#51
Posted: 11/19/06 at 3:01pm
I don't know if I'm alone, but I'm still having trouble deciding whether I liked it or not. Odd.
Emcee's Spring Awakening "review" — Page 3
#52
Posted: 11/19/06 at 5:41pm
First off.. it is great to see all of the discussion surrounding this production. My daughter and I saw the fourth preview 11-18. We both would recommend it. I had high expectations going in. I was already addicted to Bitch of Living and the little snippet of Don't Do Sadness. The show did not dissapoint.
The music is incredible. I was often disapointed when the songs would end. Many posters felt the songs had little impact in regards to forwarding the story or expanding on the character. I disagree. Each song fit thematically within the framework of the story, at least for me. Many were for me chilling, The song that talked about being someones wound or bruise, and especially the song about sexual abuse. Brilliant!!
I found the acting believable. Some have found the language of the present jarring in context with a story set in the 1890's. My interpretation was that all of the songs were sung in the present day context, but with relevance to the time period of the play. This is what I liked best about this musical. I guess I don't see the disjointedness others are picking up on.
Stand out performances from Jonathan Groff and John Gallagher Jr. (whom we also enjoyed in Rabbit Hole). We talked with John Gallagher at the stage door and he said that he was fortunate to have such great music to sing. I couldn't agree more.
Other highlights of the production were some of the lighting moments. The moment when the stage turned blue with all of suspeneded lights was truly magical.
SPOILER *******
I was extremely move by the funeral scene. As someone who did not have a good relationship with their father, that song had me pretty choked up.
It was a joy experiencing this musical with my 17 year old daughter. We both enjoyed it on different levels. I think I may finally have found a musical that will keep her from seeing Rent for the fourth time (not that there's anything wrong with that).
We have already purchased seats on the stage to celebrate her 18th birthday!
See the show!
The music is incredible. I was often disapointed when the songs would end. Many posters felt the songs had little impact in regards to forwarding the story or expanding on the character. I disagree. Each song fit thematically within the framework of the story, at least for me. Many were for me chilling, The song that talked about being someones wound or bruise, and especially the song about sexual abuse. Brilliant!!
I found the acting believable. Some have found the language of the present jarring in context with a story set in the 1890's. My interpretation was that all of the songs were sung in the present day context, but with relevance to the time period of the play. This is what I liked best about this musical. I guess I don't see the disjointedness others are picking up on.
Stand out performances from Jonathan Groff and John Gallagher Jr. (whom we also enjoyed in Rabbit Hole). We talked with John Gallagher at the stage door and he said that he was fortunate to have such great music to sing. I couldn't agree more.
Other highlights of the production were some of the lighting moments. The moment when the stage turned blue with all of suspeneded lights was truly magical.
SPOILER *******
I was extremely move by the funeral scene. As someone who did not have a good relationship with their father, that song had me pretty choked up.
It was a joy experiencing this musical with my 17 year old daughter. We both enjoyed it on different levels. I think I may finally have found a musical that will keep her from seeing Rent for the fourth time (not that there's anything wrong with that).
We have already purchased seats on the stage to celebrate her 18th birthday!
See the show!
#53
Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:08pm
okay, i am seeing this show December 29th which is a Friday, and i wanna try rush with my sister and friend
how has the rush been lately, and what time do you think i should get there?
sorry, and cant wait to see it!
how has the rush been lately, and what time do you think i should get there?
sorry, and cant wait to see it!
#54
Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:16pm
Considering the mezzanine was empty yesterday, I'd say rush is no problem.
#55
Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:25pm
I don't know if this helps, bwayondabrain, but I rushed the show for yesterday's matinee and got there at 10:05 and my friends and I got three seats Orchestra Row C. I'm not sure if this will change once the show has opened officially, though. Once reviews come out, etc.
#56
Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:30pm
alright, thanks for the help
do they just give you what they have left or are there certain seats just for student rush?
do they just give you what they have left or are there certain seats just for student rush?
#57
Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:41pm
I rushed Friday night and was sitting in a box seat; I have no idea if there is any method.
I recognize the addiction to being alive.
#58
Posted: 11/20/06 at 12:59am
Duncan Sheik says neither he nor Steven Sater were setting out to write the more traditional Rodgers & Hammerstein type of musical where the songs 'advance the plot.' Earlier this year, Sheik explained that 'in 'Spring Awakening,' people are singing their [inner] thoughts more than they are to each other.' He likened his show to the Bjork film 'Dancer in the Dark,' where the songs come out of her character's interior fantasy world.
