How long is the average show?
hiya
curtain goes up at 8, what time do the actors take their bows? 10? 11?
Listen free to selections from the musical "Ralph!"
http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/user_page.pl?url=wlr
Steve Newport
From: hi...@yahoo.com (hiya)
curtain goes up at 8, what time do the actors take their bows? 10? 11?
It varies widely. Play. Musical. Classic. Contemporary. But on the
"average" 10:20
to 10:40. Personally, I think musicals are generally too long. I'm for a
running time of under two hours (with one intermission) and/or (more
importantly) no single act (of a play or musical) running over an hour.
When it comes to revivals of classic musicals-- rather than cut them
excessively, I think an extra intermission would help.
Spelvin
news:20815-41...@storefull-3156.bay.webtv.net:
I think many "golden age" classics such as THE MUSIC MAN and GYPSY
tended to have a first act of 90 minutes and a second act of 60 minutes.
I think MY FAIR LADY clocks in at close to a three hour total running
time.
As far as I'm concerned, shows like that should be even longer, not
shorter.
Spelvin
Steve Newport
From: iny...@nospam.net (Spelvin)
excessively, I think an extra intermission would help.>>>
at close to a three hour total running time.
I still think the length of an act is more important than the total
running time.
Kevin Marshall
But what are the odds of three-act musicals making an appearance today?
I suppose it's feasible; three hours is the limit, but you could add ten
minutes to just about every show and still be under that (if you have
multiple intermssions, can they be ten minutes? Or does each have to be
15 minutes for the sake of the unions?). But many shows would probably
be a bit awkward with 60-70 minutes for a first act and 40-50 minutes
for the second and third acts. And you'd get awkward intermissions,
since most shows weren't written to be three acts. If you wrote shows to
be three acts that would be okay, I suppose.
Fortunately I'm young enough that I don't mind a two-act show that
clocks in at about 2:40. But lengthy one-act musicals can be a bit
annoying (the only one that springs to mind that I've seen would be
ASSASSINS).
Kevin
Steve Newport
kevinm_1986@yahoodotcom (Kevin Marshall) you'd get awkward
intermissions, since most shows weren't written to be three acts.
clocks in at about 2:40. But lengthy one-act musicals can be a bit
annoying (the only one that springs to mind that I've seen would be
ASSASSINS).
The fact is-- anything over 90 minutes (play or musical) without
intermission now is *really* pushing an audiences tolerance. Most of the
classic musicals have a great spot for an additional break in Act One.
Some Broadway revivals (BRIGADOON comes to mind) simply decided to break
earlier. As I recall, that one is really imbalanced. Very long Act One.
Very short Act Two. TV has made people more demanding of efficient
storytelling. There's probably more plot in half an episode of L & O
than there is in most musicals.
Matthew Winn
wrote:
> I think many "golden age" classics such as THE MUSIC MAN and GYPSY
> tended to have a first act of 90 minutes and a second act of 60 minutes.
>
> I think MY FAIR LADY clocks in at close to a three hour total running
> time.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, shows like that should be even longer, not
> shorter.
Depends on the quality of the production. I've seen 90-minute first
acts where I've thought "It can't be the interval already", and
60-minute first acts where I've thought "Isn't it tomorrow already?"
--
Matthew
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
Matthew Winn
<kevinm_1986@yahoodotcom> wrote:
> But what are the odds of three-act musicals making an appearance today?
> I suppose it's feasible; three hours is the limit, but you could add ten
> minutes to just about every show and still be under that (if you have
> multiple intermssions, can they be ten minutes? Or does each have to be
> 15 minutes for the sake of the unions?). But many shows would probably
> be a bit awkward with 60-70 minutes for a first act and 40-50 minutes
> for the second and third acts. And you'd get awkward intermissions,
> since most shows weren't written to be three acts. If you wrote shows to
> be three acts that would be okay, I suppose.
Once the theatre owners realise how much extra money they can make
from the bar with an extra intermission they'll find somewhere to
put another break. Not long ago I saw a production of ACL with an
interval hammered into the middle because not enough people were
buying drinks before the show.
Steve Newport
*@matthewwinn.me.urk (Matthew Winn)
the bar with an extra intermission
Some dinner theatres have been doing that for decades.
Bushwhacker
>
> *@matthewwinn.me.urk (Matthew Winn)
> Once the theatre owners realise how much extra money they can make from
> the bar with an extra intermission
> -----------------------------------------
> Some dinner theatres have been doing that for decades.
