MATILDA performance on The View- Page 3

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 2:02pm

These lyrics are't too sophisticated, they're unintelligible.

Big difference there. This is sloppy writing.

EDIT: Or should I say, "This is slop-P-Y wri-TING from someO-N-E who thinks I'm too dumb to C-O-M-pre-HEND broad Brit ac-CENTS?"

Updated On: 5/23/13 at 02:02 PM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 2:09pm

John Adams, I get that you obviously are a big defender of the show, but the criticism of the unintelligible lyrics and horrible sound design here are completely valid and have nothing to do with the "sophistication" of the words. This was nowhere near as big of a problem in the London production, I had absolutely no issues understanding it there, but here, I could barely understand certain numbers and I'd already seen them before.

"He needs to realize that just because both American and Brits speak english they don't technically speak the same language."

This is also a valid point. Those in Quebec and Paris both speak French, but the dialects are all but unintelligible in certain ways. But I do primarily blame the sound design. It's quite atrocious.

Even not "getting it" with this show, there are bits I truly enjoyed and found magical, but I honestly cannot believe on Broadway in such a praised, hit show that there are such serious flaws in such an integral technical element.

Updated On: 5/23/13 at 02:09 PM

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 2:58pm

>> " the criticism of the unintelligible lyrics and horrible sound design here are completely valid and have nothing to do with the "sophistication" of the words."

That's never been said, at least not by me. My disconnect is with the folks who have made blanket statements that the show isn't "good" because they can't understand the accent. I don't see the connection between labeling something as "good" or "bad" based on elements that are beyond the ken of the viewer. That's on the viewer, not the show. I totally understand that technical sound issues are present - particularly in this clip from The View.

The disagreement between best12bars and I (me?), specifically, is interesting per my warped sense of humor.

best12bars believes that Minchin is a poor writer because he wrote Revolting Children using a rhythmic structure that makes the song unintelligible to his ears. I, on the other hand, find the song completely intelligible, and hold a higher appreciation because Minchin went way outside the lines (in context with the themes of the show and this song's lyrics).

Here's an exercise that I think helps to illustrate our differences in opinions. (if you want to play along...)

Have you ever played the musical game, "Take Me Out To The Ballgame"? It's basically a brain-teaser of a musical game with very similar attributes to the rhythmical patterns of Revolting Children. Some people can accomplish it, and others are frustrated by it.

Here's how it goes:

Round One: Sing, "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" just as it's written: "TAKE me out to the baaaall game, TAKE me out to the croooowd...", etc.
Round Two: Sing it again, but this time, repeat the song's first note as a pick-up note: "Take ME out to the ball gaaaame, Taaaake ME out to the crowd buuuuuuuuy...", etc.
Round Three: Same thing, only this time sing the first two notes as pick-up notes: "Take me OUT to the ball game, Taaaaake me OUT to the crowd buy meeeeeeeee...", etc.

The game continues until the last person singing sings the whole song with just pick-up notes. It's a mental challenge that some can do, but others can't. Likewise, some find it "fun", others don't. (it's a great road-trip activity, though!)

I feel like best12bars might comment, "That game is no fun at all!" whereas others (me!) might enjoy the challenge and find it interesting and fun.

But that does not mean that it's a poorly designed game.
Updated On: 5/23/13 at 02:58 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 3:17pm

Well, you assumed wrong, John Adams. I have played that game myself ages ago (30 years maybe?) and know it well. But it's a game played with an established song, not something fresh to the ears on a first listen.

Yes, I realize I'm listening to an isolated song from Matilda now, for the first time, out of context, and believe me, that scenario does it no favors. If I were to see it in context, that could make a difference. Who's to say?

For the record, I have not trashed the whole show, or the whole score ... only this clip, which is still a hot mess of gibberish, even after repeated viewings of it on different TV programs.

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 3:33pm

First off, I want to say that I hope you know that I respect a lot of your commenting all over this Board. I especially am in tune with your appreciation for movie and theater history!

But, regarding "If I were to see it in context, that could make a difference. Who's to say?" my response would be that the difference might be in whether/not you continue to categorize Minchin's work as "sloppy writing". Updated On: 5/23/13 at 03:33 PM

[Salene]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 3:34pm

the thick coalminer's cockney accent

Geordie. Cockney is East London.

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 3:38pm

^^
I wasn't going to say anything... But I'm glad you noticed it, too!

[NotTheComfyChair]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 3:39pm

Speaking as a Brit and a part-time dialect coach, the accents of the kids in Matilda are NOT thick. In fact, the dialects in the show are amongst the best British accents I've heard in the US. Even the Mum and Dad's London accents - which are the broadest in the show, are accurate and clear which is rare for American actors doing London. If an audience isn't used to hearing an particular dialect, such as London/Cockney or Geordie (Billy Elliot), a good coach will work at making the actors understandable to the audience. To me, that is not dumbing down, and Matilda has done a very good job at that.

