#51
Posted: 11/10/08 at 8:00pm
Sara, I'm pretty sure the "smile" was in character and part of the scene.
How was Tale Today? — Page 3
#52
Posted: 11/10/08 at 8:10pm
<< I think that Dollypop is convinced that Barbour shouldn't be allowed a second chance due to his rocky past.
>>
Agreed. Or.... attempting to be funny.
>>
Agreed. Or.... attempting to be funny.
#53
Posted: 11/10/08 at 8:17pm
I was there as well, for the fifth and unfortunately last time. I turned to WAT at intermission and said, "Why is this closing?!?!"
Brandi was so good in the role, truly better than I had ever seen her before. Without a Word was stunning and her scene with Aaron while he was proposing was delightful. I can't wait to see her on stage again.
James seemed to be going extra full throttle on his songs, and received an enthusiatic response from the crowd. Natalie milked Out of Sight, Out of Mind for all it was worth.
Whatever the naysayers might think about the show itself, there is little fault to find with the voices and performances. It is a shame that this new musical didn't get better marks from the critics and word of mouth couldn't keep it running. It will be missed.
Brandi was so good in the role, truly better than I had ever seen her before. Without a Word was stunning and her scene with Aaron while he was proposing was delightful. I can't wait to see her on stage again.
James seemed to be going extra full throttle on his songs, and received an enthusiatic response from the crowd. Natalie milked Out of Sight, Out of Mind for all it was worth.
Whatever the naysayers might think about the show itself, there is little fault to find with the voices and performances. It is a shame that this new musical didn't get better marks from the critics and word of mouth couldn't keep it running. It will be missed.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#54
Posted: 11/10/08 at 8:32pm
<< It is a shame that this new musical didn't get better marks from the critics and word of mouth couldn't keep it running. It will be missed. >>
Yes, it will !!! Very friendly cast as well !
Here's to STILL hoping for a recording !!!
Yes, it will !!! Very friendly cast as well !
Here's to STILL hoping for a recording !!!
#55
Posted: 11/11/08 at 9:26am
Musicman and Rentboy, I know that he always made a face after that line (saw the show many times). From where I was sitting it just looked like he made an extra silly face. I could be wrong, but that's what I got from it.
If the show tours, they have to do a recording. I mean, it's only fair.
If the show tours, they have to do a recording. I mean, it's only fair.
#56
Posted: 11/15/08 at 2:52pm
I was there and it was amazing! Everyone was so emotional, but still gave an amazing performance. I'm really glad I was able to go. I also agree about he stage door being crazy, I did stage door, but it was the worst I've ever seen at a stage door(I've never been to the stage door at Spring Awakening or Legally Blonde though). The cast was still really nice though, and seemed to want to sign autographs and take pictures with everyone even though it was mobbed and so many people were spazzing out. I got interrupted so many times by rude fans, and I'm impressed the cast members were as nice as they were with so many people being rude. I didn't even try to get near the barricade because I knew I'd only get shoved around by crazies, lol. I wish I would have gotten a chance to talk to the creative team, but I did get to meet most of the actors. Also, the audience seemed to scream and clap after every number.
I did think James made an extra funny face tonight too, I agree with Sara. I also thought that cell phone ringing at the same time as the line "your father's calling you" was hilarious too. As others have stated, Natalie Toro gave an amazing performance too. I do agree that the critics killed it, and I will also keep hoping for a cast recording.
I did think James made an extra funny face tonight too, I agree with Sara. I also thought that cell phone ringing at the same time as the line "your father's calling you" was hilarious too. As others have stated, Natalie Toro gave an amazing performance too. I do agree that the critics killed it, and I will also keep hoping for a cast recording.
#57
Posted: 11/15/08 at 2:54pm
When I saw a thread entitled, "How was Tale Today," I thought I was hallucinating. That, or time-traveling.
In my pants, she has burst like the music of angels, the light of the sun! --Marius Pantsmercy
#58
Posted: 11/15/08 at 3:00pm
<< When I saw a thread entitled, "How was Tale Today," I thought I was hallucinating. That, or time-traveling.
>>
REALLY miss this show !!!
>>
REALLY miss this show !!!
#60
Posted: 11/15/08 at 3:08pm
winston89: An important lesson learned. If I wish to sit amongst a civilized audience I will avoid last performances.
