Marc Shaiman responds to Michael John La Chiusa- Page 6

[leefowler]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 5:40pm

Jazzysuite82,

You say that my point doesn't hold because Britten wrote opera and Berlin didn't, but I don't fully agree. What La Chuisa does and what Mel Brooks does is as different as what Britten and Berlin did. And Britten did in fact write for Broadway...The Rape of Lucretia premeried on Broadway, and his first opera, Paul Bunyan, was intended to be on Broadway. I don't recall Britten slamming Jule Stein when The Rape Of Lucretia didn't run as long as High Button Shoes.

You're right that many classical composers have attacken fellow, composers, but these writings have not worn well, and now read as indeed somewhat classless. When Schumann writes a list of the gretaest composers of his day, and purposelessly leaves off Liszt and Wagner, or Wagner writes horrible things about Mendelsohn, these articles don't reflect well on their authors with the passage of time.

Ultimately since La Chuisa has never had a financial success on Broadway, and since he wants this so badly, it's hard for me to read his article as anything other than sour grapes

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 5:44pm

If LaChiusa is hankering for Broadway success so badly, why does he continuously work with non-for-profit companies like The Public and LCT?

He doesn't care about success; he cares about creating theatrical art. And he does. Updated On: 8/8/05 at 05:44 PM

[leefowler]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 5:56pm

I can only ssume that LaChuisa DOES care about acheiving Broadway success, since he has on several occasions created Broadway shows, and Broadway is a commercial venue. If LaChuisa's shows made a mint, and Shaiman's didn't, then I don't imagine he would have even mentioned The Producers and Hairspray in his article.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 5:59pm

LaChiusa's two Broadway ventures, THE WILD PARTY and MARIE CHRISTINE, were both produced by non-for-profit theatres (The Public Theatre and Lincoln Center Theatre, respectively).

[sanda]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 6:04pm

IMHO, this is a very bad counterattack post, boring , hard to read.

[leefowler]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 6:10pm

If I remember correctly, Lincoln Center produced "Contact," and the Public Theatre produced "A Chorus Line," both of which generated a great deal of profit. Although these companies are indeed "non-profit", they are willing to accept profit when it happens, and I assume that had LaChuisa's productions been more popular, they would have indeed created profit, a part of which I can only assume LaChuisa would have happily accepted.I guess it's possible that LaChuisa indeed disdains such mundane things as "profit", but somehow I doubt it.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 6:23pm

You're confusing things. The argument isn't whether profit is good or bad. It's when things are made with a formula for the sole purpose of creating a profit, with no consideration of craft and detail. That's the argument. Art can turn a profit and it's great when it does. LaChiusa is saying you shouldn't set out to produce what sells. Secondly I don't see how Mel Brooks and LaChiusa are doing different mediums. They're both writing for the theatre. Thirdly, how does one present the argument without giving examples. It'd be pretty damn hard. He didn't zero in on any one show. He was speaking in general, mentioning 15 different shows.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 6:30pm

Yes it is my turn to way in.
Firstly Mr Shaiman you ARE a "classy guy". And first class too in too many respects to go into detail here.
Reading the orig article- there definately seems to be an axe to grind here and if this was truly an objective critical piece I'd have expected a little more substance to his arguments and a little more inclusion/reference to other works in his arguments. Perhaps his bias is unconcious but it seems fairly obvious. NOTE I am not disagreeing w him ENTIRELY but I don't feel he truly argues his case adequately .
I find myself thinking that Mr Shaiman's arrow struck the bulls eye too accurately w reference to "green" envy/resentment/cash/success. Hopefully this emotion will pass & Mr LaChuisa can enter into a discussion in a more collegueal(SP?) ( or @ least less bitchy) manner.
Updated On: 8/8/05 at 06:30 PM

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 6:53pm

Broadway is a community. Theatre is a community. It is all a very tight and close knit community. There are bitches and there are queens and everyone will get hurt feelings at one point or another. I think Mr. LaChiusa is certainly entitled to his opinion, but to insult the members of his family, specifically, was very rude. He is certainly no Stephen Sondheim. His talent is nowhere near Sondheim and I certainly hope he doesn't fancy himself as such.

Adam Guettel is the only one who I believe is truly forging himself a new name and a new style and a new signature much as Sondheim did. Mr. LaChiusa is extremely gifted and as much as he would like to act as if he is different than everybody else, he is still working in the same vein as everybody else.

Mr. Shaiman I applaud your response and your courage in speaking out against this tactless and immature essay. Mr. LaChiusa may not appreciate your body of work and may consider himself above such forms of music but I am not and I don't think most people are.

Mr. LaChiusa in order to write musicals you need to love musicals. You need to learn something from every single musical you see, whether Sondheim or Shaiman! Brown or Idle! Tesori or Herman! You need to understand that the theatrical community needs unity, not division. Respect the fact that Mr. Shaiman and others are giving actors work if nothing else! At this point in your career with only 2 mildly successful shows under your belt I wouldn't take out my frustration on anybody. You are a sophomore in the world of Broadway. I go to a high school and let me tell you it is not wise for a Sophomore to insult the Freshman, Juniors, Seniors or Teachers who want nothing more than to see him succeed.

You may not want "commercial" success, you may only want "artistic" success but it is not one or the other. Making money does not mean you have sold out. Losing money does not mean you have created a masterpiece. The purpose of the musical is to take an audience on a journey with you. To entertain them, to teach them if an audience doesn't understand you it is because you haven't done enough to educate them. Audiences are not stupid. Tourists and Artists are not enemies. They are allies who want to end the journey with you waiting for your next adventure.

