A publicist's right not to choose

When it comes time to promote multi-genre performance projects, publicists have to make a choice: which section do I pitch the story to? You only get one critic from one section, so choose wisely!

This is not to say that whomever a publicist chooses to approach about a performance will actually review it (a girl can dream...), but an "angle" decision must be made before starting the process. For example, each Wordless Music Series concert features a classical chamber music group or soloist and an indie rock/electronic band or performer. One Wordless concert in September 2007 - Beirut, Colleen, Katya Mihailova and Colin Jacobsen - was reviewed by Kelefa Sanneh, (now former) rock critic for The New York Times, and another in January 2008 - three orchestral works by John Adams, Gavin Bryars and Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood - was reviewed by Allan Kozinn, classical critic for The New York Times.  I'm certainly not turning up my nose at two Times reviews, but what if Sanneh and Kozinn had been at the same Wordless concert, not discussed it, and both reviewed it? Would they have liked the same things? Disliked the same things? Even mentioned the same things in their reviews?

I don't want to pigeon-hole critics like some pigeon-hole artists and artistic genres, and I don't think every single crossover project should necessarily be reviewed by multiple critics. It's fantastic that so many critics straddle multiple worlds, genuinely passionate and deeply knowledgeable about many artistic styles. But, on occasion, I would like to read distinct and varied perspectives on one project. Let's stick to The Times example since, well, we already went there: Jon Pareles reviewed Sufjan Stevens' orchestral work The BQE at The Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM).  The format of the concert was The BQE (film, orchestra and live and on-screen hula-hoopers) on the first half, followed by a traditional Sufjan Stevens set (as traditional as anything during which the lead singer is wearing wings can be) on the second half. I liked Pareles' review, but what would Allan Kozinn think (WWAKT)? Stephen Holden? A.O. Scott? Michael Pollak?

When a critic whose genre is clearly delineated for us writes about a concert, I have to wonder: To what degree is a performance's genre defined by the critic reviewing it? Was Jonny Greenwood's piece "orchestral" because Allan Kozinn reviewed it, and Sufjan Stevens' "instrumental" because Jon Pareles reviewed it?

Send critics from different sections to review the same concert and let readers decide (or choose not to decide) genre for themselves. I understand that times are tough for newspapers - we're literally losing a classical critic a week - but why not use this as a marketing ploy? Announce that every section of your paper or magazine will be reviewing the same project, including non-arts sections; I'll bet readers would be intrigued. The set-up doesn't have to be performance-centric, either. Why can't music critics review the noise generated by buildings projects? Theatre critics review the way people act (and I do mean "act") at museum exhibitions? Dance critics review pedestrian traffic patterns? Fashion writers review opera productions, or better yet, opera audiences? The world is one big crossover project, and I'd like to read about it that way.