Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net |
| Disney-Bway27 |
Least Favorite Sondheim ShowWhat are your least favorites? Honestly, I'm not crazy about Pacific Overtures or Passion. Passion confuses me beyond belief and Pacific Overtures just doesn't hook me. Honestly, only four of the songs in PO are what I would call up to par with Sondheim's other work ("Please Hello!", "Welcome to Kanagawa", "Someone in a Tree", "Poems").Your's? |
||||||||
| Salome |
Passion to me is rather Passionless. Saturday Night is a young writer's first attempt.
( BTW I adore Pacific Overtures.). |
||||||||
| Disney-Bway27 |
 Sorry, Dawn. It just doesn't hook me at all.
|
||||||||
| Apples2for10 |
I've been persecuted for this, but my two least favorites are Sunday in the Park with George and A Little Night Music. | ||||||||
| SomeoneLikeYou |
*nods in agreement* Those would have to be my least favorite as well, I'm afraid. I don't feel that The Frogs makes the cut either. I don't understand why Forum is so many people's least favorite. I love it...it's sharp and I like the songs and characters. As for you, Apples2for10...how could you?!  lol jk.
|
||||||||
| Disney-Bway27 |
Agreed, I LOVE Forum. 
|
||||||||
| dolbinau |
The Frogs for sure. But to be fair I haven't seen the show or know much about it at all - only through the revival cast recording. I just can't get interested.
I like Passion if mainly for Donna Murphy - I'm not sure how anyone can say what she sings at least is 'passionless'; "I read" OMMMGGGGG. Pacific Overtures is good though IMO. And apparently Sondheim's favourite score.
(From the book Sondheim) |
||||||||
| High-baritonne |
So far, Follies is the show that do the least for me. I've not heard anything from Bounce or Saturday Night yet, so Follies may move up the ladder. I am also quite new to Follies, so I'm going to give it a couple of more shots. Passion is actually one of my favorites, Giorgio is so true to young men! He is so confused with his emotion in a way that reminds me of boys at my own age!
Pacific Overtures is also quite high up, but my two favorites are Company and Sweeney Todd. Company because the music is so good, and the lyrics are also wonderful. Sweeney Todd is a show that really depends on the cast and the orchestra, one bad person or bad orchestration is enough to ruin the experience of it. Company is much harder to ruin. The Frogs is not high on my list, I like "I Love to Travel" and "Invocation and Instructions to the Audience". Except for that it is on the bottom somewhere. |
||||||||
| Dvarg |
Remember you promised to give it a SERIOUS try 
|
||||||||
| High-baritonne |
Of course! A promise is a promise! A couple of more shots is pretty serious, especially if you think about the little time I've got to listen to all my music! I want to ask my director for our new "highlight" musical if he can use a number from Follies. Then I will be forced to like it. |
||||||||
| Salome |
Follies is even miles ahead of Sondheim's other great shows. Follies is next to My Fair Lady the greatest musical ever written!1
also..The Frogs is very strong..and carries a great political message that must not be ignored. |
||||||||
| actor |
I think his lyrics for West Side Story and Gypsy are only OK (Gypsy's are slightly better than West Side Story's though) and 'OK' is quite weak for Sondheim. Sondheim is one of my favourite lyricists but it seems whenever he is asked to write the lyrics for a show and not the music he falls a little flat. | ||||||||
| Salome |
I agree with you about WSS. I think the only two songs of his that have great lyrics are America 9film version) and Gee Officer Krupke.
Gypsy i disagree. I think most of his lyrics are wonderful (except All I need is teh Girl and little lamb). Together has the internal rhyme that made Cole Porter applaude .. "no fits no fights no feuds and no egos..amigos! together!" |
||||||||
| dolbinau |
Well also consider they were also his first projects.. |
||||||||
| Apples2for10 |
I think that's mainly because Styne wrote better melodies than Bernstein. |
||||||||
| SomeoneLikeYou |
Oh yes, I definitely give it credit for that and appreciate it for what it is. I just prefer Follies, Sweeney, Company, ALNM, etc. when it comes to the music. |
||||||||
| RainbowJude |
PASSION
Passion is an emotionally complex show, dealing with mature themes using a stunning score that is by turns beautiful and haunting. It's great. Full stop. Argument over.
