BW, I totally sympathize with you. I took a criticism course when I was new to ballet (I saw my first ballet when I was in my mid-twenties and knew absolutely nothing about it before then). I thought that's what a criticism course would be -- that the instructor would teach us how to look at ballet. Not in this case. He was just interested in how we wrote about what we saw. He asked me to write for the Post when that class was over and I spent the first four or five years, at least, trying very hard to describe what I saw rather than judge it, because I knew I didn't know very much! I mostly covered the local modern dance companies, so I didn't have to worry about performance comparisons, as the works generally lived only for a season or two and the emphasis was on watching and analyzing new work, or extensive historical background. I remember vividly being sent to review what was then called an ethnic dance company -- the National Folk Dance Troupe of Whereveria -- and I had never seen a folk dance performance. I wrote what I saw.
The two books you mentioned are excellent resources. I also read a lot of criticism and learned a lot from that. Both how to see and, sometimes, how not to see.
I'd also like to echo what Leigh said. If you go to see something and write "I loved it! I thought the dancers were better than anyone I've ever seen" and someone else comes in and says that the technical level is deficient -- please don't let that interfere with your enjoyment. Sometimes one can learn from it -- one example might be the dancer who makes everything look hard so you know he's working, and churns out 12 pirouettes and you think it's great, and you never notice the guy next to him who only does four and doesn't grin. Someone may write that the 12-turn guy wasn't centered, or didn't pointe his feet, or that his extended leg dropped a half-inch with each turn, and that the 4-turner's placement and technique were perfect. Well, okay. That may be true. But you still may rather WATCH the guy who turns more and who you thought was more exciting. If you go for a couple of decades, you may eventualy prefer the quiet perfectionist -- and you may, at your 99,999th performance, still be cheering lustily for superturner. This goes to taste as well as experienice.
Another thought. We all have different backgrounds and focus on different things. And even knowlegeable people disagree. I had several off-board conversations with about a half-dozen people about a performance written up on Ballet Alert! that was controversial. Some of the people I talked to insisted that the dancer had absolutely perfect placement, others said that her head was so out of alignment with her body that she, as one put it, "looked like a broken doll." I could only imagine that both groups were definining "placement" differently.
When I was doing research for my book, I found an extraordinary review, by today's standards, written in 1948 by a political writer -- not an arts writer. It was a review of the Royal Danish Ballet's first performance of Massine's "Symphonie Fantastique." The reviewer keyed his commentary to the music. "Now, the Andante, and four women..." He also wrote about the sets and costumes in the way one would write about a painting -- how the colors looked when they MOVED, not just how pretty the costumes were. He was seeing and hearing something very different than someone today, who looks primarily at patterns and the dancers' technique, would see. (Not that everyone does that, of course, but it's a, perhaps the, predominant American school of criticism.) I really envied him. I wish I could see like that, but I haven't trained myself to see like that. (He also wrote about the dancers' technique, and personalities, and how they looked different in this compared to their regular repertory, and who was in the audience, and what the women's hairstyles looked like!)
Finally, I was struck by what Leigh wrote about watching for a decade before writing -- I read a recommendation by Clive Barnes along the same lines. I didnt have that luxury; I wish I had. But I noticed a real difference at the beginning of my 11th season. It was partly time -- even if you see 3 performances a day for 2 years you'd need some time experience for comparative purposes -- and partly number of performances, as this was when Washington had a 20-week ballet season, and I'd go 8 times a week during those 20 weeks, plus another two performances, generally, on the non-season weeks to other kinds of dance. And I wanted to see critically -- I wasn't going primarily for entertainment.
This is another long answer -- sorry
But it's a complicated question. I always asked "where did this come from?" That was a question that interested me and it's the one I've pursued. Everybody has different questions. If the only question is, "Did I like it?" that's fine! If you want to try to figure out what other people are seeing (or think we're seeing!) then the books you've mentioned, and reading other writers, including the ones on this board, may be provocative -- not necessarily helpful, but provocative
0
