I agree, maybethistime.
But the Tony Award voters are notoriously shifty about this sort of thing.
Last year was the perfect example: AVENUE Q won best book over WICKED. I love AVENUE Q. It's smart, it's funny, I think it was a good choice for Best Musical. But Best Book??? It barely has one. The book for WICKED is one of the best adaptations of a literary source ever. I know that many people had problems with the WICKED score, and I can understand them. But the book for WICKED deserved that award.
Tony voters are notoriously single-minded, and they tend to go with the flow, rather than judge each show on its own individual merits. Hence my fear for Yazbek. Good example there, as well. Even though I liked THE FULL MONTY more than THE PRODUCERS, I can understand why THE PRODUCERS was voted Best Musical. I don't understand how in any version of reality the SCORE of THE PRODUCERS can be considered superior to the score of THE FULL MONTY. And yet the Tony voters voted differently -- they weren't able to separate and compartmentalize different aspects of a single show and judge them on their own merits.
I think they're all still stinging from the stupid press that was floated after INTO THE WOODS won best score and best book, while PHANTOM took best musical. Everyone said (stupidly, in my opinion) that well, if you have the best score, and the best book, why isn't it voted the best musical? That's a dumb argument. A Best Musical award should take into considering everything, not just its book and score, but its direction, its choreography, its costumes, its sets, and its cast. If you're going to give out individual awards, then judge a show on its individual components.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none