Later days David |
||||||||
| missannes |
Re: PASSION
Passion's a very well-written, well-constructed show. It is also, like many of Sondheim's shows, a particular taste. I can't say I enjoy watching it the same way I do A Little Night Music or Sweeney, but I have full appreciation for it. Watching the original production makes me cringe, however. Shea was not, in my opinion, good for the role. Murphy and Mazzie outshine him effortlessly. I think that alone is enough to give it a bad name. EDIT: I'll also mention that Saturday Night is my guilty pleasure...I saw the production in London recently having heard none of the music, ever, and thought it was charming. |
||||||||
| jfmillet |
Personally, I'd have to say that Do I Hear a Waltz is probably my least favorite show that Sondheim was involved in. "Stay" is the only song that I enjoy at all.
As far as shows that he wrote music and lyrics for, it's hard to say. I'd probably have to say Forum, as it's just not a show that I've ever really connected with. I also don't care for Bounce...however, I'm looking forward to the re-worked version (Road Show) of which the cast recording is being released next week. |
||||||||
| missannes |
Amen to Do I Hear A Waltz?, that was definitely a mistake.
I liked Road Show, very much. Without even bringing into account the reworked material, phenomenal performances there. I'm waiting very impatiently for the recording, I have been since I saw in in December =] |
||||||||
| dolbinau |
You can already order the Road Show cast album from PSclassics and it will apparently be shipping in a day or two. |
||||||||
| Salome |
Re: PASSION
also dont you love how Rainbowjude even in the minority thinks that his opiunion on Passion shgould be everyones. ive seen 3 productions including the OBC and even though thw cast..especially Murphy,Mazzie and Aldredge are outstanding its far from his most engaging show emotionally or intelectually. |
||||||||
| missannes |
Re: PASSION
Maybe not YOU specifically, but others I've talked to who disliked the show just saw the 94 one and hated it. But yeah, it's definitely a particular taste. And I agree, it is not his MOST engaging work. It's just not his best work, to take that a step further. Some people can get into it and relate, and others just can't. |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
"Argument over"? How immature. I have seen the show twice and tried to engage in it but I think it is a poorly written show. I think it has the potential to be an extremely moving show but does not strike the emotional vein that it should. So don't be accusing anyone of emotional limitations here. The characters do not blossom, the main character is problematic and the dull, plodding music restricts the show from soaring. |
||||||||
| Disney-Bway27 |
So we all know my complaining of Pacific Overtures in the OP has completely 180'd...
Passion's the only one left. |
||||||||
| Yakko |
Sweeney Todd.....
PUNKED! |
||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Re: PASSION
If I was truly in the minority, Passion would not have ended up placing 6th (with an average placement of 4) in our little Top Ten Musicals of the 1990s poll. On another board, in the same poll, Passion placed 2nd. It's a show of immense emotional depth and intellect.