In the cast of A Tale of Two Cities, it was a choice between seeing the show or not. I'm glad I chose to see it, but wish I could have seen an earlier show. (I found out the show was closing the night before the last performance.)
Anyway... thank you.
In the cast of A Tale of Two Cities, it was a choice between seeing the show or not. I'm glad I chose to see it, but wish I could have seen an earlier show. (I found out the show was closing the night before the last performance.)
Anyway... thank you.
#61
Posted: 11/15/08 at 3:12pm
maddiem: I just reread the New York Times review and although it was rough, I agree with most of the criticism. The material was weak. The cast extraordinary.
A Tale of Two Cities ultimately was pretty mediocre.
A Tale of Two Cities ultimately was pretty mediocre.
Updated On: 11/16/08 at 03:12 PM
#62
Posted: 11/16/08 at 2:40am
Scott,
I just re-read Brantley's review again as well (yes, i'm a masochist). I'm thrilled that you found the cast extraordinary (I'm rather fond of them myself but then you are not in agreement with Ben at all. Amazingly, he called the cast "vapid" - mocking Jim and Natalie; called Brandi and Aaron "figurines" and said the cast in general lacked energy or commitment or some other nonsense. He was almost as nasty to them as he was to me (though i think he pretty much held me responsible for everything he thought was wrong with the show
Anyway, the one thing you and Ben do seem to be in agreement about is my perceived mediocrity. To raise one meek hand in my defense, I continue to be perplexed by the chorus of critical voices saying that the cast was great but the material was crap. Our cast WAS great and I was blessed to have them - but I've just never seen anyone be great in crap. Never. I honestly don't believe you've seen it either. I do hope that one day you'll have a chance to re-assess the material in another time and place and maybe you'll be a little less harsh. I am glad that (at least a week ago) you said you would remember "Tale" fondly and you were glad you had seen it. But perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to say you agree with the critics and don't think they were too harsh - since it was in large part the critics urging readers NOT to see it that kept audiences away and ultimately killed our show. I think the majority of our audiences enjoyed the show even more than you did and many of them loved it. Now many more people who would have liked to have seen it and who would have remembered it fondly will not get the chance. And, no matter what a crop of snobby critics may believe - that's kind of sad.
I just re-read Brantley's review again as well (yes, i'm a masochist). I'm thrilled that you found the cast extraordinary (I'm rather fond of them myself
but then you are not in agreement with Ben at all. Amazingly, he called the cast "vapid" - mocking Jim and Natalie; called Brandi and Aaron "figurines" and said the cast in general lacked energy or commitment or some other nonsense. He was almost as nasty to them as he was to me (though i think he pretty much held me responsible for everything he thought was wrong with the show Anyway, the one thing you and Ben do seem to be in agreement about is my perceived mediocrity. To raise one meek hand in my defense, I continue to be perplexed by the chorus of critical voices saying that the cast was great but the material was crap. Our cast WAS great and I was blessed to have them - but I've just never seen anyone be great in crap. Never. I honestly don't believe you've seen it either. I do hope that one day you'll have a chance to re-assess the material in another time and place and maybe you'll be a little less harsh. I am glad that (at least a week ago) you said you would remember "Tale" fondly and you were glad you had seen it. But perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to say you agree with the critics and don't think they were too harsh - since it was in large part the critics urging readers NOT to see it that kept audiences away and ultimately killed our show. I think the majority of our audiences enjoyed the show even more than you did and many of them loved it. Now many more people who would have liked to have seen it and who would have remembered it fondly will not get the chance. And, no matter what a crop of snobby critics may believe - that's kind of sad.
#63
Posted: 11/16/08 at 4:05am
I generally agree with Brantley's reviews, but I really cannot read his Tale of Two Cities review and assume he saw the same show and cast that I saw three times. He did not single-handedly try to sink Glory Days, and many people said it was because he didn't want to discourage the young writers of the show... but how is it different in this case? This was Jill Santoriello's first piece on Broadway wasn't it? Just because this musical was disproportionately larger than four people and some bleachers does not mean it deserves to be trashed the way it was.
I don't think Brantley took Tale seriously at all; he didn't even talk about the show for the first couple paragraphs. He basically discouraged impressionable readers from seeing the show, which is incredibly unfortunate.
