Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
wickedfan, I think the difference is in what is expected from the material.
Audiences expect "Soliloquy" to be sung perfectly. The song is part of the musical theater canon and in some ways sacred. Hayden could do whatever he wanted with Billy's other music, but "Soliloquy" had to be perfect. It's what audiences expect.
It was like Tyne Daly in "Gypsy". Some people were disappointed because she wasn't up to singing the score. People come to hear "Everything's Coming Up Roses" sung perfectly, not going flat as Daly did several times.
There are certain pieces of theater music that need to be sung properly or not at all.
And yet Daly DID win the Tony and pretty much across the board raves from reviewers. I think in addition to what you said, Gotham, about what is expected from the material, it also is just a mater of taste and what is most effective for some people.
Broadway Star Joined: 12/19/06
WICKEDFAN
the word ignorant is very strong, just because my opinion doesnt seem to be the same as yours.
I did not like this production ..I did not like the non-singer in the lead of a MUSICAL especially when we have so many male singers who are wonderful (marcus lovett 4 one. Hayden was not a star and there was no need to have a non-star non-singer in this.
I do not need the best singer but I believe you need someone who actually sings and the night I saw it he spoke sang which is fine for MY FAIR LADY but Rogers and Hammerstein music is beautiful and should be sung not spoken.
Sorry we dont agree but I feel it is IGNORANT to call someone IGNORANT because we disagree...
I do agree with you that Screaming is not singing (alice, lachanze)and CZJ has a unremarkable voice but is in tune and well acted (hated the head jerking though)
I did not say that your opinion was ignorant. Merely that some of your statements were. More importantly, the statement that the production was "dark" because the lead couldn't sing. That's not WHY the production was considered dark. Saying so is pretty much choosing not to go into a whole subject matter of what the production was about and what it did. It's more of a gross over simplification. If you didn't like the production, that's fine. Many didn't. If you didn't like Hayden, fine. Again, MANY didn't. I didn't have an issue with your opinion. How could I? I disagree, but it is YOUR opinion and I can't be mad at you for having it. It was merely that statement that bugged me. Sorry for the frustration. Perhaps my use of the word "ignorant" wasn't the best, but it felt right at the time.
Broadway Star Joined: 12/19/06
Thanks Wickedfan for clearing that up for me...I was a tad defensive this mornin LOL
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
"And yet Daly DID win the Tony and pretty much across the board raves from reviewers."
I don't know that that's the best judge of performance. I think a lot of praise was lavished on her because she was a star. Her performance was just cookie cutter, she really didn't bring anything new or exciting to the role.
I also think it was a weird Tony year. Ann Crumb was overlooked in Aspects of Love.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
I may have missed this, but has anyone mentioned Jonathan Sharp's performance as the Carnival boy? His pas de deux with Louise was one of the highlights of the show for me and the two of them got the loudest ovations at the curtain calls. Sharp was subsequently in the Rocky Horror revival and that Dance of the Vampires mess but I would have thought he would have gone on to greater things. I'll NEVER forget the dance sequence!!!
Broadway Star Joined: 2/21/07
I'll bet at any given time there are at least fifty men in NYC who are the right type to play Billy and who could give quite satisfactory performances in both the acting and singing departments. Too bad they didn't hire one of them. The idea that the production just HAD to have Hayden is ludicrous. He could not sing consistently on pitch, which is a bare minimum standard that must be met.
He might as well have been horribly obese, or unable to remember his lines. Those would be comparable deficiencies that would exclude anyone from getting to play Billy Bigelow in Carousel on Broadway.
"He could not sing consistently on pitch, which is a bare minimum standard that must be met.
He might as well have been horribly obese, or unable to remember his lines. Those would be comparable deficiencies that would exclude anyone from getting to play Billy Bigelow in Carousel on Broadway."
Check, check, and...check. I guess I'll never play Billy Bigelow on Broadway...another dream crushed.
I'm too young to have seen this revival, but since people are talking about it I thought it important that we all take a moment remember Shirley Verrett, who played a large role in this production of CAROUSEL and unfortunately passed away quite recently.
I thought the revisionist take on Soliloquy worked. But, I was in junior high when I saw it and had no previous Carousel knowledge or experience. I thought Hayden's take was dark and "real" - and having him imbue that production with realness was so important because so much of the rest of it had been stylized.
But, "realness" vs. "theatrical perfection" is a consistent argument around here and both sides have valid points.
That being said, I would rather have a Carousel where You'll Never Walk Alone is sung beautifully and Soliloquy is a bit more rough and edgy (especially given the subtext!)... And, that's exactly what this production provided, so I was more than satisfied!
You wanna talk a rough and edgy Soliloquy? Look up the Mandy Patinkin version. Scary.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
"You wanna talk a rough and edgy Soliloquy? Look up the Mandy Patinkin version. Scary."
Rumor has it that he was fired from "Heartburn" because during a rehearsal he insisted on singing the entire song.
He has a weird voice, but at the same time he is the only Billy who sounds not only capable of, but lokoing forward to, homicide.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
Billy (in Hannibal Lechter voice): Hello, Louise. I'm having a friend for dinner. Bwhahhahahahahahaha
Videos