#26
QUOTING FROM JACOB
"Yeah, Crawford was in a bad show, but it will never stop him from returning to Broadway because, (drumroll here) HE IS MICHAEL CRAWFORD!!!!"
First of all, I'm *renowned* for harping on about this. But what everyone (conveniently) doesn't seem to know is that Crawford is (mostly) the fault for that show failing.
Anyone, with half a brain, would recognize it was developed from a superior production that played to success in Vienna, Stuttgart, Tallinn, Estonia, Hamburg, Warsaw and now Tokyo. Australia and Paris are in the talks.
Michael Crawford was in a position of power, and used it to his advantage. David Sonenberg, Jim Steinman's manager (who is also to blame) conned Steinman into believing his score needed a big name to sell. They chose Crawford who felt the role was too much like Phantom. Instead of having the courage and dignity to pass it on, he took the paycheck and ran the show into the ground. In his recent interview it shows how much he has distanced himself from the affair and put the matter out of his mind.
It was a great show until Crawford wanted it to be "less like Phantom". After that it became a stupid misguided comedy
"Wildhorn has never had any respect from critics in the past and it has never stopped him. He will be back, probably with a good show that the critics are going to pan before even seeing it because HE IS FRANK WILDHORN, the destroyer of Broadway."
Excuse me? Don't you mean the critics have never had any respect for Wildhorn? All I see is a guy trying to make a success of himself, and pushing as much projects as he can. Whether you like it or not, failure or hit, most expensive losing composer in the history of whatever, he has had three shows playing simultaneously: a record not achieved by any American composer since Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein.
I see only a man trying, making failures with the wrong collaborations, and the critics acting like complete a-holes.
Posted: 1/12/06 at 9:28pm
QUOTING FROM JACOB
"Yeah, Crawford was in a bad show, but it will never stop him from returning to Broadway because, (drumroll here) HE IS MICHAEL CRAWFORD!!!!"
First of all, I'm *renowned* for harping on about this. But what everyone (conveniently) doesn't seem to know is that Crawford is (mostly) the fault for that show failing.
Anyone, with half a brain, would recognize it was developed from a superior production that played to success in Vienna, Stuttgart, Tallinn, Estonia, Hamburg, Warsaw and now Tokyo. Australia and Paris are in the talks.
Michael Crawford was in a position of power, and used it to his advantage. David Sonenberg, Jim Steinman's manager (who is also to blame) conned Steinman into believing his score needed a big name to sell. They chose Crawford who felt the role was too much like Phantom. Instead of having the courage and dignity to pass it on, he took the paycheck and ran the show into the ground. In his recent interview it shows how much he has distanced himself from the affair and put the matter out of his mind.
It was a great show until Crawford wanted it to be "less like Phantom". After that it became a stupid misguided comedy
"Wildhorn has never had any respect from critics in the past and it has never stopped him. He will be back, probably with a good show that the critics are going to pan before even seeing it because HE IS FRANK WILDHORN, the destroyer of Broadway."
Excuse me? Don't you mean the critics have never had any respect for Wildhorn? All I see is a guy trying to make a success of himself, and pushing as much projects as he can. Whether you like it or not, failure or hit, most expensive losing composer in the history of whatever, he has had three shows playing simultaneously: a record not achieved by any American composer since Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein.
I see only a man trying, making failures with the wrong collaborations, and the critics acting like complete a-holes.
Who can explain it, who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons, wise men never try
-South Pacific
Updated On: 1/12/06 at 09:28 PM