And Scott, the final performance was in no way over the top in terms of audience enthusiasm (the stage door was another story). We clapped loudly and cheered, sure, but every time Elphaba is hoisted into the air, do young girls not scream? Does whatever actress is playing Elphaba not get entrance applause? So we drowned out the orchestra with applause when "Tale of Two Cities" was projected on the scrim and gave Natalie Toro and James Barbour entrance applause... the show moved along smoothly and there was very little dialogue loss under the applause.
I don't think Brantley took Tale seriously at all; he didn't even talk about the show for the first couple paragraphs. He basically discouraged impressionable readers from seeing the show, which is incredibly unfortunate.
And Scott, the final performance was in no way over the top in terms of audience enthusiasm (the stage door was another story). We clapped loudly and cheered, sure, but every time Elphaba is hoisted into the air, do young girls not scream? Does whatever actress is playing Elphaba not get entrance applause? So we drowned out the orchestra with applause when "Tale of Two Cities" was projected on the scrim and gave Natalie Toro and James Barbour entrance applause... the show moved along smoothly and there was very little dialogue loss under the applause.
#64
Posted: 11/16/08 at 5:15am
You cannot solely blame the critics. It's not like they are out on a rampage to bring down a show. They write their opinion and move on. Wicked opened to bad reviews and look at it five years later.
And yes: I've seen good, even outstanding performers in lousy shows. They are good enough that their talent shines through even though the show is less than paar. The quality of the actor cannot fix the source material.
I have not seen ATOTC so I am speaking in generalities. There will always be quality shows that don't make it and crap shows that do. The huge portion of the b'way audience is strictly tourist: and they don't necessarily know art or theatre from a hole in the wall.
And yes: I've seen good, even outstanding performers in lousy shows. They are good enough that their talent shines through even though the show is less than paar. The quality of the actor cannot fix the source material.
I have not seen ATOTC so I am speaking in generalities. There will always be quality shows that don't make it and crap shows that do. The huge portion of the b'way audience is strictly tourist: and they don't necessarily know art or theatre from a hole in the wall.
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.
#65
Posted: 11/16/08 at 5:26am
That review was meant to sabotage the show.. It was not an honest critique, it was a vicious attack with an obvious agenda.. He even went as far as slamming Charles Dickens.. I loved the show and so many people I know did too... This show did not get a fair shake and that is unfortonate.. Broadway is now deprived of a very very beautiful show that I will miss very much!
#66
Posted: 11/16/08 at 7:50am
So many people have said the cast was great in a bad show... but the Sarasota cast had many different actors playing the leads, and the concept recording before that had even fewer of the same performers. And people said that every stage along the way. Either Jill Santoriello's material has the magical ability of making actors seem very talented or the show is better than a lot of the critics say.
I've seen the actors in interviews showing so much enthusiasm for the show, both in Sarasota and Broadway, taking about how much they love the songs and the musical in general. They might be actors, but you can tell they're not acting when they say how much they love the show. They all thought they were part of a legend.
I think comparisons to Les Miserables and even Scarlet Pimpernel (both of which I love) brought the show down-- people were expecting another Les Miserables and that was not what they got. And if critics hated even Les Mis, then of course they'd hate Tale. But that doesn't mean it's not a good show.
I've seen the actors in interviews showing so much enthusiasm for the show, both in Sarasota and Broadway, taking about how much they love the songs and the musical in general. They might be actors, but you can tell they're not acting when they say how much they love the show. They all thought they were part of a legend.
I think comparisons to Les Miserables and even Scarlet Pimpernel (both of which I love) brought the show down-- people were expecting another Les Miserables and that was not what they got. And if critics hated even Les Mis, then of course they'd hate Tale. But that doesn't mean it's not a good show.
In my pants, she has burst like the music of angels, the light of the sun! --Marius Pantsmercy
#67
Posted: 11/16/08 at 9:25am
I think MOST casts are enthusiastic and believe that what they are working on has the potential to be something that might be "legendary". THAT'S the dream.
Do you think those in Passing Strange or TOS didn't feel that way? Or even of Carrie and other truly bad shows? They believe in it because that's their job.
Again...I am speaking in generalities.
Do you think those in Passing Strange or TOS didn't feel that way? Or even of Carrie and other truly bad shows? They believe in it because that's their job.