The music is not dull or plodding. The composition is immensely sophisticated is not compartmentalised into extractable or easily singable songs. It's phenomenally rich in its use of motifs to develop both narrative and character. Emotionally, it tonally expresses the thematic concerns of the piece: the nature and meaning of love, and the thin line between passion and obsession. It's dark and brooding and brilliant. As to your gauche attempt at discussing character development, if you are unable to see that the show is structured around the asymmetrical development of Fosca and Giorgio, then the credibility of your theatre literacy is called into question for me. One can't simply reduce the idea of character development in Passion to the simple concept of "characters blossoming". Character development in the show is far more complex: it is structured around the asymmetrical development of Fosca and Giorgio. One character grows, the other decays decays and both are changed. This is obvious in even the most basic narrative reading of the material. As I've said before, people use the fact that the score is complex and therefore less accessible than something like Oklahoma! to dismiss Passion. However, I think this is an easy way out, an excuse that belies a reason, for Passion forces people to confront an idea too close to their hearts to a greater extent than any other Sondheim musical. It's easy to to look at Into the Woods and separate oneself from the characters even if there common human motivations behind their extreme actions. The concept and structure of the show distance one from too intensely personal an engagement, even though one is able to empathise with the characters and what occurs within the scope of the narrative. In contrast, it's disquieting how easily one can see something of oneself in Fosca, as broken in her soul as she is in her body. You can distance yourself from Sweeney Todd, but in order to engage fully with Passion, you need to be willing to confront something very real and very private. Sondheim and Lapine challenge conventional ideas about the relationship between love, passion and obsession from three perspectives: what people expect them to be, what they truly are and what they have the potential to become. To engage with Passion in a profound manner is a harrowing, albeit brilliant and ultimately rewarding, experience. You have to be emotionally ready for that experience, otherwise casting the show aside (or dismissing it as something that is neither emotionally nor intellectually engaging) is easy. Later days David |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
My dislike of the musical has nothing to do with an inability to confront the "idea" of the show. I find the musical problematic in the way it executes that idea. The idea itself is, as you said, extremely personal and requires a high level of emotional honesty in order to appreciate. I think that the show executes that highly personal idea in a highly impersonal manner. But perhaps you are too limited to understand that a person can disagree with your assessment of a musical without "lacking emotional depth."
Well for someone who is so concerned about audience contact, the score certainly distances itself from the audience. Also, sophisticated is not necessarily better. We can all agree that a score to a musical does not need to be easily compartmentalized or "singable" in order to be good, but a score that is sophisticated for the sake of being sophisticated but does not soar or grab the audience is not going to serve the play well. Being technically well structured and sophisticated isn't enough to make it a good score.
I did not say that Lapine and Sondheim did not make attempts at good characterization, or that neither of the characters change. Please don't attempt to make conclusions about what I'm saying before understanding what I'm actually trying to say. The effort is there and I applaud them for it, but Fosca's character is quite simply too caved in and engulfed in self-pity for us to be able to sympathize with her story. I honestly believe that it is a story that could have the potential to make a wonderful musical, but Fosca's complete annoyingness encumbers her. It's just that Fosca is such a weak, negative person, it stands in the way of her being able to really reach to the audience. Also, accusing someone of being "gauche" simply because they don't happen agree with your opinion on a show is incredibly arrogant and pretentious. Rudeness is not necessary.
I am certainly open and emotionally ready for that kind of experience, but I don't think Passion succeeds in offering it. |
||||||||
| RainbowJude |
More PASSION....
So leave emotions out of it then. Any objective assessment of the score of Passion that says the music doesn't soar actually hasn't evaluated it for what it is. Furthermore, the score of Passion is far from being sophisticated without purpose; it is inherently it is linked to the narrative or how it fully embodies the themes of the piece. There's a difference between disliking a show, which is about opinion, and looking at a show in terms of its dramaturgy, which is something that exists objectively to some extent, which is a point on which I think we differ. If you don't like the show because it's not to your taste, that's fine and that's a completely different story. But what critical framework(s) or methods of analysis are you using to examine the show as a piece of musical theatre that support an argument that the show is badly written? If you could provide an well-supported counter-argument along those lines, I certainly would at the very least accept it as valid, even if I didn't agree with it. Later days David |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
And your argument is built on... nothing. All you seem interested in is proving that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, hence the rudeness. I'm not even going to bother discussing this any more, seeing as you don't seem to posess the ability to approach a topic with an open mind and treat the person you're talking to with respect. Goodness, you're a director? I feel sorry for your actors. Seriously. It's unbelievable how pretentious and arrogant a lot of the people on this board are. |
||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Nope, sorry...
What on earth makes you think you're entitled to my respect? I've got news for you, honey. Respect is earned. I respect a lot of people on this board, people who can actually think beyond themselves and are able to discuss musical theatre knowledgeably, lucidly and objectively. You clearly aren't one of them. Later days David |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
If that's the attitude you've got, I've got news for you, cupcake... you aren't going to make it very far in show business. |
||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Thanks, but no thanks...
