Curtains For Connie. — Page 2

meh good riddance. i hate her as a performer. dull and boring. bad voice. and all this bull about her voice being bad blah blah.... im not being funny people byt she couldn't sing before she even got the role.

she's one of those performers who can individually perform a song ok... put her in a show and she bombs.

NEXT

(get her off the tour too!!!)

and as for 'probably be my last musical'.... love this is your only musical!!! (other than TPOS)

i agree with whoever said about gems tv... she'd be great on that.... AS INTEFERENCE!

Right rant over... back to decent performers haha.
x

---

She was fab In 'Theyre Playing Our Song', i'll give her that.

I have said it before and will say it again, people who say that the role of Maria is so vocally demanding that it requires an alternate miss the point that when the show was first done, Mary Martin managed 8 shows. Ethel Merman managed 8 shows in Gypsy (as did LuPone recently). Julia McKenzie did 8 shows a week of On The Twentieth Century - a much more demanding part vocally. They did it (apart from LuPone) with no head mics.
There may be shows where an alternate is necessary, Sound of Music is not one of them.
I have no issue with Connie Fisher she was good in the role and sang it pretty well. My issue is with people who pander to the notion that people can't do 8 shows.

Yes, there is an excuse for not doing 8 shows a week. Our bodies are actually not designed to sing and there are serious medical repercussions from stressing the voice. Throwing the inappropriately trained and/or inexperienced in the deep end is simply irresponsible!

"Maria" IS actually quite a taxing role and a one day rest a week is NOT enough. That some can, or have, done the 8 is not the point. There is both short and long term risk attached that should not be discounted. And no one should be obliged to risk their health in the name of entertainment and certainly not just to pander to presumption.

Exactly! There are plenty of people who can do eight shows a week, so why cast someone who can't? That's what there's "no excuse" for.

In any other job, if you're not skilled enough to do it full-time while other people are, then you wouldn't get hired.

Agreed that 8 shows should be what we expect-particularly from someone who has had 3 years training to in theory be able to do that.

Of course this also opens the debate of casting via TV popularitly contests, because no producer would cast the role via normal channels for only 6 out of 8 from the outset. (or whatever it was)

---

Ladybegood- you are talking crap my dear as everyone on here will tell you, utter crap.
The training today isn't anywhere near the training performers were getting when these shows where first produced.
Merman and Martin are turning in their grave at the way todays performers go on and on and and on about not doing 8 shows a week!
Its their profession and if they aint up to it, do something else and let REAL performers get the parts they deserve!

Amen to that Mama!

And to add my 2p equally you could argue our bodies aren't designed to sit in front of computers all day/fight fires/talk all day to screaming children but people whose job it is to do it do it.

---

Oh you stupid people! You are letting your prejudices affect what should be common sense and proper understanding.

Even those who are properly trained risk serious long term medical problems. Try asking the specialist doctors about it!

There are quite a few examples of trained professionals who choose to work less than eight shows a week for various reasons and I really think it's up to the people doing the contracts to decide whether or not this is acceptable to them.

In other professions, job-share is becoming more and more common. I work full-time myself, but I work closely with job-share people who make up a full time post. There has been a lot of talk in the news lately, and for many years about the number of hours that a junior doctor ought to work. It has now been cut back to 48, which some think is far too low. It isn't that long ago that a working week of over 100 hours was normal, and some of the old guard consider it to be an important initiation into the profession, but at what costs to the patients as well as the personal health of those doctors. Or perhaps more realistically, how many potentially good doctors didn't consider the career because they knew their bodies couldn't take that strain?

I'm not saying that working eight shows a week is anything like working a 100 hour week where you are responsible for lives, never mind going down a mine or any of the other really tough jobs out there, but I don't think it is much of an argument in any profession to say that because others have worked those hours in the past it is essential that everyone continues to do so in the future.

In other lines of work, flexible working has become common-place and if you can find someone willing to job-share, it shouldn't be a problem. I'd say it's easier than in my line of work, because singer A doesn't need to check whether or not singer B completed a particular piece of work to know where to pick up from.

I'm not that keen on people coming into work when they've got the flu either. I'm all for performers putting in the effort because the show must go on, but I don't think the industry should be proud of having its workers putting themselves at risk of more permanent damage by working through injury or a throat infection. It doesn't make sense in the long-term, but that is the problem with short-term contracts - the presure is on the performer to fulfil that contract in order to get a new one. In a more stable profession, a sensible employer will take a longer term view themselves and make sure that the employee doesn't over-do it.

I'm not saying that people should stay at home at the first sign of the sniffles and clearly good training, preparation and a committment to stay fit and healthy is essential for anyone wanting to take to the stage in a professional capacity. But I do think the all or nothing view should be irrelvant to those of us who aren't directly involved.

Pleeeease!
Get a life!

I know it's not the same, which is why I said so. The point was that just because people have always done it that way doesn't mean it has to continue to be done that way. However, the point stands that there were crusty old doctors who complained when hours were cut to a maximum of eighty a week, and they argued that they managed it and anyone who can't shouldn't be in the job.

The important thing is whether or not the service is provided, and it really shouldn't matter if two actresses share a role or not.

It may depend on your definition of flu, but I'm guessing when you say "a bit of flu" you mean a minor cold. That is a different matter, but at the same time, anyone who turns up to work with an infectious disease risks passing on that infection to everyone they are working with. I know how tempting it is, and I've done it myself, convincing myself that I needed to turn up, but in retrospect, there were several times when it would have been better for everyone if I'd been less proud and stayed at home for a day or two. Planning extra rest time for performers helps to avoid that issue in the first place.

It's all very well that some people are happy to have a throat that is constantly strained, but is it really that wrong to take steps to avoid that happening in the first place? As a customer, I sometimes think that it sounds as if people are singing with a strained voice, but it doesn't make me feel better that they are putting the work in. Obviously I don't want shows cancelled because no-one has turned up for work, but I'd much prefer it if those who were there were fit and healthy and performing at their best, not just hanging on in there.

I've often read reviews where someone says they were disappointed by a particular performer, then someone else chips in to say that they were coming down or recovering from a throat infection, so they should be excused. It is part of the job, and always will be, but I'd rather see a well practiced and respected alternate than a lead with a noticable vocal problem or an underrehearsed understudy who might also be coming down with whatever it was that the lead was coughing over everyone the night before.