American Idol revitalizes Broadway
bval...@aol.com
'Idol'-ized
Broadway fortunes get a boost when "American Idol" exes join casts.
By Greg Braxton, Times Staff Writer
She was already a big star, adored by millions. But when it was
announced that she would make her Broadway debut this spring, the
anticipatory buzz went through the roof.
Ads with her name splashed in large, bold type popped up all over New
York City. A mad scramble for tickets erupted. Fans squealed the moment
she stepped on stage. Crowds mobbed her at the stage door, clamoring
for autographs and pictures. And producers of the show rejoiced in
their financial good fortune.
But all this fuss isn't over movie star Julia Roberts and her
theatrical debut in "Three Days of Rain." One of the hottest marquee
draws on Broadway this year is Diana DeGarmo, who is appearing in a
supporting role in the musical "Hairspray."
Diana who?
If you have to ask, you're probably not one of the 31 million viewers
who tune in to or TiVo "American Idol" every Tuesday and Wednesday,
making the singing contest not only television's top-rated show but
also a cultural phenomenon.
"Idol" has spawned numerous imitators. Its far-reaching influence has
drawn in seasoned entertainers, such as Rod Stewart and Barry Manilow,
seeking to reinvigorate their careers - as well as boost their own
record sales. Then there's the record deals - not only for the
winners but also for the losers; "Idol" concert tours; movie roles;
trivia games; perfume; shower radios; and Pez dispensers.
And now class is trying to cash in on flash.
"Theater of the 21st century needs to appeal to a younger generation,"
says "Hairspray" producer Margo Lion. " 'American Idol' has certainly
brought in audiences - people are dying to see these performers. It
brings in a hip factor, just like Disney brought in family audiences."
Of course, success isn't always guaranteed. Last week, 2003 finalist
Josh Strickland made his Broadway bow in the title role of Disney's
"Tarzan," which opened to very mixed reviews. Strickland's debut on the
Great White Way followed triumphs by earlier "Idol" castoffs DeGarmo,
Frenchie Davis and Tamyra Gray. Davis, who was bounced from the series
in 2003 following revelations that she had once worked for an adult
website, landed a role in "Rent," with a featured solo in the musical's
anthem "Seasons of Love." First season also-ran Gray appeared in the
musical "Bombay Dreams" in 2004.
" 'American Idol' has absolutely become a big deal here in terms of
finding new talent," says New York casting director Bernard Telsey, who
placed DeGarmo, Strickland and Davis in Broadway shows. "Watching this
show has become another way to locate incredibly talented people -
it's like a televised open call. I watch it, and certain people on our
staff have to watch it. Our inside joke is we root for our favorites to
lose so that they can become available to us."
No longer can acerbic judge Simon Cowell's criticism of being "too
Broadway" be considered a slap in the face. MTV's "Total Request Live"
may have closed its doors to these "Idol" wannabes, but the Great White
Way is laying out the welcome mat - and with good reason.
After losing a singing showdown to Fantasia Barrino last year, DeGarmo,
who had performed in theater in Georgia ("but nothing really huge," she
says), appeared in "West Side Story" in San Jose. Last February, the
19-year-old DeGarmo joined the cast of the 2003 Tony Award-winning
"Hairspray," playing not the leading role in the '60s-era musical based
on the 1988 John Waters film, but the smaller part of Penny Pingleton,
a perky and slightly clueless teen. Just before DeGarmo signed on,
"Hairspray's" net receipts were about $465,000, reported Variety. Her
first week in the show, box-office figures jumped to $530,000, then
$673,000, topping $855,000 for the second week in April.
When Davis first joined "Rent" in the spring of 2003, there was a
noticeable boost in the box office, according to producer Jeffrey
Seller.
"I really didn't know who she was, but my staff said we needed to get
her," he recalls. "I didn't think an 'Idol' contestant would sell
tickets. But lo and behold, for her first four months, we saw a rise in
sales of about 20%. Frenchie had an immediate impact. People wanted to
see her sing 'Seasons of Love.' "
But the theatrical tentacles of "American Idol" stretch far beyond New
York's Times Square.
Amy Adams, a finalist from the 2004 season, is making her theatrical
debut in a touring production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor
Dreamcoat," which opens July 11 at the Orange County Performing Arts
Center. Jennifer Hudson, an "Idol" finalist last year, is in the
upcoming film of the Broadway hit "Dreamgirls." "Rent" continues to
audition "Idol" contestants. A production of "Ain't Misbehavin' " with
former "Idols" is in the works. And producers of "The Color Purple"
have also shown interest in contestants.
"The show is a very legitimate venue for talent," Seller says. "The
whole thing may be totally insipid, but in a culture where it seems
that football and basketball are our most important competitions, it's
very heartening when the highest-rated show in America is a competition
of singers. It's a good thing for the culture, and I can't help but
think it's a great thing for those of us who work in the world of live
performance."
The road to Broadway has become so lucrative that key "American Idol"
honchos are advising contestants to explore a range of opportunities.
"Many of these kids come in with tunnel vision, saying they want a hit
record, and I'm telling them now there are more ways to have a
wonderful career," says Debra Byrd, "Idol's" vocal coach and vocal
arranger, who has guided each of the show's contestants since the
series started in 2001.
Byrd says she's already positioning one of this season's three
remaining finalists, Katharine McPhee, as a Broadway prospect. "She's
got real potential," says Byrd, adding that after first hearing McPhee
sing, she told the contestant that she sounded "like a gifted theater
singer."
DeGarmo admits that her "Idol" past can provoke tension at times: "A
lot of people in the industry don't think you can back it up. I've
really enjoyed the challenge of having to prove myself. There comes a
point where you have to stand on your own two feet rather than use that
show as a crutch. I'm glad I didn't win 'American Idol.' It wasn't
meant for me to win. And I think I've paid my dues. If anyone wants to
challenge me on that, tell them to bring it on."
Despite her theatrical success, she isn't abandoning her pop star
dreams: "My next thing is winning a Grammy."
DeGarmo ended her run in "Hairspray" this week to embark on a national
tour of "Brooklyn: The Musical," in which she'll play the title role.
On Sept. 8, she'll return to "Hairspray."
For Davis, being on Broadway "was always the ultimate goal. I was a
theater major in college. My goal was not to be a pop star. I went on
every audition I could, and I just saw 'American Idol' as just another
audition."
Making her debut in "Rent," she says, was "an amazing experience. There
are no words to describe how amazing it is to be part of this show.
I've enjoyed my life and being on Broadway."
But don't ask her too much about "American Idol." She doesn't watch it
- and she really doesn't like to look back.
"It comes up a lot. That may be how people define me, so I don't talk
about it. I want them to see there's so much more to me," she says.
"I've moved on."
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
stephen...@gmail.com
Newport wrote:
> Wasn't Stubby Kaye a winner on Ted Mack's Amateur Hour?
Toronto's Tracy Turnblad - Vanessa Olivarez - was an American Idol
contestant, and she was actually pretty good in the show.
Stephen
Mark McGee
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147826832.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
bval...@aol.com
Be afraid of what, exactly? That people under fifty will actually go
to a musical again?
Noel...@aol.com
who are unable to stay on pitch.
Here's the sad scenario: Two people are auditioning for a role on
Broadway. One has trained herself to act, sing, and dance, and does so
brilliantly, keeping up the energy and precision eight times a week.
The other has had ten seconds of fame on American Idol.
The producer, caring only about selling tickets, casts the Idol
contestant, because that spot of fame is deemed more important than
talent, experience and ability.
Mark's right.
Newport
From: mmc...@tetpc.com (Mark McGee) Be afraid........be very afraid.
--------------------------------------
Little good can come of this. We don't need AI enthusiasts in our
theatre audiences. And the toxic singing style is polluting even
conventional musicals like DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
Here comes the ugly truth...Art is not nice.
It's not fair.
If you don't have what people want this moment, then all the training
in the world won't help.
The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
hundreds of thousands of auditioners. They have America's ear.
People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
Newport
From: bval...@aol.com
People like them.
-------------------------------
Stupid people. Like the ones who liked Ollie North.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
-------------------------------
>>>>>Stupid people. Like the ones who liked Ollie North. >>>
Ah, utter contempt for the audience. Noooooo, you're not bitter.
PTravel
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147874906....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>We all know that the top-rated TV game show fails to weed out people
> who are unable to stay on pitch.
> Here's the sad scenario: Two people are auditioning for a role on
> Broadway. One has trained herself to act, sing, and dance, and does so
>
> brilliantly, keeping up the energy and precision eight times a week.
>
> The other has had ten seconds of fame on American Idol.
>
> The producer, caring only about selling tickets, casts the Idol
> contestant, because that spot of fame is deemed more important than
> talent, experience and ability. >>>>
>
> Here comes the ugly truth...Art is not nice.
>
> It's not fair.
Who said anything about "fair"?
>
> If you don't have what people want this moment, then all the training
> in the world won't help.
If you don't have the training and the talent, you will not be able to
perform. People may come see you once, but they won't come again, and
they'll leave thinking the problem is as much the medium as the "performer."
>
> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
> hundreds of thousands of auditioners. They have America's ear.
There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop singer
and the skills required to perform in musical theater. As a general rule
(though, of course, there are exceptions), pop singers make lousy musical
theater actors.
>
> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
Craft is the key to performing in theater, followed by talent. An actor
with craft and talent can be likeable when he/she needs to be, or not,
depending on the requirements of the role.
>
Mark McGee
damned if I'll spend $100+ to see an American Idol reject screech out
theatre music songs. I guess the future of Broadway will be 2 1/2 hour MTV
videos.
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147870344.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Matthew Winn
wrote:
> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
> hundreds of thousands of auditioners. They have America's ear.
>
> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
Unfortunately, being able to act is also key. Far too many stars-of-
the-moment fall short in that respect, and no amount of fame can make
up for being unable to convince an audience that you're a character
rather than a celebrity.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
Newport
bitter about. And I worry about anyone who doesn't feel contempt for
Ollie North and The Peoples' Choice Awards.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
From: *@matthewwinn.me.urk (Matthew Winn) no amount of fame can make
up for being unable to convince an audience that you're a character
rather than a celebrity.
To be fair, this isn't limited to screechers from AI. Dick Cavett and
Eric McCorMACK come to mind.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
John W. Kennedy
> There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop singer
> and the skills required to perform in musical theater. As a general rule
> (though, of course, there are exceptions), pop singers make lousy musical
> theater actors.
Between music videos and the shift in the economics of pop music to a
situation in which performers view making records essentially as an
advertising expense for their live performances (the Beatles would be
lost in today's world), this is becoming less true. A front singer needs
to be an effective whole performer now, and, assuming an adequate grasp
of language, is likely to have developed nearly all of the stage actor's
craft willy-nilly.
"American Idol", however, rather short-circuits the effect. No dues, no
chops.
On my list of Things to Do when I Hit the Lottery is commissioning a
musical for Andrea Corr to star in. That girl's got It.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
PTravel
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:apOag.2008$2x1...@fe10.lga...
> PTravel wrote:
>> There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop singer
>> and the skills required to perform in musical theater. As a general rule
>> (though, of course, there are exceptions), pop singers make lousy musical
>> theater actors.
>
> Between music videos and the shift in the economics of pop music to a
> situation in which performers view making records essentially as an
> advertising expense for their live performances (the Beatles would be lost
> in today's world), this is becoming less true. A front singer needs to be
> an effective whole performer now, and, assuming an adequate grasp of
> language, is likely to have developed nearly all of the stage actor's
> craft willy-nilly.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't know what you mean by "an effective whole
performer," but pop singers do not have to create emotional realities, do
not have to play actions, do not have to react to the emotional realities
and actions of others, do not have to work with the fourth wall while
remaining open to communication with the audience and, most of all, do not
have to provide a consistent performance within directorial confines that
appears fresh and spontaneous 8 times a week for months at a time. Pop
singers don't know how to cope with missed entrances, dropped lines,
malfunctioning props and scenery, and the myriad other hazards of live
performance that real actors can make seem effortless. Pop singers know
nothing of the literature of theater, have no stylistic, dramaturgic or
historic models on which to draw for designing their performance. There is
a world of difference between a "performer" and an "actor."
I abhor American Idol but, being alive and conscious in the U.S., it is
impossible to avoid seeing some of the pop-culture-wanabees that have come
out of it. I haven't seen one with the discipline or craft to sustain a
5-minute walkon in a professional production, not to mention a lead or
supporting role.
