PRINCE OF BROADWAY Previews- Page 4

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:32am

The hard thing about providing selections from Company and Follies is that the big production numbers that would come off were all staged by Michael Bennett. "Side By Side By Side" / "What Would We Do Without You"; "Tick-Tock"; "Who's That's Woman?"; "Bolero d'Amour"; The Story of Lucy and Jesse" are all Bennett - not Prince. Still, they could have given us "In Buddy's Eyes", "Could I Leave You?", or "Losing My Mind" at least. It's also odd because "The Right Girl" is all Bennett - and I assume in this revue, the entire good part (i.e. the lengthy and emotional dance solo) has been cut.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:45am

Phantom4ever said: "Just got out of the show.  10:37pm with an 8pm curtain.  I enjoyed it for what it was---

The worst part for me were the Phantom numbers.  As a phan-atic, I was so looking forward to them.  First, the revised orchestrations for the title number were disgraceful.  And far too much of that number was cut. This is not a show that's going to have an elaborate set, so no big deal that they just had some candles and a gate onstage.  But the fog machine upstage center that was just blowing fog on about a quarter of the stage?  Why bother?   And at the end of Music of the Night (which was sung well) the Phantom walks around with a passed out Christine.  Very odd.  I also really wish that Yazbeck did the Phantom  I was dying to hear him do it. 

 

"

I was dying for Yazbeck to sing Being Alive as well. He would have done a much better job. 

Its too long and it needs more and better narration. It's a little unbalanced because the numbers are done  in chronological order and the better ones are mostly in act 1 so Act 2 peters out. But I enjoyed various performers and various numbers so I'm not sorry i went. 

My compliments also to the orchestra who played  continually throughout the show, often with one big number after the other with no real break for over two hours. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 1:17am

Sally, the dance solo is intact. Why? I don't know. 

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 1:44am

I bet the dance solo exists to show off Yazbeck's fancy footwork. I heard it's a crowd-pleaser. ... But it's an unlikely song to highlight Prince's legacy. I mean, it's really all about Bennett's choreography.

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 01:44 AM

[starcatchers]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:37am

Has anyone done the TodayTix rush? I got one for tonight and am curious as to where the seats have been. 

[Jamesilsley]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:35am

I did for first preview. Very back row center mezz. In that theatre, they were perfect. The, however, was not. 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:49pm

What's the rush price counting the Today Tix fees? I'm guessing it's roughly the same as 30 Under 30 ($37 with fees).

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:59pm

Current speculation has the Robot Hal Prince entering Natasha and Pierre this September.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 2:06pm

Excited for this was an understatement.  Was so hoping it would be lavish and with a sizable supporting ensemble for the main cast ala JEROME ROBBINS' BROADWAY.  

So grateful I didn't buy tickets last week.  I'm passing on this completely. 

What coulda been; shoulda been. 

Sorry, Hal. 

[bk]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 4:34pm

lightguy06222 said: "It was BAD. 

A Self indulgent, Hal Prince circle jerk. 

 

I don't feel like I learned anything new about Hal Prince. I don't think I learned anything new about his career, or any of the shows he did.   

The narration was terrible. Poorly written, and poorly structured throughout the show.  They had an opportunity to teach about the growth and development of This man with many Broadway hits.... it was purely a musical review. 

I think shuffle along worked better to be honest. And THAT show was a disaster case. 

The follies into Little night music segment DRAGGED.   But I think both those shows are major snoozefests. 

The choice to do the show without an ensemble was a MAJOR misfire. Each principal is wonderful, but some numbers just need more voices!  Especially EVITA!  Which was very odd with one actress dancing around Argentina herself. 


Most of the songs and stories make zero sense out of context. If you didn't know what the show was about going in.... well you still don't know.  

I have no idea the plot of company, Merrily, night music, or parade. (Even though I've seen full production of merrily and night music......). Well I still have no idea, not do I know why certain songs were chosen.  Out of context, it's JUST a musical review. I think he could have structured it better for us to learn something. Grow and thrive. Rather than hoping to just sell us on nostalgia. 