>
>
Which leads to some strange breaks in the action...
Spelvin
> than there is in most musicals.
>
>
>
Musicals aren't ABOUT "plot!" I remember jumping up on my desk and
screaming at a high school English teacher about this.
Musicals are an art form closely related to opera. The plots are the
LEAST of them!
If you want plot, stay home and read Agatha Christie.
Spelvin
Spelvin
news:h6edu092021mninpc...@4ax.com:
That's my point. When it's great, it could go on forever, as far as I'm
concerned.
THE MUSIC MAN is my favorite musical. It could run for days and I
wouldn't complain. They could spend two hours examining Ethel
Toffelmeier's life and the backstory of Amaryllis' relationship with
Winthrop, and I wouldn't complain.
OTOH, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA could be five minutes long and I'd be
bored.
Spelvin
Steve Newport
iny...@nospam.net (Spelvin)
Musicals aren't ABOUT "plot!" Musicals are an art form closely related
to opera.
------------------------------------
I don't like opera. I like musicals with plots. Even if it's just who
gets what girl/boy.
Steve Newport
ro...@thetop.org (Bushwhacker)
<<<Some dinner theatres have been doing three acts for decades.>>>
------------------------------------
Although in a SHENANDOAH I did as Sam, the show worked better that way.
I later played the lead twice. Once with Anne Heche. (Sorry, Spelv, but
everything I've written here about roles played and shows directed is
twue. Call me a liar again on it, and you're dead to me. No BFS.)
fmomoon
Spelvin <iny...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95DDD727...@216.196.97.131...
Music and no plot? I think we call that a concert.
--
Moni (fmomoon)
"The truth shall set you free; but first you'll be really p*ssed off!" Bill
Cosby
Steve Newport
From: fmomoo...@comcast.net (fmomoon) <<<If you want plot, stay home
and read Agatha Christie. Spelvin>>>
Or in some cases: revues.
Victor S. Miller
>> There's probably more plot in half an episode of L & O than there
>> is in most musicals.
>>
>>
>>
Spelvin> Musicals aren't ABOUT "plot!" I remember jumping up on my
Spelvin> desk and screaming at a high school English teacher about
Spelvin> this.
I guess that you really believe that! If that's the case why don't we
just have song reviews.
Spelvin> Musicals are an art form closely related to opera. The plots
Spelvin> are the LEAST of them!
I'll admit that plot usually takes a backseat to singing in opera, but
it really shouldn't. Plot should be important. The most thrilling
opera performers have been the ones who could act (and not just stand
and sing).
Victor
Steve Newport
vic...@algebraic.org (Victor S. Miller)
(to Spelvin) I'll admit that plot usually takes a backseat to singing in
opera, but it really shouldn't. Plot should be important. The most
thrilling opera performers have been the ones who could act
And that's made all the difference in the ones I've seen.
Spelvin
news:m3r7kn7...@algebraic.algebraic.org:
For god's sake, you people need to learn how to read.
I wasn't talking about ACTING. I was talking about PLOT.
And who in their right mind (which has little to do with the average
person here, but let's say for argument's sake) goes to an opera for the
PLOT?
That Japanese bitch waiting for that scumbag Pinkerton was an idiot!
But that doesn't make "Un bel di" any less gorgeous.
Now, the greatest musicals DO have good storylines. But I'm saying a
musical can still be full of great stuff and have a silly plot. In the
old, old days, they almost ALL had silly plots. Ever read the librettos
of THE RED MILL or LEAVE IT TO ME, just to name two?
Spelvin
John W. Kennedy
> And who in their right mind (which has little to do with the average
> person here, but let's say for argument's sake) goes to an opera for the
> PLOT?
Approximately 90% of operas are based on hit plays, and most of the
others are based on best-selling novels, established mythology, or some
other pre-existing form. Puccini, whenever he was looking for material,
made a point of attending plays in languages that he did not know, to
see if he could follow them.
> That Japanese bitch waiting for that scumbag Pinkerton was an idiot!
> But that doesn't make "Un bel di" any less gorgeous.
Based on a hit play. A hit Broadway play at that.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as naïve as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004).
Steve Newport
iny...@nospam.net (Spelvin)
Shut up.
Spelvin
news:jQ%Fd.6795$Yw7....@fe12.lga:
> Spelvin wrote:
>> And who in their right mind (which has little to do with the average
>> person here, but let's say for argument's sake) goes to an opera for
>> the PLOT?
