214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Oct 25, 2017 11:52:45 GMT
Sorry to break the consensus, but I wasn't so impressed by Ria Jones as others have been. I saw her in the midweek matinee in Edinburgh. Oh, she held the stage; I don't question that. But a few times her voice strained after the notes, and although Norma is supposed to be past it, I do think her songs need to be faultless. In the grand guignol scenes I thought she was very good, but in some of the more intimate scenes there was a slight air of the suburban: I was put in mind of the managing director's Welsh wife fancying a bit of nookie with her husband's fit young IT technician.
|
|
214 posts
|
Chess
Oct 14, 2017 14:48:07 GMT
Post by paulbrownsey on Oct 14, 2017 14:48:07 GMT
I have never come across it used as slang for someoen being homosexual. There seems to be no end of seemingly-innocent words that have been turned into slang terms for some aspect of sex or sexuality. Liberace won his libel case against the Daily Mirror in 1956 in part because columnist Cassandra called him "fruit-flavoured": "He wrote of Liberace as "…the summit of sex — the pinnacle of masculine, feminine, and neuter. Everything that he, she, and it can ever want… a deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love"." [Guardian] But I think the word "fruit" was more USA slang for a homosexual than British slang.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Sept 27, 2017 9:20:33 GMT
Heres another issue I have with the show that has irked me all night. Its trivial but so annoying. Arguably Dusty Springfield's most popular song is ' Son of a Preacher Man'. It is so popular in fact that the decision was made to write a musical by the same title, 'Son of a Preacher Man'. However, the premise of said musical is about the journey of 3 unrelated people who are being helped out in life by a man who's father ran a joint called 'The Preacher man' and who was known as specifically as 'The Preacher Man'. Not just a man, any man, THE Preacher Man.
There is a massive difference between reference of A man who preaches and THE man who preaches. Its the difference between anybody and somebody. Its specific. They f***ed up the very basic reference of the TITLE SONG. Yes. You can't imagine them doing something *seriously* interesting like having a plotline about a bloke who falls for the son of a raving homophobic evangelical preacher...
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Sept 20, 2017 10:27:43 GMT
"I was first out of my seat for a standing ovation at the end of the show." How inconsiderate of the people behind, who either have to miss seeing the performers take their bows or have to stand as well. Oh, dear; this modern fad--encouraged by those dreadful TV talent shows--for members of the audience feeling a need to be seen: "Look at me, expressing my appreciation."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jul 27, 2017 11:21:56 GMT
"Boring Technical Explanation:
It is strictly speaking an exact canon for 3 voices but it is almost a fugue, or strictly speaking a fughetta as it is so short, since it has a subject, i.e. the first part of the tune, followed by a countersubject, i.e. the 'can do' bit. The entry of each subject should be in different keys (they aren't) but the fact the tune starts on off beats makes it sound more fugal than canonical.
Right, you can all stop yawning at the back now; who's today's milk-monitor? "
Technical explanations are not boring at all. Don't be so self-deprecating for not being dim or ill-educated.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jul 23, 2017 11:35:30 GMT
And then there's "Mums and Dads" in Blitz!, where three tunes in the style of children's playground songs get combined.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jul 18, 2017 14:54:05 GMT
Irving Berlin was good at this. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned "You're Just In Love" from Call Me Madam (which reportedly required something like six encores on the first night) and "Play A Simple Melody" from (inter alia) There's No Business Like Show Business:
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jul 18, 2017 14:49:28 GMT
I find nothing as thrilling as a bunch of characters singing over each other and independently expressing exactly what's going on in their mind. It has to be one of my favorite musical theatre devices, normally done as an Act I finale to wrap things up while ticking the box on so many characters sub-plots. Here's a list of my favorite. Curious what yours may be.. *Les Miserables (the mother of all counterpoint Act I Finales): One Day More *Les Miserables: Confrontation *Kiss of the Spiderwpman: Anything For Him *Hamilton: Non-Stop *Book of Mormon: Man Up *Great Comet: Letters (kind of) *West Side Story: America *Little Night Music: A Weekend in the Country *Chess: Model of Decorum and Tranquility ..any more? The merging of "Now", "Soon" and Later" in A Little Night Music; especially in the Original London Cast recording (Joss Ackland et al).
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jul 18, 2017 14:47:48 GMT
I find nothing as thrilling as a bunch of characters singing over each other and independently expressing exactly what's going on in their mind. It has to be one of my favorite musical theatre devices, normally done as an Act I finale to wrap things up while ticking the box on so many characters sub-plots. Here's a list of my favorite. Curious what yours may be.. *Les Miserables (the mother of all counterpoint Act I Finales): One Day More *Les Miserables: Confrontation *Kiss of the Spiderwpman: Anything For Him *Hamilton: Non-Stop *Book of Mormon: Man Up *Great Comet: Letters (kind of) *West Side Story: America *Little Night Music: A Weekend in the Country *Chess: Model of Decorum and Tranquility ..any more?
