Which shows work better on CD than in the theatre?- Page 2

[chewy5000]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 6:41am

Some of Lloyd Webber's shows could be considered this.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 6:58am

Charley, I agree about Mack and Mabel and Anyone Can Whistle. I don't think either book is fixable without a major rethinking and, in the case of the former, the simple fact is that Mack and Mabel drifted apart after making their classic comedies. Unless somebody writes a book that ignores history (okay by me), the show can't be Mack AND Mabel after Act I.

But I saw the first and last previews of Merrily, and while there are things that I miss (mostly Mary's extended solo on Not a Day Goes By), I didn't see the complexity as better rounded characters and deeper themes, I just thought it was a mess. What you say about the revision being just a cautionary tale may be true, but at least I can tell the characters apart without them wearing t-shirts with their names on them.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 12:39pm

It was a mess, you're right, but I think that they worked in the wrong direction. The show presented in the first previews was weird and energetic in a way I've never really seen anywhere else, utilizing the basic concept to its fullest extent, and it's too bad that it wasn't workshopped off-broadway like Sunday In The Park where it might have had a chance to expand without as much pressure. I don't disagree with all of the changes, of course, but if what was onstage in 1981 was a mess, at least it was a lively one.

Anyone Can Whistle is definitely more easily fixed than Mack & Mabel if just by virtue of having a more readily functional premise.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 1:43pm

Charley, I'm already on record in this thread as saying the conceit of running the plot backwards has inherent limitations for me. But I remember thinking at that last preview, "Well, they've done everything they could with this." And I wasn't laughing out loud the way I had at the first preview.

Maybe you're right and they would have discovered other solutions if they had had a workshop period.

[jv92]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 1:49pm

I actually think ANYONE CAN WHISTLE works exceptionally well-- at least, it did at Encores!. Arthur was not happy with the trimming, but he damn well should have been. That's the way the show should be performed forever.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 2:01pm

I didn't see the Encores! concert version, but based on the production of Anyone Can Whistle I did see (York Theatre Company, early 80s) I think Sondheim is right that the first act is "smart-assed" rather than smart. Once the story finally seems to begin in Act II, the play becomes more engaging, but that's rather late in the evening. The first act is fascinating, even thrilling at times, but at the expense of the whole.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 2:09pm

The Ravinia concert of Anyone Can Whistle was sublime and probably my favorite of their Sondheimathon. Everything worked so well together, it didn't seem to need much more in the way of staging. And Patti was perfection as Cora Hoover Hooper. The role fit her like a glove (not to mention that she looked absolutely stunning).

I did see a very small amateur production of Merrily in Chicago years ago and to me, the piece works so much better on a small scale. It was easier to follow and I felt more connection to the characters. Especially the hapless Beth, who has a tendency to get completely lost in the shuffle.

[jv92]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 2:11pm

Maybe I like smart-ass. I don't know. I've always liked the first act. It always struck me as very funny-- from the Kay Thompson spoof, to the Frank Loesser "revivalist" spoof to the brilliant Interrogation. But I can see what Sondheim means.

Laurents said he preferred the adaptation done for GMHC's Bernadette Peters version in the mid 90s, but that's likely because he was the one doing the adapting-- not David Ives.

He really dug into the directing and acting when he wrote me about it about a year ago, which surprised me. I thought the Encores! staging was marvelous.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 2:42pm

Completely disagree on the Ragtime front.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 2:59pm

Thanks, jv92. I didn't know about all the various revisions and would love to see what Laurents did. I've long loved the score.

[sit&dither]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 7:09pm

I agree with many of the previously listed shows (particularly Merrily...), but I feel compelled to add at least one more: Marie Christine.

I think it's LaChiusa's best, and perhaps most accessible, score. The story is classic and compelling. The cast was, on the whole, extremely talented. But on stage, while good, the show was not a greater elevation of its parts. Listening to the CD, however, is nigh on perfection.

[AADA81]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 7:15pm

My answer to that question: "Company"

[chewy5000]

Posted: 8/25/11 at 10:48pm

Nick and Nora.