I don't need your advice, thanks. I'm an award-winning writer, composer, actor, director, producer, teacher and academic and I am never short on commissions or projects. Later days David |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
ROTFL!!! Yeah, and I'm Elton John 
|
||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Meh...I don't really care if you believe me or not. I don't need your approval or your blessing.Later days David |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
Lol. I love how you choose to read what people say the way you want to see it. That, or the concept of sarcasm is completely new to you... | ||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Whatever...I'm not interested in your sarcasm and really wish that if you are as upset by this as you claim to be, so upset that you don't want to discuss the topic with me any more, that you wouldn't. You clearly can't put together an argument that supports your point of view, so you'd rather attack me or my style of posting or anything else but the topic at hand instead. I'm not interested in that and it's not what I'm here for.Later days David |
||||||||
| EricMontreal22 |
Passion is the Sondheim show that's closest to my heart. Few pieces of theatre really grab and gut wrenchingly move me the way it does. So I have a huge bias and freely admit that the fact I get it so personally makes me think things like--if someone doesn't like it they just find it too emotionally honest and that scares them, etc.
That said I knwo we all have different tastes and it's not to everyone's--but to call the show badly wreitten IMHO is just not true. |
||||||||
| EricMontreal22 |
As you so rightly said this is a highly personal matter. But I have to disagree--i thinkt he score is gorgeously rapturous. It's like opera but with good lyrics lol. I also think it is immediately accessible in a way--how it just kinda washes over an audience with its, pardon me, passion. And I think it soars in so many ways (some of these small like the use of the background piano medley which is reiterated just before Giorgio sings of his love to Fosca) |
||||||||
| dolbinau |
What does "badly written" mean anyway?
I think the only definition I can come up with is: a show that doesn't achieve what it intends to. |
||||||||
| RainbowJude |
A bit limiting...
I think there's the wider context of dramaturgy to consider. Anyone can say they've achieved what they intended in the writing of a show, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good piece of work. Later days David |
||||||||
| Disney-Bway27 |
Badly written could also be technically written poorly, in terms of score and script, which we know isn't true for any Sondheim shows. I'm assuming in this case, LeocadiaBegbick meant it in dolbinau's definition. | ||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Yip yip...
Whichever way you look at it, saying or implying that Passion (as LeocadiaBegbick does) is badly written is, like Eric says, just not a true appraisal of the show's merits. Later days David |
||||||||
| Disney-Bway27 |
That's true. I obviously haven't delved too deeply into Passion but from what I'd understand, it's not poorly written under either definition. | ||||||||
| shakalakababy |
Sorry but I would say Passion is my least favorite show of Sondheim. I don't think it's bad by any means whatsoever. It just doesn't capture my interests and engage me as much as the rest of his shows do. So no one attack me because I do acknowledge that it's a good show, it just doesn't do it for me as much as his other shows do. | ||||||||
| thegirlfromack |
Not a big fan of Merrily We Roll Along. I'm not saying I don't like it... just not a big fan of this work in comparison to his others. | ||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
Regardless of what my views on the show are, nothing gives RainbowJude or anyone else the right to insult or treat me condescendingly. I stated my problems with the show in earlier posts and while I have nothing against anyone disagreeing with my assessments, I will not tolerate being treated with such disrespect. RainbowJude's behavior is nothing short of disgusting. |
||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Oh please...At least I haven't spent most of my time on this thread driving the discussion off topic. Put together a decent argument that supports your point of view and I'll hear it out with pleasure. I'm not interested in an argument that states that a show is bad based on whether somebody likes the show or not. Liking something, or disliking a musical, is a completely different thing from a critical appreciation of it.Later days David |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
And it is that kind of attitude that is absolutely despicable. I don't care whether you think that your opinion on the show is right. You are nobody to treat me or anyone else with rudeness. | ||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Nope, sorry...Once again, I'm not here to seek your approval or your blessing and your opinion of me doesn't bother me in the least.Later days David |
||||||||
| Brock07 |
For God's sake how old are we children?
