#52
Posted: 9/8/12 at 11:15pm
Let's start threads for each of those decades.
But this one is for a love-affair with the '70s.
And, for me, what a love-affair it was.
But this one is for a love-affair with the '70s.
And, for me, what a love-affair it was.
"Two drifters off to see the world. There's such a lot of world to see. . ."
#53
Posted: 9/8/12 at 11:15pm
...and the word was with God. JC, how could you get it so wrong?
#54
Posted: 9/8/12 at 11:16pm
The 1970s were a time of great creative freedom on Broadway (as well as in Hollywood.)
On Broadway it was a time when Michael Bennett, Bob Fosse and Hal Prince Tune were creating their iconic stagings. Sondheim finally began getting the recognition he deserved, and Broadway still welcomed new talents (Charlie Smalls, Judd Woldin, Stephen Schwartz and Marvin Hamlisch.) Musicals began exploring new ways of telling stories, exploring deeper more complex characters and still providing plenty of razzle-dazzle. That creative spark flickered away in the 1980s, as Broadway returned to the empty and overblown spectacles of its formative years.
Today, there is too much reliance on familiar titles - popular films translated to the stage and revivals. Oh sure, there were a lot of revivals in the 1970s: It seemed like FIDDLER, DOLLY and MAN OF LA MANCHA were constantly being brought back, but there were plenty of new shows and even an unexpected revival of a 1950's flop that proved a popular if not financial success. (CANDIDE - Hal prince again.)
I felt then that producers (like Prince) were more willing to take risks. Today, producers focus too much on marketing experts.
As Goddard Lieberson said when he was president of Columbia Masterworks - Never let an accounts tell you what records to make. You can teach artistic people to make business decisions but you cannot teach business people to make artistic decisions.
On Broadway it was a time when Michael Bennett, Bob Fosse and Hal Prince Tune were creating their iconic stagings. Sondheim finally began getting the recognition he deserved, and Broadway still welcomed new talents (Charlie Smalls, Judd Woldin, Stephen Schwartz and Marvin Hamlisch.) Musicals began exploring new ways of telling stories, exploring deeper more complex characters and still providing plenty of razzle-dazzle. That creative spark flickered away in the 1980s, as Broadway returned to the empty and overblown spectacles of its formative years.
Today, there is too much reliance on familiar titles - popular films translated to the stage and revivals. Oh sure, there were a lot of revivals in the 1970s: It seemed like FIDDLER, DOLLY and MAN OF LA MANCHA were constantly being brought back, but there were plenty of new shows and even an unexpected revival of a 1950's flop that proved a popular if not financial success. (CANDIDE - Hal prince again.)
I felt then that producers (like Prince) were more willing to take risks. Today, producers focus too much on marketing experts.
As Goddard Lieberson said when he was president of Columbia Masterworks - Never let an accounts tell you what records to make. You can teach artistic people to make business decisions but you cannot teach business people to make artistic decisions.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
#55
Posted: 9/8/12 at 11:20pm
Wow, I hit a nerve. I was definitely obnoxious. But I saw Roberts, by the way, and she was pretty bad. I get the stars-die-new-ones-take-over, but I can't see arguing anything with you because your exaltation of ALL those people is as scary - to me - as the Amy Irving thing. Seriously, now. What are your standards for evaluating actors? Then again, I'm pretty harsh. I have never been able to comprehend why anyone thinks Morgan Freeman is worth ****.
#56
Posted: 9/8/12 at 11:26pm
|I felt then that producers (like Prince) were more willing to take risks. Today, producers focus too much on marketing experts.|
For all the awfulness as a person that was Garth Drabinsky--he chose pretty brave subjects (bringing back from the dead, Kiss of the Spiderwoman, Parade, etc).
jarndyce, I think you picked a good subject--if people get up in arms on here, it's usually for the better.
For all the awfulness as a person that was Garth Drabinsky--he chose pretty brave subjects (bringing back from the dead, Kiss of the Spiderwoman, Parade, etc).
jarndyce, I think you picked a good subject--if people get up in arms on here, it's usually for the better.
#57
Posted: 9/8/12 at 11:33pm
Thanks. I'm getting scared.
By the way. If I'm such a delusional ass about the 70s theater, why is it the brilliant Amanda Plummer left NYC like a bat out of hell because the scene, as she put it, had become commercial and sterile? Why does Cherry Jones maintain, if every generation of wonderful actors is making wonderful theater, that the only work to be had worth anything in the 80s was in regional theater? I tell you, the tide really did turn.
By the way. If I'm such a delusional ass about the 70s theater, why is it the brilliant Amanda Plummer left NYC like a bat out of hell because the scene, as she put it, had become commercial and sterile? Why does Cherry Jones maintain, if every generation of wonderful actors is making wonderful theater, that the only work to be had worth anything in the 80s was in regional theater? I tell you, the tide really did turn.