Again...I am speaking in generalities.
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.
#68
Posted: 11/16/08 at 9:55am
<< Wicked opened to bad reviews and look at it five years later.
>>
While "Wicked" opened to generally negative-poor reviews, if you re-read the NY Times review, it was not that bad.
Actually, not much was mentioned of the show. It was an absolute love letter to Chenoweth, and Menzel got good notices as well. I dont think that "Wicked" was slammed nearly as bad as "ATOTC" by the critics, and given the source material, I think "Wicked" would have been critic-proof anyway.
I usually take what the critics say with a grain of salt, but in the case of "ATOTC", I think there was an agenda. Just my .02
>>
While "Wicked" opened to generally negative-poor reviews, if you re-read the NY Times review, it was not that bad.
Actually, not much was mentioned of the show. It was an absolute love letter to Chenoweth, and Menzel got good notices as well. I dont think that "Wicked" was slammed nearly as bad as "ATOTC" by the critics, and given the source material, I think "Wicked" would have been critic-proof anyway.
I usually take what the critics say with a grain of salt, but in the case of "ATOTC", I think there was an agenda. Just my .02
#69
Posted: 11/16/08 at 11:12am
Jill,
I am honored to have the opportunity to be heard by - and to read - you, the composer of A Tale of Two Cities.
First, I want to honor your process on creating A Tale of Two Cities. Mounting a Broadway production is a daunting task. I have no doubt that your journey was a profound one and I appreciate more than my previous words how powerful and personal your experience must have been.
As for my comments - criticisms - on your work... As I sat watching A Tale of Two Cities I found myself wondering why this work - with all its majesty - wasn't quite gelling for me. I wasn't bored (the biggest sin) and I was definitely engaged and enjoying myself. I did find the performances stellar, and in part I agree with your comment that brilliant performances aren't inspired by mediocre material.
As I saw A Tale of Two Cities alone, at intermission I felt compelled to call a theater friend and give him my initial impressions. I thought by talking with my buddy, I could somehow better clarify both my fascination and disappointment with the work.
This is the gist of my conversation... I told my friend that A Tale of Two Cities was misunderstood. That although I thought the critics fair in the overall assessment, the reasons for their coldness were more complex than you'd gather from just reading the reviews. I felt that the first 2/3 of the first act didn't truly have a "song". The early songs didn't seem to be songs. (How do I explain this?) It was if the characters would begin to express themselves by moving from dialogue into song, yet they never quite got there. Something between recitative and a fully realized composition. There were melodies, but they didn't seem complete. It was like the songs were trimmed before they became songs. Something felt missing.
It was clear to me that although there were similarities between A Tale of Two Cities and Les Miserable that they were written in different forms. I appreciated this, but as A Tale of Two Cities was much closer to being a "traditional" musical, I wanted the songs to soar. Music to fall in love with. It didn't do that for me. I found myself far more captivated by the voices than the magic created when notes combine to touch our very core.
In fact, I thought the piece lost an amazing opportunity by not having a stronger opening number to set the tone of the evening to follow. Initially, everything felt sort of half baked. It was pretty, but not magnificent (hence my "mediocre" comment). At least not until towards the end of the first act. Somewhere about 2/3 - 3/4 through there seemed to be a shift. The characters were allowed to not just sing, but to communicate through the melodies you created for them. I remember thinking why didn't this happen earlier?
The second act did move me, but not enough. The themes of A Tale of Two Cities are huge and powerful and crushing. By the second act either I had become used to your style, or the music had become more cohesive. I believe a little of both. There were some lovely moments, but again I wanted more. I wanted music that would just reach into my soul and devastate me. Everything else about A Tale of Two Cities had that potential.
In the end, I walked away provoked by having seen the show. I wanted to understand better why I liked it and even more so, why I didn't love it. Since that performance I have thought a lot about your show. It has stayed with me and I too am looking forward to some distance and revisiting the material. Please do release a recording as I for one want it in my collection.
I write the above with the utmost respect for you and your talent. Please understand that I truly do honor you, your work and your process. AND, I look forward to your future work.
Best regards,
Scott
I am honored to have the opportunity to be heard by - and to read - you, the composer of A Tale of Two Cities.
