Musicals.Net
http://musicals.net/forums/

Least Favorite Sondheim Show
http://musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=73443
Page 5 of 6

Author:  LeocadiaBegbick [ Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  RainbowJude [ Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  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.

Author:  Brock07 [ Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:54 am ]
Post subject: 

For God's sake how old are we children?

Agree to disagree and move on.

Author:  LeocadiaBegbick [ Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:21 am ]
Post subject: 

I can certainly agree to disagree about a musical (as I did much earlier in the thread), but I won't be treated rudely.

Author:  Jaded Mandarin [ Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  High-baritonne [ Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:53 am ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  Please,Hello [ Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Into the woods I think sometimes get child like. And the first version of Bounce.

Author:  Jaded Mandarin [ Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

High-baritonne wrote:
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.

Facts aren't degrading or rude, facts are facts.


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????

Author:  Hans [ Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:00 am ]
Post subject: 

Jaded Mandarin wrote:
Is insulting people just going to become kosher on these boards now????


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.

Author:  LeocadiaBegbick [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
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."


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.


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.




Quote:
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.



"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.

Author:  High-baritonne [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:05 am ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  LeocadiaBegbick [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:11 am ]
Post subject: 

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"?

Page 5 of 6 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/