Note, too, that I am still talking ONLY about craft -- that which can be
taught and apprehended through sufficient study and effort. As I said in my
original post, craft comes first, then talent.
As I said, there are exceptions, but audiences who attend shows starring pop
singers come away cheated of the magic of theater performed by people who
actually understand the medium.
bval...@aol.com
bitter about. And I worry about anyone who doesn't feel contempt for
Ollie North and The Peoples' Choice Awards. >>>>
You worry about all the wrong things.
bval...@aol.com
> If you don't have what people want this moment, then all the training
> in the world won't help.
>>>>If you don't have the training and the talent, you will not be able to
perform. >>>>>
I wonder how many years of music training Zero Mostel had? How versed
in music theory was Rex Harrison?
>>> People may come see you once, but they won't come again, and
they'll leave thinking the problem is as much the medium as the
"performer." >>>>
Kelly Clarkson can sell out Madison Square Garden. Clay Akin, ditto.
>>>> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
> hundreds of thousands of auditioners. They have America's ear.
>>>>There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop singer
and the skills required to perform in musical theater.>>>
Why?
>>>> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
>>>>>Craft is the key to performing in theater, followed by talent. An actor
with craft and talent can be likeable when he/she needs to be, or not,
depending on the requirements of the role>>>>
Something actors have trouble understanding is how little control they
have over their careers. It really depends if people want what they
have. And that "thing" changes constantly. If Roseanne Barr was
starting now, she'd be closing the Improve at one in the morning.
Steve Martin would just be another prop comic. There's an awful lot of
very talented people out there, who have the training, who have the
talent, how have the craft, who don't have magic.
Newport
Frankly there are any number of things a thinking person should be
bitter about. And I worry about anyone who doesn't feel contempt for
Ollie North and The Peoples' Choice Awards.
And AI enthusiasts.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Bushwhacker
>
> Frankly there are any number of things a thinking person should be
> bitter about. And I worry about anyone who doesn't feel contempt for
> Ollie North and The Peoples' Choice Awards.
> -----------------------------------
> And AI enthusiasts.
>
I wish someone out there who watches AI would explain its appeal. I saw
it for about 20 minutes and decided it was basically dressed-up karaoke.
PTravel
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147921378....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Who said anything about "fair"?
>> If you don't have what people want this moment, then all the training
>> in the world won't help.
>
>
>>>>>If you don't have the training and the talent, you will not be able to
> perform. >>>>>
>
> I wonder how many years of music training Zero Mostel had? How versed
> in music theory was Rex Harrison?
Who said anything about music training? I'm talking about acting.
>
>>>> People may come see you once, but they won't come again, and
> they'll leave thinking the problem is as much the medium as the
> "performer." >>>>
>
> Kelly Clarkson can sell out Madison Square Garden. Clay Akin, ditto.
So does Nascar and tractor racing. That doesn't make them equivalent to the
Metropolitan Opera, which also sells out.
>
>>>>> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
>> hundreds of thousands of auditioners. They have America's ear.
>
>
>>>>>There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop
>>>>>singer
> and the skills required to perform in musical theater.>>>
>
> Why?
I explained in another post. There's a huge difference between singing and
being unselfconscious on the one hand, and creating a character by building
an emotional reality and defining and pursuing actions, working with the
fourth wall, sustaining a consistent performance within the constraints of
how you've been directed while keeping it fresh 8 performances a week, etc.
>
>
>>>>> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
>
>
>>>>>>Craft is the key to performing in theater, followed by talent. An
>>>>>>actor
> with craft and talent can be likeable when he/she needs to be, or not,
> depending on the requirements of the role>>>>
>
> Something actors have trouble understanding is how little control they
> have over their careers. It really depends if people want what they
> have.
Neither assertion is true, but that has nothing to do with my comment to
which you replied.
> And that "thing" changes constantly. If Roseanne Barr was
> starting now, she'd be closing the Improve at one in the morning.
> Steve Martin would just be another prop comic. There's an awful lot of
> very talented people out there, who have the training, who have the
> talent, how have the craft, who don't have magic.
As I've said a number of times, now, craft comes first, then talent.
However, neither means anything without luck. We're talking about musical
theater performance specifically, and live theater, generally, not American
pop culture.
>
bval...@aol.com
> in the world won't help.
>>>If you don't have the training and the talent, you will not be able to
perform.>>>>
Kelly Clarkson's first CD sold 3 million copies.
>>> People may come see you once, but they won't come again, >>>>
Four years later, Kelly Clarkson's latest CD sold 10,000,000 copies.
>>>>and they'll leave thinking the problem is as much the medium as the "performer." >>>>
The American Idol's stars have so far sold 33 million CDs.
> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
> hundreds of thousands of auditioners. They have America's ear.
>>>>There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop singer
and the skills required to perform in musical theater.>>>>
Of course, we are still talking about an art form which has a large
segment which has yet to embrace Elvis Presley or the Beatles.
>>> As a general rule (though, of course, there are exceptions), pop singers make lousy musical theater actors. >>>>
How much of that is Broadway making itself as unfriendly to outside
talent as possible?
> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
>>>>Craft is the key to performing in theater, followed by talent. >>>>
And the logical conclusion of that attitude is CATS and STARLIGHT
EXPRESS. It's all leg kicks up to the ears, hitting the note square in
the middle, getting off stage before the three ton crane swings by the
set, and living in dread that every single gesture ordered by Mr. Nunn
wasn't followed exactly. "I'm sorry, Mr. Nunn. It was my fault, Mr.
Nunn. Please forgive me, Mr. Nunn."
I saw a concert production of Lil' Abner a week or so ago. They had
twenty hour rehearsal, it was sloppy as Hell, but God was the show fun.
Too many hours in the rehearsal hall, not enough in the bar
afterwards.
>>>An actor with craft and talent can be likeable when he/she needs to be, or not, depending on the requirements of the role.>>>>
Yeah. It's all in the magic socks. If you wear the director approved
magic socks, the audience will love you.
bval...@aol.com
> I wonder how many years of music training Zero Mostel had? How versed
> in music theory was Rex Harrison?
>>>>Who said anything about music training? I'm talking about acting. >>>>
I was involved with a TV pilot once. The premise was that people were
picked up off the street, and costarred with professional sitcom
actors. To everyone's horror, by the end of the pilot, it was almost
impossible to tell the pros from the amateurs.
>>>> People may come see you once, but they won't come again, and
> they'll leave thinking the problem is as much the medium as the
> "performer." >>>>
> Kelly Clarkson can sell out Madison Square Garden. Clay Akin, ditto.
>>>>So does Nascar and tractor racing. That doesn't make them equivalent to the
Metropolitan Opera, which also sells out.>>>>
And musical comedy people don't understand why they're the laughing
stock of American culture.
>>>>> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
>> hundreds of thousands of auditions. They have America's ear.
>>>>>There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop
>>>>>singer
> and the skills required to perform in musical theater.>>>
> Why?
>>>I explained in another post. There's a huge difference between singing and
being unselfconscious on the one hand, and creating a character by
building
an emotional reality and defining and pursuing actions, working with
the
fourth wall, sustaining a consistent performance within the constraints
of
how you've been directed while keeping it fresh 8 performances a week,
etc. >>>>
Yeah, that's pretty much what's wrong with theater. It's heavily
doused with "Fun Be Gone™." It's a comedy. It's supposed to be
funny.
>>>>> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
>>>>>>Craft is the key to performing in theater, followed by talent. An
>>>>>>actor
> with craft and talent can be likeable when he/she needs to be, or not,
> depending on the requirements of the role>>>>
> Something actors have trouble understanding is how little control they
> have over their careers. It really depends if people want what they
> have.
>>>Neither assertion is true,>>>>
No, both assertions are completely true.
>>> but that has nothing to do with my comment to
which you replied. >>>>
No, it has everything to do with what you said. You believe that
someone with talent who works endlessly will eventually be rewarded.
It's just not true. There's something beyond talent, something that
the legwarmer crowd has forgotten.
> And that "thing" changes constantly. If Roseanne Barr was
> starting now, she'd be closing the Improve at one in the morning.
> Steve Martin would just be another prop comic. There's an awful lot of
> very talented people out there, who have the training, who have the
> talent, how have the craft, who don't have magic.
>>>>As I've said a number of times, now, craft comes first, then talent.
However, neither means anything without luck. We're talking about
musical
theater performance specifically, and live theater, generally, not
American
pop culture.>>>>
I think it was in the early 70s that Broadway decided not to be part of
American pop culture anymore. I think it came out when "Jesus Christ,
Superstar" was released. That was when Broadway circled the wagons,
ridiculed any attempt to drag Broadway into the fifties, and turned
themselves into the largest revival theater in the world. If you want
to see something fascinating, rent the video of the recording of the
cast album of "Company." Those people were part of America, they were
making American culture. And above all, they were adults.
I believe that the last Broadway cast album to have a hit single was
"Day By Day" from "Godspell" - and THAT was off-Broadway. Almost 35
years ago.
Great going, guys.
Judy
I'm not a reality tv watcher with the exception of some home
improvement type shows on BBCAM - particlarly House
Invaders, which I blame exclusively for some failed
experiments at home. I watched the last night of one early
(had to be at last 5 years ago) survivor-type show that
people in my office were talking about - the one where one
woman told one of the other female survivors that if she
were lying in the road, she'd run her over, or something
like that. At that point, I turned it off and shook my
head. The next day, it's all folks wanted to discuss,
whereas I wanted to weep for the demise of civilization. I
don't like the voyeuristic appeal, it's really a game show,
and a friend in Australia sent me some photos of a survivor
show that took place there. And with the sound crew and
light crew and catering company, buildings (one with a
piano) etc. etc., some of the adventure edge seemed, oh, I
don't know, false.
I reviewed, many years ago, one of the first (if not the
first) production of Craig Lucas's and Craig Carnelia's
Three Postcards at our LORT theater - Portland Stage
Company. The advance publicity from the theater said it was
about 3 women (and I paraphrase, but not much) and how they
behave, what they say, what they do when men aren't around.
The cast of characters is the three women, a male server,
and a male piano player in the upscale restaurant in which
they are dining. At the end of the play, there is a
summarizing speech, and you guess. Did the words come from
a male or female? Hmmm. My review was about a paragraph
long. I quoted the advance press and then wrote, "How would
he know?" I have the same response to reality tv. Even
absent the presence of other people and with only mics and
cameras, there is still an intrusion that makes it
non-spontaneous, non-real, fake.
I have loved musical theater because it's outrageously not
realistic, and I'm willing to buy in most of the time - less
and less as the years go on, and this, I'm certain, is more
about changes in theater than changes in me. I don't hate
everything new, as some here do, but I am pretty much a
fundamentalist about messing with the old shows. I know
they're not timely. They may or may not be relevant. I
really don't care. I go to the museum to see the work of
great artists, old and new, and they are fixed in time.
Poor theater! It's subject to interpretation and pretty
much everyone who gets his/her hands on the classics feels
the need to modernize and <shudder> put his/her stamp on it.
Thanks anyway. I'd rather see a R&Hart, Gershwin, Porter
show as it was done when it was new. Yes, as a museum
piece. That would have value for me, but I guess not for
enough others to make it pay for the producers. The closest
we get is Encores.
I don't expect this to change, and I find it a significant
and terrible and sad loss.
Mark Cipra
> Bushwhacker wrote:
>
>> Newport wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Frankly there are any number of things a thinking person should be
>>> bitter about. And I worry about anyone who doesn't feel contempt for
>>> Ollie North and The Peoples' Choice Awards.
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> And AI enthusiasts.
>>
>>
>> I wish someone out there who watches AI would explain its appeal. I
>> saw it for about 20 minutes and decided it was basically dressed-up
>> karaoke.
>
> I'm not a reality tv watcher with the exception of some home
> improvement type shows on BBCAM - particlarly House
> Invaders, which I blame exclusively for some failed
> experiments at home. I watched the last night of one early
> (had to be at last 5 years ago) survivor-type show that
> people in my office were talking about - the one where one
> woman told one of the other female survivors that if she
> were lying in the road, she'd run her over, or something
> like that. At that point, I turned it off and shook my
> head. The next day, it's all folks wanted to discuss,
> whereas I wanted to weep for the demise of civilization. I
I occasionally see the promo ads for reality shows, and the people in them
always seem to be bad amateur actors working from hack scripts. As a
result, I have never seen even one of the programs promoted. I always
figure: there are a few good TV shows which have professionally written and
acted scripts - and I don't have time to watch *them*.