First, I want to honor your process on creating A Tale of Two Cities. Mounting a Broadway production is a daunting task. I have no doubt that your journey was a profound one and I appreciate more than my previous words how powerful and personal your experience must have been.
As for my comments - criticisms - on your work... As I sat watching A Tale of Two Cities I found myself wondering why this work - with all its majesty - wasn't quite gelling for me. I wasn't bored (the biggest sin) and I was definitely engaged and enjoying myself. I did find the performances stellar, and in part I agree with your comment that brilliant performances aren't inspired by mediocre material.
As I saw A Tale of Two Cities alone, at intermission I felt compelled to call a theater friend and give him my initial impressions. I thought by talking with my buddy, I could somehow better clarify both my fascination and disappointment with the work.
This is the gist of my conversation... I told my friend that A Tale of Two Cities was misunderstood. That although I thought the critics fair in the overall assessment, the reasons for their coldness were more complex than you'd gather from just reading the reviews. I felt that the first 2/3 of the first act didn't truly have a "song". The early songs didn't seem to be songs. (How do I explain this?) It was if the characters would begin to express themselves by moving from dialogue into song, yet they never quite got there. Something between recitative and a fully realized composition. There were melodies, but they didn't seem complete. It was like the songs were trimmed before they became songs. Something felt missing.
It was clear to me that although there were similarities between A Tale of Two Cities and Les Miserable that they were written in different forms. I appreciated this, but as A Tale of Two Cities was much closer to being a "traditional" musical, I wanted the songs to soar. Music to fall in love with. It didn't do that for me. I found myself far more captivated by the voices than the magic created when notes combine to touch our very core.
In fact, I thought the piece lost an amazing opportunity by not having a stronger opening number to set the tone of the evening to follow. Initially, everything felt sort of half baked. It was pretty, but not magnificent (hence my "mediocre" comment). At least not until towards the end of the first act. Somewhere about 2/3 - 3/4 through there seemed to be a shift. The characters were allowed to not just sing, but to communicate through the melodies you created for them. I remember thinking why didn't this happen earlier?
The second act did move me, but not enough. The themes of A Tale of Two Cities are huge and powerful and crushing. By the second act either I had become used to your style, or the music had become more cohesive. I believe a little of both. There were some lovely moments, but again I wanted more. I wanted music that would just reach into my soul and devastate me. Everything else about A Tale of Two Cities had that potential.
In the end, I walked away provoked by having seen the show. I wanted to understand better why I liked it and even more so, why I didn't love it. Since that performance I have thought a lot about your show. It has stayed with me and I too am looking forward to some distance and revisiting the material. Please do release a recording as I for one want it in my collection.
I write the above with the utmost respect for you and your talent. Please understand that I truly do honor you, your work and your process. AND, I look forward to your future work.
Best regards,
Scott
Updated On: 11/16/08 at 11:12 AM
#70
Posted: 11/16/08 at 11:23am
The major difference between TALE OF TWO CITIES and GLORY DAYS was the fact that the latter was a teeny tiny show that had no place being anywhere except New World Stages.
TALE would have been welcomed...if it weren't a retread of LES MISERABLES.
TALE would have been welcomed...if it weren't a retread of LES MISERABLES.
#71
Posted: 11/16/08 at 11:41am
While I loved the show in its entirety and was going weekly while it was open, I must make note to Jill (and how lucky we are to have her on the boards posting about her show!) that the reason I kept coming back to the show was the score. I thought it was haunting and special. While some may disagree, and that is your own right, I have to say that I still crave to hear such songs as "Little One" and "I Can't Recall." The voices, the material given, it all meshed together so well. I could have sat through the show without the story and just listened the performers sing the score. The musicality in the score, with every crescendo and decrescendo, in my eyes, that's what Broadway is truly about. I was such a fan of the show and still sad that it's gone, but I do feel it needs to be said that what Jill gave us was really something special. And is incredibly missed.
#72
Posted: 11/16/08 at 12:16pm
SillySara,
I'm really pleased that you posted your message. It speaks to personal taste and how each of us have our own opinions. I respect yours.
It also makes me want to revisit the score and perhaps find "the magic" I found missing from my first listening.
Lets hope that they are able to release an original cast recording of A Tale of Two Cities.
