SIX: THE MUSICAL ON BROADWAY- Page 28

[Scarlet Leigh]

Posted: 1/31/20 at 1:59pm

Impossible2 said: "The new line upin the London cast atm isthe best of the lot. Millie is gone now so the weakest link vocally (thoughher acting was great) is out. The new Boleyn is fantastic and the new Parr is phenomenal. The other originals are and were always the strongest."

Okay. Sidebar. THANK YOU for making me feel less crazy. I have always felt crazy because Millie was like the most beloved of the original West End cast but I just personally cringed anytime I heard her sing be it in a megasix or in one of special performance. It always felt like I was missing something that everyone else was seeing or hearing. It was refreshing for me hear the megasix with the new actresses like the US one and the replacement. 
 


"The London Cleves is the best by far. The W.E.L performance was tothe original shorter backing track so it’s faster and in a different key to the live performance with the band at the show, which is why she sounded so off. She also did all her adlibs when there was clearly not enough time to get them all in on the shorter version of the track. So she sounds ahead of/behind the track all the time.Mack is very over the top energetic and is vocally on point, but she’s missingthe cool, dry, tongue in cheeksarcasm, amazing facial expressionsand comic timing that Alexia nails completely. The UK tour Cleves plays it very similar to Mack and is also very goodand there’s nothing wrong with that interpretation. But Alexia underplays it and let’s the audience get the jokes on their own, where as I feel Mack overplays it & makes it about ‘her’ performance instead of playing the character."

Again, it's a to each their own. I personally prefer Mack's over the top interpretation of the character who is living her rich life to the fullest and partying hard while doing it. It's fun and energetic and I just like that a lot. Puts a bit smile on my face. Also I like her vocally better as well.

[Impossible2]

Posted: 1/31/20 at 3:54pm

Scarlet Leigh said: "Impossible2 said: "The new line upin the London cast atm isthe best of the lot. Millie is gone now so the weakest link vocally (thoughher acting was great) is out. The new Boleyn is fantastic and the new Parr is phenomenal. The other originals are and were always the strongest."

Okay. Sidebar. THANK YOU for making me feel less crazy. I have always felt crazy because Millie was like the most beloved of the original West End cast but I just personally cringed anytime I heard her sing be it in a megasix or in one of special performance. It always felt like I was missing something that everyone else was seeing or hearing. It was refreshing for me hear the megasix with the new actresses like the US one and the replacement.



"The London Cleves is the best by far. The W.E.L performance was tothe original shorter backing track so it’s faster and in a different key to the live performance with the band at the show, which is why she sounded so off. She also did all her adlibs when there was clearly not enough time to get them all in on the shorter version of the track. So she sounds ahead of/behind the track all the time.Mack is very over the top energetic and is vocally on point, but she’s missingthe cool, dry, tongue in cheeksarcasm, amazing facial expressionsand comic timing that Alexia nails completely. The UK tour Cleves plays it very similar to Mack and is also very goodand there’s nothing wrong with that interpretation. But Alexia underplays it and let’s the audience get the jokes on their own, where as I feel Mack overplays it & makes it about ‘her’ performance instead of playing the character."

Again, it's a to each their own. I personally prefer Mack's over the top interpretation of the character who is living her rich life to the fullest and partying hard while doing it. It's fun and energetic and I just like that a lot. Puts a bit smile on my face. Also I like her vocally better as well."

The last time I saw Millie just before she left she actually sounded really good and had finally sorted out her pitching issues, but damn it took her a very long time to get there. I think she just gets really excited when she's performing and that throws her vocals out. She was more loved for the way she played the character and her excellent comedic timing more than her voice which you kind of accepted because lets face it Lily Allen ain't the greatest singer and that's who the character is based on. I always cringed my way through her song, but she is great in all the comedy scenes and always stole the show with her bratty delivery. I'm sure the fact she is gorgeous helped and she was always really great with fans after the show. Even my cousin who is nearly 70 loved her the best out of all of them.

I did not mean that I think Mack is bad in any way, she is great fun. As I said the touring Cleves is pretty much exactly the same and I thought she was very good, I just prefer the sly, cool way Alexia plays it. Our Aragon is played more in the style of Mack's Cleves, so I think that is why she plays her differently or they would be too similar. As you say each to their own x. 

[ImAGeneralWEE]

Posted: 2/2/20 at 10:04pm

I'm honestly surprised there is any talk of the London cast being better than the Broadway cast. I saw the Chicago production several times (it was so dirt cheap for a while!) and became a fan of the show, recommending it to anyone I could get to listen to me. Love the studio album. Liked the London cast from what I saw on YouTube, but noticed that their vocals were noticeably weaker. Went to London and saw 3 originals and 2 non-originals. I was really disappointed in the singing, everyone seemed kind of bored, and it was honestly the worst show I saw during my London trip. 

