this site has more weight than we thought!

My comments about concerts are personal opinions, and marked as such. They are usually positive too, in the absence of being qualified to give technical details, one can always share one's pleasure --- but I see no point in saying much about those concerts that didn't work for me, unless it is to complain of some organisational aspect, or, of course, the audience!

As a "lay" rasika, I find that it is much easier to recognise the good, and sometimes even to be sure that it is good, without technical reasoning to support that. It is very much harder to recognise the bad, unless it is so obvious that anyone would see it

manvantara · Post by **manvantara** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:25

Thanks ragam-talam! Yes, that is the piece I mentioned in my earlier post.

Sathej · Post by **Sathej** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:45

nick H wrote:I wonder how many artists browse this site to see what you guys are saying! Perhaps this site has more weight than we thought!

Its actually fairly clear that several of them do browse through.

Sathej

shishya · Post by **shishya** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:52

Another thing that I noticed is that posts from this site show up when one does a google search. So lot of our posts are accessible to anyone who googles - which would inlcude concert reviews. I like Nick's idea of making the posts available to only logged in members. This site does have a wider reach than we are aware of.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 23 Apr 2008, 00:29

Well I guess Peter O Toole made the crux of my point more succinctly than I did. Also, note that I was not justifying the actions of artists complaining to you guys - but offering an explanation behind why some may resort to that. When people are disturbed, different people react differently - not all of them acceptable to us. The basic point is a review is a powerful instrument, and thus perhaps should carry "Handle with caution" labels

I think perhaps the additional bother an artist may face is that among the "n" rasikas (n = 25, 50, 100, 200, 500 whatever) who attended a concert on some day at some place, typically, an opinion of one attendee comes out prominently in the open (i.e. in the form of review) for everyone to see - i.e. people who didn't attend. It has the potential of reaching thousands. Hence if that is positive, it is a big buoy. If that is a the negative one, then that hurts more. One can always say "why cant others offer contrasting views if any" - certainly, but it just doesn't happen often enough. One can certainly then say "that is not my problem". True again, but does not change the fact that the review's influence can be highly accentuated thus causing some fall-outs due to different levels of sensitivities in different people (sishya's post was excellent in this regard). Note again, I am not saying that the reviewers should all shut up. Yes, In my personal opinion, the value of reviews is largely overstated - but that is just one opinion, and I am certainly not going to ask or expect others to agree

I also don't think the artists have the time or inclination to counter every point made in a review that shows them in a bad light.

I think criticism is certainly fine, and is indeed a good thing - but given our human tendencies it must (a) come from the right place (b) be offered in the right way. Expecting someone to take something that doesnt meet either is a tall order - we are all human. We all know what "one must do, and one must be", but not many can follow it, especially when things get tough. Again, sishya's post was right on in these aspects.

Do reviews make a difference in the grand-scheme? I really dont think so (so i also wonder - why I make a big deal

?). SVK (and subbudu before that) has been ranting about various artists big and small for decades. The popular ones were popular, and remain popular, with many of their fans enjoying their music a lot.. I also do not know how many artists learn from criticisms offered in such reviews. I think they definitely don't conform to (b) above

A slightly tangential point: The other thing we should consider is most reviewers have preferences and that itself can affect the neutrality. He/She may be less tolerant to similar faults (albeit subtle ones) in artists he/she likes/admires vs. someone he/she may not admire as much (i am not counting big errors). As an extreme example, I will dare someone to evaluate a super-super-senior (i.e. one who has really retired, but then gives a performance) on strict technical merit like sruthi-suddham and tonal clarity in higher/lower ranges, kalapramanam etc. Of course they wont and they shouldnt - in such concerts one looks for different things to appreciate. One gives lee-ways where they are necessary. So how "neutral" are these reviews? They are not if you strictly compare what you look for here vs. what you look for in an artist in his/her prime. But it is "neutral" if one factors in the fact that your expectation is different for the different artist. While you may chide an artist in his/her prime for not missing a tara stayi swara even a tad, you will let go if the senior misses it even wider. Not fair if you look at it in the strictest sense, but not unfair at all if you look at it differently. But if I may dare say, we go way way overboard in our praise for super-super-super senior concerts - almost to a patronizing level.