I'm really pleased that you posted your message. It speaks to personal taste and how each of us have our own opinions. I respect yours.
It also makes me want to revisit the score and perhaps find "the magic" I found missing from my first listening.
Lets hope that they are able to release an original cast recording of A Tale of Two Cities.
#73
Posted: 11/16/08 at 12:28pm
Hey Scott,
I don't disagree with you about some of the things you said - the opening has always been and continues to be the most difficult part of the show. How to condense the opening of Dickens' book (he has at least 3 opening chapters! and doesn't introduce the arguably most important character until a quarter of the way into the story!) and turn it into a traditional musical theater opening number? Yikes. I have had more opening ideas than you would ever believe. I'm already thinking about what approach to use next because I'm not satisfied either.
However, I would strongly disagree that all of the early musical moments are fuzzy or unformed. I'd ask you to listen to "You'll Never Be Alone" again (the song Lucie sings to her father in the garret) It could not be more traditional AABA form and both the melodic and lyrical hooks are pretty strong. We get to that song around 6 or 7 minutes into the show. Anyway, I would maintain that because the music is not composed in a repetitive, hooky pop vein, that people might need repeated listenings to appreciate the much maligned "memorability" factor. So many of the reviewers complained that they didn't leave the theater humming anything. I would have loved to challenge them to name any new show they went into where they were not familiar with the score already and left humming anything! If they could name one I would offer that it must have been something very short, "hooky" in pop vein and repetitive. That is the surest way to make a theme memorable. (I went to see the movie "Changeling" last night and the very simple, short theme was the only music in the film and must have been repeated (i kid you not) 100 times. Sure enough several people (including me) were humming it outside the theater moments after!
It was never my intention to compose an instant recall score - I was trying to be true to the story and never once thought "commercially" while I was writing it. (despite the various attacks on me for trying to blatantly clone or rip off "Les Miz") I believe the concept of instantly hummable musical theater music is a fallacy - or at least not an indicator of whether something is good or not. Can any of us hum Sondheim after the first time they hear him? Now you know I'm not comparing myself to Sondheim here AT ALL but I am comparing early criticisms of Sondheim i.e. that he didn't write anything hummable or memorable. And even his later work like "Passion" where people complained he wrote only snippets, themes that never developed and never soared. Likewise, a lot of people who have heard the music to "Tale" more than a couple of times or have the concept cd (like Silly Sara have a much higher opinion of the music and the songs than people who hear it only once. I'd like to hope that with a recording (which I do believe will happen eventually) more people will be able to re-evaluate and maybe change their opinions a bit.
I don't disagree with you about some of the things you said - the opening has always been and continues to be the most difficult part of the show. How to condense the opening of Dickens' book (he has at least 3 opening chapters! and doesn't introduce the arguably most important character until a quarter of the way into the story!) and turn it into a traditional musical theater opening number? Yikes. I have had more opening ideas than you would ever believe. I'm already thinking about what approach to use next because I'm not satisfied either.
However, I would strongly disagree that all of the early musical moments are fuzzy or unformed. I'd ask you to listen to "You'll Never Be Alone" again (the song Lucie sings to her father in the garret) It could not be more traditional AABA form and both the melodic and lyrical hooks are pretty strong. We get to that song around 6 or 7 minutes into the show. Anyway, I would maintain that because the music is not composed in a repetitive, hooky pop vein, that people might need repeated listenings to appreciate the much maligned "memorability" factor. So many of the reviewers complained that they didn't leave the theater humming anything. I would have loved to challenge them to name any new show they went into where they were not familiar with the score already and left humming anything! If they could name one I would offer that it must have been something very short, "hooky" in pop vein and repetitive. That is the surest way to make a theme memorable. (I went to see the movie "Changeling" last night and the very simple, short theme was the only music in the film and must have been repeated (i kid you not) 100 times. Sure enough several people (including me) were humming it outside the theater moments after!