I suppose the "script" part doesn't apply to AI (perhaps it does - in the
promos that smarmy Brit judge always looks like he's working from a set of
scripted insults). But from what I hear (here in RATM anyway) I'm not
missing the next Dee Hoty. If I do, I'll catch it on DVD.
--
Mark Cipra
Examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion
that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush presidency is Warren Harding.
- Steve Mirsky
Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email.
Newport
From: bval...@aol.com
Presley or the Beatles.
Well, there was BIRDIE, ALL SHOOK UP, and BEATLEMANIA. Presley's movies
generally make my skin crawl (although a number of fine actors are
trapped in them,) but I did like the TV miniseries about him. Camryn
Manheim and Randy Quad were excellent.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
From: bval...@aol.com
"Godspell"
A trifle of a song from an icky-poo musical.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
judy...@adelphia.net (Judy)
survivor-type show that people in my office were talking about - the one
where one woman told one of the other female survivors that if she were
lying in the road, she'd run her over, or something like that. At that
point, I turned it off and shook my head. The next day, it's all folks
wanted to discuss, whereas I wanted to weep for the demise of
realistic, and I'm willing to buy in most of the time - less and less as
the years go on, and this, I'm certain, is more about changes in theater
was done when it was new. That would have value for me, but I guess not
for enough others to make it pay for the producers. The closest we get
is Encores. I don't expect this to change, and I find it a significant
and terrible and sad loss.
And how. I resent AI for turning singing into another gymnastic
spectator sport.
And bottom line: a lot of people love musical theatre in large part
because it's a haven from the American Idol sound. I have no idea why
anyone should sing that way.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
PTravel
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147930253.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> If you don't have what people want this moment, then all the training
>> in the world won't help.
>
>
>>>>If you don't have the training and the talent, you will not be able to
> perform.>>>>
>
> Kelly Clarkson's first CD sold 3 million copies.
And your point?
>
>
>>>> People may come see you once, but they won't come again, >>>>
>
> Four years later, Kelly Clarkson's latest CD sold 10,000,000 copies.
And your point?
>
>>>>>and they'll leave thinking the problem is as much the medium as the
>>>>>"performer." >>>>
>
> The American Idol's stars have so far sold 33 million CDs.
So what? What has that to do with performing in musical theater?
>
>> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
>> hundreds of thousands of auditioners. They have America's ear.
>
>
>>>>>There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop
>>>>>singer
> and the skills required to perform in musical theater.>>>>
>
> Of course, we are still talking about an art form which has a large
> segment which has yet to embrace Elvis Presley or the Beatles.
What does that mean? Do you think people who enjoy musical theater aren't
fans of Elvis or the Beatles? You've got a very distorted view of musical
theater.
>
>>>> As a general rule (though, of course, there are exceptions), pop
>>>> singers make lousy musical theater actors. >>>>
>
> How much of that is Broadway making itself as unfriendly to outside
> talent as possible?
Zero. None. Nada. Not in the least. Broadway doesn't shun talent.
However, as I've been saying repeatedly, and you seem to completely ignore,
craft comes first.
>
>> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
>
>>>>>Craft is the key to performing in theater, followed by talent. >>>>
>
> And the logical conclusion of that attitude is CATS and STARLIGHT
> EXPRESS.
You misunderstand the meaning of "craft" when applied to acting. I'm not
talking about stage craft (of which CATS was not a prime example -- well, it
wasn't a prime example of anything except the mentality of a lot of
tourists).
> It's all leg kicks up to the ears,
> hitting the note square in
> the middle, getting off stage before the three ton crane swings by the
> set, and living in dread that every single gesture ordered by Mr. Nunn
> wasn't followed exactly. "I'm sorry, Mr. Nunn. It was my fault, Mr.
> Nunn. Please forgive me, Mr. Nunn."
None of that is craft.
>
> I saw a concert production of Lil' Abner a week or so ago. They had
> twenty hour rehearsal, it was sloppy as Hell, but God was the show fun.
> Too many hours in the rehearsal hall, not enough in the bar
> afterwards.
A non sequitur.
>
>>>>An actor with craft and talent can be likeable when he/she needs to be,
>>>>or not, depending on the requirements of the role.>>>>
>
> Yeah. It's all in the magic socks. If you wear the director approved
> magic socks, the audience will love you.
I can't figure out if you're deliberately trying to be confrontational, or
you're simply ignorant. Read Uta Hagen's book, Respect for Acting, and then
come back and we'll start the discussion about acting craft again.
>
PTravel
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147932055.2...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I wonder how many years of music training Zero Mostel had? How versed
> in music theory was Rex Harrison?
>>>>Who said anything about music training? I'm talking about acting. >>>>
>I was involved with a TV pilot once. The premise was that people were
picked up off the street, and costarred with professional sitcom
actors. To everyone's horror, by the end of the pilot, it was almost
impossible to tell the pros from the amateurs.
Again, what's your point? I worked on television for more than 10 years.
Guess what? There were no amateurs around. If you couldn't show up on
time, hit your mark, learn your lines and turn in a credible performance
without being difficult you'd be fired in a heartbeat.
>>>> People may come see you once, but they won't come again, and
> they'll leave thinking the problem is as much the medium as the
> "performer." >>>>
> Kelly Clarkson can sell out Madison Square Garden. Clay Akin, ditto.
And that's where they belong, not on a stage doing live theater.
>>>>So does Nascar and tractor racing. That doesn't make them equivalent to
>>>>the
Metropolitan Opera, which also sells out.>>>>
> And musical comedy people don't understand why they're the laughing
stock of American culture.
I'm not a "musical comedy person," whatever that is, but, theater is not a
"laughing stock of American culture." If you think so, you spend too much
time watching Fox.
>>>>> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
>> hundreds of thousands of auditions. They have America's ear.
>>>>>There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop
>>>>>singer
> and the skills required to perform in musical theater.>>>
> Why?
I've explained it twice, but you've snipped it each time. You don't want to
discuss, you just want to argue.
>>>I explained in another post. There's a huge difference between singing
>>>and
being unselfconscious on the one hand, and creating a character by
building
an emotional reality and defining and pursuing actions, working with
the
fourth wall, sustaining a consistent performance within the constraints
of
how you've been directed while keeping it fresh 8 performances a week,
etc. >>>>
>Yeah, that's pretty much what's wrong with theater. It's heavily
doused with "Fun Be GoneT." It's a comedy. It's supposed to be
funny.
Yes, I think you're right. Theater is all comedies and they're no fun,
anyway.
Keep watching American Idol. I'll bet you can even find an American Idol
newsgroup. I'm sure you'll be much happier there.
>>>>> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
>>>>>>Craft is the key to performing in theater, followed by talent. An
>>>>>>actor
> with craft and talent can be likeable when he/she needs to be, or not,
> depending on the requirements of the role>>>>
> Something actors have trouble understanding is how little control they
> have over their careers. It really depends if people want what they
> have.
>>>Neither assertion is true,>>>>
No, both assertions are completely true.
>>> but that has nothing to do with my comment to
which you replied. >>>>
>No, it has everything to do with what you said. You believe that
someone with talent who works endlessly will eventually be rewarded.
It's just not true. There's something beyond talent, something that
the legwarmer crowd has forgotten.
Not even close. I said, "craft, then talent, then luck." Reading
comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit (nor is trolling). This has
become tiring and lost its amusement value long ago.
Harlett O'Dowd
PTravel wrote:
> I've explained it twice, but you've snipped it each time. You don't want to
> discuss, you just want to argue.
DING! DING! DING!
Yes, folks! We have a winner.
If you stop feeding the troll, it will get bored and go away.
Please.
Matthew Winn
wrote:
> I couldn't disagree more. I don't know what you mean by "an effective whole
> performer," but pop singers do not have to create emotional realities, do
> not have to play actions, do not have to react to the emotional realities
> and actions of others, do not have to work with the fourth wall while
> remaining open to communication with the audience and, most of all, do not
> have to provide a consistent performance within directorial confines that
> appears fresh and spontaneous 8 times a week for months at a time.
Unfortunately many fans are blind to even the most glaring faults. The
objects of their affection give awkwardly stilted performances that
fairly scream "I have sod-all experience of acting", yet most of the
fans lap it up. (Not all, I have to say. I remember one ardent fan
responding to the complaint that Marti Pellow was crap with "Who
cares? He's sexy." Another fan commented "He more ... copes ... than
does well.")
Acting well requires experience, and it's only possible to get that
experience through training or through playing many and varied roles.
Playing a single role over and over again for years (as Marti Pellow
has done) doesn't give you the experience you need to be a good actor.
It gives you the experience you need to be a good robot.
> Pop singers don't know how to cope with missed entrances, dropped lines,
> malfunctioning props and scenery, and the myriad other hazards of live
> performance that real actors can make seem effortless.
That's the standard by which I judge whether someone has what it takes
to cope with live performance, both on stage and off. Those who can't
remain calm when the unexpected happens and work out a way around the
problem in real time should tackle something else. The theatre's not
for them.
The ability to repair absolutely anything with gaffer tape is also
important.
Bushwhacker
And they're scripted and cast for type, just like other shows. Plus they
edit like crazy, taking comments and events out of context to create
conflicts and alliances.
I ascribe such shows' appeal to advanced voyeurism, spicing up "lives of
quiet desperation."
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:apOag.2008$2x1...@fe10.lga...
>> PTravel wrote:
>>> There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop singer
>>> and the skills required to perform in musical theater. As a general rule
>>> (though, of course, there are exceptions), pop singers make lousy musical
>>> theater actors.
>> Between music videos and the shift in the economics of pop music to a
>> situation in which performers view making records essentially as an
>> advertising expense for their live performances (the Beatles would be lost
>> in today's world), this is becoming less true. A front singer needs to be
>> an effective whole performer now, and, assuming an adequate grasp of
>> language, is likely to have developed nearly all of the stage actor's
>> craft willy-nilly.
>
> I couldn't disagree more. I don't know what you mean by "an effective whole
> performer," but pop singers do not have to create emotional realities, do
> not have to play actions, do not have to react to the emotional realities
> and actions of others, do not have to work with the fourth wall while
> remaining open to communication with the audience and, most of all, do not
> have to provide a consistent performance within directorial confines that
> appears fresh and spontaneous 8 times a week for months at a time. Pop
> singers don't know how to cope with missed entrances, dropped lines,
> malfunctioning props and scenery,
Ummmmm..... Uh-huh.
When you're ready to come out of your fantasy world, I'll be waiting for
you.
stephen...@gmail.com
When I've occasionally tuned in to reality shows of whatever stripe, my
most usual reaction has been to thank God that my life does not contain
any people who in any way resemble the ones on the show.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> PTravel wrote:
> > There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop singer
> > and the skills required to perform in musical theater. As a general rule
> > (though, of course, there are exceptions), pop singers make lousy musical
> > theater actors.
>
> Between music videos and the shift in the economics of pop music to a
> situation in which performers view making records essentially as an
> advertising expense for their live performances (the Beatles would be
> lost in today's world), this is becoming less true. A front singer needs
> to be an effective whole performer now, and, assuming an adequate grasp
> of language, is likely to have developed nearly all of the stage actor's
> craft willy-nilly.
That's always been true of some people. A good British example would be
the very wonderful Barbara Dickson, who began as a folk singer, moved
into pop, and started to move into acting - after one theatre
experience in the 1970s as the onstage singer/pianist in Willy
Russell's "John, Paul, George, Ringo... and Bert" - in the 80s, first
in musical theatre (again with Russell - she originated the role of
Mrs. Johnstone in the first production of the musical version of "Blood
Brothers" in 1983, and won a SWET - now Olivier - award for her
performance), then in television ("Band of Gold"). She's a very, *very*
strong actress, though she has no formal training.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
PTravel wrote:
> You misunderstand the meaning of "craft" when applied to acting. I'm not
> talking about stage craft (of which CATS was not a prime example -- well, it
> wasn't a prime example of anything except the mentality of a lot of
> tourists).
Well, no. "Cats", in its original London incarnation, was one of the
most experimental, high risk commercial theatrical productions *ever*.
