In defense of Harvey...- Page 2
In defense of Harvey...
Broadway Star Joined: 10/21/04
re: In defense of Harvey...#25
Posted: 7/8/05 at 5:44pm
I stand by my original comment, and its purpose was to highlight just how strongly I felt about what I was saying. It's not meant to offend or attack anyone as a whole.
And as for immature name-calling, where am I guilty of that? Don't be so quick to assume the worst, Margo. The, "The schoolmistress has cracked her whip and spoken. I do delight in your sour and cool demeanour, Margo. You strike me as a contender for the 'Miss Havisham Incarnate' award" comments were meant in jest, and, as such, do not 'thus render my opinions suspect'. I thought it was rather witty and jaunty, and it was certainly not intended to cause offence.
re: In defense of Harvey...#26
Posted: 7/8/05 at 5:49pm
Margo -- I certainly would never deny anyone the right to their opinion. HOWEVER, I DO think that deciding whether or not someone is a good singer or not is DEFINITELY not subjective by person. We have, as a society, especially as a BROADWAY society, set up a specific set of what we consider to be good singing. Harvey does not fall into that category. He doesn't have the range to be a good singer, plain and simple. Nothing subjective in that.
Now, it's entirely possible for people to LIKE someone who isn't necessarily considered a "good" singer by our normal standards. Heck, William Hung sold tons of records, and no one considers him a good singer! Randy Newman has sung tons of records. Not a good singer. Bob Dylan. Enough said.
Like I said in a previous post, I honestly cannot comment on Fiddler as I haven't seen it with him in it. I have never seen him live - just heard him on recordings and TV. While some make like him, listening to Hairspray is like chunks of gravel being churned in a cement mixer to me. I love Fiddler on the Roof, and while others who've played Tevye might not be singers like Brian Stokes Mitchell or James Barbour (to name a couple I would consider to be great Broadway singers), everyone I've seen at least has had a voice that didn't detract from the performance. I have refused to go to Fiddler for that very reason -- I can't imagine sitting there and NOT being completely distracted by that voice.
Then again, apparently you like Carol Channing, Margo, and I would say the exact same thing of her...part of the reason I've never liked Hello Dolly.
re: In defense of Harvey...#27
Posted: 7/8/05 at 5:50pm
I was referring to your calling people deluded for liking Fierstein's performance, vocally or otherwise. That's basically saying "If you don't agree with me you must be crazy."
That's not an insult? That's mature? Again you are free to have your opinion, but calling people "deluded" who don't agree with you is not a healthy way to have an intelligent discussion.
Broadway Star Joined: 10/21/04
re: In defense of Harvey...#28
Posted: 7/8/05 at 5:58pm
Well, as i mentioned, I'm not one to make severely objective comments like that very often, but this time, I held that opinion so strongly that I felt it necessary to say that. That doesn't really make me immature, and, as a one-off, is hardly indicative of poor discussion skills.
Anyway, let's let it drop now.
re: In defense of Harvey...#29
Posted: 7/8/05 at 6:04pm
Jasonf--
Thinking whether someone can sing or not is ENTIRELY subjective. You mentioned Dylan. To me he sounds like a cat being strangled with marbles in its mouth, but I have rock musician friends who absolutely think he's one of the two or three greatest singers in history and have modeled their own singing after his (they like his simple authenticity). Tom Waits is another example -- his voice grates on me (like Fierstein apparently grates on others) but my musician friends swear by him. They are even hailed by rock critics as two of the most inflential vocalists in rock history. But, perhaps to your more Broadway attuned sensibilities they can't sing at all. That's your own subjective opinion that many in rock circles would fervently disagree with.
I personally think Madonna sounds like a chipmunk, but obviously millions disagree. I've had arguments with people who say Jennifer Holliday can't sing at all and she just screams - I disagree. I have friends who are opera snobs and wil literally turn off the radio if anyone without a legitmately trained voice comes on (they HATE every rock and r&b singer and will tell you straight out that "those people can't sing"). I've heard MANY people say Billie Holiday isn't much of a singer because she sounds so scratchy and had so little range -- to me Holiday did more with one octave than nearly anyone else has ever done with three or four.
And let's not get started on all the detractors of Ethel Merman, Maria Callas, Carol Channing, Elaine Stritch (all of whom I adore).
I'm sorry there simply is NO ONE OBJECTIVE standard for what is or is not good singing.
re: In defense of Harvey...#30
Posted: 7/8/05 at 6:28pm
"But, by insulting those who disagree with your opinion, you have crossed a line into immature name-calling, thus rendering whatever other opinions you may have suspect. Mature adults have the ability disagree without feeling the need to resort to personal attack. Apparently you are incapable of that."
