Lippa's Wild Party...

[Rob]

Posted: 3/21/04 at 10:56am

...review now up by Pati B. @
https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=738

[MusicMan]

Posted: 3/21/04 at 7:16pm

Though some of the songs land (just barely), the show simply does not work.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 3/21/04 at 7:25pm

I liked the Broadway one better. Not, that it was any good, except for the song "People Like Us", but I thought it was better than Lippa's. Updated On: 3/21/04 at 07:25 PM

[NYCbabe3789]

Posted: 3/21/04 at 7:32pm

I never saw the show, but I really like the music. It took a long time though for me to like it. Some of the tunes are very bland.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 12:50am

Both Wild Partys were wildly misconceived for different reasons. And LaChiusa is bankrupt as a composer while Lippa is simply second-rate.

[bestofbroadway]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 3:43pm

LaChuisa's Wild Party is FAR SUPERIOR to Lippa's Off-Broadway Production which was simply awkward and undefined. LaChuisa's is haunting and it's vaudeville style is so very fitting. Lippa's has some great songs when taken out of context but otherwise can't compare in it's dramatic structure to LaChuisa's Wild Party.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 4:04pm

MusicMan - please explain how LaChiusa is "bankrupt as a composer". What do you mean? And how were both shows misconceived and in what way? You state opinions as absolutes with nothing to back it up.

Updated On: 3/22/04 at 04:04 PM

[MusicMan]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 4:05pm

And they're still both duds.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 4:19pm

MusicMan - Still a negligible statement. Too bad. I was curious to see if you had any intellectual insight into the composers or productions, but I guess you're just another generic flamer.

Updated On: 3/22/04 at 04:19 PM

[himself]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 4:36pm

I loved "em both! The poem is so haunting and evocative in it's own right and both shows captured a taste of that. I'm not a big LaChuisa fan but I think the whole concept of his show was inherently more theatrical whereas Lippa's was far the more passionate. This is what art theatre is all about, folks! There should be two versions of every show!

[jakebloke]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 6:29pm

I liked both shows, though I do prefer Lippas. I like the music better basically. They both had amazing casts. Julia Murney.....what a voice!! Toni Collette.....can do no wrong in my book. I did prefer Bryan D'arcy James to Mandy Patinkin...both were great actors....but BDJ...again...what a voice!!! I think Lippa's was also a little lighter, less complex and that made it more appealing to me. I feel fortuate to have been able to see both since niether played for long.

[Menken Fan]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 6:37pm

I truly can't believe that any musical theatre fan who saw the Broadway production could walk away not liking it. It blew me away and stands as one of my favorite Broadway experiences of the past 17 years.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 7:51pm

Sorry, MisterMatt, but I'm not writing a dissertation here, merely stating my opinion like everyone else. When I have the time and the spirit moves me, I am delighted to riff at length on any given subject (you're welcome to check out any of the numerous posts where I do so, which, by the way, offer several "intellectual insights," for what they're worth). But, for me, neither Lippa nor LaChiusa's WILD PARTY is worth the time it would take to critique them. That said, however, I will give you two definitions of " bankrupt:"
1) depleted of valuable qualities or characteristics
2) totally depleted; destitute

Apt descriptions of LaChiusa's composing abilities, to my mind. Updated On: 3/22/04 at 07:51 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 8:26pm

I see. So you're not into complex musical compositions.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 3/22/04 at 11:04pm

Well, not exactly. As a classically-trained musician, I was raised on 20th-century composers, including Britten, Copland, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok, Poulenc, Walton, Ravel, Weill, et al, not to mention the Broadway contingent like Bernstein and Sondheim. Complexity doesn't put me off a bit. But complexity is not an automatic guarantee of quality or an ability to communicate or of anything else, for that matter. As great as they were, both Stravinsky and Britten were capable of writing a great deal of complicated, arid music, devoid of emotion or interest. And Stravinsky himself stated, "I am sorry but I claim that in...(Verdi's) aria 'La donna e mobile', for instance, there is more substance and more true invention than in the rhetoric verbosity of... (Wagner's ) tetralogy..."
In short, complexity without substance is very much like a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Updated On: 3/23/04 at 11:04 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 8:12am

As another classically trained musician also raised in 20th century composers such as Grainger, Mahler, Shostakovich and Sibelius, I completely disagree. I'm not a big fan of Britten or Bartok. LaChiusa has enormous substance in his work, but it's not glaringly obvious. His use of themes in Hello Again was brilliant. His harmonic textures of Marie Christine are some of the best Broadway has ever heard. And his use of period style layered with classical composition in Wild Party was brilliant. The opening chords alone set the tone of the show. The music tells the story and defines the characters as much as the text. LaChiusa has a gift for creating the mood solely with music. No special lighting or sets are needed. He could easily compose a ballet with no need for lyrics. But his are brilliant as well. There's a reason Audra McDonald records his music. He is a truly gifted composer.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 10:54am

And that's what makes horse races.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 12:17pm

I do agree with you about complexity not being a guarantee for quality. It is exactly how I feel about Penderecki and Pärt.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 3:44pm

Except Arvo could use some complexity. Endless drones on an open fifth aren't exactly profound.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 4:02pm

What about the cacophonous noise at the beginning of his "cello concerto"? My friends and I used to get a hug laugh out of that. It sounds like someone dropped a grand piano down a flight of steps.

[Luvinbroadway]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:07pm

In terms of sheer entertainment....Lippa's rules in my opinion...fun...provacative...and a great score.

[actorgaedu]

Posted: 3/24/04 at 2:03pm

Lippa's gets produced more too. I have never seen an ad anywhere for the broadway version being produced regionally, but I have seen a ton of ads for the Lippa version both regional and college theater companies. Lippa's just has a far superior style for Broadway than LaChiusa's. His work is hard to get into. I saw Marie Christine and although Audra sounded great it was dull for a good while and then you kind of warm up to it. Not a big LaChiusa fan here.

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

Posted: 3/24/04 at 2:31pm

I like Lippa's better if only for "The Juggernaut". Sometimes it's the little things, and I love that song. Good stuff.

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 1:16am

I love Lachiusa's WP for many of the reasons stated above. sheer brilliance and lovely as an analytical piece of theatre, much like most of Lachiusa's work. i don't like him NEAR as much as Guettel, but he is not bereft of any musical abilities.

lippa makes some interesting choices. he writes great audition songs, i will say that! Lippa version is currently up at the Media Theatre in PA. One of my best friends is the resident choreographer there. It closes this weekend...for those who wish to see it.