>
> Approximately 90% of operas are based on hit plays, and most of the
> others are based on best-selling novels, established mythology, or
> some other pre-existing form. Puccini, whenever he was looking for
> material, made a point of attending plays in languages that he did not
> know, to see if he could follow them.
>
>> That Japanese bitch waiting for that scumbag Pinkerton was an idiot!
>> But that doesn't make "Un bel di" any less gorgeous.
>
> Based on a hit play. A hit Broadway play at that.
>
Yes, by David Belasco, who also wrote "The Girl of the Golden West."
Now, how often are those plays revived compared to the operatic
versions? The music is the whole point of them now, not the silly
plots.
Spelvin
Steve Newport
iny...@nospam.net (Spelvin)
to do with the average person here, but let's say for argument's sake)
goes to an opera
SN: Exactly:
----------------------------
That Japanese bitch
----------------------------
SN: Trembling- psycho- cunt variety?
----------------------------
"Un bel di"
----------------------------
SN: Loved Evalyn Baron's rendition in SCRAMBLED FEET.
-----------------------------
Ever read the libretto of LEAVE IT TO ME?
-----------------------------
SN: Yes. And I saw it fully staged at Equity Library Theatre. It works.
The San Francisco recording is fun. And the plot includes political
assassination. There should be more musicals about that.
John W. Kennedy
> Now, how often are those plays revived compared to the operatic
> versions? The music is the whole point of them now, not the silly
> plots.
How often are /any/ 19th-century plays revived, excluding Ibsen and Chekhov?
They were, nevertheless, hit plays that people found worth going to.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
David Lawver
> Once the theatre owners realise how much extra money they can make
> from the bar with an extra intermission they'll find somewhere to
> put another break. Not long ago I saw a production of ACL with an
> interval hammered into the middle because not enough people were
> buying drinks before the show.
Dinner theatre has been doing it for years. Nothing like a Saturday
night Act III where the audience has moved on to mean drunk.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lawver dmla...@facstaff.wisc.edu
"Without danger, Mr. Bardolph, there is no theatre." -Peter Shaffer
Steve Newport
From: dmla...@facstaff.wisc.edu (David Lawver) Dinner theatre has
been doing it for years. Nothing like a Saturday night Act III where the
audience has moved on to mean drunk.
-------------------------------------
Sometimes three on Saturday. The leads often had alternates. (Although,
Spelv, I did all the performances of KISS ME, KATE-- as Fred.) When I
did have one (like Georges in LA CAGE) I always took Saturday nights
off. They were the least sophisticated audiences. (It's a reason I
rarely *go* to the theatre on weekend eves. if there's an alternative.)
The best Saturday night audieces were for THE SOUND OF MUSIC and ANNIE.
At 9 o'clock. (What does that tell you?) But with something like GIGI,
we'd have seniors and black church groups roaring with laughter-- at the
lyrics, too-- at matinees, while the supposed Saturday night
sophisticates just stared. Dustin Hoffman at one point in one Broadway
show stopped dooing Saturday nights saying somthing like "these people
simply would rather be somewhere else. They were having a nice dinner,
and conversation, and we interrupted it with this boring PLAY."
Trilby
<kevinm_1986@yahoodotcom> wrote:
>Steve Newport wrote:
>
>>
>> From: iny...@nospam.net (Spelvin)
>> <<<When it comes to revivals of classic musicals-- rather than cut them
>> excessively, I think an extra intermission would help.>>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> I think many "golden age" classics such as THE MUSIC MAN and GYPSY
>> tended to have a first act of 90 minutes. I think MY FAIR LADY clocks in
>> at close to a three hour total running time.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> I still think the length of an act is more important than the total
>> running time.
>>
>But what are the odds of three-act musicals making an appearance today?
Given the regulations regarding overtime pay, I'd say doubtful. My
guess is that thse days, building OT into the expenses by adding an
intermission would be considered counter-productive and unnecessary.
When I was stage manager for the local opera company -- which nearly
always operated in the red -- the conductor once took the tempos so
fast in Il Trovatore that he cut 22 minutes off the running time from
the 3 hours and 10 minutes at final dress. Maybe it was due to
adrenaline, but we all suspected it was to bring the show in under 3
hours, so we wouldn't have to pay overtime to the orchestra.
---------------------------- Trilby
Noel Katz
turns I didn't see coming.
Something I've noticed about some opera fans: give them beautiful singing and
beautiful music and they're completely satisfied. Doesn't matter to them if
the plot makes no sense and if the lyrics are stilted.