Playbill.com: 'The Leading Men' - Duncan Sheik
Playbill.com: 'The Leading Men' - Duncan Sheik
#59
Posted: 11/21/06 at 12:48pm
I was just reading Charles Isherwood's review of Spring Awakening at the Atlantic, and he so nicely put a lot of the critiques that have been thrown around this thread.
"It tends to simplify the emotional textures in the play. All the adult roles are played by two actors (Mary McCann and Frank Wood), for example, which tips the play too firmly in the direction of a standard tale of generation-gap conflict between collective authority and individual expression. And in the necessary reduction of Wedekind's text to make room for the show's nearly 20 songs, we lose some of the play's subtle elliptical structure and its characters' intricate psychology."
"They're more like singing vessels for general adolescent anxieties, so it is possible to follow them to their individual dooms with entirely dry eyes."
"They're more like singing vessels for general adolescent anxieties, so it is possible to follow them to their individual dooms with entirely dry eyes."
Interesting.
"It tends to simplify the emotional textures in the play. All the adult roles are played by two actors (Mary McCann and Frank Wood), for example, which tips the play too firmly in the direction of a standard tale of generation-gap conflict between collective authority and individual expression. And in the necessary reduction of Wedekind's text to make room for the show's nearly 20 songs, we lose some of the play's subtle elliptical structure and its characters' intricate psychology."
"They're more like singing vessels for general adolescent anxieties, so it is possible to follow them to their individual dooms with entirely dry eyes."
"They're more like singing vessels for general adolescent anxieties, so it is possible to follow them to their individual dooms with entirely dry eyes."
Interesting.
I recognize the addiction to being alive.
#60
Posted: 11/21/06 at 1:09pm
I'm glad some other people are a bit mystified by the show.
I saw it Saturday with a group of friends, all of whom loved it except me.
I felt NOTHING during it. I get more emotional reaction during Hairspray than I got during Spring Awakening. And I know the people I was with thought I was crazy because I just... did not CARE.
I really enjoyed the music and am looking forward to the cast recording, but half the time I was watching them bounce around onstage and going "well so what?"
I agree that the boys were across the board - much stronger than the girls and also had more compelling storylines - the girls tended to annoy me a bit when they were onstage alone. And the song about "My Junk" or whatever made me want to curl up in a ball under my seat.
I'll probably go back later to see how it shapes up, but I really just felt like the whole thing was... "ok". Not bad, not great.
It IS going to make one heck of a CD though...
I saw it Saturday with a group of friends, all of whom loved it except me.
I felt NOTHING during it. I get more emotional reaction during Hairspray than I got during Spring Awakening. And I know the people I was with thought I was crazy because I just... did not CARE.
I really enjoyed the music and am looking forward to the cast recording, but half the time I was watching them bounce around onstage and going "well so what?"
I agree that the boys were across the board - much stronger than the girls and also had more compelling storylines - the girls tended to annoy me a bit when they were onstage alone. And the song about "My Junk" or whatever made me want to curl up in a ball under my seat.
I'll probably go back later to see how it shapes up, but I really just felt like the whole thing was... "ok". Not bad, not great.
It IS going to make one heck of a CD though...
Now what would you say if today I started over?
Without a thing but this taped together four leaf clover
And I'll pretend like everything is already alright
And I'll run toward the sun till the castle's out of sight
#61
Posted: 11/21/06 at 5:20pm
Spring Awakening is terrific entertainment!! I loved it... and can't wait to see it again. The music is amazing and the cast is so talented. Just a complete pleasure to watch, I like many others, was sad when the songs came to an end. I wanted them to just keep on going, so much fun. Don't miss Spring Awakening!!! Awesome
#62
Posted: 11/21/06 at 6:45pm
I have been avoiding reading through the thread to avoid unmarked spoilers. I do have a question though. Is there nudity? If so how much? Friends are debating how appropriate they consider it and whether they want to go. the question of nudity has weighed heavily on their minds.
#63
Posted: 11/21/06 at 7:24pm
LeaGirl - agree, 110%.
neomystyk29 - Lea Michele has a blink-or-you-miss-it topless scene at the bottom of act 1 and top of act 2.
neomystyk29 - Lea Michele has a blink-or-you-miss-it topless scene at the bottom of act 1 and top of act 2.
