Mr. Shaiman,
I don't disagree with anything in your response to me (last page)! I was disputing Craig's (now Eddie's) opinion that your "screed" was issue-based and not "personal". Of course it was personal, as you said - you were offended and responded in kind!
> Sorry, but if you don't think phrases like [...] aren't wildly, personally insulting, then boy, you must be Jesus Christ himself. Let's have dinner. Meet 'cha at Angus'!! <<
Well, I don't think they're WILDLY insulting, but I'm not the one being insulted. If I can convince you I AM Jesus Christ, will you have dinner with me? :)
I said before I thought the "craft is abandoned" line is way off-base and demonstrably untrue. "Mechanical or sloppy execution" is more a matter of opinion - though how he could call HAIRSPRAY "sloppy" baffles me (I haven't seen PRODUCERS).
The "tune-positioning" line I can understand, since we know LaChiusa's M.O. is "sung-through" pieces where the score is inextricably linked with the libretto and often doesn't consist of discrete "songs". Maybe that's the kind of "craft" LaChiusa prefers, as opposed to HAIRSPRAY'S traditional "given this story, we'll have a song here, a song here, a song here" - which could be called "tune-positioning". I don't agree with MJL here either, but I'm trying to understand where he was coming from.
Just trying to shift the discourse towards the "issues"!* I may not be able to participate much more, as I have a Fringe Festival smash hit (
http://www.fleetweekthemusical.com) to rehearse and orchestrate...
*As I was writing this - slowly as usual - the discussion took a turn for the interesting! Nice.