Agree to disagree and move on. |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
I can certainly agree to disagree about a musical (as I did much earlier in the thread), but I won't be treated rudely. | ||||||||
| Jaded Mandarin |
Personally, I am quite partial to "Passion" and I think it's quite well written to boot.
But I'm not going to turn around and accuse anyone who disagrees with my views of being "wrong" and heap dirt on them, as RainbowJude has done here. I think many of RainbowJude's points about the structure and thematic depth of "Passion" are valid - but his rudeness, arrogance and puffed up elitism took my breath away. He should apologise for his behaviour and the moderators should exercise some discipline. Frankly, I find it amazing that anyone can get away with so baldly insulting people on this board. |
||||||||
| High-baritonne |
As my science teacher said a few days ago; "If you don't have knowledge then you have nothing to say whatsoever when it comes to analyzing and stating if something is good or bad."
I really like this quote, because there is a great difference between good and entertaining. If something is good isn't subjective, it's objective. Weather it's entertaining or not is a matter of subjective opinion. Passion is not a badly written show, if somebody is to claim that, then they don't have the fundamental knowledge needed to analyze a musical. Facts aren't degrading or rude, facts are facts. |
||||||||
| Please,Hello |
Into the woods I think sometimes get child like. And the first version of Bounce. | ||||||||
| Jaded Mandarin |
True. Facts are not rude or degrading in and of themselves. The thing is, facts can be expressed without stooping to personal insults or arrogant self-aggrandising behaviour, as RainbowJude has done. His petulance in making his point was just uncalled for. Facts can be expressed with a modicum of politeness and civility, there is absolutely no need to throw personal insults into the mix as well. All it does is reduce serious analysis to the level of schoolyard argument, which is exactly what RainbowJude did. Again, RainbowJude should apologise for his behaviour and the moderators should exercise some discipline... or else it sets a worrying precedent. Is insulting people just going to become kosher on these boards now???? |
||||||||
| Dvarg |
I think the situation is the opposite. It has always been kosher here for anyone to state unfounded opinions, and then go bananas when someone challenge them and scream that it's only an opinion. |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
Theatre is not a science. There is no formula for a good musical, a show cannot be analyzed like a science experiment and quality cannot be measured with a chemistry set. Your statement is completely untrue. There is no "fact" when it comes to judging the quality of a show. If that was the case, then it could be recorded into a textbook what is well-written and what isn't, and dictated to theatre students. The truth is that even the people who know the most about theatre disagree all the time on whether a show is "good" or not. What one person may consider a great musical, another person doesn't. Most of us agree on here that South Pacific and West Side Story are great musicals, right? Well Stephen Sondheim doesn't think so. Does that make him "wrong"? Hell no. It's just his opinion, and frankly I'd be inclined to say that it's much more valid than anyone else's. Would you personally insult him to his face? I sure hope not. West Side Story is generally regarded as one of the great musicals of the 20th century. Sondheim thinks that it is overrated and nothing more than pretty music with cardboard characters and lyrics that don't fit the situations of the characters at all. And yet, Sondheim thinks The Wiz, as a musical, "works", which a lot of people on here consider to be a really stupid show. So, who's right? Stephen Sondheim or everyone else? It just goes to show that there is no "fact" on what is good and what isn't.
"Challenging an opinion" and "heaping dirt" are two very different things, friend. I certainly have no trouble with someone challenging/disagreeing with my opinions. But personal insults are unacceptable. |
||||||||
| High-baritonne |
And then we have genres. Vamp - Hallo - Adjø is the best Juke-Box Musical I've ever seen, although I've seen much better musicals. There is a difference in how to state if something is good or bad. And we can analyze the music, the lyrics and the book. The thing is that a good musical should have a link and balance between the book, lyrics and music.
