Posted: 5/30/15 at 6:21pm
"Well sorta in the musical theatre world they are. Not on like a Patti Lupone capacity but legends all the same. "
Maybe on Tumblr, they approach legend status.
Posted: 5/30/15 at 6:22pm
"And if you want modern fluff, Hairspray, Spamalot, Curtains, and even something like The Drowsy Chaperone are all better."
Just curious as to why that is? I mean I agree with you totally, but what do you think differentiates those from this piece? I mean Hairspray was based on true events and grounded in a real life sort of world, which I think tends to make a piece more relatable. But Spamalot totally wasn't and was still great...
Posted: 5/30/15 at 6:23pm
""Well sorta in the musical theatre world they are. Not on like a Patti Lupone capacity but legends all the same. "
Maybe on Tumblr, they approach legend status. "
Yeah agreed.
Posted: 5/30/15 at 6:25pm
I wouldn't even call Patti LuPone a legend. Of those alive today: Chita Rivera, Carol Channing, Barbra Streisand, Liza Minnelli, Carol Burnett, Angela Lansbury, Julie Andrews, etc.
What makes those scores better? They have better melodies. Plain and simple. I don't think melody is all that is needed for a Broadway score (I'm listening to Die Dreigroschenoper right now!), but with fluff, that's what you need, and Hairspray etc. have better melodies than Something Rotten.
Updated On: 5/30/15 at 06:25 PM
Posted: 5/30/15 at 6:28pm
That's what I was thinking too. I mean the score is just really bleh when looked at from a music perspective. I feel like Right Hand Man was the only slightly catchy song on there.
Posted: 5/30/15 at 6:33pm
But I'm totally biased because it's Heidi Blickenstaff...
Posted: 5/30/15 at 7:39pm
I liked the show and the songs are catchy, but I think the show would lose it's appeal with each viewing. It's just a bunch of musical theatre references which loses it's punch once you already know what's going to happen. It's basically Forbidden Broadway on steroids.
Posted: 5/30/15 at 7:43pm
^^^
*applause*
Posted: 5/30/15 at 9:43pm
"What makes those scores better? They have better melodies."
I'm not really a fan of either SPAMALOT or CURTAINS, but adore HIARSPRAY, maybe my favorite musical comedy written since 2000.
But those other shows certainly have much better melodies, and MUCH MUCH better lyrics! Comedy songs need smarts, need wit, need polish and craft. The writers of SOMETHING ROTTEN do seem to have a sense of humor-- they're just lacking the rest.
Posted: 5/30/15 at 9:51pm
I still think SOMETHING ROTTEN is the most entertaining/fluffy show I've seen in recent years. It isn't as good as The Producers or The Drowsy Chaperone but I found it to be miles better than Spamalot.
The score is interesting in the fact that I really do enjoy it and find it extremely catchy but the lyrics are certainly the biggest downfall. They are funny at times but I wouldn't exactly call them "clever".
Depsite this, I still find myself listening to a lot of the songs repeatedly and I still wouldn't mind seeing the show again (saw it once and then went back with friends).
It does help that they have such a strong cast and ensemble who do like they are truly having the time of their life every night.
It truly is, as someone put it, like a tub of Marshmallow Fluff.
Posted: 5/30/15 at 9:59pm
Marshmallow fluff is indeed delicious in moderation..
Posted: 5/30/15 at 11:54pm
I'd like to know by what standard people are using to determine "better" melodies.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 12:29am
"I liked the show and the songs are catchy, but I think the show would lose it's appeal with each viewing. It's just a bunch of musical theatre references which loses it's punch once you already know what's going to happen. It's basically Forbidden Broadway on steroids."
I saw the show today for the 2nd time - I had already seen the 3rd preview when I got a comp ticket but today I won the online lottery as I wanted to see the finished product (and surprisingly sat in the 2nd row mezz, when everyone else I know who has won the lottery sat in the front row orchestra).
I can't say any of it lost it's appeal the 2nd time around and I probably would enjoy it again...because I enjoy seeing most things more than once. That said, I don't think I feel compelled to see it over and over again...as I do with some other shows.
That said, I was totally shocked to see about 100 empty seats in the mezz this afternoon. The orchestra and balcony looked full but for a hit show, I was really surprised to see so many unsold seats on a weekend right before the Tony's..
I am not sure that I would need to purchase the entire CD - though a few songs might be nice to have.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 8:34am
I also won the online lottery for yesterday's matinee (only disappointment was the absence of Brooks Ashmanskas) and sat in the center of the first row. I'd seen it when they offered the $15.95 performances and thought the second act somewhat disjointed and blah. Happy to report that the "Omelette" number and what follows have been sharpened (and even garnered a standing "O" comparable to the reception for "A Musical"), so that the acts seem better balanced. Taken by themselves, the songs are admittedly not so effective as when they are performed during the show, but I find them largely melodic and fun, and ably performed by d'Arcy James, Borle, Cariani, Oscar, Blickenstaff, et. al.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 1:13pm
I think, to me, the difference between SOMETHING ROTTEN! and the plethora of other, better meta-musical comedies is that "meta" jokes only work when they are used to say something. Like Kad's cabinet full of marshmallow fluff; you need to have meat on the bones. So, THE BOOK OF MORMON soars high on its reference jokes (and its shocking-to-some profanity) but it's in service of a really interesting idea about the fundamental necessity of and inspiration for religion. THE DROWSY CHAPERONE has a marvelous framing device that provides a structure for the meta-jokes to bounce around in, but not overwhelm and subsume the entire show. [TITLE OF SHOW] found freedom by dropping any pretense and making the metatext the text. ROCK OF AGES just came here to party, and knows you did too, but the meta-jokes work because the score itself is meta-, based as it is in a popular era the audience knows and (hopefully, for them) loves. Ditto for SPAMALOT, which is expanding to Broadway scale a beloved little cult film... the meta-jokes work there because it's Monty Python saluting the legacy of the new form they're barging in on. (That's also key to MORMON's success, as well.)