On paper, it looked almost certain *not* to work (and in fact they had
enormous problems raising the money for it at all). It never worked as
well as it did in London anywhere else because the New London Theatre's
unusual auditorium couldn't be replicated anywhere else, so the show
lost a lot of its immediacy. The production team tried to compensate
for this by making it bigger and louder, resulting in the rather
forced, tacky show you saw on Broadway - but in its original form, in
London, it was absolutely *not* cynically designed as a long-running
tourist attraction. It was a massive, *massive* risk.
Stephen
ptr...@travelersvideo.com
I saw the original London production (and never saw it anywhere else).
I'll stand by what I said.
>
> Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Well, then, you need to do a lot more reading about the London
production, because you are absolutely wrong about it. The show, yes,
*became* a punchline, but when it was originally mounted it was, as I
said, just about the riskiest venture the West End had ever seen.
Stephen
bval...@aol.com
> perform. >>>>
> Kelly Clarkson's first CD sold 3 million copies.
>>>>And your point?>>>>
Contrary to what you believe, clearly Kelly Clarkson can perform.
>>>> People may come see you once, but they won't come again, >>>>
> Four years later, Kelly Clarkson's latest CD sold 10,000,000 copies.
>>>>And your point?>>>>>
Contrary to what you believe, people have been coming back to see Kelly
again and again and again. Indeed, her numbers have more than tripled
over the past four years.
>>>>>and they'll leave thinking the problem is as much the medium as the
>>>>>"performer." >>>>
> The American Idol's stars have so far sold 33 million CDs.
>>>>>So what? What has that to do with performing in musical theater? >>>>>
Excuse me, you didn't say "perform in musical theater." You said
"perform."
>> The people on American Idol managed to weed themselves above literally
>> Hundreds of thousands of auditioners. They have America's ear.
>>>>>There is a huge difference between the skills required to be a pop
>>>>>singer
> and the skills required to perform in musical theater.>>>>
> Of course, we are still talking about an art form which has a large
> segment which has yet to embrace Elvis Presley or the Beatles.
>>>>What does that mean?>>>>
That the musical theater community are willfully keeping themselves
ignorant of current popular trends, to cater to a nitch. Doing so has
stagnated the artform, and is the reason that people like Disney were
able to move on in and take over. Why hasn't there been a musical
comedy version of "American Idol?" The BBC did one for opera last
year. And you know what? It was terrific.
>>>>Do you think people who enjoy musical theater aren't fans of Elvis or the Beatles?>>>>
You might be right. The more trendy of the bunch has managed to make
it to music which is as recent as a half-century old.
Things more current than that? I remember watching a video when
theater folk did their version of Michael Jackson's Live-Aid. It was
called "Broadway Pretends To Care About Starving Kids For Five Minutes
While On The Way To Saudis Where Then Can Make Catty Remarks About The
People Who Aren't There" or something. The top stars of Broadway got
together to sing "We Are the World."
The only people who weren't reading off sheet music were Penn and
Teller.
>>>> As a general rule (though, of course, there are exceptions), pop
>>>> singers make lousy musical theater actors. >>>>
> How much of that is Broadway making itself as unfriendly to outside
> talent as possible?
>>>Zero. >>>>
Of course not.
>>>> None.>>>>
Perish the thought.
>>> Nada.>>>>
Nyte!!!
>>>> Not in the least. >>>>>
Not even a tiny bit.
>>>> Broadway doesn't shun talent. >>>>
No, it simply defines "talent" in an ever narrowing sliver of the human
spectrum.
>>>However, as I've been saying repeatedly, and you seem to completely ignore,
craft comes first. >>>
No, I didn't ignore you. I answered you. I said that personality and
likablity trumps craft every time. I DISAGREED with you. Disagreeing
is not the same as ignoring.
>> People like them. And likablity is key in the performing arts.
>>>>>Craft is the key to performing in theater, followed by talent. >>>>
> And the logical conclusion of that attitude is CATS and STARLIGHT
> EXPRESS.
>>>>You misunderstand the meaning of "craft" when applied to acting. I'm not
talking about stage craft (of which CATS was not a prime example --
well, it
wasn't a prime example of anything except the mentality of a lot of
tourists). >>>
And theater's contempt for the "tourists" (AKA Almost Everyone In The
World) is exactly the reason why there hasn't been an American musical
which has captured the public's imagination since "A Chorus Line".
> It's all leg kicks up to the ears,
> hitting the note square in
> the middle, getting off stage before the three ton crane swings by the
> set, and living in dread that every single gesture ordered by Mr. Nunn
> wasn't followed exactly. "I'm sorry, Mr. Nunn. It was my fault, Mr.
> Nunn. Please forgive me, Mr. Nunn."
>>>>>None of that is craft.>>>>>
noun: skill in an occupation or trade
noun: people who perform a particular kind of skilled work
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=craft&typeofrhyme=def&org1=syl&org2=l
The performers in CATS most certainly have learned craft.
> I saw a concert production of Lil' Abner a week or so ago. They had
> twenty hour rehearsal, it was sloppy as Hell, but God was the show fun.
> Too many hours in the rehearsal hall, not enough in the bar
> afterwards.
>>>A non sequitur. >>>
No, quite to the point. Over rehearsal can kill the fun in a show.
>>>>An actor with craft and talent can be likeable when he/she needs to be,
>>>>or not, depending on the requirements of the role.>>>>
> Yeah. It's all in the magic socks. If you wear the director approved
> magic socks, the audience will love you.
>>>>I can't figure out if you're deliberately trying to be confrontational, or
you're simply ignorant. >>>>
I was ridiculing an idiotic statement that you made.
bval...@aol.com
"Bye, Bye Birdie" made fun of Elvis, protraying Conrad as a drunken
thug who like he's be more comfortable on all fours dry-humping the
lawn furniture.
>>>> ALL SHOOK UP,>>>>
A dismal failure on all counts.
>>>>and BEATLEMANIA.>>>>>
The gold standard of musicals to piss off Actors.
>>>>Presley's movies
generally make my skin crawl (although a number of fine actors are
trapped in them,) but I did like the TV miniseries about him. Camryn
Manheim and Randy Quad were excellent. >>>
Let's see, you can't stand films made about Elvis, but you like movies
when other people play him. Well, that's...revealing.
Noel...@aol.com
A massive risk might be when a lot of money goes in to a new show by
unknown writers - The Wedding Singer comes to mind. Cats had a very
famous composer who'd had smash hits before. It had a long-dead
lyricist whose name was more likely to sell tickets than an unfamiliar
one. And, compared to most musicals, it had a cheap set: a single set,
in which very little moved, made of junk.
I suppose the absence of a discernable plot was somewhat risky, but
there've been many revues before. Compare, say, the musicals of Joe
Brooks - now there's a lot of massives before risk.
Newport
"Bye, Bye Birdie" made fun of Elvis, protraying Conrad as a drunken thug
Let's see, you can't stand films with Elvis, but you like movies when
other people play him.
---------------------------------------
In those two cases, yes. BIRDIE is the only kind of "rock musical" that
should exist. An anti-rock musical. (I also like anti-sports films.
NORTH DALLAS FORTY, ONE ON ONE.) I've always thought Elvis was ugly. Not
as ugly as Mel Torme, but still....
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
PTravel
<stephen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148021964....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What made it risky? (This is a genuine question). To me, it was a bunch of
people in cat suits dancing to T.S. Eliot music on a set with a lot of big
garbage cans and a flying saucer. It was unchallenging, for all intents and
purposes plotless, and had only one memorable song that was repeated
endlessly. I thought of it as a dress-up version of the early
revuesicals -- appealling, perhaps, to children and those unfamiliar with
musical theater. Perhaps London didn't have the tradition of the "business
man musical" like New York, but Cats certainly fit into the mold.
>
> Stephen
>
Matthew Winn
<ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
[re: Cats]
> What made it risky? (This is a genuine question). To me, it was a bunch of
> people in cat suits dancing to T.S. Eliot music on a set with a lot of big
> garbage cans and a flying saucer. It was unchallenging, for all intents and
> purposes plotless, and had only one memorable song that was repeated
> endlessly.
You misspelled "once plus a 24-bar mostly-instrumental excerpt".
As for the rest, that's part of what made it risky.
Back in 1980 Andrew Lloyd Webber's name on a show was far from being
the guarantee of press attention that it is today, Cameron Mackintosh
was still largely unknown as a producer, and Trevor Nunn was at the
time the artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Company and a
novice at directing musicals. The owners of the New London nearly
withdrew their offer of the venue because, having seen the sort of
show ALW was planning to put on, they thought they'd make more money
by using it as a conference centre. In ALW's words (quoted from The
Stage, which yesterday ran a feature on the 25th anniversary of the
show):
[it was] "a recipe for disaster... Andrew Lloyd Webber without
Robert Stigwood, without Tim Rice, working with a dead poet, with
a whole load of songs about cats, asking us to believe that people
dressed up as cats are going to work, working with Trevor Nunn
from the Royal Shakespeare Company who's never done a musical in
his life, working in the New London, the theatre with the worst
track record in London, asking us to believe that 20 English
people can do a dance show when England had never been able to put
together any kind of fashionable dance entertainment before".
It's easy to sneer at Cats when looking at it from the perspective of
a quarter-century later when you know it's a successful concept, but
when it was being created it was one of the riskiest ventures any of
the production team had ever faced, and I doubt any of them have done
anything as risky since.
It's a shame The Stage's article doesn't appear to be on their website
because it's an interesting account of how things were before Lloyd
Webber was well known outside the theatre industry.
Matthew Winn
> When I've occasionally tuned in to reality shows of whatever stripe, my
> most usual reaction has been to thank God that my life does not contain
> any people who in any way resemble the ones on the show.
A new series of Big Brother has just started in the UK. The first few
series were filled with contestants who were extrovert but basically
normal. Recently it has turned into a freak show, and some of the
people they've had in the last couple of years are the sort that would
make you sell your house if they moved into the next county.
This time around they have a woman who hates everybody and thinks all
humans are shits, and a man who thinks the sole function of women is
to serve him. Amazingly, there are members of the public who want to
join this bunch of weirdos:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/19/bb_golden_ticket/
Newport
ptr...@travelersvideo.com (PTravel)
CATS: appealling, perhaps, to children and those unfamiliar with musical
theater. Perhaps London didn't have the tradition of the "business man
musical" like New York
The term was "the tired businessman." CATS put many to sleep early in
the evening.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Bill
more comfortable . . . >>
............
Speaking of drunken . . .
Bill
PTravel
"Matthew Winn" <*@matthewwinn.me.urk> wrote in message
news:gc6s62dag5vt49v8d...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:01:32 GMT, "PTravel"
> <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
> [re: Cats]
>> What made it risky? (This is a genuine question). To me, it was a bunch
>> of
>> people in cat suits dancing to T.S. Eliot music on a set with a lot of
>> big
>> garbage cans and a flying saucer. It was unchallenging, for all intents
>> and
>> purposes plotless, and had only one memorable song that was repeated
>> endlessly.
> ^^^^^^^^^
> You misspelled "once plus a 24-bar mostly-instrumental excerpt".
By george, I did!
>
> As for the rest, that's part of what made it risky.
>
> Back in 1980 Andrew Lloyd Webber's name on a show was far from being
> the guarantee of press attention that it is today, Cameron Mackintosh
> was still largely unknown as a producer, and Trevor Nunn was at the
> time the artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Company and a
> novice at directing musicals. The owners of the New London nearly
> withdrew their offer of the venue because, having seen the sort of
> show ALW was planning to put on, they thought they'd make more money
> by using it as a conference centre. In ALW's words (quoted from The
> Stage, which yesterday ran a feature on the 25th anniversary of the
> show):
>
> [it was] "a recipe for disaster... Andrew Lloyd Webber without
> Robert Stigwood, without Tim Rice, working with a dead poet, with
> a whole load of songs about cats, asking us to believe that people
> dressed up as cats are going to work, working with Trevor Nunn
> from the Royal Shakespeare Company who's never done a musical in
> his life, working in the New London, the theatre with the worst
> track record in London, asking us to believe that 20 English
> people can do a dance show when England had never been able to put
> together any kind of fashionable dance entertainment before".
>
> It's easy to sneer at Cats when looking at it from the perspective of
> a quarter-century later when you know it's a successful concept,
I guess we define "successful concept" differently. Cats was commercially
successful, yes, but so was The Beverly Hillbillies. Neither are stellar
represenatives of their respective mediums, but the latter had, at least,
some kitch appeal. The former, though, was simply an example turning the
collaborative talents of professional production people to the dark side.