A musical should also need to be a musical, or at least in it's own genre. And there should always be a reason to sing, same as an actor always shall have a reason to rise up from a chair! If a song isn't needed for the story or characterizations, then it should be cut. If none of the songs are needed for the musical, then the musical per question should not exist, because it should have been a play. Repetition is a good device in musicals, but a musical which doesn't use repetition for a reason other than making the theater goers fund of the music is not good, unless it books and lyrics are so great that it weighs up for the bad music. Musicals can be ripped to pieces if you choose to. You can analyze them right down to it's core. That is what directors, producers, composers, lyricists and book writers do all the time during for example previews. And some people are like Sondheim, and does not publish a show just because the audience like it, and cut songs if they're unnecessary. Others are like Webber who seek the huge audience, he wants the crowd, which is great, but then he has to chose what he wants to do, create a masterpiece that most people won't see, or create a commercial success musical which most musical knowers will find fun and entertaining, but bad. Perfect example from my side: I love Sunset Boulevard, it's something about it that I just never tire off! But it is not a good musical, the musical themes are repeated without any reason except getting the audience to love the songs, because the more often we hear them, the easier they get stuck in our brains. |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
And yet Clive Barnes, one of the most respected critics to write for the New York Times, praised Mamma Mia, a show that most self-respecting theatre people consider to be utter garbage. Would you say that he "lacked the fundamental knowledge needed to analyze a musical"? | ||||||||
| High-baritonne |
No, but I would say he saw the musical for what it is, a Juke-Box musical. And frankly I would say that Mamma Mia! is a good Juke-Box musical, compared to many others. | ||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
Still, that remains an opinion, and not provable by fact like a science experiment. Many would say that Mamma Mia is a horrendous jukebox musical, and that Jersey Boys and Movin Out are far superior. And perhaps others would say that Movin Out is pretentious and unengaging, and that Mamma Mia at least succeeds for what it is as mindless entertainment. | ||||||||
| Please,Hello |
ITS A FORUM YOU GODA-! I mean uh..we don't have to clarify if it was a opinion or not. Just leave the past behind and move on.... | ||||||||
| RainbowJude |
Critical Analysis
It isn't a science, but all art is based in technique. Even when art departs from technique, it is a reaction against a series of conventions and/or a particular world view. These conventions help in the development of critical frameworks. This is how Artistotle developed The Poetics alongside the traditions of classical Greek Theatre. One can't pretend that critical analysis all comes down to opinion, because - quite simply - it doesn't, and that is the difference between liking or not liking a play and being able to comment critically on the way a play is written. Later days David |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
*sigh* I wish some of the users on here could recognize that.
There are indeed basic dramaturgic conventions for quality, but only to a certain degree. What "works" and what doesn't work in a musical is extremely subjective. The truth is simply that different people have different standards for great musicals. Look at Clive Barnes, Frank Rich, Ben Brantley---all have very different ideas on what makes a great show. Ben Brantley thought "Assassins" was a good show, Frank Rich thought that the structure of the show didn't work and overall it wasn't emotionally impactful enough. Neither of them are stupid or uninformed. And would you contradict Sondheim to his face if he said that he didn't think West Side Story or South Pacific was a good musical? (which he has said before) To objectively prove whether a musical is good or not, frankly, is impossible. What you and I may consider to be the perfect musical (ie, South Pacific), Sondheim thinks doesn't work. So who's right? |
||||||||
| Dvarg |
It seems you who argue for the "it's only an opinion" thing are very concerned about being right or wrong. I think that is missing the point. If I don't like WSS or SP, being shows their technical strenghts does not necessarily change my reaction to them, but maybe I can see them in a different perspective. |
||||||||
| LeocadiaBegbick |
You are taking my comments and viewing them completely out of context. RainbowJude is the one who is saying that quality can be measured objectively, and that there is a "right" and "wrong" when it comes to what is good and what isn't---and I the one saying that judging theatre is extremely subjective. My last few posts have been very theoretical, from the "devil's advocate" viewpoint so to speak---challenging what RainbowJude has to say.
Go read the post over again. You COMPLETELY missed the point. What I was saying was that even "technical strengths" are very subjective--- because it is largely based on what "works" and what doesn't, which is very much a matter of opinion. Personally, I think that South Pacific is pretty much perfect but Sondheim doesn't, because he thinks that certain elements don't work... do you get my gist? It's not possible to objectively measure the quality of a show. |
||||||||
| Please,Hello |
|