SOMETHING ROTTEN doesn't have a there there. Jokes aren't just referencing and expecting a laugh; it's what you say about them that's a joke. Take "A Musical," for example: the LES MIS gag is a true joke. It's a groaner, but it's actually got construction and punchlines. Too many other references, however, are just references. Putting three sailor's hats on three dancers is a reference, not a joke. Ditto quoting SWEET CHARITY or any other famous musical riff. Too many jokes, songs, and entire characters exist solely because you can hang jokes off of them. The jokes have to serve the story, not the other way around. The jokes in SR! overwhelm the material, and in doing so, point out how little beyond the jokes there is.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 1:21pm
"I also won the online lottery for yesterday's matinee (only disappointment was the absence of Brooks Ashmanskas) and sat in the center of the first row. I'd seen it when they offered the $15.95 performances and thought the second act somewhat disjointed and blah. Happy to report that the "Omelette" number and what follows have been sharpened (and even garnered a standing "O" comparable to the reception for "A Musical"), so that the acts seem better balanced. Taken by themselves, the songs are admittedly not so effective as when they are performed during the show, but I find them largely melodic and fun, and ably performed by d'Arcy James, Borle, Cariani, Oscar, Blickenstaff, et. al."
How did Aaron Kaubrick do as Brother Jeremiah?
Posted: 5/31/15 at 1:41pm
Everything JNB said.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 1:49pm
"SOMETHING ROTTEN doesn't have a there there. Jokes aren't just referencing and expecting a laugh; it's what you say about them that's a joke. Take "A Musical," for example: the LES MIS gag is a true joke. It's a groaner, but it's actually got construction and punchlines. Too many other references, however, are just references. Putting three sailor's hats on three dancers is a reference, not a joke. Ditto quoting SWEET CHARITY or any other famous musical riff. Too many jokes, songs, and entire characters exist solely because you can hang jokes off of them. The jokes have to serve the story, not the other way around. The jokes in SR! overwhelm the material, and in doing so, point out how little beyond the jokes there is."
Yes to this and everything else you said.
I didn't even like Spamalot that much, but I liked it much more than Something Rotten. At least I somewhat cared about the characters in Spamalot, and there was a more solidly constructed story.
The Les Miz joke in SR would've worked so much better if they never bothered saying the entire name of the show out loud. That was just a taste of what was to come, I guess.
Updated On: 5/31/15 at 01:49 PM
Posted: 5/31/15 at 3:07pm
^^^
Right, alluding to material but not outright referencing it directly makes the audience think you're smart. (See: the chord progression of "You and Me (But Mostly Me)" from BOOK OF MORMON.) Anyone can enjoy hunting for reference when they aren't signposted.
Referencing material directly (or worse, outright saying what you're referencing, my god) makes the audience think you think you're smart. No one likes a person saying "look how much I know!" no matter how much they know.
Updated On: 5/31/15 at 03:07 PM
Posted: 5/31/15 at 4:31pm
JNB- I'm just curious (and pardon me if I overlooked you saying so) but did you see the show?
Posted: 5/31/15 at 4:58pm
As soon as they did the Les Miz-style lighting, I knew where that joke was going, and I kept saying in my head, "Don't say the whole title; it's better if you don't. Don't say it, don't say it..." and of course, they did.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 5:05pm
Yes, I did. And, for what it's worth, I think Nicholaw did a very good job mining the material for what laughs he could get. But the material, as written, presents few highlights.
For the record, I enjoy "God, I Hate Shakespeare" - mostly because BDJ really nailed it but also because it's the best marriage of character POV aligning with humor. Until the regrettable "penis/genius" rhyme which docks the entire show let alone that song more points than any bad joke truly should.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 5:13pm
^ Thanks for answering! I just wondered because of your comments regarding references, and I thought so many references were made through lighting and choreography aside from the music.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 5:22pm
Yes, absolutely. So many references. And so few good jokes.
Posted: 5/31/15 at 5:27pm
How did Aaron Kaubrick do as Brother Jeremiah?
I was also at yesterday's matinee/another lotto winner, and Aaron did a fantastic job in the role. I actually preferred Aaron to Brooks.
Yesterday was my second time seeing the show, and I enjoyed it just as much the second time around. Sure, the first time you can't take away your initial reaction, but it didn't make the "A Musical" or "Omelette" sections any less funny to me. I think the show obviously has its niche, and I personally think it does it well.
Kathy - I was second row on the aisle [B2] and I would have preferred your view to having to try and crane to see things with how high the stage was. Luckily, the first time I saw the show was a full view from the rear mezz.
Updated On: 5/31/15 at 05:27 PM