What would this newsgroup look like if "musicals" meant only Cats, Beauty
and the Beast, [fill in the name of any pop movie adaptation], and so on?
> but
> when it was being created it was one of the riskiest ventures any of
> the production team had ever faced, and I doubt any of them have done
> anything as risky since.
Well, thank god for that! I'd consider a show like Urinetown risky ("too
much exposition, bad subject matter, a bad title . . ."). Sweeny Todd was
risky. West Side Story was risky.
Cats? Paraphrasing P.T. Barnum, "No one ever lost money underestimating the
intelligence of the casual theater-going public."
>
> It's a shame The Stage's article doesn't appear to be on their website
> because it's an interesting account of how things were before Lloyd
> Webber was well known outside the theatre industry.
I'm ambivalent about Webber. I liked the concept album for Evita, and
Phantom was fun, at least in the original London production (though I was
fortunate enough to see it sans Brightman). Sunset Blvd has some truly
horrible lyrics, but had a nice set on Broadway. And, I'm ashamed to admit,
I like Starlight Express in its original London production. I don't care
for the rest of his opus. I'm neither a Webberphile nor a anti-Webberist.
However, I just don't see Cats as any kind of a landmark except, perhaps, to
mediocrity.
Jason T
"Mark McGee" <mmc...@tetpc.com> wrote in message
news:d5Kag.13835$Nw6.2730@trnddc03...
> Being able to power belt songs does not make you a good performer. I'll
> be damned if I'll spend $100+ to see an American Idol reject screech out
> theatre music songs. I guess the future of Broadway will be 2 1/2 hour
> MTV videos.
People pay that nightly for Wicked - where one can listen to a non-American
Idol screech her way through theater music songs.
I'll begrudgingly admit that there have been performers on AI who do have
what it takes. Why, Katherine, right now, is one. I was a music director
with Ann Reinking's Broadway Theater Project for 6 years. Katherine was
there twice and was recognized by all the people in charge as someone who
could make it. She's really quite talented.
Jason T.
Jason T
way to help bring some "appreciation-education" to them.
That said, I hate that singing style, as well.
Jason T.
"Newport" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29218-446...@storefull-3154.bay.webtv.net...
Little good can come of this. We don't need AI enthusiasts in our
theatre audiences. And the toxic singing style is polluting even
conventional musicals like DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Noel...@aol.com
Let's not kick out people who could pay our bills. Let's find a
> way to help bring some "appreciation-education" to them.
>
> That said, I hate that singing style, as well.
>
> Jason T.
>
> theatre audiences. And the toxic singing style is polluting even
> conventional musicals like DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS."
>
I'm a little confused, Jason: Are you saying that a singing style TV
viewers might recognize from American Idol is used in Dirty Rotten
Scoundrels? Seriously?
I ask this with no disrespect, but did you see the show?
stephen...@gmail.com
No, Noel, in London, "Cats" was an *enormous* risk, and all you're
telling me is that you don't know very much about the show's history.
Let's take them one by one:
Lloyd Webber working without Tim Rice - prior to 1981, he had mounted
only one show without Rice, and it closed in four weeks.
Lloyd Webber working with Cameron Mackintosh - who by 1981 had found
significant success staging tours of revivals of golden-age hits (and
the songbook show "Side by Side by Sondheim), but who had never, at
that point, had a hit with a full-scale new musical.
A British dance musical - in a time when it was widely assumed that the
British didn't really have the skills to pull off such things (borne
out by the great difficulty they apparently had in putting together the
original cast - triple-threat performers, in London in 1981, were very
thin on the ground) - with a British choreographer (and a British
choreographer whose previous credits didn't particularly suggest any
great suitability for the assignment of finding a stage language for
Eliot's poems).
A British dance musical, furthermore, with a very thin narrative, based
largely on a book of poems for children.
A British dance musical directed by a guy from the RSC who had, in
1981, never worked outside the subsidised sector, much less on a big
commercial musical (to be fair, he'd never directed a musical at the
RSC either).
An *almost plotless* British dance musical, directed by a guy from the
RSC who was best known for productions of the classics.
A British dance musical designed by a guy from the RSC who had, in
1981, never worked outside the subsidised sector (and who had never
worked on a musical).
A British dance musical whose above-the-title stars - Judi Dench and
Brian Blessed - were both non-dancers from the RSC, neither of whom
were particularly known for being the sort of singers who'd sound good
with Lloyd Webber's music (Dench, of course, did by then have something
of a track record in musicals, having done "Cabaret" and "The Good
Companions"), neither of whom, in 1981, were particularly great
box-office draws in themselves (Dench was good, and well-known, but her
"imperial period" came later), and both of whom - like everyone else in
the show - were employed on a "play as cast" basis, meaning that they
were to be a part of the ensemble and have one, maybe two solo
opportunities beyond that.
A British dance musical that was being staged in a venue that was a)
somewhat off the beaten track, with little passing trade, and b) had
such a horrendous track record with commercial theatre that for the
previous several years it had been used as a television studio by LWT
(Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1980 "This Is Your Life" was filmed there, which
is when he got the idea that it might be a good space for the show).
Financing for the show fell through twice, the second time just prior
to the start of previews (which would not have happened if the show had
been as sure-fire a hit as you seem to believe it was), and the theatre
owners were not supportive of the show (they could not see it being a
hit, and went to Mackintosh before the opening to tell him,
essentially, that they would close the show by exercising the stop
clause in the rental contract if business didn't take off after the
opening - they didn't want a dying show lying bleeding for months in a
theatre that could easily be rented as a TV studio). There was very
little in the way of a box-office advance (the box office went through
the roof following the reviews, which were very strong, stronger than
anybody involved had any right to expect). And, of course, *right*
before the start of previews, one of the above-the-title stars - Dench
- injured her Achilles' tendon and withdrew from the production to
undergo surgery, meaning that a replacement had to be found (and
another number had to be reassigned - the replacement was Elaine Paige;
Dench was playing Grizabella and Jennyanydots, but since there was no
time, before the first preview, to rehearse Paige in both roles,
Jennyanydots was reassigned to another actress).
As a commercial prospect, in London in 1981, "Cats" had almost nothing
going for it. The show's massive global success, yes, was partly - and
later - down to the very impressive marketing machine that Cameron
Mackintosh built in conjunction with the London advertising agency
DeWynters, but the original London production was about as big a gamble
as the British commercial theatre has ever seen.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
See the very long response I just wrote to Noel's post.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Matthew Winn wrote:
> On 18 May 2006 20:04:31 -0700, stephen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > When I've occasionally tuned in to reality shows of whatever stripe, my
> > most usual reaction has been to thank God that my life does not contain
> > any people who in any way resemble the ones on the show.
>
> A new series of Big Brother has just started in the UK.
Oh, right. So *that's* why my brother saw blood weeping from a wall the
other day.
Stephen
Newport
and Nancy Kulp. (And both performed in SHOW BOAT.)
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
Noel...@aol.com
viewers might recognize from American Idol is used in Dirty Rotten
Scoundrels? Seriously? I ask this with no disrespect, but did you see
the show?
Disingenuous. Stop lying about not reading certain posts. Anybody have a
link to that Times article about the Pavlovian response to the star
search moment? I wonder if Brian d'arcy James is going to be able to do
some of that stuff.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Noel...@aol.com
collaborating with the director of the RSC on a setting of the 20th
century's most famous poet's work for children was the riskiest venture
ever to hit the West End, you'll have to compare the risks in doing a
show you truly admire, like Metropolis.
Pay particular attention to the cost of the production, and the track
records of the creative team involved.
Thank you.
Newport
bdr...@webtv.net (Bill)
bvallely: << . . . protraying...who like he's be. . . >>
...........
Maybe it's jive. We could get Barbara Billingsley to translate.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Jason T
My response was to "toxic siging style". I have not seen DRS. Whether
Steve was accurate in saying that that style of singing exists in DRS is of
no matter in my response.
There's an acrobatic style to almost all pop singing in the last 20 years
that I don't really like. It's one of the many things white people have
co-opted from black.
Let me explain what i mean before I start a flame war:
In much of black music over at least the past two hundred years melody has
been a starting point. A black singer/musician would play around with the
harmonic structure to allow freedom of expression. This carries over into
jazz, obviously. In the past couple of decades, little white girls have
been singing like this, but without the soul or even the innate musical
expertise to carry it off. That bothers me when I listen to it.
I know none of this is news to you, Noel, I'm just explaining what I meant.
Jason T.
<Noel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1148093295....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Newport
From: j.mi...@verizon.net (Jason T)
That said, I hate that singing style, as well.
How many do you think we could reform?
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
From: j.mi...@verizon.net (Jason T)
matter in my response. There's an acrobatic style to almost all pop
couple of decades, little white girls have been singing like this, but
know none of this is news to you, Noel.
-------------------------------------
And we thought the ANNIE kids were annoying.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
stephen...@gmail.com
Lose the snotty attitude.
Thank you.
I don't know quite where you'd get the idea that "Metropolis" is a show
I admired for anything other than Judy Kuhn's performance (and maybe
Ralph Koltai's set) - certainly not from anything I've ever posted
about it (I've fairly consistently maintained that, Kuhn and maybe
Koltai's work aside, it was crap from beginning to end). And I'm
reluctant to get into this with you, because I've actually already
explained, at some length, why "Cats" was such a risky project - and so
has Matthew Winn, who provided a very similar explanation to mine - and
your response above suggests that you, basically, didn't read the
lengthy response I already gave, or that you disregarded great chunks
of it because they didn't fit your carefully-held view of what you
believe "Cats" to be. In other words, if you don't believe the response
I already gave, the problem is yours, not mine. If you start to read
about the musical's London opening, you'll very quickly find that just
about everything you uncover reinforces the explanations that Matthew
and I have given in this thread.
"Metropolis", since you ask, was a far more cynical project than
"Cats", in that it essentially aped the ingredients of the biggest West
End hits of the time - middle-of-the-road pop-ish score, nearly
sung-through, massive sets, a central love story - but substituting
spectacle and volume for emotional content (there were a spate of such
shows in London around the late 80s/early 90s, and they all flopped -
after "Les Mis" and "Phantom" took off, a bunch of people jumped on the
pop spectacle bandwagon, just as "Mamma Mia" spawned a number of
inferior imitations. "Metropolis", scarily enough, wasn't even the
worst of the pop spectacle wannabes... in fact, it wasn't even the
worst pop spectacle wannabe to play at the Piccadilly, though it was
pretty bad). "Metropolis" was a cynical attempt to sell shoddy material
on the strength of an eye-popping production design and a set of songs
that espoused banal romantic cliches and sounded like anything you'd
find anywhere on Radio 2. Less cynical producers - ones who actually
cared somewhat about the artistic content of a project - would have
hired a better director than Jerome Savary, might well have fired
bookwriter Dusty Hughes when he proved to be so horribly out of his
depth, and would have generally tried to ensure that the show had
something going for it other than the production design. The producers
of "Metropolis" took none of those steps, and it showed - the result
was a lazy, trite show that was, more than anything else, a
by-the-numbers regurgitation of a set of ingredients that had proved
successful elsewhere in the West End. Which, of course, is why it
failed. The mystery isn't that it flopped - it's that it managed to
limp along for six months.
"Cats", for all its faults, was - in terms of British theatre at the
time - *completely* sui generis, a considerable leap in the dark for
everyone involved, and - yes - a huge, *huge* gamble - and that,
conversely, is probably a good part of the reason why it proved so
successful. *Everybody* involved took a risk - and the risk paid off.
As opposed to "Metropolis", where nearly everybody involved tried to
reproduce a show according to some kind of blueprint of what was
successful in the West End at that time, which resulted in the show
bombing.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Oh - and yes, just to make this *absolutely* clear, I did see both
shows in their West End productions; I am not jumping to conclusions
based on recordings or other incarnations of either show.
Stephen
Newport
From: stephen...@gmail.com
to Noel Katz: Lose the snotty attitude.
------------------------------------
I doubt that's possible for him. Besides, he lives in NYC.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
From: stephen...@gmail.com
incarnations
LOL.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Matthew Winn
> Matthew Winn wrote:
> > A new series of Big Brother has just started in the UK.
>
> Oh, right. So *that's* why my brother saw blood weeping from a wall the
> other day.
The new series began on Thursday evening. This morning, walking
through a railway station, I caught the headline on one of today's
tabloids:
SEX SECRETS OF BB'S NIKKI
They certainly wasted no time in trying to dig up the dirt.
