Theatremania Guide to Musical Theatre Recordings

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/23/04 at 11:19pm

So I've been eagerly awaiting the release of this book, and it finally arrived, just in time for Christmas. And I'm finding it the literary equivalent of a lump of coal in my stocking.

To start, it's useless as a reference book. Although it bills itself on the back cover as a "comprehensive guide to recordings of musical theater scores," it's certainly not "comprehensive." There are many notable omissions (and this is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many, many more): LEADER OF THE PACK, BEEHIVE, PROM QUEENS UNCHAINED, THE GREAT AMERICAN BACKSTAGE MUSICAL, HOT SPOT, ZENDA, ZOMBIES FROM THE BEYOND, and UP IN CENTRAL PARK, for starters. There are also odd omissions of recordings in otherwise inclusive entries: In the GREASE entry, for example, the Brooke Shields recording is left out. Sure, it was a retread of the Rosie O'Donnell recording (and not entirely original), but shouldn't its existence at least have been acknowledged? They include the 1972 Symphony Orchestra recording of TOMMY (which isn't remotely a show album). And while they include the all-star concept recording of WHISTLE DOWN THE WIND, the neglect to mention the one for THE LIFE. These omissions certainly contradict their "comprehensive" claim. According to this book, there is only a single recording of THE CIVIL WAR.

Michael Portantiere needs to be introduced to the term "See, also" as well. I know that there are two recordings of the musical SUGAR, one called SUGAR and one called SOME LIKE IT HOT. But they're alphabetized, and neither entry acknowledges the other recording. Same with FALSETTOS. No entry for MARCH OF THE FALSETTOS (which is still in print under its individual title). Would it have been so hard to put in a one line entry in the M section stating "MARCH OF THE FALSETTOS. See FALSETTOS." Sure, I know where to look for it, but a novice unfamiliar to the history of the work under its many titles sure wouldn't.

Other things are confusing. The Off-Broadway and Broadway casts of HAIR are lumped together as one entity (which is how they exist in their latest release, granted). But that's not how they were released originally. The whole HAIR entry is woefully incomplete, missing several important recordings of that score, and never even acknowledges the fact that the first time HAIR was released by RCA on CD, it was augmented significantly. Isn't this is the kind of thing that is important in a reference book about show recordings?

The whole idea of the book is a bit baffling. Who was it intended for, exactly? Every entry has a "5 star" system, and each recording is judged by this ludicrous rating. Because the entries weren't written by a single person, this rating system leads to some ridiculously contradictory conclusions. For instance, the entry for SONGS FOR A NEW WORLD states that it is "Perhaps the most perfect representation of Jason Robert Brown's work ever committed to disc," and that entry rates three stars. Yet THE LAST 5 YEARS is given five stars. Huh?

The reviewers themselves are an extremely mixed bag. Sure, one person's opinion of a recording is going to differ from another's. (Which, again, makes the whole enterprise very odd, and rather useless.) On the one hand, Peter Filichia turns in his usual terrific prose. Others run the gamut from suprisingly literate and insightful (Gerard Alessandrini) to the infuriatingly illiterate and unilluminating (David Barbour). Here's a prime example of Mr. Barbour's idiocy, from his SIDE SHOW entry: "The acid test is the number 'Tunnel of Love,' in which Daisy and Violet take a spin on the eponymous amusement park ride along with their boyfriends, hopeful of having sex in the dark." First of all, it's clear that Barbour doesn't have a clue what the phrase "acid test" means. The "acid test" of what, exactly? And Daisy and Violet are "hopeful of having sex in the dark?" WTF? Someone please explain the physical logistics of two conjoined twins being able to have sex with their boyfriends at the same time on an amusement park ride. Of course, that's not what the song is about at all. In his entry for HALLELUJAH, BABY!, Barbour makes the insane statement that "... in 1967, HALLELUJAH, BABY! pleased nobody." It won the Tony award for best musical that year, dickwad, it obviously pleased SOMEBODY.

While there are a few pleasures to be found in the book, and a couple of interesting facts to uncover, I found it as a whole incredibly unsatisfying and basically useless.

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 12/23/04 at 11:22pm

That is a bit odd..I hope for your sake you didn't spend to much money on that heh

[maybethistime]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 1:22am

I agree with Sally... and besides, whos to judge whether or not you'll like a cd????

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 1:23am

not to mention that recordings come out every year -

[Plum]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 1:24am

and besides, whos to judge whether or not you'll like a cd????

Why the heck else would you buy a book full of reviews?

*headwall*

*headwall*

*headwall*

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 1:34am

Plum, I can't figure out why anybody would buy this book, so I think that's a valid question.

Judgment of a CD is a very subjective thing, as is evidenced by the "all over the map" quality of the reviews. It's one thing to buy a book of reviews by a single person. You might not agree with that person, but at least you're getting a consistent viewpoint, and you can judge whether you agree with that person or not, and how much stock to put into that particular critic's opinions.

In this case, you have to take a couple of dozen disparate reviewers' opinions into account. While it is certainly better to have more than one opinion about a single show, it's useless to have two dozen varying opinions about cast recordings in general collected in one place, especially when the purported "reference" book isn't useful for referencing anything.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 1:37am

That I can agree with, Veuve. But the whole notion of "no review can ever be useful" just drives me up the wall. Updated On: 12/24/04 at 01:37 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 1:37am

i agree veuve

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 1:50am

Plum, I'm totally with you there.

It has long been said that "critics are killing Broadway." It is also often said that whoever the lead string critic for the NY Times has the power to kill any particular show.

Both ideas are preposterous. Critics have been around as long as Broadway has -- it isn't dead yet. And Ben Brantley hated MAMMA MIA. Frank Rich hated PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Yet history has proven that their so-called "power" didn't do a thing to alter the success of either of those shows. It's all hogwash.

I agree that great theatricial criticism is a rare commodity. It does exist, however. (Frank Rich's incredibly prescient review for FOLLIES while he was in college, for example). But you can't judge a critic's worth on a single review. You have to read a substantial amount of their work, ascertain what their tastes are, and then see if those tastes correspond to yours.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 3:18am

take Dracula - the critics def killed that one

(don't say it killed itself)

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 5:00am

BSoBW2, I disagree.

DRACULA got bad reviews, yes. But BROOKLYN got worse reviews. Which show is thriving and which show is closing? I'm not making any sort of artistic judgment on EITHER show here, I'm just saying that your statement that "critics killed DRACULA" doesn't wash. Economics were the biggest factor in that particular match up. BROOKLYN is a cheap show charging the same ticket price that the much more expensive DRACULA is, in the same size house. Economics killed DRACULA, not critics.

[wildcat]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 9:22am

Say, I didn't know there was an album of HOT SPOT.... Updated On: 12/24/04 at 09:22 AM

[broadway geek]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 12:29pm

I was in Borders yesterday and saw it on the shelf and started reading it. It probably would have been better if it had just stuck to being a reference book w/ major cast members, date recorded, etc.

You have to find a critic that matches your tastes. I love Stephen Hunter's movie reviews for the Wash. Post, but their lead theater critic, Peter Marks, is one of my least favorite critics.