So...are people still COMPLAINING about Esparza losing? — Page 4

In Florence, Italy, a woman lept from the Duomo clutching a headshot of Raul and cursing David Hyde Pierce's name!!

---

For me, if you deny the roots of musical theatre, in favor of more modern takes on material you hate, you really need to analyze your personal aesthetic. If I grew up on Rent or Spring Awakening, I probably wouldn't like challenging works like Company.

And then you have these lovely people like Em, Foanatic, etc, who embrace the present and respect the past. Its a matter of respect to me. To call possibly the greatest American musical theatre composer of all time "not your taste" is a curious statement in the least.

Sure, love the original, but I am pretty sure that most of Company's fans (the revival) haven't got a clue about the original.

Sure, love the original, but I am pretty sure that most of Company's fans (the revival) haven't got a clue about the original.

I don't think the bulk of the comments I've read about the Company revival are at all indicative of that.

It's almost like you're saying that people who solely like the revival are insipid Rent/SA lovers. While simultaneously saying Rent/SA lovers couldn't appreciate Company. Which harks back to the teenybopper comment at the start of the thread. It's so random and wrongheaded, at least in relation to this specific show.

Fair enough. But your statement was still a bit misleading, sounding more like anyone who prefers the revival is automatically uneducated in and disrespectful to the history of theater.

I do agree, though, that people who assume that anything made before 1980 is crap need to gain some perspective.

---

To Smaxie and Skittles...my comment was not uninformed nor was it biased. I saw both shows and am not a huge Raul Esparza fan. I love both performers for their own talents. How does that make me biased? And uninformed? I know that David Hyde Pierce has been in many other stage productions, but before Spamalot you must admit that Raul Esparza was a more well known name when it came to theatre and Broadway fans. I don't mean to be rude, but y'all need to try and get over yourselves. I was just stating my opinion, same as you were, and I don't see a need to put down my knowledge of musical theatre because I said that Raul Esparza will have his day in the future. I've been in this business for several years and know very well what I am talking about.

Yes, I would have rather seen Raul take home the Tony, but I was also very happy for Pierce.

Get over it.

---

I love you Em because you researched your but off on Company.

What I did for love, man. What I did for love.

Actually, though, I fell for this revival before any of that research. The revival was my first exposure to Company, which isn't something I see much use in trying to hide. When talking about his work, Doyle said something about how you can't un-do something without first knowing how to do it. And in that sense, to me, it is impossible not to have a great deal of respect for the original. On a very elementary level, without the original, we wouldn't have the revival. But further, like you said, you can't deny those roots. And even though after learning about the original and trying to reconcile the differences, I still can't see myself having fallen in love with the original or a traditional production the way I did with Doyle's. I'm not sure I think it would've spoken to me the way this one did. But I still felt like I needed to understand it because it's important to respect the things that came before -- and gave way to -- whatever it is that you fall so in love with. And that may just be my inner academic, but from an artistic perspective, I appreciated what Doyle did even more because I familiarized myself with what came before.

I actually just recently watched the video of the '72 tour that they have at the Lincoln Center Library. It was very weird for me, but totally fascinating. Afterward, someone asked me if now, having seen it, I can understand better why some people reacted the way they did to Doyle's version. And my answer was that yes, I can absolutely see why it would have pissed people off. She then asked if seeing it changed the way I felt, to which my answer was a decisive no. I think not being familiar with the original when I saw this made it much easier for me to accept such a radical departure, because I didn't know any better. And so, to see the original now is almost like taking a big step backwards.

---

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 07:45 PM

For me, if you deny the roots of musical theatre, in favor of more modern takes on material you hate, you really need to analyze your personal aesthetic. If I grew up on Rent or Spring Awakening, I probably wouldn't like challenging works like Company.

Maybe, but you never know. I loved Rent before Company. I loved Cole Porter before Company. I don't think that developing a personal taste for musical theatre is a linear path at all.

the revival gets more attention because the recording is better quality and the voices sound more modern

See, I don't think that's the case at all. For me, I see a revival of a show and immediately go back to the original album to compare and contrast. That's how I've always done it, especially since I'm way too young to have experienced shows like Kiss Me, Kate or Anything Goes or Company when they were first performed.

---

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 08:58 PM

But I've always cheered for the performances I've been knocked out by. Don't we all?

Precisely. I think it's natural to wish success and recognition for something that affected you.

I found a copy of the LP at the flea market this year. A small bargain later, it's one of my most prized possessions.

---

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 02:03 AM

I'm certainly not complaining.

MOCK ME WITH PRAISE!!!!!!!!

---

The flea market had many bargains this year

I think the "mock" needs to be bolded. If I knew how to do that, I'd add my own version

---