#101
Posted: 9/23/10 at 2:01pm
Updated On: 8/31/11 at 02:01 PM
What is the most "looked down upon" Broadway show? — Page 5
#102
Posted: 9/23/10 at 2:02pm
It's kind of funny that we can't agree on what "Bossa Nova" is and some people think we can agree on what "good" shows are.
#103
Posted: 9/23/10 at 2:07pm
Muhle, now you're just entering the world of the surreal, where conversation has no meaning...
#104
Posted: 9/23/10 at 2:07pm
"SonofRobbieJ, since you never heard it from his mouth, it's still your opinion."
Uh...no. It's just a fact that I do not know. But it's there for the asking, if I ever get face-time with him.
Just because I don't know something doesn't mean that it's not a fact.
Sondheim believing that the song doesn't belong is an opinion. But the intent Sondheim had at the time of writing it is a fact.
Uh...no. It's just a fact that I do not know. But it's there for the asking, if I ever get face-time with him.
Just because I don't know something doesn't mean that it's not a fact.
Sondheim believing that the song doesn't belong is an opinion. But the intent Sondheim had at the time of writing it is a fact.
#105
Posted: 9/23/10 at 2:15pm
Maybe this will help:
fact [fækt]
n
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation
o·pin·ion (-pnyn)
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
fact [fækt]
n
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation
o·pin·ion (-pnyn)
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
#106
Posted: 9/23/10 at 2:24pm
Keyword: verifiable. SonofRobbie's statement may not have been verified, but it is something which can be verified. It may be proven wrong, but that does not make it an opinion.
Nothing matters but knowing nothing matters. ~ Wicked
Everything in life is only for now. ~ Avenue Q
There is no future, there is no past. I live this moment as my last. ~ Rent
"He's a tramp, but I love him."
Everything in life is only for now. ~ Avenue Q
There is no future, there is no past. I live this moment as my last. ~ Rent
#107
Posted: 9/23/10 at 2:31pm
My, did this thread go south.
I wonder why?
I wonder why?
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
~ Muhammad Ali
#108
Posted: 9/23/10 at 2:38pm
I find it difficult to think of a musical from the 1950's through 1980's that DOESN'T use the bossa nova rhythm somewhere.
#109
Posted: 9/23/10 at 3:08pm
Any song in 4 can be arranged as a bossa.
"The Girl from Ipanema" can be arranged as a jazz waltz.
[almost] Everything is arrangement.
"The Girl from Ipanema" can be arranged as a jazz waltz.
[almost] Everything is arrangement.
#110
Posted: 9/23/10 at 3:46pm
So please tell us the ways to quantify a good show or a bad show. If it is empirical fact, there must be empirical data.
A majority of over 75% of audience members age 18 and over walk out asking their companions "What the hell was that?" "What a mess!" and "What was that sh*t?" are also considered counted. The official determination is only made after years of an in-depth study of the material done by experts to determine whether confusion is due to lack of intelligence in audience members, or whether the material is confusing in and of itself.
You're welcome.
A majority of over 75% of audience members age 18 and over walk out asking their companions "What the hell was that?" "What a mess!" and "What was that sh*t?" are also considered counted. The official determination is only made after years of an in-depth study of the material done by experts to determine whether confusion is due to lack of intelligence in audience members, or whether the material is confusing in and of itself.
You're welcome.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
#111
Posted: 9/23/10 at 4:57pm
We could just base it on what Brantley says and be done with it.
What a fascinating thread, though. I think the confusion is that you can't deem a work of art as good or bad as clearly that is a matter of opinion, BUT you can judge empirically TECHNICAL matters. I don't know enough about music to be able to do that, but I know enough about literature to be able to say that piece A is TECHNICALLY better plotted or has better character development. Same goes for a musical. I can say Sweeney Todd is a better defined character than Mr. Mistofolees because I know more about him and can point to specifics in the script that support that statement.
What I CAN'T say is that, empirically, Sweeney Todd is a good piece of musical theater while Cats is bad. I can say I enjoy it more. I can point to my reasons WHY I enjoy it more, but if my eighty five year old grandmother likes Cats more than Sweeney which revolts her (I'm making that up - she actually likes Sweeney), then for her Cats is a "BETTER" musical than Sweeney.
At most, I think we can argue merits of individual shows which may, in sum, lead one to say that one is on the whole better than another, but the terms "good" and "bad" are misleading.
What a fascinating thread, though. I think the confusion is that you can't deem a work of art as good or bad as clearly that is a matter of opinion, BUT you can judge empirically TECHNICAL matters. I don't know enough about music to be able to do that, but I know enough about literature to be able to say that piece A is TECHNICALLY better plotted or has better character development. Same goes for a musical. I can say Sweeney Todd is a better defined character than Mr. Mistofolees because I know more about him and can point to specifics in the script that support that statement.
What I CAN'T say is that, empirically, Sweeney Todd is a good piece of musical theater while Cats is bad. I can say I enjoy it more. I can point to my reasons WHY I enjoy it more, but if my eighty five year old grandmother likes Cats more than Sweeney which revolts her (I'm making that up - she actually likes Sweeney), then for her Cats is a "BETTER" musical than Sweeney.
At most, I think we can argue merits of individual shows which may, in sum, lead one to say that one is on the whole better than another, but the terms "good" and "bad" are misleading.
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.
#112
Posted: 9/23/10 at 5:05pm
BUT
I can argue that the function of Misto...no...let's go with Skimbleshanks, cause he's my favorite...is such that all we need to know about the character can be summed up in a jaunty, foot-tapping song. Whereas the function of Sweeney is much, much different.
You might want to try comparing the character development of Sweeney with, say, Legs Diamond. Do you know more or less about him than Sweeney? Does than make his development as a character better or worse?