#64
Posted: 11/21/06 at 7:35pm
Thanks Yankeefan. I'll forward that to my friends.
#65
Posted: 11/21/06 at 10:35pm
The nudity is really not a big deal. It's so fast.
The more I think about it, the more I think I may have been too harsh; I'm not sure. I'm still disappointed that I wasn't more moved by the show, and wasn't impacted emotionally at all but for one scene.
But the music is what stays with you, and this score is not only memorable, it's exceptional. The music itself IS moving and sends chills down my spine. I just wish I felt more while I was watching the show.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
The more I think about it, the more I think I may have been too harsh; I'm not sure. I'm still disappointed that I wasn't more moved by the show, and wasn't impacted emotionally at all but for one scene.
But the music is what stays with you, and this score is not only memorable, it's exceptional. The music itself IS moving and sends chills down my spine. I just wish I felt more while I was watching the show.
#66
Posted: 11/21/06 at 11:55pm
"...while I thought Sheik's songs were solid, efficiently-crafted rock songs..."
An oxymoron if there ever was one.
Jascha Horenstein
Paris, France
An oxymoron if there ever was one.
Jascha Horenstein
Paris, France
#67
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:01am
I don't even care about the show - I met Tom Hulce tonight!!!
#68
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:02am
"its nice to hear something that you might hear on the radio on stage."
But it's exactly the kind of 'democratization' that has resulted in the dumbing-down of all the arts--familiar, easy, made accessible, dumb. And in the case of pop music, completely useless for musical theater.
Mayella Ewell
Maycomb, Alabama
But it's exactly the kind of 'democratization' that has resulted in the dumbing-down of all the arts--familiar, easy, made accessible, dumb. And in the case of pop music, completely useless for musical theater.
Mayella Ewell
Maycomb, Alabama
#69
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:05am
That's not really true, it's a sweeping elitist generalization. Conceptually, a true "musical" needs its songs to be plot and character-driven. While it's not often done WELL, there's no reason that can't co-exist with pop/rock music. Much of the convergence does result in dumbed-down theater, but that's not automatic. I understand your comment to mean that modern and familiar, like pop/rock is dumb just because it's accessible. I do disagree with the comment you quoted, but for different reasons -- I find pop/rock style music written for the theater, if done well, far above almost anything you'd hear on the radio. So in most cases, you may in fact be right, but it's not because the accessible and timely is by nature dumbed-down. The genre's got to evolve.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 11/22/06 at 12:05 AM
#70
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:10am
"Duncan Sheik says neither he nor Steven Sater were setting out to write the more traditional Rodgers & Hammerstein type of musical where the songs 'advance the plot.' Earlier this year, Sheik explained that 'in 'Spring Awakening,' people are singing their [inner] thoughts more than they are to each other.' He likened his show to the Bjork film 'Dancer in the Dark,' where the songs come out of her character's interior fantasy world."
Of course, they didn't set out to write the more traditional R&H style of musical. Why? Because it's F***ING HARD, that's why! And requires a craft and discipline that would utterly defeat someone like Sheik and his ilk. Writing songs arising from the "character's fantasy life" is nothing but an excuse, a justification, a dodge, and the laziest kind of writing.
Martita Hunt
London, England
Of course, they didn't set out to write the more traditional R&H style of musical. Why? Because it's F***ING HARD, that's why! And requires a craft and discipline that would utterly defeat someone like Sheik and his ilk. Writing songs arising from the "character's fantasy life" is nothing but an excuse, a justification, a dodge, and the laziest kind of writing.
Martita Hunt
London, England
Updated On: 11/22/06 at 12:10 AM
#71
Luvtheemcee, once upon a time in the last century, there was a greater kinship between pop music and theater music. However, theater music has ALWAYS had a more elevated, elegant and CRAFTED
quality that distinguishes it from pop songs. That's what makes it theatrical. Take most pop songs, then or now, and stack them up against theater music and the latter will inevitably trump the former in terms of musical and lyrical sophistication and "size.". Just as drama is a heightened and crystallized representation of life, so theater songs must be crafted and stylized to communicate its ideas across the footlights. Which is exactly what pop music in the theatre fails to accomplish.