Which reminds me of seeing Phantom of the Opera (in London): some beautiful
singing and some beautiful music (Lloyd Webber's prettiest score) but oh! those
lyrics. Most have them scribbled by some kid who's done very little before or
since. And the plot reminded me of those Afterschool Specials where somebody
learned to live with a disability. "Yes, I've got a horribly disfigured face,
but I've learned not to be bitter about it. Beauty is skin keep and caring
people will see the good inside of me." Except this Phantom fellow didn't
learn that lesson.
A plot is one of many elements that can make a work of musical theatre
entertaining. Writers who ignore this aspect of theatre are missing out on
something sort of grandish.
Steve Newport
tril...@bellsouthHATESPAM.net (Trilby) <<<When it comes to revivals of
classic musicals-- rather than cut them excessively, I think an extra
total running time.>>>
--------------------------------------
always operated in the red -- the conductor once took the tempos so fast
in Il Trovatore that he cut 22 minutes off the running time
Well I'm for quick pacing in musicals as well. BFS. Growing up seeing
musicals in summer tents, the tempos were always a bit faster than on
the OBCRs. I'd sometimes go home and play them at 45 RPM. FORUM is an
excellent recording for that.
Trilby
>I prefer an interesting plot when I attend a musical, one with, hopefully, some
>turns I didn't see coming.
>
>Something I've noticed about some opera fans: give them beautiful singing and
>beautiful music and they're completely satisfied. Doesn't matter to them if
>the plot makes no sense and if the lyrics are stilted.
It was nice of you to qualify that statement by saying "some" opera
fans, and you're perfectly right, of course, because first and
foremost, it's all about the music, music, music. :-) If one enjoys
classical music and/or the sound of an operatic voice, it's easy to
forgive a stupid plot, "just-stand-there-and-sing" staging, and a
300-lb Mimi dying from a wasting disease. If the singers are good
enough, you can sit back and enjoy listening to gifted musicians
performing great music, just as if you were attending a symphony, and
appreciate the evening on that level. Personally, that only happens
for me if the singers are phenomenal; but lightning does strike on
occasion.
And it doesn't work the other way 'round. No amount of brilliant
acting, inspired directing, nor the most piercing and insightful
dramatic plot and lyrics, will make up for substandard singing or
inadequate voices.
-------------------------------- Trilby
Steve Newport
tril...@bellsouthHATESPAM.net (Trilby) No amount of brilliant acting,
inspired directing, nor the most piercing and insightful dramatic plot
and lyrics, will make up for substandard singing or inadequate voices.
I wish more theatre critics felt that way. Especially when it comes to
leading ladies.
Kevin Marshall
> No amount of brilliant
> acting, inspired directing, nor the most piercing and insightful
> dramatic plot and lyrics, will make up for substandard singing or
> inadequate voices.
>
Maybe in opera. Fortunately it doesn't work that way in musical theatre.
Kevin
Christopher Jahn
news:10uq44d...@corp.supernews.com:
In Musical Theatre you can get by with a weak voice or two, but if they
are all weak you've got a big mess.
Kevin Marshall
If they've all got weak voices chances are the company putting on the
show isn't that great and can't attract very good people.
But if everything else was perfect, many shows (if not most) could be
great even with a cast full of weak voices.
Of course, it's all theoretical, because any extremely good actors
should be able to get a few voice lessons and improve from weak to passable.
The good thing about musical theatre is that there are so many elements
the chances are that something's gonna be good. I know a local high
school whose shows are absolutely dreadful but have two of the most
talented actress-singers I've ever heard. I've seen POTO and enjoyed the
sets. I've seen a dreadful production of SOUTH PACIFIC in which I just
kept thinking to myself, "Damn, they just don't write lyrics like they
used to."
Of course, the bad thing about musical theatre is that even on the
Broadway level the chances are something will be bad.
Kevin
Steve Newport
kevinm_1986@yahoodotcom (Kevin Marshall) extremely good actors should
be able to get a few voice lessons and improve from weak to passable.
The good thing about musical theatre is that there are so many elements
about musical theatre is that even on the Broadway level the chances are
something will be bad.
Especially when it comes to casting musical revivals.
fmomoon
Christopher Jahn <cj...@actorsplayhouse.org> wrote in message
news:Xns95E25D2...@216.196.97.136...
Steve Newport
fmomoo...@comcast.net (fmomoon) <<<In Musical Theatre you can get by
with a weak voice or two, but if they are all weak you've got a big
mess.>>>
Well- the revival, anyway.