And if there ever had been a CD, Via Galactica.
Updated On: 8/25/11 at 10:48 PM

[broadwaybabywannabe]

Posted: 8/26/11 at 2:03pm

...most shows by STEPHEN SONDHEIM...in almost all cases the book of his show is the weakest link...but of course his music soars...

MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG
INTO THE WOODS
COMPANY

to my way of thinking work better without all those words...so the cd brings us the music only for the most part and they are seemless song after song after song...

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/26/11 at 3:18pm

But on the other hand with Sondheim you have Night Music and Forum. Night Music's book is simply sublime and fuses so perfectly with the score, and Forum is a riot when done properly, so much so that you can almost drop the entire score and do the show with very few rewrites needed to fill the gaps left by the score.

[TheaterBoy7777]

Posted: 8/26/11 at 3:25pm

I really enjoy High Fidelity's CD but really hated it live

Posted: 8/26/11 at 6:20pm

"On a different note, I don't think the book to Passion is bad, but I don't think it tells us much we don't learn from the score. Somebody could stage the CD as a one act opera and I'd be content."

Even with all the dialogue, I think it essentially plays as a one act opera anyway--the CD only really cuts, what, like 25 minutes?

I have to disagree in regards to Merrily as well. While, I prefer to *listen* to the OBCR, and having *coff* "seen" it, I would agree that production works far better on CD, I have seen two productions of the revised version--one was decent, the other very good, and I think it really works well on stage.

I never saw it, but there seems to be a common belief that Women On the Verge works better on CD than it did on stage...

And there could be a case made for a number of LaChiusa's scores--all six that are on CD are huge faves of mine, but I've yet to see any live. But as already mentioned, I think Marie Christine is pretty much perfection on CD, but I've yet to hear from even other big MC fans who felt it really worked on stage, at least in its original production.
Updated On: 8/26/11 at 06:20 PM

[ChiChi]

Posted: 8/26/11 at 11:31pm

I agree with he/she who commented on Lloyd Webber's shows. I love his scores, but I can't get into some of them when watching them on stage. For example, Phantom has always spoken to me more as an album than a mega-musical. I would also apply this to Aspects of Love and Jesus Christ Superstar.

Posted: 8/27/11 at 12:09am

Don't forget the apparently not very good Whistle revision Laurents was involved with in England in the 90s (it was updated and included cell phones, etc--I just remember it from a Sondheim Review article).

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 12:38am

Mister Matt, I think you might be right about Merrily--from other productions I've *seen* (OBC and Kennedy Center) I didn't really like them, but a few months ago, I saw a production in a theatre that seats about 100 that was very well acted, sung, and directed and I think seeing it on such a small scale made me really love it. I think many Sondheim shows really work best in a black box staging, others including Company, Assassins, and Passion, which, coincidentally, have all appeared in this thread. Maybe everybody would have different opinions if they saw much smaller productions?

I do love Anyone Can Whistle. Even if it's smart-ass instead of smart, it's still a lot better than the dumb humor that plagues entertainment. I think that because the show is so... "different," it would work better as a one-act show (much like Follies, drawing you into its world, except in completely opposite ways, if that makes sense) although we would have to lose one of my favorite moments in the show--when the cast sits on stage applauding the audience at the end of the first act.

Since I didn't chime in with my first post, shows I think work better on the album:

Addams Family
In the Heights (I love the album but thought it was an absolutely terrible show)

[chewy5000]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 8:08am

I am male if anyone was wondering.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/29/11 at 1:18am

Wonderland comes to mind. Even though the score is far from a masterpiece, there definitely were some good songs and unique orchestrations. Too bad the show itself was crap.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/29/11 at 2:06am

I have the Ten Commandments musical with Val Kilmer and Adam Lambert ripped on my ipod and I definitely think that one works way better when you can just listen to it. That way you can imagine your own sets and costumes and all the over the top elements from the staged version are left on the DVD. Except for Val Kilmer the cast is full of brilliant vocalists and the music isn't that bad. I actually enjoy a lot of the songs. It's just the physical production that didn't work for me.
Updated On: 8/29/11 at 02:06 AM

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 8/29/11 at 9:55am

Spring Awakening. When I saw it, I didn't love it. But after someone gave me the cd, I did fall in love with the music.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 8/29/11 at 10:18am

Spamalot