#58
Posted: 9/8/12 at 11:55pm
"Now you've entered the asylum.
This profession's unique!
Actors are children
Playing hide-and-ego-seek."
That would be from the pretentious claptrap
"You'll work and slave and scratch and bite.
You'll learn to kill with sheer delight.
You'll only come alive at night, when you're in a show".
This profession's unique!
Actors are children
Playing hide-and-ego-seek."
That would be from the pretentious claptrap
"You'll work and slave and scratch and bite.
You'll learn to kill with sheer delight.
You'll only come alive at night, when you're in a show".
#59
Posted: 9/8/12 at 11:56pm
I'm not sure the politics of Amanda Plummer, but she recently spoke on the CBC here in Canada about why she loved living in Canada so much. Not sure if that plays a part.
I guess in regards to 70s Broadway, the tide, commercially, was turning by the late 60s. The 70s were the last cry for much of that.
I guess in regards to 70s Broadway, the tide, commercially, was turning by the late 60s. The 70s were the last cry for much of that.
#60
Posted: 9/9/12 at 1:14am
After Eight, it greatly surprises me that you you -for whom the pinnacle of your theatre-going life was Mary, Mary - of all people would be the one to knock others for their sense of romantic nostalgia.
#61
Posted: 9/9/12 at 1:52am
"Now I have to have that nightmare where my phone rings and Bacall is singing, 'Hurry Back'."
THAT was funny! Love the discussion, guys.
THAT was funny! Love the discussion, guys.
#62
Posted: 9/9/12 at 2:50am
"It's as plainly stupid as an all-black 'Song of Norway'."
OK, now I want to see Jennifer Holliday in an all Black version of "I Remeber Mama"!
OK, now I want to see Jennifer Holliday in an all Black version of "I Remeber Mama"!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#63
Posted: 9/9/12 at 3:09am
For the love of crap, some people are so nasty...
The OP was discussing his love of Broadway in the 70s. It didn't take long for people to get all sorts of bitchy about it. Why are you people getting so angry about how the 70s sucked? Jeeze... Relax.
And Jordan, you mentioned Kathleen Turner three times. You must be in love.
The OP was discussing his love of Broadway in the 70s. It didn't take long for people to get all sorts of bitchy about it. Why are you people getting so angry about how the 70s sucked? Jeeze... Relax.
And Jordan, you mentioned Kathleen Turner three times. You must be in love.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#64
Posted: 9/9/12 at 3:53am
I actually love 70's theatre. The Gin Game, The Shadow Box, The original Jesus Christ Superstar, Edward Gorey's design for Dracula, oh to name only a few theatrical experiences that recent abortions like Ghost, Sister Act etc pale in comparison to.
Sometime technology does not equal a great theatrical experience!
ETA I realize I was comparing plays to musicals, however even the original Grease had much more edge then the subsequent revivals, which tend to take a more nostalgic,stylized view of the show. There was Pippen and Candide as well which, for me were hif=gh points of 70's theatre, remarkably with simple stagecraft rather then computerized spectacles.
Sometime technology does not equal a great theatrical experience!
ETA I realize I was comparing plays to musicals, however even the original Grease had much more edge then the subsequent revivals, which tend to take a more nostalgic,stylized view of the show. There was Pippen and Candide as well which, for me were hif=gh points of 70's theatre, remarkably with simple stagecraft rather then computerized spectacles.
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
Updated On: 9/9/12 at 03:53 AM
#65
Posted: 9/9/12 at 7:12am
"After Eight, it greatly surprises me that you you -for whom the pinnacle of your theatre-going life was Mary, Mary - of all people would be the one to knock others for their sense of romantic nostalgia. "
I am not knocking anyone for their sense of romantic nostalgia. I love nostlgia, and derive sustenance from it.
And I said to savor our memories. They're to be treasured.
But I also said we can't assess things from an egocentric vantage point. My nostalgia is not someone else's, and vice versa. Nostalgia can't trump dispassionate assessments.
Mary, Mary was not a wonderful show because it was the pinnacle of my theatregoing experience. It was the pinnacle of my theatregoing experience because it was a wonderful show. Do you understand the distinction here?
I am not knocking anyone for their sense of romantic nostalgia. I love nostlgia, and derive sustenance from it.
And I said to savor our memories. They're to be treasured.
But I also said we can't assess things from an egocentric vantage point. My nostalgia is not someone else's, and vice versa. Nostalgia can't trump dispassionate assessments.
Mary, Mary was not a wonderful show because it was the pinnacle of my theatregoing experience. It was the pinnacle of my theatregoing experience because it was a wonderful show. Do you understand the distinction here?