The basic problem is that the static, repetitive and rhythmically-driven qualities of pop music: melody and harmony, the prime vehicles of emotion in musical theater, take a back seat to the "beat," at the expense of expressiveness and variety. In addition, pop music's trite and inherently adolescent sensibilities don't make it practical for adult characters or narrative or communicating more subtle and sophisticated emotions than the whiny, navel-gazing or parodistic kind, which might make it appropriate for SPRING AWAKENING but a bore for musically and theatrically discerning audiences.
Zeffie Tillbury
Loading Up The Joad Truck
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:24am
Luvtheemcee, once upon a time in the last century, there was a greater kinship between pop music and theater music. However, theater music has ALWAYS had a more elevated, elegant and CRAFTED
quality that distinguishes it from pop songs. That's what makes it theatrical. Take most pop songs, then or now, and stack them up against theater music and the latter will inevitably trump the former in terms of musical and lyrical sophistication and "size.". Just as drama is a heightened and crystallized representation of life, so theater songs must be crafted and stylized to communicate its ideas across the footlights. Which is exactly what pop music in the theatre fails to accomplish.
The basic problem is that the static, repetitive and rhythmically-driven qualities of pop music: melody and harmony, the prime vehicles of emotion in musical theater, take a back seat to the "beat," at the expense of expressiveness and variety. In addition, pop music's trite and inherently adolescent sensibilities don't make it practical for adult characters or narrative or communicating more subtle and sophisticated emotions than the whiny, navel-gazing or parodistic kind, which might make it appropriate for SPRING AWAKENING but a bore for musically and theatrically discerning audiences.
Zeffie Tillbury
Loading Up The Joad Truck
#72
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:26am
Yes, Charles Isherwood points out that the show ultimately leaves the audience cold, he also says "When was the last time you felt a frisson of surprise and excitement at something that happened in a new musical? For that matter, when was the last time something new happened in a new musical?"
He goes on to praise the show highly, pointing out things that might not necessarily be flaws, even. Just observations.
I thought Spring Awakening was thrilling. Along the way the show moved me to tears several times and I couldn't help but feel engaged, excited. I think the show falls apart after the middle of the second act (no spoilers) because it really just doesn't have anywhere to go. Also, the ultimate conclusion of the show isn't a cry your eyes out conclusion... it's very cold, very intellectual. And you know what? I'm fine with that. Sentimentality and schmaltz are overrated.
EnchantedHunter, I would usually agree that abandoning the traditional form of the genre is lazy and slightly murderous, but I think it's important to note that the songs in Spring Awakening develop the characters and the feelings effectively. I'm assuming you've seen RENT, or one of its spinoffs, where people essentially sing Broadway recitative to the sounds of guitars and drums. Kind of lame.
Spring Awakening genuinely feels, I don't know... new. Young. Adolescent and pining and something I relate to as viscerally as I relate to the intelligence behind the R&H shows. The lyrics are poetic and evocative, and the score's ability to capture and advance feeling and mood may feel oppressive sometimes but--well, I'm just noting that there's a revival of Company playing up the street somewhere, and maybe lessons are worth noting. I think Jesus Christ Superstar proves that you can tell a story AND have that visceral moody rawness (...sort of for JCS), but at least we have the example of Spring Awakening that shows how far you can go with mood and texture. Isn't this Duncan Sheik's first musical?
I think people who didn't feel anything should go back and bear in mind that the plot isn't what you're supposed to be feeling... it's the words, the rhythms, the music.
He goes on to praise the show highly, pointing out things that might not necessarily be flaws, even. Just observations.
I thought Spring Awakening was thrilling. Along the way the show moved me to tears several times and I couldn't help but feel engaged, excited. I think the show falls apart after the middle of the second act (no spoilers) because it really just doesn't have anywhere to go. Also, the ultimate conclusion of the show isn't a cry your eyes out conclusion... it's very cold, very intellectual. And you know what? I'm fine with that. Sentimentality and schmaltz are overrated.
EnchantedHunter, I would usually agree that abandoning the traditional form of the genre is lazy and slightly murderous, but I think it's important to note that the songs in Spring Awakening develop the characters and the feelings effectively. I'm assuming you've seen RENT, or one of its spinoffs, where people essentially sing Broadway recitative to the sounds of guitars and drums. Kind of lame.
