#76
Posted: 12/16/04 at 5:22pm
I really need a source for this- I'd love to see his reasons why.
Caroline or Change/ George C — Page 4
#77
Posted: 12/16/04 at 5:24pm
Same here.
Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder
Updated On: 12/16/04 at 05:24 PM
#78
Posted: 12/16/04 at 6:00pm
I'd be curious to read an interview from him about this as well, though I'm not completely shocked if it turns out that he didn't care for Caroline. As much as I admire him and think of him as one of the great musical geniuses in history, he's nevertheless a human being and an older one at that, very much the product of the pre-rock & roll generation. His tastes both as a composer and as a listener, tend to gravitate more towards 19th century classical music (Ravel is his favorite) and the writers that make up the great American songbook (Gershwin, Kern, Porter et al).
Tesori, on the other hand, grew up a generation (or more) after Sondheim in a musical household where classical music and Broadway competed for ear space with Motown, rock, r&b, gospel, country and the blues (which accounts for her incredible fluency in writing in so many different blues-based themes and idioms). In contrast, Sondheim has never shown much interest or affinity for any popular musical genre more contemporary than 1940s pre-bebop jazz. With the exception of the Witch's comic rap number in Into The Woods and Hinkley's 70s style guitar ballad in Assassins (both examples of Sondheim adapting his compositional "style" to suit a particular character), Sondheim has shown little interest or flair at writing in post-rock era genres, something Tesori thrives at.
I don't doubt that the main reason Sondheim has avoided these forms is because he finds them too simplistic and not as adaptable and malleable to dramatic theatre writing (from a music theory perspective) as the various forms that have been his bread and butter since the 50s. As much as I wish he would/could embrace Tesori's work in Caroline (which I think is sublime), I'm guessing that it's really not his kind of music. But, I don't want to put words in his mouth, so I'd love to see a quote in which he explains why he didn't care for it.
Tesori, on the other hand, grew up a generation (or more) after Sondheim in a musical household where classical music and Broadway competed for ear space with Motown, rock, r&b, gospel, country and the blues (which accounts for her incredible fluency in writing in so many different blues-based themes and idioms). In contrast, Sondheim has never shown much interest or affinity for any popular musical genre more contemporary than 1940s pre-bebop jazz. With the exception of the Witch's comic rap number in Into The Woods and Hinkley's 70s style guitar ballad in Assassins (both examples of Sondheim adapting his compositional "style" to suit a particular character), Sondheim has shown little interest or flair at writing in post-rock era genres, something Tesori thrives at.
I don't doubt that the main reason Sondheim has avoided these forms is because he finds them too simplistic and not as adaptable and malleable to dramatic theatre writing (from a music theory perspective) as the various forms that have been his bread and butter since the 50s. As much as I wish he would/could embrace Tesori's work in Caroline (which I think is sublime), I'm guessing that it's really not his kind of music. But, I don't want to put words in his mouth, so I'd love to see a quote in which he explains why he didn't care for it.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Updated On: 12/17/04 at 06:00 PM
#80
Posted: 12/16/04 at 6:26pm
The only reason that Sondheim comment surprises me is that he very rarely lets negative comments about others' shows be quoted or published--and very rarely even says them--epseically contemporary composers. I think he thinks the more different kinds of musicals the better. Also, in the past when asked about new shows he's loved there are only a few mentioned--he's said he likes Ahrens/Flaherty before (but never mentions any of their shows specifically and I suspect, though I don't agree, he found Ragtime overblown) and then he says Floyd Collins and... Violet--Tessori's first notable show.
E
E
#81
Posted: 12/16/04 at 6:28pm
Caroline, or Change is playing in LA at the Ahmanson Theatre until the 26th of December. Tickets aren't that much, from about $25 to $80 bucks. And productions at the Ahmanson are wonderful.
#82
Posted: 12/16/04 at 7:28pm
Sondheim told me this sometime during the first week of december
"Yesterday is done. See the pretty countryside. Merrily we roll along, roll along- catching at dreams."- Merrily we roll along
"The living was the prize, the ending's not the story."- Elegies, a song cycle
#83
Posted: 12/16/04 at 7:29pm
Hahah well if he told you personally surely he gave you reasons--what were they?
That makes more sense--it seems very against his style to say in interviews or something he dislikes a show
E
That makes more sense--it seems very against his style to say in interviews or something he dislikes a show
E
#84
Posted: 12/16/04 at 7:32pm
P.S. He was very political about it, and his comment was a face that showed dislike, then followed by him stating it was quite overrated. That was it of the comment, and it wasn't overly overly negative, but his point was obvious.
P.P.S. Margo- I think you have it down perfectly. I agree with you, I imagine it is just not his favorite sort of music, and his and Jeanine's come from very different inspirational origins.
P.P.P.S. I imagine that he meant it was overrated by his friends and/or the artistic quasi pretentious community.