Arun

manvantara · Post by **manvantara** » 23 Apr 2008, 02:31

arunk, regarding your "tangential point" - a review is definitely going to be subjective, no way around it, as it will be coloured with the knowledge (or not!) of the reviewer. The more knowledgeable and the more experienced a reviewer is (in terms of the number of concerts attended, for instance), the more weight his/her review would carry.

When I attended the Cleveland Aradhana a couple of years ago, I was looking forward to Dr.Padma Subrahmanyam's recital (being a dance student myself). However, the entire show was a big let down. I wasn't looking for "technical merit", as you have mentioned, but knowing very well that she has spent a great deal of time and effort studying dance, I was keen on seeing her program. Later, I read from some reviews that many others too were disappointed. (so people were not afraid to voice what they felt).
However, last year, when I visited Madras, I did attend a program of hers ("Bhagavad Gita") and it was outstanding! Her nephew Kannan and his wife Dr.Gayathri provided excellent orchestra support - to the point of overshadowing the dancer at times, but Dr.Padma is much too strong as a dancer to be eclipsed, so the show only got better and excellence permeated every bit of it.

Reviewers need to be cognizant of their role and take it up seriously.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 23 Apr 2008, 02:55

manvantara - the reviews are not only colored by the knowledge of the reviewers, but more importantly by their tastes and preferences. It is not like more knowledgeable the reviewer gets, the more unbiased the reviews become. If any, I find that we get hardened in our tastes the more we involve into CM (and maybe dance).

So consider a reviewer who has "made a mark" - i.e. many people like his/her insights. He/she may more things to identify faults/mistakes/ on people he/she does not hold high vs. those he/she does (and similar more easily finds praise in people he/she admires vs. those he/she may not as much) Of course I think people who read do realize this - but I also think it can and does easily gets lost at times.

So about those readers of the reviews of that reviewer - How many factor in the reviewer's preference when reading an positive or negative aspect in the review? When reviewer X says music of Y was the high-heavens, and that of Z was "ok but could have been better" - how many of those who like X's insight think "Does X usually loves the kind of music musicians like Y produces way more than the ones Z produces? Is there a hidden preference?". Vs. How many who simple take away "X thought Y was too good, and Z was ok". I dont know. But I also wonder assuming there is a preference - how would Z and his friends feel

?

But yes in dance, people do hit out at the big names often. But dance also seems a bit different. I may have not read many cm reviews, but it seems to me most super-senior artists in CM, almost always get top billing from reviewers - be it here or in print. Pure, unadulterated, sublime, magical, perfect are some of the words that occur regularly. In the official reviews in print, this is usually followed by a lament on why current musicians cant hold a candle to this kind of music. In CM, I find the respect for established musicians to run very high - not that that is bad, just making an observation (although too much of anything cannot be necessarily always good). In dance, people dont seem to be afraid of saying "this person should stop as they are past their prime". Now, I am not saying CM reviewers should say the same! Just merely commenting, that finding faults in established super-senior musicians' performances seems rare - perhaps an unwritten no-no in CM field.

Arun

manvantara · Post by **manvantara** » 23 Apr 2008, 03:31

arunk, yes, duh, I missed the point about a review being influenced by the reviewer's personal preferences. Of course! It is going to be subjective (as I mentioned earlier) - no way around it.
Even the best of reporters, when they write - it is through their eyes and their way of looking at the world, right?

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 23 Apr 2008, 03:44

Indeed. I think it is easier for readers to recognize it, and also come to terms with it (although not all can do it - e.g. imagine a harsh review of a singer you adore, or an concert you thought was good). It is much harder for artists - if they are the wrong end of the review

. And that is human

Arun

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 23 Apr 2008, 03:58

I propose we change the name of the sub-forum from "Kutcheri Reviews & Recordings - Review the latest concerts. " to "Kutcheri Opinions & Recordings - Express your personal opinions about concerts you attended. "

And make sure you do not use the word "review" in your posts if you want to avoid these out of band nuisance.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 23 Apr 2008, 04:07