Matthew Winn
<ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
> "Matthew Winn" <*@matthewwinn.me.urk> wrote in message
> news:gc6s62dag5vt49v8d...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:01:32 GMT, "PTravel"
> > <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
> > [re: Cats]
> >> What made it risky? (This is a genuine question). To me, it was a bunch
> >> of people in cat suits dancing to T.S. Eliot music on a set with a lot of
> >> big garbage cans and a flying saucer. It was unchallenging, for all intents
> >> and purposes plotless, and had only one memorable song that was repeated
> >> endlessly.
> > ^^^^^^^^^
> > You misspelled "once plus a 24-bar mostly-instrumental excerpt".
>
> By george, I did!
It just seems like it occurs more often because you get to hear a
muzak version twenty times on the journey to the theatre.
> > It's easy to sneer at Cats when looking at it from the perspective of
> > a quarter-century later when you know it's a successful concept,
>
> I guess we define "successful concept" differently.
In this context the only possible meaning is commercial success. We're
discussing the risk involved and the trouble ALW and his associates
faced in trying to bring Cats to the stage. When, in the entire
history of theatre, did any investor say "Well, the show's a sure-fire
hit and I'm guaranteed to get my money back ten times over, but
dammit, I'm just not convinced it'll be perceived as artistic enough"?
When it comes to raising money and trying to persuade people that a
show should be produced, financial success is all there is.
No, measured against some standards Cats isn't an artistic success.
It's no Oklahoma! or West Side Story. There's no way it could have
been: it was a bunch of poems set to music, which pretty much rules
out any hope of a strong plot and ALW rightly presented most of the
show as standalone numbers with no narrative thread. (In my opinion
the Grizabella/Memory story is the weakest aspect of Cats. It doesn't
fit the concept of the rest of the show, and it feels to me as though
it's only there because ALW lacked the courage to go with a completely
plotless production.) But even though it wasn't (and couldn't be) a
great dramatic work, it was still one of the biggest risks ever taken
in 20th Century British theatre. Yet people dismiss this, as if the
fact that it paid off handsomely in the end in some way diminishes
the uncertainty faced by the production team before it opened.
As you said yourself:
> Cats? Paraphrasing P.T. Barnum, "No one ever lost money underestimating the
> intelligence of the casual theater-going public."
That sort of "they knew it would be a success because they were
pandering to the ignorant public" attitude is one of the great lies
told about Cats. When the show turned out to be a hit the creators
of the show were as astonished as anyone.
> I'm ambivalent about Webber. I liked the concept album for Evita, and
> Phantom was fun, at least in the original London production (though I was
> fortunate enough to see it sans Brightman). Sunset Blvd has some truly
> horrible lyrics, but had a nice set on Broadway. And, I'm ashamed to admit,
> I like Starlight Express in its original London production. I don't care
> for the rest of his opus. I'm neither a Webberphile nor a anti-Webberist.
> However, I just don't see Cats as any kind of a landmark except, perhaps, to
> mediocrity.
I don't think that's fair to the show or to anyone involved in it.
It may not match the way you'd like theatre to be, but that doesn't
change the fact that it was something new and its success was a
remarkable achievement. Back in 1980 "everybody knew" the British
couldn't do dance shows.
All too often people here and elsewhere seek to establish their
credentials as theatrical experts by slagging off Cats. It's an easy
target, so they accuse its creators of merely putting together some
formulaic off-the-shelf crowd pleaser. Andrew Lloyd Webber is far
from innocent of relentless commercialism -- Whistle Down The Wind is
a prime example of commercial theatre at its worst -- but too many
people forget that it was Cats (and, to a lesser extent, Starlight
Express) that turned him from a largely unknown writer into a brand
name that could sell tickets on its own. Before that he had to fight
to get anywhere, and almost nobody believed Cats could work. Phantom
and Sunset Boulevard are from the ALW "I can do anything and the
idiots will come" years. Cats isn't.
Noel...@aol.com
question, it makes sense to think like an investor.
You've got 50,000 pounds to invest. Would you be better off putting it
in a single-set show involving lauded poet T. S. Eliot, the young
composer of Evita and Jesus Christ Superstar, both of which produced
chart-topping singles and RSC director Trevor Nunn? Or an expensive
multi-set show by American jingle-writer Joe Brooks, director Jerome
Savary, and bookwriter Dusty Hughes?
I'm well aware of the Farrow assessment of Metropolis: that's why I
used it as an example. I think we'd all agree that ALL theatre
involves a great deal of risk. And it's hard for me to evaluate this
Brits-can't-dance perception, since there was good dancing in my
productions over there (the fifth comes this summer). But it doesn't
take a seer to see that a musical by the composer of a couple of major
West End hits is a safer bet than most ventures, even if it involves -
gasp! - choreography.
Newport
From: *@matthewwinn.me.urk (Matthew Winn) Cats isn't an artistic
success. It's no Oklahoma! or West Side Story. There's no way it could
have been: it was a bunch of poems set to music, which pretty much rules
out any hope of a strong plot and ALW rightly presented most of the show
knew" the British couldn't do dance shows. Andrew Lloyd Webber is far
from innocent of relentless commercialism -- Whistle Down The Wind is a
prime example of commercial theatre at its worst -- but too many people
forget that it was Cats (and, to a lesser extent, Starlight Express)
that turned him from a largely unknown writer into a brand name that
could sell tickets on its own. Before that he had to fight to get
anywhere, and almost nobody believed Cats could work. Phantom and Sunset
Boulevard are from the ALW "I can do anything and the idiots will come"
years.
SB is easier to sit through than CATS.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Noel...@aol.com
A lot of people dislike the singing style you describe. And, sadly,
some people dislike new musical comedies. Sadder still, some are so
consumed with hatred of both they lie about a very funny Broadway hit,
attempting to discourage theatre-goers who might actually enjoy
themselves.
Tim Gowen
> Before you can convince me that the composer of a couple of megahits
> collaborating with the director of the RSC on a setting of the 20th
> century's most famous poet's work for children was the riskiest venture
> ever to hit the West End,
But it was! A couple of mega-hits? Both JCS and Evita began on record
so a lot of its audience came in with some understanding of what the
show was going to be. Cats was totally different, an utter departure.
Putting an RSC director in there only seems like a selling-point if it
works, and the same guy nearly came unstuck again with Les Miz, don't
forget.
I think you're possibly thinking of the post-Phantom ALW in the context
of the genesis of Cats... The utter bloody-minded hatred of this show
on the part of normally-reasonable-minded people bemuses the heck out of
me.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Noel...@aol.com
> I think you're possibly thinking of the post-Phantom ALW in the context
> of the genesis of Cats... The utter bloody-minded hatred of this show
> on the part of normally-reasonable-minded people bemuses the heck out of
> me.
>
But, Tim, I've expressed no hatred of Cats whatsoever. And I'm only
considering the ALW of 25 years ago. He'd managed to compose two shows
that not only had decent West End runs, they'd done the more remarkable
thing of producing songs that topped the pop charts. He'd done a film
score, collaborated with one of England's leading playwrights, and,
even then, Joseph... was one of the more popular youth theatre shows.
Compared to any show involving totally unknown songwriters,
directors-of-no-repute and big sets, that's not particularly risky.
Here's a hypothetical: David Yazbek has written two Broadway musicals
that have gotten decent receptions. If he teamed up with Michael Boyd
to do a one-set show based on the poetry of Edgar Allen Poe, how risky
would that seem to you? More of a sure thing than the Broadway debut
by and starring the relatively obscure Bob Martin, for instance.
Tim Gowen
> But, Tim, I've expressed no hatred of Cats whatsoever. And I'm only
> considering the ALW of 25 years ago. He'd managed to compose two shows
> that not only had decent West End runs, they'd done the more remarkable
> thing of producing songs that topped the pop charts. He'd done a film
> score, collaborated with one of England's leading playwrights, and,
> even then, Joseph... was one of the more popular youth theatre shows.
Well plenty of people told him not to do it, and financing came from
some backers who had savings... I know he'd had some West End shows and
was already a millionaire but many thought it wouldn't work, they had an
uncomfortable rehearsal period, and its success was a surprise.
And, as I suggested, the same thing happened to Les Miz: an
RSC/Commercial collaboration that got hammered by the critics but which
the audience took to in a big way...
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
John W. Kennedy
> He'd done a film
> score, collaborated with one of England's leading playwrights, and,
> even then, Joseph... was one of the more popular youth theatre shows.
And the original 20-minute version for children's chorus (plus one Elvis
impersonator) was done in a lot of churches.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Matthew Winn
> In examining the "riskiest venture in the history of English theatre"
> question, it makes sense to think like an investor.
>
> You've got 50,000 pounds to invest. Would you be better off putting it
> in a single-set show involving lauded poet T. S. Eliot,
It's poetry. Poems don't sell well in their original form. How
likely is it that people will spend their money to see poems sung on
stage when they won't spend one tenth as much to read them in a book?
> the young
> composer of Evita and Jesus Christ Superstar, both of which produced
> chart-topping singles
Moderately well known to theatre people, but almost unknown to the
general public. Back in 1980 most of the non-regularly-theatregoing
public didn't think in terms of the writers of shows as brand names.
These days most people can name only one composer: Andrew Lloyd
Webber. Before Cats and Starlight Express made ALW a household name
they could name zero.
> and RSC director Trevor Nunn?
Unknown to the public, and someone who'd never directed a musical in
his life.
This isn't something that's open for discussion. It's not a matter
of opinion. It's historical fact. Lloyd Webber had to re-mortgage
his house to raise cash to try to get Cats produced. Three quarters
of the funding depended on small investors because hardly anyone was
willing to gamble a significant amount of money on the show. People
were laughing at the idea. The theatre wanted to pull out because
they didn't think the show would work and they had other offers. If
it was as simple as you claim why was it that nobody wanted to pour
money into the show? Investors DIDN'T think Cats was a safe bet, or
even a comparatively safe one, and nothing you can say will rewrite
the past. Who do you think you are? A politician?
> I think we'd all agree that ALL theatre involves a great deal of risk.
I think we'd all agree that some shows are more of a risk that others.
What is it about an untried concept, with an inexperienced director,
a composer whose only hits were with a lyricist he wasn't using, on a
bare stage with no set, in a theatre renowned for flops because it was
so far out of the way, that says "less risky than most" to you? As
compared with, say, a conventional book musical?
> And it's hard for me to evaluate this
> Brits-can't-dance perception, since there was good dancing in my
> productions over there
We have some bloody good dancers these days (though to be honest the
best dancer I've ever seen in a London musical comes from Flanders),
but back then dancing wasn't the West End's strongest feature and a
show based entirely on dancing was believed impossible outside ballet.
Tell you what. You're a composer. Choose a dead poet, write some
music to accompany a selection of his or her work, put the entire show
in the hands of a director who knows nothing about musicals with the
choreography arranged by someone similarly inexperienced, find a
theatre well out of the tourist areas, and then see how much money
you can raise.
> (the fifth comes this summer).
Tell us more...
Bill
telling me is that you don't know very much about the show's history.
Let's take them one by one: >>
I still don't like the show, but I have a bit more respect for its
history now. Thanks for posting this, Stephen.
Bill
Bill
bvallely: << . . . protraying...who like he's be. . . >>
..........
----------
::::::::::::::
Man, I grew up in Dee-troit (not the suburbs) and I couldn't make heads
or tails out of that gibberish. (Reminded me of Bill Cosby's old routine
about the drunks announcing subway stops.)
Too much Thunderbird Wine, I reckon.
Bill
Newport
bdr...@webtv.net (Bill)
bvallely: protraying...who like he's be.
-----------------------------------
Newport: : Maybe it's jive. We could get Barbara Billingsley to
translate.
-----------------------------------
Man, I grew up in Dee-troit (not the suburbs) and I couldn't make heads
------------------------------------
Newport: It's more of a Camden, New Jersey dialect.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Jason T
But you know what? Even though I was a child actor, at some point in my
teens I was turned on to musical theater through community theater shows and
OBC recordings I bought on other's recommendations. Those CDs?
Phantom of the Opera
Les Mis
Godspell
and others of this ilk (of these, I still like Godspell).
I then watched others come to it through RENT and Wicked (neither are
musicals I enjoy).
I guess what I'm saying is that the casual audience member will help foot
our bills and the enthusiast is bound to become more discriminating as
his/her awareness broadens.
