From today's NY Times review of Miami City Ballet's performance of "In the Upper Room" in New York.

"The Philip Glass
score for “In the Upper Room” is always played in a recording and so
comes with no acoustic problem. Although this ballet usually wins an
ovation, the one here seemed especially deserved: the Miami company has
developed a rich association with Ms. Tharp in recent years and
delivers this choreography with marvelous detail and richness.
Nonetheless, even while I admire much of this ballet’s detail and enjoy
parts of it, I resist choreography and music as a theatrical whole: “In
the Upper Room” feels both conceptual and manipulative."

Huh?    Its theatrical cohesiveness counts against it?  The drama derived from the success of the synthesis of the music and movement is a bad thing?  If one appreciates dance more than music, it should be admitted. Mr. Macaulay's suggestion that theatricality and music have no place being on equal footing with dance is absurd. This is bad journalism.

I'd have more respect for someone who simply said they liked the piece despite themselves OR that the performance is good but the piece is bad. At least that wouldn't be intellectually dishonest. Either way we are left guessing.