Rasikas "vox populi" on recent concerts

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 23 Apr 2008, 05:48

Sounds good VK Raman. We can also add "Wisdom of the crowds" for added effect

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 23 Apr 2008, 07:47

Arun,
Just as with the earnestness with which you approach things, very scientifically too, you have analyzed reviews and reviewers at great length.
I spotted one expression in your post: his or her 'insight'. So, with all the other qualities which are required in qualifying oneself as a reviewer, one has to have insight too, I suppose. Again, touching upon "Ratatuille" (simple food 'cooked in a tile' can be delicious too).
Good reviews can be written by those who do not have a masters or doctorate in music, I think. As an aside, many who have not been to school do make excellent musicians. Can all those who are highly qualified in the theory of music become excellent performers?
If 'Concert Reviews' is an unacceptable word, just 'Concert Views' or 'Concert Impressions would suffice.
The reason for my writing a few 'views' was to share my experience with other rasikAs who could not be in India for the season. 'Views', 'Impressions' or whatever you intend calling them upon vox populi, when they reflect your appreciation of a concert, especially when it is about an upcoming youngster, is a good thing. For established artistes, it is an impetus to do better. For the seniors, it is an accolade which they worked for all their lives (some of them did not get the recognition which they ought to have attained years ago). Of course, words have to be taken in context. A 'great!' for a new performer is not the same 'great' as for a seasoned performer or for a veteran. With the youngster, we say it with encouragement at heart, to the established to say, 'keep it up', and to the seniors as 'in spite of advanced age, the quality of your singing is great'.
When a review is printed in a newspaper, it stops there (letters to the editor about a concert may not get published. Even if they are, they go unnoticed. Sowmya's response was an exception, I would think).
On the contrary, a (re)view here on the forum continues, with the input of a few others who attended the concert. Some ask for the name of the composer of a song, Lakshman comes up with the information. Another asks for the lyrics or meaning, one remembers hearing an old timer singing it, another rasikA posts it, and on and on it goes.
We are all different in our make up, background and learning levels as rasikAs and our views reflect them.
We all count as rasikAs. After all, they check only our tickets when we enter the sabha, not our credentials--and what we express here are our impressions of a concert, of the rasikAs who went in to listen to a concert...

Ramnath Iyer · Post by **Ramnath Iyer** » 23 Apr 2008, 08:39

As an artist myself (albeit a part-time one) I must say a negative comment does hurt (human trait I guess

). However when I get one, I try to take a step back, mull over it and assess whether the criticism is true. If true then incorporate it as part of continuous artistic development. If not true in my opinion, then shrug it off.

I do look forward to reviews in this forum; especially the songlist - there is so much to learn from a songlist; things like combination of ragas, talas, what kritis and ragas are popular/getting popular/seasonal, what RTPs are sung in which tala, how is the pallavi constructed/handled etc etc. So please keep them coming.

As an interesting aside, Sruti magazine never publishes reviews of concerts unless it is a special theme/innovative concert. IIRC the founder editor late Mr Pattabhiraman had once expressed why he decided against it in one of the early issues. However they do CD reviews which are always excellent: their subjective opionions are positive while negative comments are factual (technical errors, inlay card errors etc.).

rajumds · Post by **rajumds** » 23 Apr 2008, 09:52

arun wrote:manvantara - the reviews are not only colored by the knowledge of the reviewers, but more importantly by their tastes and preferences. It is not like more knowledgeable the reviewer gets, the more unbiased the reviews become. If any, I find that we get hardened in our tastes the more we involve into CM (and maybe dance).

What you say is right.

In our forum members write reviews on concerts they attend and don't attend concerts to write reviews. So the "preference angle" will work to the advantage of the artist and there is no possibilty of a damaging review due the bias of the reviewer

ganesh_mourthy · Post by **ganesh_mourthy** » 23 Apr 2008, 10:28

I second your opinion, rajmunds.

MEMBERS HERE ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL CRITICS AND THEY DONT DONT DO A REGULAR ROUND UP JUST TO WRITE REVIEWS.

EACH OF US WOULD HAVE OUR WISH LIST OF MUSICIANS AND WE TRY TO ATTEND ONLY THEIR CONCERTS. AND WHEN WE TRY TO WRITE ABOUT THEM WE TEND TO PROJECT THEM GOOD ( THIS IS FROM A RATIONAL VIEW) AND WE TEND TO OVERLOOK THE FLAWS AND EVEN IF IT HAPPENS WE SEE THEM AS TRIFFLE. IT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE CHOOSE TO ATTEND THEIR CONCERTS OUT OF OUR OWN PREDILICTIONS.