Updated On: 9/9/12 at 07:12 AM
#66
Posted: 9/9/12 at 7:59am
I'm starting to understand that you just need something to complain about, always.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#67
Posted: 9/9/12 at 8:03am
It is genuinely nice to see calm in the morning. Now, if I can only remember to shut up about hating certain actors and being rude about it, things would be swell. (See how subtly I apologized?)
A8, Ye Who Seemeth to Strike Fear in This Land, I must say only: defining MM as a wonderful show is somewhat intrinsically not dispassionate. Me, I really prefer to love shows and stand by them even while nodding in agreement about badness here and there. Most great shows by far, certainly, are not perfectly great. I'm a 'Follies' freak in that crowd that's embarrassed by a lot of the book. The show is still monumental. 'Chorus Line' is a hurricane of great energy around one of the dumbest ideas ever, and it's a great show. Nothing is all great but, in the 70s, there was still heart involved that wasn't calculated to be heart. You had the feeling that even a clinker like 'Applause' was loved by its creator (I realize I'm paraphrasing Sondheim here). With a 'Wicked' or 'Saigon', the gut feeling - for me - is creators determined to be cool and exciting. There's so a difference.
And can I say ONCE AGAIN that my real intent here was not entirely to wax nostalgic, but to get examination going? Can we seriously get past the initial awe that affects all of us?
A8, Ye Who Seemeth to Strike Fear in This Land, I must say only: defining MM as a wonderful show is somewhat intrinsically not dispassionate. Me, I really prefer to love shows and stand by them even while nodding in agreement about badness here and there. Most great shows by far, certainly, are not perfectly great. I'm a 'Follies' freak in that crowd that's embarrassed by a lot of the book. The show is still monumental. 'Chorus Line' is a hurricane of great energy around one of the dumbest ideas ever, and it's a great show. Nothing is all great but, in the 70s, there was still heart involved that wasn't calculated to be heart. You had the feeling that even a clinker like 'Applause' was loved by its creator (I realize I'm paraphrasing Sondheim here). With a 'Wicked' or 'Saigon', the gut feeling - for me - is creators determined to be cool and exciting. There's so a difference.
And can I say ONCE AGAIN that my real intent here was not entirely to wax nostalgic, but to get examination going? Can we seriously get past the initial awe that affects all of us?
#68
Posted: 9/9/12 at 8:08am
PS Cameron Mackintosh is a tool. A billionaire tool. I love Lupone's reaction to his BS in the McKay doco, about miked singing being essential today. David Merrick was just as greedy, but at least he bowed down to the art he was hustling, rather than reinventing it.
#69
Posted: 9/9/12 at 8:16am
Diva,
I'm not seeking to complain about anything. The OP asked for people to share memories of 1970s Broadway. I shared mine, and said I didn't like it. That's it. If the OP had asked us to share memories of 1960s Broadway, I would have said I liked it.
Jarndyce,
I may strike many things in this land, but fear is decidedly not among them.
I'm not seeking to complain about anything. The OP asked for people to share memories of 1970s Broadway. I shared mine, and said I didn't like it. That's it. If the OP had asked us to share memories of 1960s Broadway, I would have said I liked it.
Jarndyce,
I may strike many things in this land, but fear is decidedly not among them.
#70
Posted: 9/9/12 at 8:35am
Understood, A8. Less understood is OP. Am I the OP? Original Poster? Old Phart? I hate acronyms as much as I hate the idea of Matt Broderick as a leading man in musical comedy.
Back to the 70s. Waxing. Favorite straight plays? I liked 'The Au Pair Man' a lot, ditto Albee's 'Seascape', though neither was brilliant. I also remember Albee skulking away down Shubert Albee in a frantic, Groucho Msrx way. Prolly off to meet Glynnis Johns.
Back to the 70s. Waxing. Favorite straight plays? I liked 'The Au Pair Man' a lot, ditto Albee's 'Seascape', though neither was brilliant. I also remember Albee skulking away down Shubert Albee in a frantic, Groucho Msrx way. Prolly off to meet Glynnis Johns.
#71
Posted: 9/9/12 at 8:50am
^
Yes, you are the OP. Congratulations, original poster!
I also think, that, in light of your opinions and manner, you're soon going to be called a troll, as well.
Oh, and I too liked The Au Pair Man.
Yes, you are the OP. Congratulations, original poster!
I also think, that, in light of your opinions and manner, you're soon going to be called a troll, as well.
Oh, and I too liked The Au Pair Man.
#73
Posted: 9/9/12 at 9:36am
Worst of the 70s? My vote goes to 'Raisin!'. Sweet Jesus, that was painful.
#75
Posted: 9/9/12 at 1:30pm
I always mix up 'Mary, Mary' with 'I Do, I Do'. Don't quite know why.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95