This from the poster who called me "ignorant and illiterate" when I disagreed with him on another thread....
Don't worry about it jczelyph, most of us have been whipped by Margo for disagreeing with his opinions before.
Broadway Star Joined: 10/21/04
re: In defense of Harvey...#31
Posted: 7/8/05 at 6:33pm
A sad fact, but entirely apparent too. Obviously an encyclopedic knowledge of musical theatre is licence to mete out your disparaging comments on the board in general.
It is water off a duck's back, justme2, but thanks for your solidarity.
re: In defense of Harvey...#32
Posted: 7/8/05 at 6:37pm
Justme--
That wasn't the result of some differing opinions. I called you that after you lied about what I had said in an earlier post and you attempted to put words in my mouth that were completely inaccurate and total fabrications. Rather than simply apologize, which would have been the honorable thing to do, you simply backed away from the statements and tried to pretend it didn't happen (which was idiotic considering the lie was still there in black and white earlier in the thread).
It was loathesome and despicable behavior on your part and I stand by my earlier characterization of you.
re: In defense of Harvey...#33
Posted: 7/8/05 at 6:39pmPart of the problem here seems to stem from a peculiarly American belief that all opinions are valid, that they all matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. Opinions only matter when arrived at through critical thinking and logic, both of which require knowledge and analytical ability. Margo argues and provides evidence; she does not merely express an opinion--she reasons her way to that opinion. What so many refer to as "opinion" is merely taste--vanilla is better than chocolate, eg. Take another thread--who was better, Channing or Streisand? How can anyone respond unless he/she actually SAW the performances???
re: In defense of Harvey...#34
Posted: 7/8/05 at 6:50pm
hence why I did not post in that thread. Sadly, I only saw Channing in Hello Dolly in 1994. 
re: In defense of Harvey...#35
Posted: 7/8/05 at 6:56pm
hmmmm..you mean refusing to bow down to your OPINION that Bobbie's shows had no artistic merit? I already realize what the term financial flop is. No need to agree with you on that. I simply did not AGREE that his other shows did not show any artistic and critical merit. Which, of course, is an OPINION.
So sorry I refused to do obey and agree with you on that one.
However.....I don't beleive that's what we are talking about here in this thread...I believe I am referring to your statement:
"But, by insulting those who disagree with your opinion, you have crossed a line into immature name-calling, thus rendering whatever other opinions you may have suspect. Mature adults have the ability disagree without feeling the need to resort to personal attack. Apparently you are incapable of that"
yes..that's right, I am referring to your name calling of other posters (i.e, ME) during an argument.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/12/03
re: It's no sin to be just OK#36
Posted: 7/8/05 at 9:28pm
It's the same situation as Bernadette in GYPSY.
When Bernadette was announced for GYPSY, there was some speculation (if not anticipation) that Bernadette would fall flat on her face in a stinkeroo of monumental porportions. Reidel was practically SALIVATING at the thought. By this act alone, Bernadette (one of the most well-liked Broadway stars) aquired a claque that decreed that she would be fabulous. Bernadette opened, and to Reidel's annoyance, she didn't bomb - she's Bernadette Peters, so you know she was gonna give it her all and do something interesting - the critics were pretty kind to her (she's Bernadette...a legend...so you're nice to her) but at the end of the day, she didn't quite triumph, either. She was pretty okay.
Same with Harvey. When he was announced for FIDDLER, many people thought this was the worst example of stunt casting, but Harvey's considerable fan base was going to convince themselves that this he was going to be a smash no matter what. And like Bernadette, he opened and didn't bomb - even Reidel, who hated Molina and the production - got in his digs precisely by praising Harvey. He's Harvey..a legend...so lets be nice to him. But like Bernadette, Harvey is ultimately only okay. He doesn't disgrace himself. Though he is excellent in the acting, his singing isn't even character talk-sing - it still sounds like a goose being slowly stranged with a red-hot poker. It's painful but wierdly fascinating.
re: It's no sin to be just OK#37
Posted: 7/8/05 at 9:51pm
"hmmmm..you mean refusing to bow down to your OPINION that Bobbie's shows had no artistic merit?"
More lies from justme2 -- typical and predictable.
Again I ask -- WHERE DID I SAY THAT?:
Margo:
"In the parlance of the theatre business, a "hit" is a show that turns a profit in the commercial arena. "Chicago" is a "hit" by any definition. Nothing else Bobbie has directed has qualified as a "hit," no matter what reviews it has received. Thus, he is still waiting for his second "hit." There's no sin or shame in that, but that's the fact.