And sometimes, we've got to have our guilty pleasures. I still take some
time to listen to Miss Saigon all the way through about once a year. I saw
it twice in NY and it still gets me. I know it's schlock - the music, the
lyrics, and the glitzy production - I just can't help myself!
Jason T.
"Newport" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16876-446...@storefull-3158.bay.webtv.net...
stephen...@gmail.com
Matthew Winn wrote:
> On 19 May 2006 20:45:44 -0700, stephen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Matthew Winn wrote:
> > > A new series of Big Brother has just started in the UK.
> >
> > Oh, right. So *that's* why my brother saw blood weeping from a wall the
> > other day.
>
> The new series began on Thursday evening. This morning, walking
> through a railway station, I caught the headline on one of today's
> tabloids:
> SEX SECRETS OF BB'S NIKKI
>
> They certainly wasted no time in trying to dig up the dirt.
I'm still recovering from the horror of the brief appearance, last
year, of *Germaine Greer* on "Celebrity Big Brother". God knows what
the hell she was thinking. Although I will admit to having watched,
this year, the whole George Galloway/Pete Burns/leotards thing - I came
across it while channel-surfing and it was horribly compelling,
particularly since Pete Burns is evil.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Noel...@aol.com wrote:
> In examining the "riskiest venture in the history of English theatre"
> question, it makes sense to think like an investor.
That's precisely what I'm doing (and again, please, drop the attitude).
> You've got 50,000 pounds to invest. Would you be better off putting it
> in a single-set show involving lauded poet T. S. Eliot, the young
> composer of Evita and Jesus Christ Superstar, both of which produced
> chart-topping singles and RSC director Trevor Nunn? Or an expensive
> multi-set show by American jingle-writer Joe Brooks, director Jerome
> Savary, and bookwriter Dusty Hughes?
>
> I'm well aware of the Farrow assessment of Metropolis: that's why I
> used it as an example. I think we'd all agree that ALL theatre
> involves a great deal of risk. And it's hard for me to evaluate this
> Brits-can't-dance perception, since there was good dancing in my
> productions over there (the fifth comes this summer). But it doesn't
> take a seer to see that a musical by the composer of a couple of major
> West End hits is a safer bet than most ventures, even if it involves -
> gasp! - choreography.
I'm hesitant to get into this again, because I've a fairly strong
feeling that you won't buy the explanation that's coming, and since
pretty much every source out there backs up the version of events that
I'm presenting, that's your problem rather than mine.
To start with, you need to do some boning up on the history of the
British musical (and, again, you need to tone down the attitude several
notches). Prior to "Cats", there had been precisely *no* - that's ZERO,
ZILCH, NONE - attempts at staging an all-dance musical with an entirely
British creative staff. I'll repeat that figure - NONE, ZIP, ZILCH. Not
a single ATTEMPT, much less a successful one. There had, yes, been
plenty of British musicals involving choreography, but there had never
been a British musical that was entirely about the dancing. "Cats" was
the first. The received wisdom was that there just wasn't the talent
pool in Britain to sustain such a venture (don't forget - when, a few
years prior to "Cats", "A Chorus Line" made its way to London, it did
so with an entirely American cast - and when the time came to replace
those Americans with British performers, the result was an ugly,
litigous scandal that ended up all over the newspapers). The British
talent pool has changed enormously since 1980/81. Now, the sort of
musical theatre dance training that Americans take for granted is quite
readily available in Britain. In 1981, it wasn't, and it was
significantly in doubt whether there would be sufficient British
performers to fill out the show's cast. So, yes, a British dance
musical, in the context of the West End as it was in 1981, was a
significantly more risky prospect than a glitzy, high-tech love story
with a pop score was in 1989. And that's *without* getting into the
commercial dubiousness of Lloyd Webber working without Tim Rice (as I
already pointed out elsewhere, at that point, Lloyd Webber's one show
without Rice had been a fast, humiliating flop), Lloyd Webber working
with Mackintosh (who had, at that point, never had a hit with a show
that wasn't either a revue or a revival), Nunn working on a musical,
Napier working on a musical, Nunn and Napier working outside the
subsidised sector, and *everybody* working in the New London Theatre.
The problem is, you're taking what you know about British theatre
*today*, and assuming that the same rules applied in 1981. They did
not. If "Cats" had been as risk-free a proposition as you suggest, for
a start, then there's no way in hell that Mackintosh would have had as
hard a time as he did with the theatre's owners, who - as Matthew
pointed out - wanted to evict the show before it opened because they
were convinced it could never make money.
ON PAPER, if you knew nothing about each show other than a breakdown of
the personnel involved at the time of production (and maybe a demo of
the big takeaway tunes from each show - let's say "Mister Mistoffeles"
from "Cats", since "Memory" was only written right before previews
began so would not have been available to investors as a demo, and "If
It's Only Love/Bring On The Night" from "Metropolis"), it would
probably look a safer bet to put your money in "Metropolis" in 1989
than to put it in "Cats" in 1981. History shows, of course, that that
would be a wrong decision, but hindsight's 20/20, and commercial
theatre always involves a risk. But yes, absolutely, "Cats" had far
more strikes against commercial success in the West End marketplace in
1981 than "Metropolis" did in 1989. "Metropolis", as I've already
pointed out elsewhere, was quite carefully created to a formula that
had already found success in other shows; "Cats" was an absolute leap
in the dark for everyone involved. And, again, to make this clear, this
assessment is based on viewings of the London productions of both
shows.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Noel...@aol.com wrote:
> . He'd... collaborated with one of England's leading playwrights,
On a show that, at that point, was the most humiliating flop of both
their careers.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Jason T wrote:
> And sometimes, we've got to have our guilty pleasures. I still take some
> time to listen to Miss Saigon all the way through about once a year. I saw
> it twice in NY and it still gets me. I know it's schlock - the music, the
> lyrics, and the glitzy production - I just can't help myself!
Me too - I saw the London production the Saturday matinee after it
opened, and it was stunning. And, while the show contains, sure, a
certain amount of schlock - and one song, "Bui Doi", that is as
revolting a thing as I've ever seen on stage - there's some very strong
stuff in there as well. "The Movie in my Mind" is great - gorgeous
melody, and the lyric quickly and eloquently gets to the heart of those
women's lives.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Not necessarily, since "the Broadway debut by and starring the
relatively obscure Bob Martin" has already successfully played two
commercial runs in Toronto and one in Los Angeles.
Stephen
Bushwhacker
Seconded. And, FWIW, I remember reading a pre-show item about Cats and
thinking "Well, maybe the Brits will like it, but it won't last long." I
enjoyed it in London in 1982 (as did Elliott Norton, who was in the
group of writers I saw Cats with) but not much in subsequent viewings
(usually done only as a favor).
Darrin
> Wasn't Stubby Kaye a winner on Ted Mack's Amateur Hour?>>
Steve, how many times must you be told?ehe When mentioning a "sweet
Jew," the birth name (if applicable) must always follow the stage
name!eheee ie. Stubby Kaye, b. Bernard Kotzin, NYC! ehehe -D, NYC "We
are living in the excesses of freedom. Just take a look at 42nd Street
an Broadway" - WILL DURANT, American historian.."I don't like Tommy on
Broadway at all. I like the music, I'm pleased with Pete's success but
I don't like what they've done to it" - ROGER DALTREY.."All those days
of waiting on tables until I could get a role on Broadway, all that
time going to school taking lessons, and all those years of being a
nobody following a dream-and now here it is" - MARCIA GAY HARDEN.."But
I can't wait to watch the Tonys this Sunday. I'm really glad Broadway
is doing so well this year, especially with its straight plays. It's
been a wonderful year" - GEORGE HARRISON.."The year 1984 brought a
fresh new opportunity to flop on Broadway. I signed to act in a play
called Home Front" - CARROLL O' CONNOR
>
> O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
> http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
> O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Matthew Winn
> I'm still recovering from the horror of the brief appearance, last
> year, of *Germaine Greer* on "Celebrity Big Brother". God knows what
> the hell she was thinking. Although I will admit to having watched,
> this year, the whole George Galloway/Pete Burns/leotards thing - I came
> across it while channel-surfing and it was horribly compelling,
> particularly since Pete Burns is evil.
I learned long ago that any TV show having a title with "Celebrity"
as its first word is not worth watching. That opinion is unlikely to
change unless someone launches "Celebrity Death-Trap Pit of Hell".
I find Big Brother strangely compelling, not least of all because I
don't understand how nobody has ever committed murder when shut in a
house with some of the nutters the show has included. If I were one
of the producers I'd insist that all the cutlery be made of rubber.
John W. Kennedy
> We have some bloody good dancers these days (though to be honest the
> best dancer I've ever seen in a London musical comes from Flanders),
> but back then dancing wasn't the West End's strongest feature and a
> show based entirely on dancing was believed impossible outside ballet.
I remember reading something years ago that showed that there was a
general impression among British actors that all American actors could
sing and dance, and wasn't it just too bizarre and foreign of them?
Noel...@aol.com
definition of "risky." I think something's risky if it has a
particularly small chance of turning out well. Our British-born
contributors find the fourth West End effort by a young songwriter
who's already had two big successes, each containing chart-topping
hits, extremely risky. I find that surprising, because the West End,
happily, is a place that sometimes mounts expensive productions by
people who've never written for the theatre before. Now THAT - to me,
at least - is risky.
It's possible the discussion is colored (or coloured) by the knowledge
that Cats paid off very handsomely. You'd have no trouble convincing
me that Cats has the highest ratio of financial payoff to initial risk
involved.
But that got me to thinking about some American musicals...
Two old friends, who'd never written a musical before, dipped into
their memory of high school experiences and created a show filled with
parodies of old rock songs. They get it mounted downtown, and
audiences, (then) thirsty-for-nostalgia, respond. Bringing it to
Broadway involves a real risk; the pay-off is enormous. Grease becomes
the longest running Broadway show of all time. The writers never write
again (one was a champion handball player).
This season, the fellow who gave London Metropolis (better not refer to
this as anyone's favorite musical - that jibe smacks of "attitude")
many years ago decided to try Broadway. Friends told him not to. He
wrote the book, music, lyrics, directed it himself, was the show's main
investor and producer, and, while he booked one of the smaller Broadway
houses, the costs were somewhere near $10,000,000 (I may be
misremembering this figure). Plot involves a romance with someone who
has tourette's syndrome. Dead people and God make appearances. There
was no pre-Broadway production. How many "massives" can we put before
the word "risk"? The show, In My Life, never brought in 200K in a
week.
Call me snotty, but, to me, "massive 'massive' risk" involves gambling
on un-tested talented. Take two writers under the age of thirty who've
never had a show produced before. Give 'em a book writer and director
with limited experience. Their show involves puppets and humans, who
have sex with each other and also themselves. The content is such,
children aren't welcome. Yes, it's done well in a little theatre, but
can it sell on Broadway? Turns out the answer is yes. Thanks to
winning the Tony, Avenue Q is a hit that's paid back its investors.
To restate the obvious: Every theatrical venture involves a degree of
risk. Some are more risky than others. But flip through Not Since
Carrie, and you may find a few towering longshots that make a show with
"name" talent (YES, in 1980!!!) like Lloyd Webber, Eliot and Nunn seem
like, well, a not-so-massive longshot.
Tim Gowen
> Call me snotty, but, to me, "massive 'massive' risk" involves gambling
> on un-tested talented. Take two writers under the age of thirty who've
> never had a show produced before. Give 'em a book writer and director
> with limited experience. Their show involves puppets and humans, who
> have sex with each other and also themselves. The content is such,
> children aren't welcome. Yes, it's done well in a little theatre, but
> can it sell on Broadway? Turns out the answer is yes. Thanks to
> winning the Tony, Avenue Q is a hit that's paid back its investors.
Have not seen Avenue Q (and to be honest it doesn't appeal) but the
people-as-cats dancing in a junk-yard is still a bigger risk, especially
as dance in British theatre meant ballet, and the successful young
songwriter had previously tackled living figures (and Jeeves, which
flopped).
I may have been way-off by accusing you of being anti-Cats, but to me
it's a very inventive show whose success became something of a symbol of
the decline of musical theatre. I don't think so.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Matthew Winn
> Living on Broadway all these years has probably led me to a twisted
> definition of "risky." I think something's risky if it has a
> particularly small chance of turning out well.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT CATS WAS. Strewth.