P.P.S. Margo- I think you have it down perfectly. I agree with you, I imagine it is just not his favorite sort of music, and his and Jeanine's come from very different inspirational origins.
P.P.P.S. I imagine that he meant it was overrated by his friends and/or the artistic quasi pretentious community.
"Yesterday is done. See the pretty countryside. Merrily we roll along, roll along- catching at dreams."- Merrily we roll along
"The living was the prize, the ending's not the story."- Elegies, a song cycle
#85
Posted: 12/16/04 at 8:32pm
Well it was still off-Braodway in Dec no? It seems when it was off Broadway it got much better press than when it moved (for whatever lame reasons)
Funny though as Violet has a VERY contemporary score by Tessori and I know he was a fan--he mentioned it to a letter to me and I've read quotes in magazines.
E
Funny though as Violet has a VERY contemporary score by Tessori and I know he was a fan--he mentioned it to a letter to me and I've read quotes in magazines.
E
#86
Posted: 12/16/04 at 8:37pm
no, I meant this october, actually. sorry. 
don't bash me. I was up in december too, but he talked about it in october.
don't bash me. I was up in december too, but he talked about it in october.
"Yesterday is done. See the pretty countryside. Merrily we roll along, roll along- catching at dreams."- Merrily we roll along
"The living was the prize, the ending's not the story."- Elegies, a song cycle
#87
Posted: 12/16/04 at 10:42pm
Wow, the Sondheim tidbit is fascinating, but it doesn't really surprise me. I think MargoChanning's theory is probably correct.
However, while Tesori's score does use a myriad of contemporary musical idioms, it's always theatrical, and her use of R&B and blues in the score is not only appropriate to the time and the characters, her score melds those musical forms into something completely new for the characters singing the piece. Her use of Klemzer-inspired tunes for the family is likewise correct. I'd love to hear what Sondheim's actual reasoning is, and why he felt the show was "overrated."
And WORD to those of you that said Veanne Cox was robbed of a Tony nomination. I've long been a fan of Ms. Cox, but she's never been as good as she was in CAROLINE.
However, while Tesori's score does use a myriad of contemporary musical idioms, it's always theatrical, and her use of R&B and blues in the score is not only appropriate to the time and the characters, her score melds those musical forms into something completely new for the characters singing the piece. Her use of Klemzer-inspired tunes for the family is likewise correct. I'd love to hear what Sondheim's actual reasoning is, and why he felt the show was "overrated."
And WORD to those of you that said Veanne Cox was robbed of a Tony nomination. I've long been a fan of Ms. Cox, but she's never been as good as she was in CAROLINE.
#88
Posted: 12/16/04 at 11:54pm
A quick word about Veanne Cox --
I've loved her work for many years now and think she's one of the theatre's unsung treasures. Rose was a very dificult role for her and in at least one interview (on the ATW Seminar for Caroline) she's talked about how her performance changed from the time of the run at The Public to after the show moved to Broadway. She said that she personally found several things that the Rose character says appalling and somewhat offensive and that the intimacy of the Public space made saying some of those lines even more difficult. When they moved to the O'Neill, something about the spaciousness of that theatre and the fact that the audience wasn't right there on top of her, somehow made playing Rose easier and freed her to be able to invest unhesitatingly in playing a character she found unlikeable.
The funny thing is, I remember thinking the first time I saw Caroline (the third preview at The Public), that Cox seemed inordinately distant and a little unsure of herself. While she seemed better later in the Public run, I didn't think she really came into her own as Rose until she got to Broadway and by the time I saw her again a month or two after the Broadway opening, she was giving one of the strongest performances in the entire cast. When I saw the ATW Seminar, it all made sense as to why her performance had improved so dramatically. I wonder how many of the Tony nominators saw her downtown and based their decision not to nominate her on those earlier performances?
This all reminds me of the difficulties one of our greatest actors, Cherry Jones, had with the revival of "A Moon For the Misbegotten" a few seasons ago. When it opened, she received mixed reviews from the critics, who found her performance tentative and unsure. Unbeknownst to them, Jones was having a kind of crisis of confidence -- she had seen the great Colleen Dewhurst do the role back in the 70s and during rehearsals and through previews she found herself haunted and nearly paralyzed by that performance, unable to get it out of her memory and find her own way into the role. The pressure of it all led her to almost quit the production before opening. However, once the critics had come and gone and the show was up and running, the pressue for her was off and slowly, the memory of Dewhurst began to fade and she was able to come into her own in the role. By the time I saw it a few months after opening, she was absolutely breathtaking. She said during an interview she gave late in the run (in which she laid out this story) that she almost wished she could get all the critics to come back and see her again, but nevertheless, she was just happy she'd been able to conquer all of that fear and doubt and give the kind of performance she was capable of.