Sondheim has only had four hit shows in his career -- Forum, Company, Night Music, and Into the Woods. Does that mean he is not to be revered or isn't worthy of respect? Of course not. The fact that he's had more flops than hits doesn't make him one iota less of a genius. Most of our greatest geniuses have several flops on their resumes.
Same with Bobbie. You obviously love his work. Fine. No one's telling you not to. But the fact is, everything he's directed in the commercial realm other than Chicago has flopped. That doesn't necessarily make him a bad director or an untalented one -- just an unsuccessful one financially. He's had one hit show -- and a megahit at that. Few directors even get one hit like that in a career. So it's no sin pointing out the rest of his efforts have been unsuccessful and there's no reason for you to work yourself into a tizzy about it"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justme2:
"If it's worth it for some poster to point out that his work is "financially unsuccessful"...then it's worth it that other posters like me can come to the board and post in his defense, isn't it? It's cetainly not right to assume someone is related to him because they enjoyed his work. If that were the case, I'd have to assume you and others had had bad relationships with the man.
Good Lord, if we are judging people's merits strictly by how much money they can make, then I guess everyone in the business falls into Bobbie's "category", then, don't they? Which would mean he isn't that bad.
Honestly, I don't look to the money numbers to tell me if a show is worth seeing. I look to the subject matter and the cast. And he has pleased me (and many others, as my research attests) ALMOST every time. ALMOST...I'll let you guess which ones I didn't like!
------------------------------------------------------------
Midtowngym:
"OY. You're missing the point. You can be as pleased as punch. He's still only had one hit in his career. And...you seem undermedicated to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justme2:
"Midtowngym, I am ALWAYS undermedicated.
There is no point being missed here. Can't we have a discussion about anything without there having to be a "winner"?
We disagree. So what? I do not qualify a person as "not good" because he has not had a mega musical hit every time he opens another show. Margo does. What is it with you guys? Can't we all just agree to disagree and get along??"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margo:
" "I do not qualify a person as "not good" because he has not had a mega musical hit every time he opens another show. Margo does."
Now you're pissing me off. How dare you make up such utter nonsense. WHERE did I say such a thing? I'm going to end this here because I refuse to engage in a discussion with the ignorant, illiterate, and those who lie for their own purposes.
Try and see if you can understand this.
A "hit" is a show that turns a profit in a commerical setting.
A "flop" is a show that fails to turn a profit in a commercial setting.
Calling a show a "hit" or a "flop" is not in any way as assessment of its artistic quality -- merely a dollars and cents accounting of its viability and success at the box office. Lots of brilliant shows were flops and lots of mediocre ones were hits.
Walter Bobbie has directed exactly ONE hit in his career -- meaning ONE show has turned a profit.
Every other commercial venture he has helmed has flopped.
That's a FACT.
Look it up.
I made no statement as to whether or not he was a "good" director or not and in fact made a point of stating that he's had so many flops "doesn't necessarily make him a bad director or an untalented one -- just an unsuccessful one financially." That's also a FACT.
I also made a statement that Sondheim has had many more flops than hits. That's a FACT. But, financial success or lack thereof doesn't diminish his genius in any way shape of form. I also said that before, but apparently your reading comprehension is rather limited.
Please read what I have written above carefully and try and educate yourself about the terms of art within the theatre business. And please refrain from EVER again putting words in my mouth and attributing untruths to me. If you want to continue on with your ill-informed idiotic rant about Bobbie or whatever other nonsense you have rolling around in your brain, feel free, just leave me the hell out of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Later from MisterMatt:
"justme2 -
"Good Lord, if we are judging people's merits strictly by how much money they can make, then I guess everyone in the business falls into Bobbie's "category", then, don't they?"
Margo didn't do that.
"If you are qualifying atristically successful theater as having to have years long runs on the stage, you must consider something like Mamma Mia an example of yours."
Margo didn't do that either.
"I don't see anyone downgrading Sondheim for not having had a "hit" in years."
Nobody said that either.
"I do not qualify a person as "not good" because he has not had a mega musical hit every time he opens another show. Margo does."
She did? Where? At what point did Margo say Walter Bobbie was "not good"?
This is not a disagreement, this is just plain refusal to face facts. Margo is absolutely correct about what constitutes a "hit" and a "flop". Those terms refer to the financial status of a show, not artistic merit.
Example:
Passion is a brilliant Sondheim musical that won multiple awards and FLOPPED on Broadway.
Mamma Mia is a HIT both on Broadway and internationally despite it's lack of original score and critical acclaim.