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jul 14, 2017 16:57:59 GMT
Thanks for that thesis on Follies. Just give me a moment while I grade it. How needlessly sarcastic.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 22, 2017 16:10:46 GMT
Ah yes, I forgot Richard Rodgers wrote Oklahoma! all on his own... There's a story that the respective wives of R&H were at a party. Both were called Dorothy btw. Someone talking to them said "How lovely to be chatting with the wives of the writers of (lets say) Oklahoma!" Where upon Mrs Hammerstein points out "My husband wrote Oklahoma, her husband wrote DA-da,da,da..." (Probably apocrahly and a bit hard on Mrs H.) The version of this that I know concerns Show Boat. Someone spoke of Jerome Kern as having written "Ol' Man River" and Mrs Hammerstein replied something like, "No, my husband wrote 'Ol' Man River'. Mr Kern merely wrote Dah Dah Dum-dum."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on May 24, 2017 14:27:16 GMT
I am very much with crabtree on this one. The Beggar's Opera was created as a ballad opera using popular tunes from the time (the first Jukebox Musical in many, many ways) - and it is that music that should be the basis of any version. I have no problem with people taking the story and using it for the basis of a new piece (as with Brecht and Weill's Die Dreigroschern Opern) but it is not on to use the title The Beggar's Opera without performing the original tunes. There are many, many arrangements of the music and so there is plenty of scope to create a sound world that reflects the vision of a new creative team. But The Beggar's Opera is what it is - you wouldn't go to see West Side Story and be happy to see the music replaced by 6.5 new songs. Well said. I wonder if it is advertised as having a new score--the mention of the new score being very prominent--or if the luckless punter who expects to hear the original tunes will only discover that in performance. If so, I should think there would be a clear case for a refund. Producers and promoters who muck things around and don't give purchasers a clear warning shouldn't be tolerated. I've been talking elsewhere this morning about an old production of Turandot by Scottish Opera in which they played it as being about the composer, Puccini (=Calaf), and his formidable wife (=Turandot), who accused him of having an affaire with the servant girl (=Liu). They even changed the ending so that when the ice princess finally melted, Calaf/Puccini spurned her and the curtain came down on him cradling the dead body of Liu. Grr, Grr, Grrr...33 years on...
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on May 24, 2017 12:02:06 GMT
I am very much with crabtree on this one. The Beggar's Opera was created as a ballad opera using popular tunes from the time (the first Jukebox Musical in many, many ways) - and it is that music that should be the basis of any version. I have no problem with people taking the story and using it for the basis of a new piece (as with Brecht and Weill's Die Dreigroschern Opern) but it is not on to use the title The Beggar's Opera without performing the original tunes. There are many, many arrangements of the music and so there is plenty of scope to create a sound world that reflects the vision of a new creative team. But The Beggar's Opera is what it is - you wouldn't go to see West Side Story and be happy to see the music replaced by 6.5 new songs. Well said. I wonder if it is advertised as having a new score--the mention of the new score being very prominent--or it the luckless punter who expects to hear the original tunes will only discover that in performance. If so, I should think there would be a clear case for a refund. Producers and promoters who muck things around and don't give purchasers a clear warning shouldn't be tolerated. I've been talking elsewhere this morning about an old production of Turandot by Scottish Opera in which they played it as being about the composer, Puccini (=Calaf), and his formidable wife (=Turandot), who accused him of having an affaire with the servant girl (=Liu). They even changed the ending so that when the ice princess finally melted, Calaf/Puccini spurned her and the curtain came down on him cradling the dead body of Liu. Grr, Grr, Grrr...33 years on...
