Hazards of reviewing

My review "Dancing in the Light" had several typo errors but what distressed me even more were the missing lines. I shall reproduce the entire paragraph so the omission can be read in the right context:

"The brilliant video work heightened the visual effect onstage; sometimes, two or three images of Marge (Enriquez) would appear on the screen while she was dancing onstage. At other times, her movements and gestures on the screen would synchronize with those of her onstage. The intriguing, eye-catching devices sustained audience interest; further, the ambiance created by the video taken outdoors provided a dramatic contrast to that provided by Marge dancing indoors (onstage). Several other innovations were as startling." End of quote.

The reviewer also contends with the inevitable risk of offending the performer’s sensibilities, more especially because Filipinos are generally sensitive and rarely open-minded. A performer’s ego is quickly bruised even when his/her limitations are so lamentably obvious.

Another hazard is presented by the ever ubiquitous stage mothers who will unhesitatingly go to incredible lengths to enhance the careers of their protégés.

In the obituary of NY Times music critic Harold C. Schonberg which I quoted the other day Mr. S. observed: "Criticism is only informed opinion. I write a piece that is a personal reaction based, hopefully, on a lot of years of study, background, scholarship and whatever intuition I have."

I fully agree with Mr. Schonberg’s views. For this reason, I nearly fell off my seat when a colleague of mine asked me during a concert, "What is the difference between a major key and a minor key?" The question was totally unexpected. apparently, through all these years, that particular reviewer was being taken seriously because a review of his was recently reprinted in a handsome program to do honor to a fine instrumentalist and pedagogue!

Mr. Schonberg raised another point when he remarked (in the obituary reproduced): "I refuse to believe that if a critic is friendly with a musician he can be impartial if word gets around you are a friend of a musician, your opinion becomes suspect."

In a society like ours, where just about everything is carried on in a typically personal manner, where reviewers often break bread with performers (e.g., at press conferences) it is nigh impossible to keep one’s distance without being accused of arrogance or snobbery. Artists even call reviewers by phone! In my particular case, I try to soften the blow when I have to make qualified comments in a review, fully realizing that no matter how poorly a production turns out, it has involved time, effort (read sleepless nights) and financing.

Still, I must insist on expressing the negative while "softening the blow" to keep integrity and credibility intact.

To my infinite gratification, I occasionally encounter an open-minded response to a not-so-flattering critique of mine. I had noted that the lighting for Romeo and Juliet was poetic in some scenes but not quite so in others. Yet when I saw Dennis Marasigan, he was all smiles as he thanked me for my comments. With that detached view of his craft, Dennis will surely surpass himself the next time.

Incredibly enough, I once got phone calls from a Caucasian couple who separately informed me how deeply offended they were at what I thought should not have caused them any anxiety. The complaint had nothing to do with performances. Would they have reacted more gently were I a Caucasian journalist?

To return to the typo oversights which, hopefully, will be minimized, even if they could be amusing. Here is an instance. The plural of lied is lieder. An overly meticulous proof-reader added "s" to lieder. With that double plural, a liederabend (an evening of German art songs) would have dragged on all night. But no proof-reader could have matched the egregious error of one who mistook the French horn player for a French-born player!