"Ranking" theater critics/publications

Point well taken, Hogan. I put "ranking" in parens in the title of my post exactly for that reason, though then I probably didn't articulate my actual question the way I should have. I suppose I'm asking which critics people generally consider the most credible/authoritative, rather than necessarily aligning with their own personal tastes, which of course are subjective. There is obviously some reason the NYT is considered the most important/credible resource for reviews even if its opinion of a show may ultimately differ vastly from certain people who see that show. So maybe that's more of what I was getting at - and I'm not asking anyone to actually rank each and every publication, either - I'd just love an idea of which, other than the NYT, are considered the most "legit," if that makes a bit more sense. It's more of an academic question than anything - I've just always been curious.

Brantley is King.

HogansHero said: "The Times has the biggest megaphone so it gets considered at the top of the heap. Most other publications nowadays are pathetic shells of their former selves, and it is hard to consider any of them particularly legit. In terms of esteem, I'd place Michael Feingold at the top of the heap. Many/most of the putatively legit publications have critics who are too old, too ingrained, too male and too white to be taken all that seriously (unless of course that's what appeals to you). We actually have more theatrical reviewing accessible to us today than at any time in human history, much of it on the internet and not particularly enfranchised. I think I answered your question in my first post, and you are still looking for the answer to a different one. If all you want is a crutch, then rely of whoever seems to have the highest bona fides. Otherwise do as I suggest and walk on your own two feet."

Man, despite the many truly helpful people on this board, you'd think I'd know better after reading other threads than to ask a question. Thanks for your input, Hogan. Not that I should feel like I need to defend myself, but I wasn't looking for any sort of crutch and I ultimately do make up my own mind. I honestly can't understand why some people respond to things just to be demeaning. Move on to a post you think merits your time instead. But thank you for the substantive portion of your answer.

Jesse Green at the NY Times and Sara Holdren at the New Yorker/Vulture are the only two critics I trust when it comes to NY theatre.

I love Show-Score.com because it allows me to follow other theater goers as well as critics who share my taste. This site provides a return on your investment of time when trying to prioritize which shows to see.

Nycat63 said: "HogansHero said: "The Times has the biggest megaphone so it gets considered at the top of the heap. Most other publications nowadays are pathetic shells of their former selves, and it is hard to consider any of them particularly legit. In terms of esteem, I'd place Michael Feingold at the top of the heap. Many/most of the putatively legit publications have critics who are too old, too ingrained, too male and too white to be taken all that seriously (unless of course that's what appeals to you). We actually have more theatrical reviewing accessible to us today than at any time in human history, much of it on the internet and not particularly enfranchised. I think I answered your question in my first post, and you are still looking for the answer to a different one. If all you want is a crutch, then rely of whoever seems to have the highest bona fides. Otherwise do as I suggest and walk on your own two feet."

Man, despite the many truly helpful people on this board, you'd think I'd know better after reading other threads than to ask a question. Thanks for your input, Hogan. Not that I should feel like I need to defend myself, but I wasn'tlooking for any sort of crutch and I ultimately domake up my own mind. I honestly can't understand why some people respond to things just to be demeaning. Move on to a post you think merits your time instead. But thank you for the substantive portion of your answer."

Don't waste your breath. This is who Hogan has become...the expert of all experts, and fie on you if you don't lap up his wisdom.

Ben Brantley is one of the most pompous, pretentious critics I've ever come across. His commentary has virtually no impact on whether I will see a show.

re Show-Score, I was referring to the critic column, not the reader column. The problem with the latter is that, as I said before, getting to know the taste of the person writing is how I process reviews I read and that is a tough chore with these reader reviews.

re me, first of all, this board is not about me. Second, I was not being demeaning, nor was I holding myself out as an expert. I stated my approach and made a point about the alternative. I expressly said that might not be the path the OP was interested in following. It mystifies me why that would be viewed negatively: I do not think the purpose of this board is for responders to simply agree with what OPs propose. We all benefit from an open discourse. Third, if you want to block me, be my guest.

First of all, thank you to everyone who has provided their opinions/information - it's been very helpful, particularly seeing who people think are the more reputable critics vs. less so from a journalistic standpoint. Again, I may have asked my question in a less articulate way than intended, so that's on me if I confused anyone.

Hogan, I'm not the blocking type and will only say one more thing on this (I know, I know...), but part of your initial response was, indeed, demeaning and condescending (as they often are to others as well). You are more than entitled to have opinions, but you also leaped to the conclusion - based on nothing I even implied in my post - that I was looking for a "crutch" to pick what I see or couldn't make up my own mind. In your second post, you say you " do not think the purpose of this board is for responders to simply agree with what OPs propose." I wasn't even proposing anything - I asked a question. You made some negative assumption based on nothing in my post about my intentions for asking the question - and then proceeded to look down your nose at me.

I live in the Midwest and can only get to NYC to see so many shows a year based on cash flow, time away from work, etc. I tend to fill up every slot I have in the few days I have with shows, but I can only see what I think might be a "can't miss"; also, being outside of NYC, other than by reading message boards, etc., I don't get the benefit of word of mouth as much as a local would. And, taking theater trips from here requires a lot more research, planning and buying tickets (often at full price in advance) than it does for locals. So while I don't consider reviews a "crutch," I certainly have to rely partly on them. However, just as an example, despite the horrific reviews about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I still went to see it and actually had a great time (possibly because I went in with zero expectation that I would). There are plenty more examples in all directions (went despite poor reviews; didn't go despite raves; bought tickets before something even opened). So, I can and do make up my own mind at the end of the day, thank you. Indeed, you will never see a post from me entitled "what should I see?" (not that I think there's anything wrong with those) even though most of the time, I have too long a list and have to whittle it down.

Ok, rant really over, but I felt it needed to be said. You and some others on this board do it to so many people over the silliest things. Isn't the world nasty enough?

Thank you, again, for everyone's comments - they were very helpful. After the NYT and a couple of others, I can't always differentiate one publication from another in terms of journalistic integrity, experience, etc.

I too, liked to read Linda Winer's reviews. I have never liked reading Ben Brantley's reviews in NYT, but I did always liked when we talked about shows on Theater Talk...maybe he's better without a thesaurus?

Jesse Green has always been my favorite critic, because he and I almost always agreed. Or, at least when we disagreed, he could (I felt) elaborate on why he didn't like something.

The most useless newspaper to read is the Wall Street Journal. Terry Teachout doesn't like anything (again watch him on Theater Talk). He never The reviews read to me like " I didn't like it. I didn't like her, I didn't like him. Did I tell you I didn't like it?" It always seems like everything is beneath him. Too sobby.

I liked Elysa Gardner who used to do reviews for USA Today but she left the paper in 2016.