#51
Posted: 5/6/12 at 2:59pm
Follies used Jonathan Tunick's original orchestrations from 1971. They were not eligible.
Best Score: Bonnie and Clyde VS. Newsies — Page 3
#52
Posted: 5/6/12 at 3:02pm
^ That would make sense! Thanks.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#53
Posted: 5/6/12 at 5:27pm
Unlike some of you, I have SEEN all four productions in this category....this would be my ranking:
One Man, Two Guvs
Peter and the Starcatcher
Newsies
B&C
In context, on the stage, within the parameters of the SHOW. If these were GRAMMY awards, I might feel differently.
One Man, Two Guvs
Peter and the Starcatcher
Newsies
B&C
In context, on the stage, within the parameters of the SHOW. If these were GRAMMY awards, I might feel differently.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#54
Posted: 5/6/12 at 5:46pm
Newsies. I think it's about time Menken wins a Tony. He's been far due for to long. While I love menken's old material from newsies, "Watch what happens" and it's reprise happen to be my favorite numbers from the show I also love that Menken and Feldman heavily reworked their old material.
#55
Posted: 5/6/12 at 7:33pm
I agree with dramamama. I think the two play nominees actually have better scores. They deserve to win. In my opinion, One Man, Two Guvnors had the best original score of the season (at least among those eligible). The music perfectly complements the show. Ditto for Peter and the Starcatcher. I only liked one of the new songs from Newsies, and I thought the Bonnie and Clyde score was terrible. Every song sounded stolen from some other work. I hope one of the plays takes it. But Newsies probably will win.
#56
Posted: 5/6/12 at 8:07pm
Totally agreed, dramamama and bjh. I like to see how the score is used in context of the show, what purpose it serves. Is that not the point of the category? We're not just judging albums or sheet music; this is "music and/or lyrics written for the theatre."
#57
Posted: 5/6/12 at 8:17pm
Also agree.
I would like people to continue to the discussion beyond they like the sound of the music:
https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1044848
I would like people to continue to the discussion beyond they like the sound of the music:
https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1044848
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 5/6/12 at 08:17 PM
#58
Posted: 5/6/12 at 8:27pm
(Why did you link THIS thread?)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#59
Posted: 5/6/12 at 8:32pm
It's not the same thread, the titles may be similar..
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#60
Posted: 5/7/12 at 2:19am
Newsies score is good but Bonnie & Clyde's score is great!
#61
Posted: 5/7/12 at 7:24am
Way too many of the "memorable" songs in Newsies are from the movie, even if they've been moderately reworked. I would never give it an "original" score award, regardless of what the nominating committee decided.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#62
Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:42am
S&Dman, I did see B&C and IMO (and critics) is that those songs did not propel the story very well. Why was there a song about driving cars? And Bonnie's song about a Dance?
But Mr. Roxy is correct, the lyricist is also to blame.
And I agree that the orchestrations make the songs sound better than they are. Played on a piano they would sound like every other pop song out there.
The critics had their say but B&C was a flop because the public did not want to see it and word of mouth was bad.
A few catchy melodies do not make a great score.
But Mr. Roxy is correct, the lyricist is also to blame.
And I agree that the orchestrations make the songs sound better than they are. Played on a piano they would sound like every other pop song out there.
The critics had their say but B&C was a flop because the public did not want to see it and word of mouth was bad.
A few catchy melodies do not make a great score.
#63
Posted: 5/7/12 at 10:38am
"B&C was a flop because the public did not want to see it and word of mouth was bad."
Yes, the New York critics did not like the show, and that no doubt affected audience perception, but the critics alone did not kill this show, as much as they wanted to. The combination of New York reviews, poor timing and bad management by the producers killed the show. As I recall, there was a lengthy post by someone with detailed inside information that pinned most of the blame on undercapitalization and poor management by the producers, not lack of interest by the audience. In short, they brought a show to Broadway without having the funds to see it through the winter months, or through the relatively slow audience buildup required when a show opens with no established stars. They put themselves in a position where only rave reviews could have saved the show (which it certainly did not get). However, it's critical reception was no worse than many shows that last much longer.
It did appear to be a polarizing production: those who liked it seemed to like it very much, and those who didn't like it seemed to hate it with a passion. However, judging from word of mouth on this forum and others, it was clear that there was a significant audience segment that did like it. Whether that audience segment would have been large enough, or enthusiastic enough, to propel a better managed production into eventual profitability is something that we will never know. But to declare without reservation that the show failed because no one liked it and no one want to see it is to ignore a complicated set of business realities that actually accelerated its demise, apparently for no other reason than to dance on the grave of a show you did not like.