I hardly do come across a bad review of an artiste in this forum. So logically I feel that if a fan of an artiste ( if you are a regular goer for an artiste ) points out a flaw that an artiste has made it would have been grossly bad for him. Unless otherwise he woudl not mention it . So usually the reviews always carry positive aspects of the person and and rarely a negative comment.

So the artistes should understand that if a member writes a review , he admires the artiste and hence attends his concerts. If the artiste tends to overlook all the positive aspects written about him and whines and gets infuriated about the tad flaws mentioned , I woudl say that people with such intolerance are not a material for public show.

Artistes should understand that it is mostly good reviews since they are written by their admirers who regularly attend their concert.

this goes with the old saying ,

Faults are thick when love is thin.
and conversely , faults are thin when love is thick.

LET ME ASK , HOW MANY OF U HERE WOULD ATTEND CONCERTS OF PERFOMERS FOR WHOM YOU DONT HAVE PREFERENCE FOR.

vainika · Post by **vainika** » 24 Apr 2008, 22:27

Vocalist wrote:This issue reminds me of when a certain founder of a prominent musical organization, as an artist, herself pounced on bala747 for a comment he made about one of her concerts in a random thread, back at Sangeetham.

... and I'm reminded of the early days of rec.music.indian.classical (mid-90s) when a seethingly sarcastic remark in an online review earned me an offline threat to bodily integrity, "I'll break his bones should he ever set foot in Chennai."

The threat-maker was the musician himself, then up-and-coming, now arrived and hopefully more secure

And, looking back, I probably could have been a tad more sensitive in my review.

We all grow up, don't we?

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 24 Apr 2008, 23:52

I am not sure where this discussion is going..... I am quite happy with the status quo, whatever our definitions of a "review" might be. In general, I agree with what rajumds, arasi and rshankar have said. While the occasional insecure artiste takes exception to certain comments, many performers that I have spoken to are very appreciative of any constructive comments that come from this forum. That said, there are certain bald and dismissive statements made by reviewers that are avoidable as well.

However, the section on Album reviews could certainly use more traffic and active participation from forumites. Here, the music is available for everyone to hear. Informed and less-informed opinions can be shared more seamlessly. The topics do not have to be to restricted to commercially released concerts, but also to several (legal) recordings available on the net.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Apr 2008, 01:51

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 25 Apr 2008, 06:06

Oh you mean the 'dissing of concerts of artists with a puny sense of security?

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 25 Apr 2008, 08:59

"Concerting" musicians will keep on performing until "dis"cerning rasikAs keep listening to them--"pun"dits or my kind of lowly ones...

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 25 Apr 2008, 18:28

arasi wrote:"Concerting" musicians will keep on performing until "dis"cerning rasikAs keep listening to them--"pun"dits or my kind of lowly ones...

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Apr 2008, 19:44

Gosh, I totally missed the title pun, and now Arasi has taken it further

Where is it going? I think we've concluded already: we are going to go on doing just what we do, and if any one thinks they are going to stop us, they are wrong.

No bones are going to get broken over it, at least!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 25 Apr 2008, 19:51

You mean, we can't strive for 'side-splitting' laughter?

Sathej · Post by **Sathej** » 25 Apr 2008, 20:27

Well, the pun in the title was quite unintentional!
Sathej

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 25 Apr 2008, 20:33

arasi wrote:You mean, we can't strive for 'side-splitting' laughter?

Not as long as we cannot indule in 'hair-splitting' reviews!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Apr 2008, 21:15

He who can does; he who cannot teaches. -Bernard Shaw
Replace teach with Review

(present company excepted

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Apr 2008, 21:47

I missed it too. Indeed a nice eventhough unintended pun.

cml - I am also sometimes reminded of dharumi's dig at nakkIrar too in this regard

Arun

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Apr 2008, 21:50

Sathej wrote:Well, the pun in the title was quite unintentional!
Sathej

That's ok, enna puNNa mudiyum !!