GETTIN (G) THE BAND BACK TOGETHER Previews — Page 7

Jordan Catalano said: "Some people here seem to exist solely to be snobs”

Jordan Catalano said: "Some people here seem to exist solely to be snobs and the idea that a show could exist to just be fun, without being “high art” Is absolutely offensive to them.

This show fits right in with The Wedding Singer, Rock of Ages and the other stupid yet fun shows that people, myself included, enjoy. I don’t know what some people were expecting when they got tickets for this, nothing advertised sold the show as anything other than what it is. "



IMO it’s this kind of thinking that leads to so many mediocre shows getting churned out. Just because something is light and fluffy and fun doesn’t mean it has to be mediocre and poorly written. Shows like Hello Dolly and The Play That Goes Wrong are recent examples of shows that were pure fun, with no substance, yet still managed to be excellent.



Now, obviously we can disagree about what’s poorly done and what isn’t. You found the show enjoyable enough that the flaws didn’t matter to you, or maybe you didn’t see them as flaws, and thats great (not snark, I really mean it! I always say it’s better to like things). But the whole mentality of “you shouldn’t criticize it because it’s not supposed to be high art” is just a way of excusing lazy writers, and training audiences to lower their standards.

Jordan Catalano said: "And no, it’s not “excusing” the writers and by saying that you clearly didn’t read what I wrote. The writers wrote something FUN and silly and it doesn’t have to be high-art to be perfectly enjoyable. I’m not really sure why that’s even debatable. "



Yes, that’s what I thought you were saying, and i completely agree. You said that people are criticizing it because they can’t stand the idea of something fun that isn’t supposed to be high art. I would argue that shows like Dolly — or maybe Play That Goes Wrong is a better example — are similarly not trying to be high art. And yet many theatre “snobs” like them anyway. And because of shows like that, I disagree with your observation that people simply can’t stand things that are not high art. I believe it is more a matter of quality and personal taste. You may think this is the best version of this show it can be, but I disagree, and many others probably would too. It’s not because it’s fun and silly, it’s simply because I don’t think it is a good show.

My point about excusing the writers is that if we say “people are only criticizing this show because it’s not meant to be high art,” when in reality they are criticizing specific things about the writing and direction, it fosters a mentality of “well, it doesn’t have to be well-written, it just has to be fun” when I believe it’s possible to be both.

Defend the merits of the show all you want - I don’t want to inhibit you from doing that. I just don’t agree with your opinion that people are criticizing it simply because it isn’t “high art.”

Whizzer, I was also relatively fond of the score for THE WEDDING SINGER, and the only reason I was even remotely considering seeing this was because of my hopes that it would be somewhat similar to that show. It sounds like it's not, though, so I'll be content to pass on this one and spend my money elsewhere!

I question Jordan Catalano's reasons for defending this bad show, especially when his other recent posts are attacking PRETTY WOMAN, the other new musical about to open, one that has a very similar audience demographic to GETTIN' THE BAND BACK TOGETHER.

You have to admit the script and songs are bad, like really bad. THE WEDDING SINGER was a fun show, filled with great songs, fun choreography, and a coherent book- GETTING THE BAND BACK has none of these things. The only thing it has is a very talented cast, who deserve better material. Hey, maybe this show spoke to you, and if so, great! I am glad you found something that you enjoy. For those considering buying a ticket though, I would urge you to wait until the critics review it, then decide. At least that gives the creators time to try and fix it.

WaterPolo10036 said: "Iquestion Jordan Catalano's reasons fordefending this bad show, especially when his other recent posts are attacking PRETTY WOMAN, the other new musical about to open, one that has a very similar audience demographic to GETTIN' THE BAND BACK TOGETHER."

You don't have to agree with his opinon, but your theory as to why is WAAAY off base. Jordan will tell us what he thinks, sometimes I'll agree with him. other times, not so much.

I always think when I read these posts "to each his own". I actually thoroughly enjoyed "Summer: The Donna Summer Musical". I also saw "Mary Paige Marlowe" and didn't enjoy it so much. My favourite show ever is "Come From Away" probably because I visited Newfoundland, I was "screeched in", and just really liked the high energy those 12 actors brought to their parts. Plus, both times I saw it, I was front row centre. All those factors made it my favourite show! As long as you enjoy it, it's a worthwhile experience.

WhizzerMarvin said: "I just thought the score, book, physical production and everything else was really lousy. That’s not wanting it to be something it never intended to be. That’s just being disappointed in the show within the confines of the genre it was written."

I had a different take on why the sets looked so cheap. The tone stuck me as very influenced by 1980s Saturday morning cartoons and broad comedies from that era, like how's there's an over the top villain who's both cartoonishly evil and not particularly threatening. I thought they were deliberately going for that South Park or Family Guy aesthetic of looking like a crudely drawn cartoon.

I don't have a similar defense for the music. I think Bob's Confession was the only song I really enjoyed and even that thematically if not musically, reminded me of Scotty Doesn't Know from the movie Eurotrip.

Updated On: 7/22/18 at 09:29 PM

I was there tonight, and kind of enjoyed myself? I mean, it has flaws for days, but I was laughing and entertained. They should have hired an actual book writer. It's cool it was improvised - for whatever reason - but they should have had someone come in and actually flesh out the book a bit more. There were a lot of jokes that just didn't land, but they were funny, just not delivered properly. The two main characters are just so damn dull. The other characters are all quirky and interesting and then you have these 2 boring ass white people. Why not give them some quirk? They dated back in high school. Give me a funny song about their first awkward moments of romance or something.

The music was pretty bland. There were moments of an interesting melody, but mostly it was boring. I thought the opening "Jersey" would be this fun riff on Jersey, but instead, it was very earnest. I wanted them to poke fun at how terrible Jersey is, but it was just kind of there. And the choreography was pretty terrible. They need to up the bass. At a rock musical I want the ground to be thumping, and it all felt very thin.

To speak to sets, I think, Whizzer, you're miss remembering. The other sets were still kept within that hand-drawn look - the jail cell that flies in and the wedding are very much the cartoon look. But, I agree with you, that it didn't work. The costumes weren't over the top, and for the most part the show is pretty earnest, so the cartoon look just didn't work. It's not Hairspray.

I don't know what Ken Davenport did, but the audience was going crazies. Families were leaving smiling, people were whooing and genuinely laughing throughout.

Overall, I think it's worth a rush seat. I think the show is really funny, but for some reason the comedy just didn't quite click. I don't know if that's direction or lack of an actual book, but the pacing felt all over. I thought the show really clicked in the diner scene - I thought the diner guy's song was just brilliant and hilarious and shows what the show could be - whereas I thought the "audition" montage was just weird and could have been really hilarious, but for some reason wasn't - again, terrible choreography. I liked the bad guy a lot, but again, wanted the side-kick to be a little more of a character. Good idea, but needs some fine-tuning.

They should have snatched up that slot at Papermill when Unmasked was cancelled. I think this belongs at New World Stages, but then, who would go see it?

For anyone else who saw the show at George Street: I saw it there and was singularly unimpressed. Has it improved substantially from that production?