 

But ur speaking of nostalgia, the cabaret section was lovely, as was west side story, Sweeney Todd, spider woman, and many others. But WEIRD choices.... frau Schneider singing "so what" is a good representation from the show?  

What happened to FORUM. I know  a set was built for it. 

 

 

 

"

"I have no idea of the plot of Company."  Well, that says all I need to know.  And you don't mean a "musical review" - revue is what you're looking for.  Is it really saving you a lot of time writing "ur" instead of "your?"  Just curious.  Clearly if you think Follies is a "snoozefest" and you don't know the plots of any of the shows, you're either a teenager or in woeful need of some education in musical theater.  Why would you even go to this show?

[ELP]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 4:55pm

Well done, bk!!!

[starcatchers]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 6:21pm

VintageSnarker said: "What's the rush price counting the Today Tix fees? I'm guessing it's roughly the same as 30 Under 30 ($37 with fees).

 

"

$42.50 with the fee. $35 + $7.50. 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 6:59pm

Would somebody please explain what about this show constitutes a full-fledged Broadway musical production as opposed to a concert or event at City Center/Lincoln Center/Carnegie Hall, etc.?

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 7:20pm

Well I don't know if this is a good reason but to me, there are more set changes and costume changes than in an average concert project. 

Not sure it's enough of a reason,but it's what came to mind when you asked the question. 

[suzycat]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 7:27pm

Lovely tribute here from Jen Tepper on Twitter: 

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sq3b35

[GaryTokyo]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 8:00pm

Harold Prince's lines in Tokyo and Osaka were delivered in Japanese in prerecorded voiceover by a big musical star here. That worked well enough, allowing them to trim unnecessary subtitles and add a well-known Japanese name to the marquee. The problems were elsewhere.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:51pm

bk said: "lightguy06222 said: "It was BAD. 

A Self indulgent, Hal Prince circle jerk. 

 

I don't feel like I learned anything new about Hal Prince. I don't think I learned anything new about his career, or any of the shows he did.   

The narration was terrible. Poorly written, and poorly structured throughout the show.  They had an opportunity to teach about the growth and development of This man with many Broadway hits.... it was purely a musical review. 

I think shuffle along worked better to be honest. And THAT show was a disaster case. 

The follies into Little night music segment DRAGGED.   But I think both those shows are major snoozefests. 

The choice to do the show without an ensemble was a MAJOR misfire. Each principal is wonderful, but some numbers just need more voices!  Especially EVITA!  Which was very odd with one actress dancing around Argentina herself. 


Most of the songs and stories make zero sense out of context. If you didn't know what the show was about going in.... well you still don't know.  

I have no idea the plot of company, Merrily, night music, or parade. (Even though I've seen full production of merrily and night music......). Well I still have no idea, not do I know why certain songs were chosen.  Out of context, it's JUST a musical review. I think he could have structured it better for us to learn something. Grow and thrive. Rather than hoping to just sell us on nostalgia. 

 

But ur speaking of nostalgia, the cabaret section was lovely, as was west side story, Sweeney Todd, spider woman, and many others. But WEIRD choices.... frau Schneider singing "so what" is a good representation from the show?  

What happened to FORUM. I know  a set was built for it. 

 

 

 

"

"I have no idea of the plot of Company."  Well, that says all I need to know.  And you don't mean a "musical review" - revue is what you're looking for.  Is it really saving you a lot of time writing "ur" instead of "your?"  Just curious.  Clearly if you think Follies is a "snoozefest" and you don't know the plots of any of the shows, you're either a teenager or in woeful need of some education in musical theater.  Why would you even go to this show?

 

"

If a show assumes prior knowledge of other shows or it doesn't work otherwise, there's no chance for it to survive as a commercial production.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 1:34am

BroadwayConcierge said: "Would somebody please explain what about this show constitutes a full-fledged Broadway musical production as opposed to a concert or event at City Center/Lincoln Center/Carnegie Hall, etc.?"