However, if a sound design/balance is not good, an audience will struggle to understand lyrics, no matter what the dialect. Matilda's sound design is not good. No matter how good the dialect coach is, they can't overcome bad sound.

The lyrics to Revolting Children are challenging for the listener because, to me, minchin has his charactors delight in the freedom to not spell correctly and he indulges in wordplay that certainly moves very fast. I personally think the lyrics are great but fully understand those who find them annoying and are thrown by the rhythms and strange spellings. It is also possible that the choreography, which reminds me a little of a Maori war dance, distracts the brain from the words.

Whatever the problems are, and for some there are problems, it ain't the dialect.

Updated On: 5/23/13 at 03:39 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 3:48pm

my response would be that the difference might lie in whether/not you continue to categorize Minchin's work as "sloppy writing".

That would depend on if Minchin's creative choices make sense in context a lot more than they do out of context, and if I could actually understand the lyrics in the theatre as I was watching it.

If not (to both), then yes, it's still sloppy writing.

Let me give you an example of the difference. Good lyricists don't just care about being clever, they care about audience comprehension AND writing words and sounds that can be performed well by singers. They care if sustained notes end in a vowel vs. a consonant. They care if that vowel can be heard over a large orchestra (read Yip Harburg's explanation of how he came up with the lyrics for "Over the Rainbow" and why he chose the "Oh" vowel for Judy Garland). (Read why Sondheim clipped all the ending consonants in each line for Send In the Clowns so they shouldn't be sustained.) To me, THAT's clever.

I understand that "coloring outside of the lines" is one of the points Matilda is trying to make in this song. I get that, and I appreciate the explanation. But when intelligibility goes out the window while she's doing it, they lose me.

EDIT: Whatever the problems are, and for some there are problems, it ain't the dialect.

I completely agree.

Updated On: 5/23/13 at 03:48 PM

[Steve C.]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 4:41pm

Thank you Comfy Chair! You certainly have stated very succinctly what some of the problems are with understanding and (trying to) enjoy this production. Especially here, some theater people get so emotional; opinions practically become anthems of cheering on or deriding the show. It is somewhat nice to see so many passionate, though sometime borderline "nasty" but funny opinions. I guess we will see the "power" opinions on June 10th...and then next season...

[BewareTheUndertoad]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 4:47pm

I think the issue is not so much in the lyrics on their own-which do move lightening fast-but rather the machine gun lyrics mixed with the choppy, unmotivated, over-complicated choreography which, intentionally or not, sends up Spring Awakening.

John Adams, how do you know that they're not referencing Spring Awakening? Are you really Peter Darling? You say it so resolutely that you must be him, one of his friends or one of the voices in his head.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 5:06pm

To me, it sounds like the problem is not in the writing at all. With the production, people have complained about the sound design from the start (and thus, no Tony nomination), but as for the dialects and diction, I've seen this problem before for a while now. I honestly think the quality of musical direction has been lacking for a while on Broadway. I'll never forget seeing Titanic and marveling at how every single lyric, including the full chorus numbers, were so perfectly delivered. Even the dynamics and cutoffs of the chorus were impeccably in unison. But by the next decade, it's all over the place. I couldn't understand hardly anything Kerry Butler said or sang in Xanadu. Children's voices have taken on a more nasal quality and when layered with shaky dialects and poor diction, it's an uphill battle to grasp the lyrics unless you've listened to the cast album previously enough times to familiarize yourself with the material.

And recently, the sound was so bad in Big Fish during the first act (the final weekend of the run!), it was a constant struggle to follow the lyrics. The sounds was better in the second act, but ironically, the musical direction was pretty good as we could then understand the lyrics and realize how weak they often were. I still cringe at the fate of Kate Baldwin having to deliver that ballad.

[OperaBwayLover]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 5:36pm

Well, that was underwhelming. At least for me, anyway. And that's a shame, because I really want to like this show. I loved the book, so the idea of turning it into a musical is intriguing. I mean, I'll watch some other clips, because one of my closest friends ADORES Matilda(and we usually agree on shows). And I don't want to be the type of person who judges a show based on one clip (although I know people who do that). Anyway...

The sound was not too great. And the lyrics were a bit fast and hard to understand. But maybe it was like the Pippin performance on Letterman: I liked it, while others didn't. Is this the song Matilda always performs on tv, or have they done others?

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 5:50pm

I also liked the Pippin performance on Letterman even though I'm told "it doesn't nearly capture what's on stage." It still worked for me.

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 6:32pm

For someone who has not seen MATILDA yet and will be doing so soon, am I right in thinking that it would be advisable to familiarize myself with the cast recording beforehand given what I'm reading about the sound issues?

Updated On: 5/23/13 at 06:32 PM

[frapperia]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 6:45pm

The lyrics are great. The singing here isn't so much. As a Brit, I can assure you that the girl playing Matilda in this clip is doing a particularly horrible attempt at an English accent - notoriously hard even for adult American actors to get right and maintain. It's fairly painful to listen to. She's landing the emphasis totally wrong and her vowel sounds are all over the place.