> Our British-born
> contributors find the fourth West End effort by a young songwriter
> who's already had two big successes, each containing chart-topping
> hits, extremely risky.
You keep fixating on this idea that because Lloyd Webber had already
had two hits it was less of a risk to invest in Cats.
Yes, he had had two hits, but both with the same lyricist. In 1980
Lloyd Webber was an "and": it was "Tim Rice AND Andrew Lloyd Webber"
who had had success. What you conveniently ignore is that half a
decade before Cats Lloyd Webber had tried to create a musical with
someone other than Tim Rice and it had been a disastrous flop. And
now, in 1980, he was once again trying to work without his lyricist,
making a second attempt to create a musical out of an old book, only
this time it was a book that didn't even have a plot or any clearly
defined characters. As things stood in 1980 it was: Lloyd Webber
writing for Tim Rice's lyrics = success; Lloyd Webber writing for
anything else = failure. To investors in 1980 Lloyd Webber without
Rice was a very shaky prospect indeed: a proven bad investment.
That both Jeeves and Cats were projects Lloyd Webber had started with
Rice but then settled on someone else as a collaborator can only have
served to reduce confidence in the latter project.
You also seem to think that Eliot was a popular attraction. He was a
poet. A few of the potential audience might have read Old Possum's
when they were young, but to most of the audience the material would
have been unfamiliar and even for those who did know it there's no
reason to suppose that they'd expect it to be worth watching on stage.
> I find that surprising, because the West End,
> happily, is a place that sometimes mounts expensive productions by
> people who've never written for the theatre before. Now THAT - to me,
> at least - is risky.
>
> It's possible the discussion is colored (or coloured) by the knowledge
> that Cats paid off very handsomely.
It's only your side of the discussion that's coloured by the success
of the show. Stephen and I are quoting from material of the time and
reporting the way things actually were, as seen by the people who were
involved. You're just offering an opinion based on retrospective
feelings. If you really want to convince anyone that you're not just
making things up as you go along then explain why, if the show was not
a substantial risk, almost nobody wanted to invest in it, the theatre
tried to pull out shortly before the opening date (the set had already
been built), and Lloyd Webber had to borrow money himself to cover the
shortfall in funding. It's true, as you say above, that mounting a
show by people who've never written for the theatre before is risky,
but isn't it every bit as risky to put a new show in the hands of a
director who'd never done a musical before, giving him a concept never
tried before, and starring leads without musical theatre experience?
> But that got me to thinking about some American musicals...
I'm sure most of us on RATM (with one exception) would accept that
you're one of the most knowledgeable people here when it comes to
American theatre. But you don't know everything about the world of
London theatre twenty to thirty years ago, and in matters like this
it's the reports of those who were involved in the project at the time
that carry weight.
Noel...@aol.com
> On 21 May 2006 06:13:23 -0700, Noel...@aol.com wrote: Our British-born
> > contributors find the fourth West End effort by a young songwriter
> > who's already had two big successes, each containing chart-topping
> > hits, extremely risky.
>
> You keep fixating on this idea that because Lloyd Webber had already
> had two hits it was less of a risk to invest in Cats.
>
That's the crux on which this whole thing turns: In America, at least,
the "track record" of theatre professionals is very important. Any
producer is required, by law, to show any potential investor his track
record - every show he's produced and whether it made money. In
America, at least, a composer who'd had two hits along the magnitude of
Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita would be considered a "hot property"
and could easily find investors for anything he wanted to do. It
wouldn't matter if he was ditching his collaborator for some dead
(albeit acclaimed) poet.
If you've gotten the impression that I've been denying the truth of
what happened in England all those years ago, you've missed what I've
been taking issue with: the characterization of Cats as a "massive
'massive' risk." In my admittedly American view, if a composer of two
smash hits wants to team up with the director of one of the country's
most important theatre companies - well, it's hardly the riskiest thing
_I've_ ever heard of. But you're all correct that I'm limited in my
knowledge of how West End producers and investors felt a quarter
century ago. I'm surprised - and truly interested to learn - of such a
completely different perspective on what makes a musical theatre
project risky.
> To investors in 1980 Lloyd Webber without
> Rice was a very shaky prospect indeed: a proven bad investment.
>
> That both Jeeves and Cats were projects Lloyd Webber had started with
> Rice but then settled on someone else as a collaborator can only have
> served to reduce confidence in the latter project...
...
> I'm sure most of us on RATM (with one exception) would accept that
> you're one of the most knowledgeable people here when it comes to
> American theatre.
Thank you. I don't think I know much (so perhaps I'm that one
exception!)
stephen...@gmail.com
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Matthew Winn wrote:
> > We have some bloody good dancers these days (though to be honest the
> > best dancer I've ever seen in a London musical comes from Flanders),
> > but back then dancing wasn't the West End's strongest feature and a
> > show based entirely on dancing was believed impossible outside ballet.
>
> I remember reading something years ago that showed that there was a
> general impression among British actors that all American actors could
> sing and dance, and wasn't it just too bizarre and foreign of them?
I wouldn't say bizarre and foreign, necessarily - musicals have been in
the West End for as long as they've been on Broadway, and clearly there
has always been some dancing involved. What was generally assumed to be
lacking was the skill set and the talent pool to put together a show
like "Cats" that was pretty much nothing *but* dancing (and, certainly,
until very recently it's been a fairly safe assumption that British
performers were not as good at the sort of tight, drilled dancing that
is taken for granted on Broadway as American performers, in no small
part because it's only very recently - certainly since "Cats" - that
training programmes concentrating on turning out triple-threat
performers have been established in Britain).
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Noel...@aol.com wrote:
> Living on Broadway all these years has probably led me to a twisted
> definition of "risky." I think something's risky if it has a
> particularly small chance of turning out well. Our British-born
> contributors find the fourth West End effort by a young songwriter
> who's already had two big successes, each containing chart-topping
> hits, extremely risky. I find that surprising, because the West End,
> happily, is a place that sometimes mounts expensive productions by
> people who've never written for the theatre before. Now THAT - to me,
> at least - is risky.
>
> It's possible the discussion is colored (or coloured) by the knowledge
> that Cats paid off very handsomely. You'd have no trouble convincing
> me that Cats has the highest ratio of financial payoff to initial risk
> involved.
>
> But that got me to thinking about some American musicals...
>
> Two old friends, who'd never written a musical before, dipped into
> their memory of high school experiences and created a show filled with
> parodies of old rock songs. They get it mounted downtown, and
> audiences, (then) thirsty-for-nostalgia, respond. Bringing it to
> Broadway involves a real risk; the pay-off is enormous. Grease becomes
> the longest running Broadway show of all time. The writers never write
> again (one was a champion handball player).
>
> This season, the fellow who gave London Metropolis (better not refer to
> this as anyone's favorite musical - that jibe smacks of "attitude")
Yes, and you still need to tone it down. This isn't about opinion. It's
about facts.
> many years ago decided to try Broadway. Friends told him not to. He
> wrote the book, music, lyrics, directed it himself, was the show's main
> investor and producer, and, while he booked one of the smaller Broadway
> houses, the costs were somewhere near $10,000,000 (I may be
> misremembering this figure). Plot involves a romance with someone who
> has tourette's syndrome. Dead people and God make appearances. There
> was no pre-Broadway production. How many "massives" can we put before
> the word "risk"? The show, In My Life, never brought in 200K in a
> week.
>
> Call me snotty, but, to me, "massive 'massive' risk" involves gambling
> on un-tested talented. Take two writers under the age of thirty who've
> never had a show produced before. Give 'em a book writer and director
> with limited experience. Their show involves puppets and humans, who
> have sex with each other and also themselves. The content is such,
> children aren't welcome. Yes, it's done well in a little theatre, but
> can it sell on Broadway? Turns out the answer is yes. Thanks to
> winning the Tony, Avenue Q is a hit that's paid back its investors.
>
> To restate the obvious: Every theatrical venture involves a degree of
> risk. Some are more risky than others. But flip through Not Since
> Carrie, and you may find a few towering longshots that make a show with
> "name" talent (YES, in 1980!!!) like Lloyd Webber, Eliot and Nunn seem
> like, well, a not-so-massive longshot.
OK, yes, I was right. All that typing *was* a waste of time.
Matthew's right - whether or not you buy the argument, this is not
something that is up for discussion or open to interpretation. The
version of events that Matthew and I have outlined - by now, at some
considerable length - is established, verifiable fact, backed up by a
multitude of reliable sources. If you can't accept it, that's more
about gaps in your knowledge than it is about gaps in our argument.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Tim Gowen wrote:
> <Noel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Call me snotty, but, to me, "massive 'massive' risk" involves gambling
> > on un-tested talented. Take two writers under the age of thirty who've
> > never had a show produced before. Give 'em a book writer and director
> > with limited experience. Their show involves puppets and humans, who
> > have sex with each other and also themselves. The content is such,
> > children aren't welcome. Yes, it's done well in a little theatre, but
> > can it sell on Broadway? Turns out the answer is yes. Thanks to
> > winning the Tony, Avenue Q is a hit that's paid back its investors.
>
> Have not seen Avenue Q (and to be honest it doesn't appeal) but the
> people-as-cats dancing in a junk-yard is still a bigger risk, especially
> as dance in British theatre meant ballet, and the successful young
> songwriter had previously tackled living figures (and Jeeves, which
> flopped).
Particularly since "Cats", in its original incarnation, was - by the
standards of the day - *way* more expensive, comparatively, than
"Avenue Q". "Avenue Q", by Broadway standards, was a relatively cheap
show to put up; "Cats", in 1981, by London standards, was not (though
it's far harder to find exact financial figures for the West End than
it is for Broadway, because producers don't release them and there's no
exact British equivalent to Variety).
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Noel...@aol.com wrote:
> Matthew Winn wrote:
> > On 21 May 2006 06:13:23 -0700, Noel...@aol.com wrote: Our British-born
> > > contributors find the fourth West End effort by a young songwriter
> > > who's already had two big successes, each containing chart-topping
> > > hits, extremely risky.
> >
> > You keep fixating on this idea that because Lloyd Webber had already
> > had two hits it was less of a risk to invest in Cats.
> >
>
> That's the crux on which this whole thing turns: In America, at least,
> the "track record" of theatre professionals is very important.
In Britain too - and Lloyd Webber's track record, without Rice, at that
time was one show - "Jeeves" - that had been a massive, embarrassing
flop for everyone involved (and which had, not coincidentally, brought
about the termination of the long-term collaboration between its
bookwriter and director).
> Any
> producer is required, by law, to show any potential investor his track
> record - every show he's produced and whether it made money. In
> America, at least, a composer who'd had two hits along the magnitude of
> Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita would be considered a "hot property"
> and could easily find investors for anything he wanted to do. It
> wouldn't matter if he was ditching his collaborator for some dead
> (albeit acclaimed) poet.
Well, as someone in a musical once said, you see what you look for.
> If you've gotten the impression that I've been denying the truth of
> what happened in England all those years ago, you've missed what I've
> been taking issue with: the characterization of Cats as a "massive
> 'massive' risk."
There's nothing to take issue with. It was. Every source backs up that
version of events. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
> In my admittedly American view, if a composer of two
> smash hits wants to team up with the director of one of the country's
> most important theatre companies - well, it's hardly the riskiest thing
> _I've_ ever heard of. But you're all correct that I'm limited in my
> knowledge of how West End producers and investors felt a quarter
> century ago.
Indeed. Very, apparently.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Matthew Winn wrote:
> On 20 May 2006 20:19:28 -0700, stephen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'm still recovering from the horror of the brief appearance, last
> > year, of *Germaine Greer* on "Celebrity Big Brother". God knows what
> > the hell she was thinking. Although I will admit to having watched,
> > this year, the whole George Galloway/Pete Burns/leotards thing - I came
> > across it while channel-surfing and it was horribly compelling,
> > particularly since Pete Burns is evil.
>
> I learned long ago that any TV show having a title with "Celebrity"
> as its first word is not worth watching. That opinion is unlikely to
> change unless someone launches "Celebrity Death-Trap Pit of Hell".
Well, according to Dr. Greer, that's pretty much exactly what Big
Brother is already:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2120-16149-1441708,00.html
Stephen
Newport
jwk...@attglobal.net (John W. Kennedy) I remember reading something
years ago that showed that there was a general impression among British
actors that all American actors could sing and dance, and wasn't it just
too bizarre and foreign of them?
Noel Coward was quoted as thinking all Americans could sing.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O