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

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

Author:  High-baritonne [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:18 am ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  LeocadiaBegbick [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:21 am ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  Please,Hello [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

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....

Author:  RainbowJude [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Critical Analysis

LeocadiaBegbick wrote:
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.

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.

Author:  LeocadiaBegbick [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
ITS A FORUM YOU GODA-! I mean uh..we don't have to clarify if it was a opinion or not.



*sigh*


I wish some of the users on here could recognize that.




Quote:
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.





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?

Author:  Hans [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:35 am ]
Post subject: 

LeocadiaBegbick wrote:
So who's right?


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.

Author:  LeocadiaBegbick [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:42 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
It seems you who argue for the "it's only an opinion" thing are very concerned about being right or wrong.

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.

Quote:
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.



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.

Author:  Please,Hello [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

LeocadiaBegbick wrote:
Quote:
It seems you who argue for the "it's only an opinion" thing are very concerned about being right or wrong.

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.

Quote:
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.


And thats the ancient art of creation, proudly on display! And heres-where itc begins!!!!

Sorry, practiceing.


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.

Author:  Mama Rose [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Least Favorite Sondheim Show

My least favorite is definitely "Do I Hear a Waltz." That show contains the worst lyrics he ever committed to the page. I didn't think it was possible for Sondheim to write a banal line.

Passion is a great show -- however, it's an extremely hard one to get right. You need a really good actress for Fosca, otherwise the whole thing could just seem weird and boring. With the exception of the recent London revival, I don't feel that there has been a production that fully did the material justice.

Author:  Hans [ Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Least Favorite Sondheim Show

Mama Rose wrote:
My least favorite is definitely "Do I Hear a Waltz." That show contains the worst lyrics he ever committed to the page. I didn't think it was possible for Sondheim to write a banal line.


Which lines are you referring to?

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