It was never my intention to compose an instant recall score - I was trying to be true to the story and never once thought "commercially" while I was writing it. (despite the various attacks on me for trying to blatantly clone or rip off "Les Miz") I believe the concept of instantly hummable musical theater music is a fallacy - or at least not an indicator of whether something is good or not. Can any of us hum Sondheim after the first time they hear him? Now you know I'm not comparing myself to Sondheim here AT ALL
but I am comparing early criticisms of Sondheim i.e. that he didn't write anything hummable or memorable. And even his later work like "Passion" where people complained he wrote only snippets, themes that never developed and never soared. Likewise, a lot of people who have heard the music to "Tale" more than a couple of times or have the concept cd (like Silly Sara have a much higher opinion of the music and the songs than people who hear it only once. I'd like to hope that with a recording (which I do believe will happen eventually) more people will be able to re-evaluate and maybe change their opinions a bit.
#74
Posted: 11/16/08 at 12:42pm
CyCoSpAz2,
I disagree with what is and isn't appropriate behavior during a Broadway performance... Please understand that I am not signaling out the fans of A Tale of Two Cities as a particularly rude audience. My three visits to Wicked didn't strike me as inappropriate because it's not the enthusiasm, but the form of expression of that enthusiasm. Loud whistling is just wrong. Broadway is not a ballpark, or hailing a taxi.
The gentleman sitting in the side mezzanine who insisted on loud whistling was disruptive to my appreciation of the performance. At intermission I asked the woman to my right and she too found his whistles obnoxious. This inspired other audience members around me to offer their opinions. All agreed: inappropriate.
In the world of A Tale of Two Cities there'd be a beautiful, quiet moment only to be interrupted by an audience member intent on communicating louder than necessary their disappointment that the show was closing. This only served to jolt us out of the reality created by the artisans and remind us that there are jerks in the world.
I have been to many performances where the show has been "stopped" by an audience's appreciation. This is fine. Often exciting. When the show opened and the audience went wild, I was excited. It was appropriate (except the whistling). I am not against an enthusiastic audience. Quite the contrary. Just explain to me how every song - every moment - in A Tale of Two Cities - any show - is equal and worthy of the same over-the-top appreciation. It isn't, and so the audience's enthusiasm wasn't about the performance, but their own personal agenda(s).
Or, perhaps it's just whistling at a Broadway performance. It's just plain wrong.
I disagree with what is and isn't appropriate behavior during a Broadway performance... Please understand that I am not signaling out the fans of A Tale of Two Cities as a particularly rude audience. My three visits to Wicked didn't strike me as inappropriate because it's not the enthusiasm, but the form of expression of that enthusiasm. Loud whistling is just wrong. Broadway is not a ballpark, or hailing a taxi.
The gentleman sitting in the side mezzanine who insisted on loud whistling was disruptive to my appreciation of the performance. At intermission I asked the woman to my right and she too found his whistles obnoxious. This inspired other audience members around me to offer their opinions. All agreed: inappropriate.
In the world of A Tale of Two Cities there'd be a beautiful, quiet moment only to be interrupted by an audience member intent on communicating louder than necessary their disappointment that the show was closing. This only served to jolt us out of the reality created by the artisans and remind us that there are jerks in the world.
I have been to many performances where the show has been "stopped" by an audience's appreciation. This is fine. Often exciting. When the show opened and the audience went wild, I was excited. It was appropriate (except the whistling). I am not against an enthusiastic audience. Quite the contrary. Just explain to me how every song - every moment - in A Tale of Two Cities - any show - is equal and worthy of the same over-the-top appreciation. It isn't, and so the audience's enthusiasm wasn't about the performance, but their own personal agenda(s).
Or, perhaps it's just whistling at a Broadway performance. It's just plain wrong.
#75
Posted: 11/16/08 at 1:01pm
I often find myself at work humming snippets from the show - "Until Tomorrow", "I Can't Recall", "Little One", etc. I don't think I did that after my first viewing last year. I may have even commented that I didn't come out humming the songs. I don't recall.
I love this show and wish it could have stayed open on Broadway longer so that I could have shared it with others (I had intended on getting my mother tickets as a Christmas gift). Jill, I want to thank you again for sharing your talent with us all and letting me (and others) be part of the magic.
I love this show and wish it could have stayed open on Broadway longer so that I could have shared it with others (I had intended on getting my mother tickets as a Christmas gift). Jill, I want to thank you again for sharing your talent with us all and letting me (and others) be part of the magic.
"All our dreams can come true -- if we have the courage to pursue them." -- Walt Disney
We must have different Gods. My God said "do to others what you would have them do to you". Your God seems to have said "My Way or the Highway".
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95