Spring Awakening genuinely feels, I don't know... new. Young. Adolescent and pining and something I relate to as viscerally as I relate to the intelligence behind the R&H shows. The lyrics are poetic and evocative, and the score's ability to capture and advance feeling and mood may feel oppressive sometimes but--well, I'm just noting that there's a revival of Company playing up the street somewhere, and maybe lessons are worth noting. I think Jesus Christ Superstar proves that you can tell a story AND have that visceral moody rawness (...sort of for JCS), but at least we have the example of Spring Awakening that shows how far you can go with mood and texture. Isn't this Duncan Sheik's first musical?
I think people who didn't feel anything should go back and bear in mind that the plot isn't what you're supposed to be feeling... it's the words, the rhythms, the music.
yr ronin,
joey
joey
#73
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:29am
Of course it has -- and that's why I conceded the point that it's "high art," especially in that I think it's crazy to compare theater music to what you'd hear on the radio. I agree with you on that, and everything about theatrical music being much more distinct, distinguished and honestly, intelligent. I haven't touched a radio in years, mainly for that reason.
I disagree with the notion that it's impossible to make the two stylistically meet simply because pop/rock music has become sort of the entertainment of the masses. I don't think that notion itself means it's impossible to create something that IS stylistically pop, but still follows the conventions that make a score theatrical, still evokes emotion, and is still written with the same distinguished care that goes into writing any other classic theater score. The post of yours that I replied to seemed to indicate that a pop sound automatically implied dumb when it met theater. That I disagree with.
I think Spring Awakening's score is good and will make an excellent CD. As far as its meeting the criteria of a TRUE musical? Certainly not. And one of my major problems with it was that it often felt too "normal."
ETA --
I think people who didn't feel anything should go back and bear in mind that the plot isn't what you're supposed to be feeling... it's the words, the rhythms, the music.
And THAT is exactly why I posted that I feel more in retrospect looking back on what I remember, which is the music and the poetic lyrics, than I did when I was actually there.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
I disagree with the notion that it's impossible to make the two stylistically meet simply because pop/rock music has become sort of the entertainment of the masses. I don't think that notion itself means it's impossible to create something that IS stylistically pop, but still follows the conventions that make a score theatrical, still evokes emotion, and is still written with the same distinguished care that goes into writing any other classic theater score. The post of yours that I replied to seemed to indicate that a pop sound automatically implied dumb when it met theater. That I disagree with.
I think Spring Awakening's score is good and will make an excellent CD. As far as its meeting the criteria of a TRUE musical? Certainly not. And one of my major problems with it was that it often felt too "normal."
ETA --
I think people who didn't feel anything should go back and bear in mind that the plot isn't what you're supposed to be feeling... it's the words, the rhythms, the music.
And THAT is exactly why I posted that I feel more in retrospect looking back on what I remember, which is the music and the poetic lyrics, than I did when I was actually there.
Updated On: 11/22/06 at 12:29 AM
#74
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:34am
Roninjoey, I hope it didn't seem like I didn't read all of Isherwood's review. I'm in complete agreement with his review - both his praises and his critiques. I just didn't include those because the point of the quotes I posted was that they were the flaws of the show that many on this thread have brought up.
I've kind of decided that I'm ok with the flaws that stick out to me in terms of lack of character development and plot holes - mainly because I think the score is so fantastic. To me, it negates all the things that didn't completely sit well with me.
I've kind of decided that I'm ok with the flaws that stick out to me in terms of lack of character development and plot holes - mainly because I think the score is so fantastic. To me, it negates all the things that didn't completely sit well with me.
I recognize the addiction to being alive.
Updated On: 11/22/06 at 12:34 AM
#75
Posted: 11/22/06 at 12:43am
Who says all musicals have to be written in the style of Rodgers & Hammerstein? Obviously they wrote more than their share of hits, but they had flops, too. And so many musicals have followed the paint-by-numbers style of R&H that it's produced a number of largely stale and formulaic shows. Why shouldn't new artists be allowed to travel another path? Maybe it'll lead to a new horizon; maybe it'll reach a dead end, but taking chances doesn't necessarily make an artist guilty of 'the laziest kind of writing.' To me, the laziest kind of writing is mimicking what's already been done a zillion times before.
I don't see the world in the same absolutes; it's not so black and white. I can love pop music. I can love theater music. I can love pop music on Broadway, and depending on how it's used, I can find it as theatrical and as thrilling as anything else.
I don't see the world in the same absolutes; it's not so black and white. I can love pop music. I can love theater music. I can love pop music on Broadway, and depending on how it's used, I can find it as theatrical and as thrilling as anything else.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95