Mr. LaChiusa, I adored The Wild Party but I was bored by almost everything in Marie Christine except "Way Back To Paradise" which I adore. Am I stupid? Am I inferior? Am I artistically challenged? I had no trouble with "Sweeney Todd" , "The Light In The Piazza" , "A Little Night Music" or "Caroline or Change". Maybe I am just to small minded to understand your true artistic vision. Maybe I am to emotionally shallow to understand the characters. Caroline Thibodeaux was no problem. Marie Christine doesn't have to be any different.

In conclusion, Mr. Shaiman please keep doing what you're doing. You are a musical favorite of mine and will always be.

Mr. LaChiusa, you're one for two. Let's see if we can get two for three.

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 06:53 PM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 6:54pm

It's funny, sabrelady... but I also thought that LaChiusa's piece isn't as well written as it should have been. He sort of noodles around a bit too much. It's too choppy and at times it's hard to follow. And he's a brat - in his discussion of the several recent books that proclaim "the demise of the Broadway musical, he praises Mordden's "Happiest Corpse", yet ignores the far superior RISE AND FALL OF THE BROADWAY MUSICAL by Mark Grant (probably because Grant makes a snarky comment about LaChiusias opinion that TV sitcoms are "one of our great artistic contributions to the world" and tweaks the composer of being a product of "the faux-Sondheim effect." (Speaking of "faux")

I honestly don't understand what his criticism of HAIRSPRAY and THE PRODUCERS are exactly about. They are "faux-musicals"? What? "Plenty of theatricality, but no theatre?" "Instead of Crafted songwriting, there is tune positioning." Huh? To his credit, he loves Nathan and Harvey. He dismisses both as "machines" , but unlike LaChiusa, I don't think that's a bad analogy - a good musical IS like a beautifully crafted well-oiled machine with all the required components clicking into place and whirrs merrily along. But I degress.

At this point, he should have a hot fudge sundae and rethought his points. He makes much better arguements later on.

But I gotta make dinner - more later.

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 06:54 PM

[Marc Shaiman]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 7:07pm

I guess I'm partial now due to his (or hers?) sweet words regarding me, but if this SumOfAllThings person is really still in high school but writing so thoughtfully and with such balance and clarity, I have no choice but to retire!! I am SUCH an old fart!!

meanwhile, I am terribly hurt that the mud wrestling idea petered out so quickly!

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 7:13pm

Alright, I have just been listening to Marie Christine.

I didn't know what the hell was going on because I was listening to the music.

I have three things to say (I think three - don't quote me)

First off, some songs have a smilar sound to WP...particularly "Tell Me." And with that, I LOVE the score. I was entertained, didn't get bored. Unfortunately, The Simpsons came on and I had to shut it off. HAD TO. But I think it is very entertaining as well as interesting.

The beginning is very Aida-esque (in the plot - sort of...no, I dunno - strike this point)

The score seems very different from beginning to the end. This is important as they seem (I think) to have a location change.

Lastly, I enjoyed this IMMENSELY!

(And I am not a huge Sondheim fan, and prefer these two works to some of Sondheim's. Thrash me now, go ahead.)

And MARC, if you brought a pool full of mud to Shubert Alley, no one would stop you. Call it HAIRSPRAY CASTING.

"Only the Strong Links Survive"

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 07:13 PM

[EddieVarley]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 7:19pm

Wait, the mud wrestling idea is dead?!
DAMN, I so wanted to see Strip Search's Sean Cassidy give a dirty smack down to the La Chiusa team's Mandy Patinkin!

[Marc Shaiman]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 7:26pm

Eddie, I knew I could count on you

[sabrelady]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 7:35pm

But never "down for the count"!!
( instead of mud could it be jello- there is always room for jello!!!)

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 7:37pm

But will Marc and Michael John have a battle royale in the mud tub?

[sabrelady]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:02pm

I still want it to be jello if only so we can get some alky-hol and do shots!! Woo Hoo!

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:18pm

"For instance, it's no secret that Sondheim is not a fan of the lyrics of Lorenz Hart. He has pointed out what he finds faults in them."

But the point is that Sondheim has (smartly) NEVER commented on any of his living contemporaries' work, unlike the untalented and graceless LaChiusa.

TheEnchantedHunter
Ted Hunter, Cane, NH

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:21pm

"untalented and graceless LaChiusa"

back back BACK up there.

untalented?

HA!

Graceless?

Have you met him?

[Hairspraydoll]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:23pm

No, No No go back to the mud/jello wrestling plans!!! I'm booking a flight from Vegas now....

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:25pm

Only if Idina and Sho can fight.

Not that it's a close match - Idina is fierce!

But I'd rather Idina and Kellie duke it out...Kelli did make fun of Idina..."green face... AHHHH"

But Kelli seems to admire what Idina can do.

That'd would be a great fight.

[Iris Chacon]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:27pm

These damm bitches are thread jacking.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:55pm

The assumption that shows that are opaque, "difficult", dissonant, emotionally inaccessible or audience-unfriendly are automatically 'art' is just so much bulls**t. Most of these shows fail, not because they're 'art' (that abused, overused and misunderstood word should have a moratorium placed on it on this site), but because they're BAD, period. It's a no-brainer.
Correspondingly, someone like Jerry Herman is no less an artist for knowing his audience and writing for their enjoyment.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:59pm

Well, I enjoy what LC writes.

VERY much.

In fact, he's one of my favorite, if not most favorite, composer.

But I guess his work isn't art.

[ElphabaRose]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 9:56pm

Mr. Shaiman, I just found this thread, but I would just like to say how classily and respectfully you responded to Mr. LaChiusa and that you refused to drag any of your colleagues into the discussion.

P.S. I would love to see the mud wrestling!