Marc Shaiman responds to Michael John La Chiusa — Page 6

Jazzysuite82,

You say that my point doesn't hold because Britten wrote opera and Berlin didn't, but I don't fully agree. What La Chuisa does and what Mel Brooks does is as different as what Britten and Berlin did. And Britten did in fact write for Broadway...The Rape of Lucretia premeried on Broadway, and his first opera, Paul Bunyan, was intended to be on Broadway. I don't recall Britten slamming Jule Stein when The Rape Of Lucretia didn't run as long as High Button Shoes.

You're right that many classical composers have attacken fellow, composers, but these writings have not worn well, and now read as indeed somewhat classless. When Schumann writes a list of the gretaest composers of his day, and purposelessly leaves off Liszt and Wagner, or Wagner writes horrible things about Mendelsohn, these articles don't reflect well on their authors with the passage of time.

Ultimately since La Chuisa has never had a financial success on Broadway, and since he wants this so badly, it's hard for me to read his article as anything other than sour grapes

---

I can only ssume that LaChuisa DOES care about acheiving Broadway success, since he has on several occasions created Broadway shows, and Broadway is a commercial venue. If LaChuisa's shows made a mint, and Shaiman's didn't, then I don't imagine he would have even mentioned The Producers and Hairspray in his article.

---

IMHO, this is a very bad counterattack post, boring , hard to read.

You're confusing things. The argument isn't whether profit is good or bad. It's when things are made with a formula for the sole purpose of creating a profit, with no consideration of craft and detail. That's the argument. Art can turn a profit and it's great when it does. LaChiusa is saying you shouldn't set out to produce what sells. Secondly I don't see how Mel Brooks and LaChiusa are doing different mediums. They're both writing for the theatre. Thirdly, how does one present the argument without giving examples. It'd be pretty damn hard. He didn't zero in on any one show. He was speaking in general, mentioning 15 different shows.

Broadway is a community. Theatre is a community. It is all a very tight and close knit community. There are bitches and there are queens and everyone will get hurt feelings at one point or another. I think Mr. LaChiusa is certainly entitled to his opinion, but to insult the members of his family, specifically, was very rude. He is certainly no Stephen Sondheim. His talent is nowhere near Sondheim and I certainly hope he doesn't fancy himself as such.

Adam Guettel is the only one who I believe is truly forging himself a new name and a new style and a new signature much as Sondheim did. Mr. LaChiusa is extremely gifted and as much as he would like to act as if he is different than everybody else, he is still working in the same vein as everybody else.

Mr. Shaiman I applaud your response and your courage in speaking out against this tactless and immature essay. Mr. LaChiusa may not appreciate your body of work and may consider himself above such forms of music but I am not and I don't think most people are.

Mr. LaChiusa in order to write musicals you need to love musicals. You need to learn something from every single musical you see, whether Sondheim or Shaiman! Brown or Idle! Tesori or Herman! You need to understand that the theatrical community needs unity, not division. Respect the fact that Mr. Shaiman and others are giving actors work if nothing else! At this point in your career with only 2 mildly successful shows under your belt I wouldn't take out my frustration on anybody. You are a sophomore in the world of Broadway. I go to a high school and let me tell you it is not wise for a Sophomore to insult the Freshman, Juniors, Seniors or Teachers who want nothing more than to see him succeed.

You may not want "commercial" success, you may only want "artistic" success but it is not one or the other. Making money does not mean you have sold out. Losing money does not mean you have created a masterpiece. The purpose of the musical is to take an audience on a journey with you. To entertain them, to teach them if an audience doesn't understand you it is because you haven't done enough to educate them. Audiences are not stupid. Tourists and Artists are not enemies. They are allies who want to end the journey with you waiting for your next adventure.

Mr. LaChiusa, I adored The Wild Party but I was bored by almost everything in Marie Christine except "Way Back To Paradise" which I adore. Am I stupid? Am I inferior? Am I artistically challenged? I had no trouble with "Sweeney Todd" , "The Light In The Piazza" , "A Little Night Music" or "Caroline or Change". Maybe I am just to small minded to understand your true artistic vision. Maybe I am to emotionally shallow to understand the characters. Caroline Thibodeaux was no problem. Marie Christine doesn't have to be any different.

In conclusion, Mr. Shaiman please keep doing what you're doing. You are a musical favorite of mine and will always be.

Mr. LaChiusa, you're one for two. Let's see if we can get two for three.

---

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 06:53 PM

I guess I'm partial now due to his (or hers?) sweet words regarding me, but if this SumOfAllThings person is really still in high school but writing so thoughtfully and with such balance and clarity, I have no choice but to retire!! I am SUCH an old fart!!

meanwhile, I am terribly hurt that the mud wrestling idea petered out so quickly!