The same reason that Chita Rivera's A Dancer's Life and Sondheim on Sondheim were considered full-fledged Broadway musicals and were both eligible in all Tony categories as new musicals. Telling the story of someone's life and career is still telling a story. Heck, there's been many revues that didn't tell stories that were nominated for Best Musical. 

[dianamorales]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 1:34am

For some reason I assumed Brandon would be the one singing Being Alive, disappointed is an understatement....

[starcatchers]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 9:01am

I'm apparently in the minority, but I enjoyed it for what it was. 

The narration was almost nonexistent. I enjoyed what they started to do with it, and then it just kind of stopped. Some sections dragged far too long (particularly the Follies into A Little Night Music).the lack of an ensemble was downright strange in spots. But overall, the performances were very good, and it was an enjoyable little showcase of some of my favorite musicals. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 9:39am

starcatchers said: "I'm apparently in the minority, but I enjoyed it for what it was. 

The narration was almost nonexistent. I enjoyed what they started to do with it, and then it just kind of stopped. Some sections dragged far too long (particularly the Follies into A Little Night Music).the lack of an ensemble was downright strange in spots. But overall, the performances were very good, and it was an enjoyable little showcase of some of my favorite musicals. 

If Follies into ALNM dragged, this show MUST be awful.  Like the show or not, I have to believe that most people would agree that Follies has some great raw material for a show like this (although the best numbers to me were both due to Michael Bennett).

 

[starcatchers]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 10:08am

Jarethan said: "starcatchers said: "I'm apparently in the minority, but I enjoyed it for what it was. 

The narration was almost nonexistent. I enjoyed what they started to do with it, and then it just kind of stopped. Some sections dragged far too long (particularly the Follies into A Little Night Music).the lack of an ensemble was downright strange in spots. But overall, the performances were very good, and it was an enjoyable little showcase of some of my favorite musicals. 

If Follies into ALNM dragged, this show MUST be awful.  Like the show or not, I have to believe that most people would agree that Follies has some great raw material for a show like this (although the best numbers to me were both due to Michael Bennett).

 

 

"

I should have prefaced my statement with the fact that I've never been overly fond of Follies (unpopular opinion number two?). Tony Yazbeck's "The Right Girl" was absolutely wonderful, but the preceding parts of that section didn't do it for me. I also think the transition into ALNM could've used a little narration, and the lack of it made it seem longer. 

[NYadgal]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 12:04pm

I thoroughly enjoyed it - for what it was.  I have a quibble with one or two of the choices they made regarding who performed which songs, but, there were some absolutely glorious moments listening to and watching seasoned and talented performers perform some of the great pieces in musical theater.   

Gorgeous, clear soprano voices, soaring tenor notes, rich bass and mezzo -- I would truly love a recording of this.   

And, may I just say that Tony Yazbeck is a dream?   I'd see a fully staged production of any of the shows he sang last night with him in it!    

For everyone saying you'll skip it -- give that another thought.   The structure of the show may be thin, but the performances are just joyful.  

Updated On: 8/6/17 at 12:04 PM

[starcatchers]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 12:35pm

NYadgal said: "I thoroughly enjoyed it - for what it was.  I have a quibble with one or two of the choices they made regarding who performed which songs, but, there were some absolutely glorious moments listening to and watching seasoned and talented performers perform some of the great pieces in musical theater.   

Gorgeous, clear soprano voices, soaring tenor notes, rich bass and mezzo -- I would truly love a recording of this.   

And, may I just say that Tony Yazbeck is a dream?   I'd see a fully staged production of any of the shows he sang last night with him in it!    

For everyone saying you'll skip it -- give that another thought.   The structure of the show may be thin, but the performances are just joyful.  

 

"

Amen. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 6:20pm

Tony Yazbeck was the highlight for me, closely followed by Chuck Cooper and Emily Skinner.

It's really just an expensively produced revue. There are new costumes and new sets for every single individual show. That's the difference between this and something you would catch at 92Y (though the 92Y shows often have better books)