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

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:05pm

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

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:06pm

Smaxie was just responding to a post skittles (may I call you skittles? ) I'm sure there was no discourtesy meant to Raul. The point is DHP, like Raul or most theatre performers, has had a good deal of regional training and is not just a TV Star (although talented) who lucked into a couple of good shows.

Smaxie's post read (to me) as if s/he were mentioning each and every single aspect of DHP's theatrical career, while limiting Raul's list to only six Broadway shows. I didn't agree with the previous (uninformed and highly biased) post about Raul being more seasoned/experienced, but I thought it would be fair to compare them on level fields.

And of course you may.


On the topic of the original, I had a dream the other night where I was seeing a "reunion" of the Company revival, and they sang the finale from the OBCR of Company on the set from "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend". Raul was Marilyn. I think it was better than the both the original AND revival.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:12pm

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.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:16pm

If I happen to prefer the revival, I'm denying musical theater and have bad taste?

I love Sondheim. I'd probably love the original Company if I had never heard anything else. But I have, and I happen to enjoy listening to the revival more.

I can respect the past without loving it, can't I?

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 04:16 PM

[Craww]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:17pm

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.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:28pm

What I'm saying is that a large chunk of people don't like the material until it is reinvented with a modern twish. Its all over this board. From cast recordings to sho revues.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:33pm

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.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:44pm

I'm just commenting on a small group of fans of the revival. Not all of them. Do you really think an 11 year old Esparza fan really cares about the original? No. It's fine to prefer the revival, but I think its always worth going back to see where it started.

Its like the "Gwen Verdon" is a horrible singer compared to Christina Applegate argument. Have they heard all of Verdon's work? Probably not.

Here's where I come from. The original recording saved my life. My real name is Robbie. One Christmas I asked for every Sondheim show on disc and got them all! It was an emotional day as I experienced Company, Sweeney, Pacific Overtures, and Merrily all in one day. When I heard Stritch belt "Robbie!" I melted. I felt like I was Bobby. Longing for love but enjoying my freedom at the same time. I think Doyle and his company should be praised for really focusing on Furth's book, which too often gets ignored over the top-notch score.

That is where I'm coming from.

I just notice a trend around here, where the revival gets more attention because the recording is better quality and the voices sound more modern.

I also think a select number of Company revival fans loved the stage door experience just as much as the show. The cast was very kind and we know how people love to attach themselves to stars.

So, no, I'm not saying every Company lover is an idiot. Far from it. I've enjoyed your threads on the topic. I'm just commenting on the few posts that seemed to neglect the original. That's all. Sorry for the miscommunication.

[mywonderwa11]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:51pm

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.

[Craww]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:54pm

I think a certain modern sensibility and fanbase is being projected onto it that just didn't exist. At least not in any numbers worth commenting on.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 7:45pm

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

[TulitaPepsi]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 8:43pm

I saw the original SWEENEY TODD and LOVED Doyles fresh, stylized take which retailed the Victorian Gothik penny-dreadful qualities of the original. I only know the original COMPANY from later productions, but found what worked well for SWEENEY did not translate at allfor my COMPANY experience. With its less concentrated staging, it looked gimmicky and diluted and appeared as if all of Bobby's friends were auditioning for the Macy's parade. I liked Raul very much, yet unlike SWEENEY, I found the rest of the COMPANY cast anyonymous and colorless.

[misschung]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 8:58pm

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

[wavygraish]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 11:53pm

If another oldster can interject a comment: I saw the original production of Company and loved it. I bought the cast lp and played it often for years, I still have it. But I never really warmed up to Dean Jones.

I saw the revival, and loved some things, not crazy about other things.

I had never seen Esparza, but he knocked me out in that production. Now, I hadn't seen any of the other nominated performances, so I can't say if I agree with the results objectively. But I've always cheered for the performances I've been knocked out by. Don't we all?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:03am

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

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 3:57am

I also think a select number of Company revival fans loved the stage door experience just as much as the show. The cast was very kind and we know how people love to attach themselves to stars.

I think you're mixing up Doyle shows. I would have definitely made that argument about fans of the Sweeney revival, whose attachment to the show seemed dependent on cast members messaging them back on MySpace. I read the vast majority of the Company threads and didn't get that impression at all in comparison to the reaction to the Sweeney revival. I don't remember anyone posting about giving Raul drawings of his character or homemade Bobby dolls at the stagedoor.

Are you combining the fanbase reactions because you noticed many [younger] fans loved both, or because it makes it easier for you to criticize the new Company fans if you portray them all as a bunch of airheaded teenyboppers?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:24am

I'm certainly not complaining.

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

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:28am

lol.

Gotta give it the full effect. More like:


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

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 10:28 AM

[misschung]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 1:57pm

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

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:31pm

Done.