For you BEATLES fans out there- Page 2

[ahlala552]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 4:40pm

Updated On: 11/22/06 at 04:40 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 4:43pm

Actually, Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and George Harrison's wife were/are all involved in everything about this.

No, I haven't seen the show. No money!

[To The Stage!]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 4:49pm

When I was on a trip to Las Vegas, I happened to be walking by the show (as it was about to start) in The Mirage, and a very nice woman offered me a ticket! It was a complete thrill that I got to see it, and it being a spur of the moment thing made it even better. If you are in Las Vegas, wait by the entrance of the show, when it's about to start, and see if anyone offers you a ticket. There had to be at least 3 other people (that I saw) receive a comp ticket, right there and then. Some were from people who worked at the theater and others were just people who had a friend who couldn't attend, etc. I was very lucky!

[SweMozArt]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 4:52pm

Is the show like a Twyla Tharp musical (little story but beautiful choreography)?

[To The Stage!]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 5:02pm

No, not at all, well in my opinion at least. I mean, it's not like a musical, where there is a major plot and where the dancing contributes. The excitement of it was the surround sound Beatles music and the translation of the songs through the dancing and the acrobatic moves that were going on, on stage. It was such a great experience. Like all Cirque shows, they don't really have a huge story line, it's more of the beauty of the dancing and craziness that is occurring in front of you. Amazing to watch. It's more like art, not a show.

[SweMozArt]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 5:18pm

"No, not at all, well in my opinion at least. I mean, it's not like a musical, where there is a major plot and where the dancing contributes. The excitement of it was the surround sound Beatles music and the translation of the songs through the dancing and the acrobatic moves that were going on, on stage. It was such a great experience. Like all Cirque shows, they don't really have a huge story line, it's more of the beauty of the dancing and craziness that is occurring in front of you. Amazing to watch. It's more like art, not a show".

Sounds a lot like a Twyla Tharp musical to me (though i haven't seen one). But i get your point, it's not pretending to be a musical with a story and it has spectacular dancing and surround sound. Im curious about the CD. Perhaps if Twyla would have premiered the Dylan musical in an art museum it would have been considered one of the greatest performance events ever?

[To The Stage!]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 5:25pm

Well, if you haven't seen a Twyla Tharp musical, I don't think you have enough knowledge between their differences. Have you ever seen a Cirque show?

Perhaps if Twyla would have premiered the Dylan musical in an art museum it would have been considered one of the greatest performance events ever?

I'm sorry, but what the hell does that mean or have to do with anything?

[SweMozArt]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 5:30pm

I didn't mean that as a critique of the Beatles show. It sounds interesting. What i mean't was that the demands of intellectual thought behind a piece of art are extremely low in the art world compared to the world of musical theater.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:23pm

What i mean't was that the demands of intellectual thought behind a piece of art are extremely low in the art world compared to the world of musical theater.

Um...no. The power of BS works in modern art, sure, but it works beautifully in theater, too. I'd give examples, but I think they'd hurt a lot of feelings here.

You really think the visual arts aren't intellectually demanding? I. Just. I'm not touching that right now. *shakes head sadly*

[SweMozArt]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:37pm

"You really think the visual arts aren't intellectually demanding? I. Just. I'm not touching that right now. *shakes head sadly*"

I do think it can be intellectually demanding. However in many cases I think it seems like it's the critic and not the artist who does the intellectual work. In musical theater the critics have high demands but in modern art it seems like the critics think their task is to do everything they can do give any pice of art a deeper meaning and no art piece can be critizised as banal since the meaning of an art piece is "in the eye of the beholder".
Updated On: 11/19/06 at 06:37 PM

[boxers7]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:41pm

I think this is one of Cirque's most amazing shows. My family was number 6 in the cancellation line amazingly got five tickets! If anyone wants to go last minute, wait by the entrance but make sure you have cash! So many people were in need of tickets but didn't have enough cash to buy them from people and had to wait on the cancellation line.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:59pm

since the meaning of an art piece is "in the eye of the beholder"

That's just one POV. A very post-structuralist, post-modern one. And it's one that people like to apply to all types of art, theater included.

And you're talking about the intellectual input of the artist? Yes, it takes a lot of deep thought to put out something like All Shook Up. And artists just randomly put paint to canvas and hope they can BS their way to good reviews.

[SweMozArt]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 7:12pm

Ok, the difference in approach between critics of musical theater and critics of modern art in art museums is to a large degree explainable by the characteristics of the art-forms. In musical theater the audience goes to see one "art-piece" at a time and pays a considerable amount of money to do that. If art museums would only have one painting each it would of course be more important for the public to get the critics judgement. Still i do think that the critics of modern art in art museums could demand more from some artists.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 7:21pm

Do people pay to see an art piece so they can think about it? Or so they can turn their brains off and let the visual and aural sensations wash over them? (This is more of a question in musicals than in plays.)

And theater criticism does not necessarily reward intellectual rigor- it rewards good craft, which isn't exactly the same thing.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 9:02pm

You mean these?

[Phantom2]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 9:16pm

I love the Beatles and Cirque Du Soleil. I heard the show in Vegas is amazing. Hope to catch it!

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 09:16 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/21/06 at 11:32am

IT'S OUT TODAY!

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 7:29am

Did anyone get it yesterday? If so, how is it? I am getting it either today or this weekend. CAN'T WAIT!

[mlsheehan]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:08pm

LOVE the show is fantastic. In my opinion, one of the better Cirque du Soleil shows. This show, as is typical of Cirque shows, doesn't really have a plot, per se. There are characters that re-occur and have mini story lines as the show progresses. (It's the same with Mystere and O.)

What I thought was exceptional with the show was that they took mostly familiar music and visualized it so well. There is enough literalness to the visuals that they connect to the songs (and the time period that the songs were released), but they also create incredibly beautiful images that are more abstract and thought provoking. It's not really "circus-ey", but there are a few numbers that use circus-type acts. It's more the staging, sets, and costuming. All extraordinary. And I particularly liked that the show is presented in the round. So, you are never very far from the performers..

Also, I thought it was clever how the outtakes from recording sessions were interwoven through out, so that the John, Paul, Ringo, and George almost become characters in the show.

Our group of four, all gave this show 4 stars.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 7:11pm

Sounds exciting!

[To The Stage!]

Posted: 11/27/06 at 6:55pm

Nice explaination. Exactly how I would interpret it. I bought the CD on Saturday, and i'm loving it!

[timote316]

Posted: 11/27/06 at 11:17pm

The CD was onsale at Wal-Mart, so I picked it up. I enjoyed it very much.

And, if you ever had any doubt that the music of the Beatles sounded better if the listener were stoned, this is proof.