EG: 'A pal' not 'pale', 'nava' not 'nev-er', 'tha' instead of 'thair', 'Jurliet' not 'Joo-lee-et', 'mat' instead of 'met', 'ar' instead of 'uh'.

This is how it should be sung (London Matildas): http://youtu.be/kguuLSxgQgE

I just came across this Good Morning America performance, which is much better: http://youtu.be/vhaJD2AQbnY






Updated On: 5/23/13 at 06:45 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 7:05pm

That clip helped a lot. I can't tell if it's because I'm becoming more familiar with it, as well, but these girls are definitely more comfortable with lyrics and making them fluid (and make sense). As I said in my earlier post, part of my problem is the choppiness in the delivery (not the accents, but that lack of any through-line in thought or interpretation). It's a big problem that has nothing to do with mics or accents.

I clicked on another clip from that link and heard this (below). It's a much better song, and this young girl gives an excellent performance of it.

The stylized lyrics work better here, and perhaps if I had "built up" to the other song, I might not have been so lost and turned off by it. I'm still not entirely convinced, but I get a better idea of what he's going for. The first example (from The View) totally failed for me. This one doesn't.

Quiet

[frapperia]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 7:13pm

Glad to be of assistance! Clarity of enunciation is really important, as is experience and being able to dramatise effectively. The four girls won an Olivier award for their performances that night, and I have to say that, although Matilda is not my favourite musical, I saw Cleo in the role, and she fantastic, very moving and very clear and understandable.

I guess songs like Naughty and Revolting Children are much more the kind of exciting thing that would gee up a potential audience to book tickets, but as you say, Quiet shows off what Minchin and Kelly are going outside of the big numbers very effectively.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 7:21pm

I definitely haven't written this show off in my mind. I'm open to the idea that I might have a completely different reaction to it in the theatre.

It was only the clip that lost me. Unfortunately, for millions (or maybe many thousands) of people, this clip might be the "deciding factor" for them, whether they're into it or not. I hope the Broadway crew works harder at reaching and communicating (in every sense of that word) to potential audiences. I know this show is doing well now, and it's the frontrunner for some of the big Tony Awards, but they can't afford to rest on laurels if they want a good, long run. And they can't afford to give performances like this one from The View on national TV.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 7:28pm

I'm happy you found your way to Quiet... Revolting Children and When I Grow Up are the two songs most likely to be excerpted out of context because they are (respectively) an exuberant group number for the children and an absolutely gorgeous wistful ode to childhood. Quiet, to me, was the knockout song when I saw MATILDA. It is such an evocative sketch of both her character and her state of mind at that heightened moment, and that Minchin subverts the expectation to make it an explosive number by pulling it all the way in to such a still, nearly-silent place floored me when I first heard it and still moves me often when I return to it. I think it's genius, as a composition, and is the song I have gone back to on the OCR far more often than anything else.

Also, not to delve into the debate about Revolting Children, but it's worth nothing that in the song, the kids themselves do say that they sing revolting songs using revolting rhymes. Maybe that's wound up much more true a statement for some listeners/theatregoers than others...

Updated On: 5/23/13 at 07:28 PM

[Belle9]

Posted: 5/23/13 at 8:37pm

Personally, I had no trouble whatsoever with the accents or the delivery when I was in the theater. I saw Sophia, and she was much easier to understand. I had heard the cast recording many times, so I'm sure that helped a great deal in lyrics comprehension, but dialogue was also clear. It was nothing like my experience with In the Heights, where the delivery led me to leave the theater entertained by the spectacle, but completely clueless about the plot of what I just saw.

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/24/13 at 8:56am

>> "John Adams, how do you know that they're not referencing Spring Awakening?"

Because the staging of Revolting Children is actually patterned after Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation video. They're all wearing uniforms and performing synchronized, staccato, military-like choreography.
.
.
.

[mamaleh]

Posted: 5/24/13 at 9:27am

I had almost as tough a time understanding Oona L. on THE VIEW as I did in the theater at the first preview performance. I got the gist of what was being sung, but I still wished she had de-Brit-ized her pronunciations. Oddly, I found the kids on the Olivier performance video more comprehensible.

That flaw notwithstanding, I still feel MATILDA is better crafted than KINKY BOOTS, which was also fine but not as ambitious as MATILDA.

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/24/13 at 9:58am

>> Oddly, I found the kids on the Olivier performance video more comprehensible.

I'm very happy frapperia posted those links. They're much better, overall.

I think the original Matildas and their London replacements have an easier row to hoe in that they don't have the extra layer of the accent to contend with. Compared to the London girls, the Matilda on The View seemed to be "phoning in" her performance until she got to the section with the karate moves.

Updated On: 5/24/13 at 09:58 AM

[OperaBwayLover]

Posted: 5/25/13 at 6:47pm

The Good Morning America performance was much better. Makes me wonder just what the heck happened with The View appearance besides the sound being weird.