See...even here, I think it comes down to certain prejudices that can't be fully explained by facts.
Now...all this being said, I am one who is so very secure in his opinion of musical theatre, that I think I can argue a said really strongly and make more people agree with me than you (not you 'jason', but a very generic 'you'.) That's what makes for great discussions. So I'll never try to tap those down. I think, in the end, we all need to be just a titch humble knowing that this is still all just our opinion.
I can argue that the function of Misto...no...let's go with Skimbleshanks, cause he's my favorite...is such that all we need to know about the character can be summed up in a jaunty, foot-tapping song. Whereas the function of Sweeney is much, much different.
You might want to try comparing the character development of Sweeney with, say, Legs Diamond. Do you know more or less about him than Sweeney? Does than make his development as a character better or worse?
See...even here, I think it comes down to certain prejudices that can't be fully explained by facts.
Now...all this being said, I am one who is so very secure in his opinion of musical theatre, that I think I can argue a said really strongly and make more people agree with me than you (not you 'jason', but a very generic 'you'.) That's what makes for great discussions. So I'll never try to tap those down. I think, in the end, we all need to be just a titch humble knowing that this is still all just our opinion.
#113
Posted: 9/23/10 at 5:29pm
SonofRobbie - you can argue FUNCTION as you said, but which CHARACTER is more developed is not a matter of opinion. Whether or not Skimbleshanks fills his function is irrelevant in a discussion of which character, he or Sweeney, is more well developed. The FACT is that Sweeney is more well developed.
Which character do you like more? Total opinion. There's no arguing, though, which is better developed.
Which character do you like more? Total opinion. There's no arguing, though, which is better developed.
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.
#114
Posted: 9/23/10 at 5:38pm
Because the show is called SWEENEY TODD and CATS is actually not called TALES OF SKIMBLESHANKS, THE CAT OF THE RAILWAY TRAIN, it makes no sense to compare the two. It doesn't tell you why one show is better than the other. More 'good', if you will. You can truly say that about anything. You can say that the role of Torrance Shipman (Bring It On) is better devloped than the Role of Aunt Pittipat (Gone With The Wind), but...then what? What's the point? Torrance is the protagonist of the piece, where Aunt Pittipat is a minor supporting role. It doesn't tell us anything about which movie is good or not.
That's why I suggested you compare leading role to leading role. Otherwise, I truly don't know what the point is.
That's why I suggested you compare leading role to leading role. Otherwise, I truly don't know what the point is.
#115
Posted: 9/23/10 at 6:00pm
And most people LOVE Company but Bobby is a completely undeveloped character.
#116
Posted: 9/23/10 at 8:40pm
That is the point - you CAN'T compare one show to another as "good" or not on an objective level. I just chose two characters as examples to be able to compare a developed character to one who is not.
I'm not even saying judge a show based on one element (Bobby may be underdeveloped, but the music is pretty much universally respected: for better or worse, Elphaba is fairly well developed but we all know how varied opinions on Wicked as a show are)-- just that those judgments CAN be made as opposed to saying a show is universally good or bad.
I'm not even saying judge a show based on one element (Bobby may be underdeveloped, but the music is pretty much universally respected: for better or worse, Elphaba is fairly well developed but we all know how varied opinions on Wicked as a show are)-- just that those judgments CAN be made as opposed to saying a show is universally good or bad.
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.
#117
Posted: 9/23/10 at 9:57pm
lestat
-Benjamin
--http://www.benjaminadgate.com/
--http://www.benjaminadgate.com/
#118
Posted: 9/23/10 at 10:23pm
gasp! has no one said Memphis yet??
#119
Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:43am
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#120
Posted: 9/24/10 at 1:50pm
It seems to me that if shows (or any work of art) can be deemed emprically good or bad, then critics would never disagree.
#121
Posted: 9/24/10 at 1:58pm
Then again, Reginald, there are many many people who choose to deny reality and facts all the time (cough cough The GOP cough cough)
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.
#122
Posted: 9/24/10 at 2:14pm
But then what is the point of criticism if there isn't some kind of objective measurement of a piece of art? While many fail, it is the critic's job to assess the merits of a production, as well as give his own feelings on it.
I was discussing this with someone last night and the point was raised that perhaps my angle is to do with CRAFTSMANSHIP rather than QUALITY. I'm having a good think about that, as it could be true.
I was discussing this with someone last night and the point was raised that perhaps my angle is to do with CRAFTSMANSHIP rather than QUALITY. I'm having a good think about that, as it could be true.
#123
Posted: 9/24/10 at 2:18pm
I think there are some general agreed-upon touchpoints, but a) they can only be applied subjectively and b) they change not only over time but from culture to culture. Hit Broadway shows flop in the West End, but their actual quality level probably didn't change.
Works by generally acknowledged masters may be thought minor upon creation and come to be regarded as masterpieces (and vice versa). Again, the work hasn't changed, so how has the opinion?
I do think craftsmanship can be evaluated to some extent, but excellent craftsmanship can also simply equal facility, not artistic excellence.
Works by generally acknowledged masters may be thought minor upon creation and come to be regarded as masterpieces (and vice versa). Again, the work hasn't changed, so how has the opinion?
I do think craftsmanship can be evaluated to some extent, but excellent craftsmanship can also simply equal facility, not artistic excellence.
Updated On: 9/24/10 at 02:18 PM
#124
Posted: 9/24/10 at 3:26pm
Les Misérables...
...Haha, see what I did there?
Get it? :P
...Haha, see what I did there?
Get it? :P
#125
Posted: 9/24/10 at 3:42pm
In response to the question about what's the point of criticism, let me flip it back: What's the point of art without anyone to talk about it?
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95