If justme2 wants to change the definition of those words to fit his/her own purpose, then he/she needs to clarify that before putting words in other people's mouths and twisting what they say. There was no disagreement at all. There was simply delusion. "
re: It's no sin to be just OK#38
Posted: 7/8/05 at 10:28pm
justme2, a piece of advice - don't screw with Margo. You will lose.
Secondly, I am a classically trained singer, and I don't like Madonna's voice either. The difference is Madonna is a recording artist - singing is supposed to be her strongest suit. Fierstein is a musical theater actor - and to me, the acting has always been more important than the singing in musical theater. If both are superior, that is a gift and nothing makes me happier than to see someone with that kind of talent.
However, even with my background, there is no question for me that I would ALWAYS rather see a mediocre singer who can act the hell out of a role than a beautiful singer who can't act.
re: It's no sin to be just OK#39
Posted: 7/8/05 at 10:32pmI would say that Madonna is an entertainer--not a "singer" per se. She is a "personality" not an artist.
re: It's no sin to be just OK#40
Posted: 7/8/05 at 10:34pm
She's a singer. She makes her money off of recordings and concerts that are meant to sell those recordings.
And I forgot to say, I saw Harvey as Tevye and loved him.
re: It's no sin to be just OK#41
Posted: 7/8/05 at 10:56pmwell--as Margo says "singer" is subjectiveshe made as much on her tours and shows, where her "singing" was secondary,
re: It's no sin to be just OK#42
Posted: 7/9/05 at 1:02amI would just like to thank Margo once again for being the voice of reason. Margo's the only one I've seen on this entire board with the ability to respect others' opinions (in most cases, I would say... we're all human) and give a valid response. I agree that harvey was an excellent Tevye, and I also agree that what qualifies someone as a "good singer" is totally subjective. Jasonf, you said that we have standards as to what makes a good singer in the broadway community? I disagree full-heartedly. I know a lot of people who love shoshana bean's voice, I personally am not the hugest fan. The concept has two sides. Rather than discuss the people with unusual voices like Harvey (Who's voice I personally love for it's uniqeness), let's look at someone like Shoshana Bean. She has a perfectly lovely voice, I will admit. But it's not thrilling in my opinion, others think it is. There is no critique sheet for a voice for someone to pass or fail, it's simply what the audience gets out of it.
Understudy Joined: 4/23/05
re: It's no sin to be just OK#43
Posted: 7/9/05 at 1:06amHe's a milkman in Russia with very expressive hands.
re: It's no sin to be just OK#44
Posted: 7/9/05 at 2:19am
You know, I didn't bring the unfortunate "bobbie" thread back to life for a reason. It makes a LOT of us look bad, not just me for refusing to bow to Margo's "greatness".
...and I thought Margo must have been "researching" and utilizing the "copy/paste" function again and that's why he disappeared fo so long.
To those of you who are so "Margo is a voice of reason"...please scroll back to the beginning of this thread...or maybe page two...to where I merely pointed out to Margo that telling others that they shouldn't name call was rather hypocritical coming from him, as he utilized the same technique when arguing with me months back.
Nothing else was mentioned until MArgo attempted to "justify" his name calling while still telling others that this technique made them look bad. Wait, that might not be the exact words used....never mind...scroll back and LOOK FOR YOURSELVES.
Does this thread have anything to do with the unfortunate "Bobbie" thread? NO. And yest he feels the need to not only out HIS responses but many others as well, instead of dealing with being caught being hypocritical.
Please, before you continue to call this poster the "voice of reason", please ask yourself why he feels the need to post an ENTIRE thread in a response to a simple question as to why MARGO is allowed to personally attack and namecall in an argument, but others shouldn't. Instead of admitting he may be a bit hypocritical in telling others how to behave on a thread.
And thanks Raithnait, I do unfortunately realize the dire punishment for daring to cross the great Margo...and after his treatment of me in the Bobbie thread, I really no longer care... :)
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/10/04
re: It's no sin to be just OK#45
Posted: 7/10/05 at 3:18pm
Jasnof,
Let's shake hands. I love Brian Stokes Mitchell and James Barbour as well.
I have never seen Havey in other roles. Bet must be great. But Tevye is not a role for him. His voice cannot meet the song. It is a pain to listen to his "Rich man"
Broadway Star Joined: 4/24/05
re: It's no sin to be just OK#46
Posted: 7/10/05 at 8:21pm
It seems the majority opinion is that good singing is "entirely subjective". Yet everyone insists it's important to be a "good" actor.
Whether or not someone can act is entirely subjective.
Videos
