What is a good review?

[shadjam]

I see a lot of reviews of various concerts posted in this forum. Most of these reviews are usually in praise of the artists involved .Some of these reviews are too good to be true but seem very enjoyable to read. A very few reviews posted are very critical of the way the artists perform. Whenever such reviews are posted people tend to pound on the reviewers as if they have committed a Herculean blunder. However, it is very rare to see a balanced review, something that praises the positives and criticizes the negatives in the concert in an objective and constructive way.

What is the purpose of a review? Are these meant to be just a summary of a concert meant for the rasikas?

Do the artists themselves look forward to reading such reviews (like the one in The Hindu)? If so, what do they look for? Are they happy seeing a negative review? Isn’t it a motivating factor especially for the younger musicians? If so, why are our rasikas so repulsive to negative reviews about their favorite artists?

Finally, what is an objective review? (how I define objective? I don’t know!!).

Thanks.

[rajumds]

Most of the reviews in this forum are from rasikas. As a rasika if I like a concert I a say so , eventhough I amy not know the intricate details about ragam / layam & sahitya. This is where the review of a rasika differs from that of a critic. It is mostly a write up of the feeling of a rasika rather than an analysis of the concert.

Most of the rasika reviewers do not post about a concert if they feel that the concert was not enjoyable. Hence you may find only good reviews here.

You may have to read The Hindu if you need "critical" reviews