From what I saw last summer, the Chicago/Broadway cast is stellar. In particular, Aragon and Parr really stand out just because they are so much better vocally than the others I've seen in London/on YouTube. Adrianna Hicks is such a sharp performer, and Anna Uzele is on another level and left me speechless every time. I love Howard (main and understudy), Boleyn, and Cleves as well, but the London originals have a lot of charisma so the difference wasn't as stark for me. But I have to say, Brittney Mack seems to have a bigger vocal range than others who have played the role and I think it really amplifies her performance. I think Abby does well as Seymour but honestly, I can take or leave the character/song so I'm never going to be wild about anyone who plays the role.

This isn't me being patriotic, I promise. I am actually the biggest Anglophile you'll ever meet. I just want you to know that the Broadway cast is amazing and you won't regret seeing them! So looking forward to seeing them again in March.

Updated On: 2/2/20 at 10:04 PM

[Impossible2]

Posted: 2/3/20 at 5:48am

ImAGeneralWEE said: "I'm honestly surprised there is anytalk of the London cast being better than the Broadwaycast. I saw the Chicago production several times (it was so dirt cheap for a while!)and became a fan of the show, recommending it to anyone I could get to listen to me.Lovethe studio album. Liked the London cast from what I saw on YouTube, but noticed that their vocals were noticeably weaker. Went to London and saw 3 originals and 2 non-originals. I was really disappointed in the singing, everyone seemed kind of bored,and it was honestly the worst show I saw during my London trip.
"

Sounds like you caught the London cast when it was in its 'danger zone' period where everything went wrong as pointed out much earlier in this thread. They had a 3/4 month period where their quick success got to the production and various rots set in. They were over doing promo performances and adding extra summer shows so they were all very overworked, got sick and injured and the new understudies were being thrown on loooong before they were ready for prime time. I saw a couple of shows during that period and they were exactly as you described. I actually stopped going for like 6 months because it was so terrible and things had really slipped quality wise to the point of embarrassment.

The last one I saw the understudy who played Aragon was so off her game she threw the whole group out for the whole show and you could tell they were all a bit angry/lost/fed up with what was going on. They were also bringing in new audiences because of all the promo and award recognition and those audiences were totally different to the 'fan' shows they'd been playing in the early days. The atmosphere was way off and they were all newbies and didn't really know how to react to that and bring the show back on course. I also think London flailed a lot because attentions were elsewhere setting up the other productions.

I would say that London has definitely been improved by changes that have been brought in since the US and other runs and the lessons learned during those. The choreography has changed and is much tighter and a lot of the script has been moved around from the early days. Since the end of last year it has certainly been 10 times more 'professional' than it was when it started. Remember, this was just a college review project that took off big time and in the beginning it was always a pretty 'scrappy' and 'loose' OFF West End show. London has really been the testing ground for the whole 'experiment'.

I also think the original London cast were cast more for their personality, comedic timing and what they brought to the individual characters than their stellar voices. That wouldn't float in the US where over the top vocal gymnastics are of the utmost importance over everything else. That has certainly changed now as they have all grow into their roles and improved vocally with experience and the newer more experienced cast members have been introduced. It is now a very fine tuned and professional juggernaught of the highest standard. 

In the end I guess it is all up to personal choice. The US love their big voices and over the top vocal acrobatics and this has certainly been cast with that in mind. The UK audiences are a little different and that isn't as important here. Even the UK Hamilton casts I've seen are completely different to the US ones in that way and I much preferred the London cast of that as well.

[ImAGeneralWEE]

Posted: 2/3/20 at 9:47am

Impossible2 said: "In the end I guess it is all up to personal choice. The US love their big voices and over the top vocal acrobatics and this has certainly been cast with that in mind. The UK audiences are a little different and that isn't as important here. Even the UK Hamilton casts I've seen are completely different tothe USones in that way and I much preferred the London cast of that as well."

I'm really glad to hear the London production has improved. I do like big voices, especially in the context of a pop concert like SIX. For what it's worth, I've seen many Hamilton productions and I thought the London cast was amazing. 

 

[Kitsune]

Posted: 2/7/20 at 2:06pm

We're looking at going in late May, but don't want to shell out for Premium seating. What is the Rear/Side Orchestra and Front/Rear Mezz like at the Brooks Atkinson?

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 2/12/20 at 11:05am

I’m ashamed to say that despite starting this thread over a year ago I’ve only JUST managed to watch SIX when the UK tour came to Edinburgh.

Does anyone have any plans to see the first preview on Broadway? Can’t wait to hear about it!