Yes, the New York critics did not like the show, and that no doubt affected audience perception, but the critics alone did not kill this show, as much as they wanted to. The combination of New York reviews, poor timing and bad management by the producers killed the show. As I recall, there was a lengthy post by someone with detailed inside information that pinned most of the blame on undercapitalization and poor management by the producers, not lack of interest by the audience. In short, they brought a show to Broadway without having the funds to see it through the winter months, or through the relatively slow audience buildup required when a show opens with no established stars. They put themselves in a position where only rave reviews could have saved the show (which it certainly did not get). However, it's critical reception was no worse than many shows that last much longer.
It did appear to be a polarizing production: those who liked it seemed to like it very much, and those who didn't like it seemed to hate it with a passion. However, judging from word of mouth on this forum and others, it was clear that there was a significant audience segment that did like it. Whether that audience segment would have been large enough, or enthusiastic enough, to propel a better managed production into eventual profitability is something that we will never know. But to declare without reservation that the show failed because no one liked it and no one want to see it is to ignore a complicated set of business realities that actually accelerated its demise, apparently for no other reason than to dance on the grave of a show you did not like.
Updated On: 5/7/12 at 10:38 AM
#64
Posted: 5/7/12 at 12:57pm
"Why was there a song about driving cars? And Bonnie's song about a Dance?"
From my point of view, "When I Drive" was included to show the more childlike, dreamer sides of both Clyde and Buck. Not to mention it was a well-known fact that Clyde really was one hell of a driver and just because they wanted to express that fact in a fun duet doesn't mean it wasn't important to the story. I think it was more about character development than actual plot, though.
"How 'Bout A Dance" while yes, on the surface, was sung because Clyde asked Bonnie to sing something for him (and possibly also just to showcase Laura Osnes' voice). But it's also the theme song of the show - it both opens and closes it, specifically the section where the lyrics "you'll lose the blues, and you may lose your heart" go. Because it was right at that moment, when she's singing it for Clyde, that I think she realizes that she is unfortunately singing about herself. It's in that moment where she realizes she is falling for him fast and hard, or that she's well on her way to.
And for the record - you might think "the public did not want to see it," but I disagree. It was the one show I was really looking forward to seeing when I went out to NYC in early January. I got out there about a week after it closed. And I know I'm not the only one who wanted to see it and didn't get the opportunity to.
From my point of view, "When I Drive" was included to show the more childlike, dreamer sides of both Clyde and Buck. Not to mention it was a well-known fact that Clyde really was one hell of a driver and just because they wanted to express that fact in a fun duet doesn't mean it wasn't important to the story. I think it was more about character development than actual plot, though.
"How 'Bout A Dance" while yes, on the surface, was sung because Clyde asked Bonnie to sing something for him (and possibly also just to showcase Laura Osnes' voice). But it's also the theme song of the show - it both opens and closes it, specifically the section where the lyrics "you'll lose the blues, and you may lose your heart" go. Because it was right at that moment, when she's singing it for Clyde, that I think she realizes that she is unfortunately singing about herself. It's in that moment where she realizes she is falling for him fast and hard, or that she's well on her way to.
And for the record - you might think "the public did not want to see it," but I disagree. It was the one show I was really looking forward to seeing when I went out to NYC in early January. I got out there about a week after it closed. And I know I'm not the only one who wanted to see it and didn't get the opportunity to.
Updated On: 5/7/12 at 12:57 PM
#65
Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:01pm
So Bonnie and Clyde might come out on top, but does anyone have an opinion on GHOST?
#66
Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:15pm
"Does anyone remember the show Next to Normal? I thought that was a fantastic score."
Never heard of it.
The two nominated play scores are both vastly superior to the juvenile, bland, and insipid scores for Bonnie and Clyde and Newsies.
Never heard of it.
The two nominated play scores are both vastly superior to the juvenile, bland, and insipid scores for Bonnie and Clyde and Newsies.
#67
Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:23pm
Back Row, I totally agree with you on the bad management and handling of B&C, lots of mistakes were made. But if the show was better and it was a must see, it may have survived.
As far as dancing on the grave, this is a thread discussing the merits of the score and I stated my opinion. I didn't hate the show, I was totally bored by it.
As far as dancing on the grave, this is a thread discussing the merits of the score and I stated my opinion. I didn't hate the show, I was totally bored by it.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95