I've loved her work for many years now and think she's one of the theatre's unsung treasures. Rose was a very dificult role for her and in at least one interview (on the ATW Seminar for Caroline) she's talked about how her performance changed from the time of the run at The Public to after the show moved to Broadway. She said that she personally found several things that the Rose character says appalling and somewhat offensive and that the intimacy of the Public space made saying some of those lines even more difficult. When they moved to the O'Neill, something about the spaciousness of that theatre and the fact that the audience wasn't right there on top of her, somehow made playing Rose easier and freed her to be able to invest unhesitatingly in playing a character she found unlikeable.
The funny thing is, I remember thinking the first time I saw Caroline (the third preview at The Public), that Cox seemed inordinately distant and a little unsure of herself. While she seemed better later in the Public run, I didn't think she really came into her own as Rose until she got to Broadway and by the time I saw her again a month or two after the Broadway opening, she was giving one of the strongest performances in the entire cast. When I saw the ATW Seminar, it all made sense as to why her performance had improved so dramatically. I wonder how many of the Tony nominators saw her downtown and based their decision not to nominate her on those earlier performances?
This all reminds me of the difficulties one of our greatest actors, Cherry Jones, had with the revival of "A Moon For the Misbegotten" a few seasons ago. When it opened, she received mixed reviews from the critics, who found her performance tentative and unsure. Unbeknownst to them, Jones was having a kind of crisis of confidence -- she had seen the great Colleen Dewhurst do the role back in the 70s and during rehearsals and through previews she found herself haunted and nearly paralyzed by that performance, unable to get it out of her memory and find her own way into the role. The pressure of it all led her to almost quit the production before opening. However, once the critics had come and gone and the show was up and running, the pressue for her was off and slowly, the memory of Dewhurst began to fade and she was able to come into her own in the role. By the time I saw it a few months after opening, she was absolutely breathtaking. She said during an interview she gave late in the run (in which she laid out this story) that she almost wished she could get all the critics to come back and see her again, but nevertheless, she was just happy she'd been able to conquer all of that fear and doubt and give the kind of performance she was capable of.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Updated On: 12/17/04 at 11:54 PM
#89
Posted: 12/17/04 at 1:46am
Margo, thanks for those observations.
Your points are well taken. It can take time for a performer to grow into a role, and these extenuating circumstances are something a critic never deals with in an initial review. Nor should they, frankly. A critic can only judge that performance that they are assigned to review -- it's not their job to divine the personal journey of an actor in a particular role.
Along these same lines, I believe that a critic's opinion of a show can change over time. Feingold admitted that PACIFIC OVERTURES is a much better show than he initially gave it credit for. I think that's why a discussion like we're having about CAROLINE is meaningful. We've all had time to let the show settle, as it were. We're looking back at it not from an initial perspective, but from a point where new knowledge has entered the picture, and has had time to settle.
I'm very glad you shared that story about Ms. Cox. It makes sense, the idea of trying to perform such an unlikeable role in a venue as intimate as the Public, one which allows an actor to see the hatred (for their character) in an audience's collective face. I understand how that may have affected her performance, initially.
I didn't see CAROLINE at the Public. By the time I saw the show, Ms. Cox was in superb form. But the insight is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.
Your points are well taken. It can take time for a performer to grow into a role, and these extenuating circumstances are something a critic never deals with in an initial review. Nor should they, frankly. A critic can only judge that performance that they are assigned to review -- it's not their job to divine the personal journey of an actor in a particular role.
Along these same lines, I believe that a critic's opinion of a show can change over time. Feingold admitted that PACIFIC OVERTURES is a much better show than he initially gave it credit for. I think that's why a discussion like we're having about CAROLINE is meaningful. We've all had time to let the show settle, as it were. We're looking back at it not from an initial perspective, but from a point where new knowledge has entered the picture, and has had time to settle.
I'm very glad you shared that story about Ms. Cox. It makes sense, the idea of trying to perform such an unlikeable role in a venue as intimate as the Public, one which allows an actor to see the hatred (for their character) in an audience's collective face. I understand how that may have affected her performance, initially.
I didn't see CAROLINE at the Public. By the time I saw the show, Ms. Cox was in superb form. But the insight is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.
Updated On: 12/17/04 at 01:46 AM
#90
Posted: 12/17/04 at 12:32pm
A close friend of mine has known Sondheim for years. And from the stories he tells me, I am not suprised at his comments about "Caroline..."
Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder
Updated On: 12/17/04 at 12:32 PM
#91
Posted: 12/18/04 at 1:09am
wait explain again what s sondheim's reasons were against caroline again? it seems so strange to me seeing as (i know this has been mentioned) but he rarely lets anything negative slip. and i don't see him insulting george c's work.
#92
Posted: 12/18/04 at 8:17am
he didn't give any reasons. just said the overrated thing.
"Yesterday is done. See the pretty countryside. Merrily we roll along, roll along- catching at dreams."- Merrily we roll along
"The living was the prize, the ending's not the story."- Elegies, a song cycle
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95