Barry Manilow ‘fighting horribly’ with hubby manager amid Broadway flop — Page 2

I had a ball too. Sang along the whole time, and suited us just right. I either love or hate PAGE SIX.

The article didn't say that Manilow was complaining about the grosses -- he must have a zillion dollars -- but about attendance, i.e., looking out at a lot of empty seats. As someone else pointed out, in a limited engagement, with a limited number of performances per week, it is only filling the theatre at 82% of capacity. If some performances are selling out, that means that some performances were possibly 60% - 70% attended.

That means that the star of a one person show, who probably expected a huge success, is performing in front of an audience with 1/3 of the seats empty. Now, every time I attend a theatre that is has a lot of empty seats, I have always been surprised to see that the empty seats are mainly the least expensive ones (I imagine a lot of the seats were sold at TKTS, which mostly sells orchestra seats). If this is the case with Manilow's show, he is probably looking out at large balcony which is mega-empty. vs. empty seats dispersed around the theatre and, therefore, not as noticeable.

If it is true that he wanted a shorter engagement, is used to performing to large crowds, and was probably expecting a triumph (performer's egos), then I can imagine him being very unhappy and lashing out at the person who pushed for the longer run and prices. Hopefully, the relationship is strong enough that this will be a blip in the relationship.

Jarethan said: "If it is true that he wanted a shorter engagement, is used to performing to large crowds, and was probably expecting a triumph (performer's egos), then I can imagine him being very unhappy and lashing out at the person who pushed for the longer run and prices. Hopefully, the relationship is strong enough that this will be a blip in the relationship."

His last Broadway engagement didn't fare much better in terms of attendance.

qolbinau said: "The numbers might look good if this was a long running show but if they budgeted for quick and sharp revenue with expectations of Bruce Springsteen I can see how they would be disappointed and the costs might not have been controlled well enough."

If they had expectations of Springsteen numbers, they were clearly deluded. There's only one Boss.

Oh look, another thinly-veiled homophobic/racist/misogynist/ (interchangeable) piece of crap from Page Six and its toadies.

What makes it homophobic/racist/misogynist (interchangeable)? It looks like any other gossip article about backstage bickering with a high-profile celebrity and spouse. If anything, it's an equal-opportunity hack piece.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/barry-manilow-broadway-residency-delirious-joy/amp/

why is this still being discussed. Everything has been known since at least monday. The Post got wind of something (probably true) and spun it into an imaginary story. (This is their modus operandi.) Then the data arrived. Now the spin is just the stuff of embarrassment unless (like its patron saint) you are impervious to such embarrassment.

Well said, alovingfan. With all due respect (and that's a lot of respect in my case) to Hogan, I sometime wonder if I'm the only poster here with a scroll capability.

Re Jarethan's post above, if the primary issue were empty seats visible from the stage, then maybe the argument was about how discounted tix and paper were being distributed more than about the actual grosses.

At the theater where I worked here in Palm Springs, there was a strict policy that the ushers were to move people from the balcony down to the front orchestra if a house were only partially sold. It was forbidden to let the performers come out and face rows of empty seats.

(Yes, I know one of the articles mentions friction over which of the spouses receives more of the gross. California community property law does not require commingling of funds while the spouses are alive and legally married. But this is something that might have been mentioned in the heat of an argument and then magnified by putting it in print. Or maybe it is complete fiction.)

@fan and Gavy The point of my post was that people are still posting about what the Post wrote as if "the data [had not] arrived." That is the "this" I was referring to. I never mind folks posting in a thread (indeed, it can be noted that I did just that) but I do mind when people are illogical, like posting very operatically about some fact that is no longer in dispute.

Years ago I worked at a venue he played at and sales were poor. That's not necessarily a result of his name not selling tickets as it could have been a result of poor marketing, etc.

But what I do remember most is his production people demanding that all of the unsold seats witihin Manilow's field of vision be covered in black in an attempt that the empty seats not be so noticeable.

The venue had to go out at the last minute and spend a fortune on black visqueen to cover all those empty seats.

arsol said: "DAME said: "I wonder if Barry or someone in his team leaked to the Post? I bet Barry is thrilled to have his name in the papers."

But The Post has reported it’s struggling to sell tickets and the “Copacabana” star is facing an “ocean of empty seats.”
"

ok this is what I was talking about. Forgetting about the fact that what DAME said makes no sense (no one wants press that says a show is not selling: that prompts people to NOT buy tickets) but why are we still talking about a struggle when the DATA is now available and shows that's BS. Look, I have no horse in this race, but why repeat fake news?

As the old saying goes in marketing:

"There's no such thing as 'bad press' so long as they spell your name correctly."

Celebrities know this to be true - especially these days. If it weren't for 'bad press' on social sites, TV talk shows, gossip columns - we wouldn't hear about some of these 'celebrities' at all.

Especially politicians.

Updated On: 8/16/19 at 08:05 AM

This stuff is not as dense as some seem to want to make it.

I hate to sound like a broken record (no, I don't) but there are no rules and especially not when they are of the sub-ilk of "old sayings." Let's try to break this down:

Backstage gossip about has-been performers (especially fighting spouses): good

Backstage gossip about poor ticket sales and lots of empty seats for said has-been performer's show: bad.

No marketing person will tell you the latter is good because (a) it has a negative effect on demand and price buoyancy, (b) it reinforces the has-been label, (c) it makes going to the show uncool, i.e., people flock to successes and flee failures, (d) live performances are about collective energy, and folks don't want to be in an ocean of empty seats when they go do a performance, and (e) nature abhors a vacuum.