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on May 7, 2017 18:54:21 GMT
It used to be a lot more common - you used to have a company of actors performing different productions on different nights, which not even the NT now does - but has mostly died out. It was how a lot of older actors learnt their trade. It still happens at Pitlochry in Scotland. Their selling point for the festival (roughly, May-October) is that you can go for six days and see six plays. Last year they did A Little Night Music with the best Desiree I've seen (Basienka Blake)--and I did see Jean Simmons and Judi Dench.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on May 7, 2017 16:55:54 GMT
You're very welcome to remain ignorant, but it's a bit self-defeating - particularly if you're going to then complain about your ignorance, and get so angry about it. Well, self-esteem has been boosted so much in recent years that people get uppity and aggrieved if they realise they're not the last word in knowledge, expertise and general human wonderfulness.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on May 7, 2017 15:06:56 GMT
Perhaps us plebs should keep away from this discriminatory, elitist venue and and its superior in-the-know audiences and leave them to audiences and members who are truly worthy of sitting in a seat of its hallowed auditoruims or is it auditoria? I expect those in-the-know will be able tell us. It's not elitist. That's a cheap yah-boo word people use for something that involves a bit of thought and concentration. And the audiences get to be "in-the-know" because they take the trouble to find out.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Apr 13, 2017 9:48:58 GMT
I will bite as its me who mentioned those unable to stand and with a dig like that at disabled people youre clearly fishing for reaction. The person I take to theatre cant stand. She accepts her limitations in order to still do something she enjoys. Some possibly like yourself think she shouldnt have such opportunities but thankfully theatre on the whole is quite inclusive these days unlike your attitude. She as a result has no problem at all with standing and blocking her view at the end of a show to show their appreciation and accepts this will happen. In fact I often stand on occasions when the performance warrants it. What she objects to and what I made very clear when I mentioned those unable to stand is when people mid act whilst the performance is continuing decide to jump up in front of her to show their appreciation. No amount of you or others telling me you paid for your ticket youre entitled to so will convince me that this is acceptable behaviour. I really don't appreciate you reading into my post what isn't there, and telling me I have an attitude that is in no way displayed in my post. I did not make any sort of dig at disabled people - all I said was that people who are unable to stand and attend the theatre must surely buy their ticket accepting that a standing ovation may block their view for a few moments at the end of the performance - that's a simple fact given the frequency of standing ovations these days. How dare you extrapolate from that that I think disabled people shouldn't have opportunities. You know nothing about me, and for all you know I could (and in fact do) have disabled people among my family and friends, so I'm speaking from experience of them knowing their view of cast bows may be blocked momentarily, yet not finding that an inconvenience provided they get to see any curtain call that comes afterwards, when people can and should sit down. And if you'd bothered to read my post carefully enough then you'd realise that I was talking about standing ovations at the END of a show only, which is where I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone not to stand up if they want to show their appreciation to a cast who were just that good. Ovations mid-show are completely different, and just as annoying as people who keep moving their heads and fidgeting, but that isn't what I was talking about. I think you did make such a dig. Your said, "Your choice if you want to join in or not. And if you are physically incapable of doing so, then in this day and age you buy a ticket knowing perfectly well that people may stand up in front of you to give the cast a well deserved ovation. " That is to say, the flippant "Your choice" was followed by a callous disregard of the fact that disabled people can't make that choice and just have to put up with people like you blocking their view. Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/1322/42nd-street-theatre-royal-drury?page=66#ixzz4e7aHHmUJ
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Apr 13, 2017 9:42:22 GMT
No, selfish: a selfish expression of your enjoyment. "I am enjoying this so much I am going to express it by standing up and blocking your view, and stuff you if you don't like it." I paid for my ticket same as you, therefore I'm entitled to express my appreciation for the cast if I want to! Your choice if you want to join in or not. And if you are physically incapable of doing so, then in this day and age you buy a ticket knowing perfectly well that people may stand up in front of you to give the cast a well deserved ovation. Plus people sit down for the curtain call after the bows once they realise it's happening, you're not being blocked from seeing that, so I'm afraid I think if you have a problem with standing ovations at the end of a show you really are just being a bit of a killjoy over a minute or two of time! "I paid for my ticket same as you, therefore I'm entitled to express my appreciation for the cast if I want to!! What you pay for is to see the show. When I go to the theatre, all I do is watch. I don't eat, play with my mobile, chatter, sing along, wave my arms, go out to the loo, dance in the aisles. I do nothing whatever to impede your concentration on the show. It is selfish of you not to accord the same courtesy to me. As for people saying that standing ovations 'go with the territory', they only go with the territory because people like you are selfish enough to go in for them. By the way, I wonder whether the fad for standing ovations has something to do with those talent-show things on TV. The producers love to have shots of an audience rising to its feet AS ONE PERSON for Susan Boyle or whomever. Of course, real audiences are not made up of one person, and it behoves everyone to be considerate of everyone else.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Apr 12, 2017 19:19:59 GMT
"....and you have only to stand up yourself to re-establish the view, resent it though you may" But I am only 5'2" tall so often standing up does not usually re-establish my view. I expect any youngsters have the same problem. You see the way it works is that the differential in height of taller and shorter people is less when they are sitting down and the kind people who design the theatres usually put a rake in the auditorium. The combination of these two factors means that shorter people can usually see reasonably well when all are seated (unless it is a really tall wide person in front!). People who stand wreck this whole scheme. I am not going to throw around words like 'selfish' as I have no knowledge of whether the standing advocates are indeed selfish, or ignorant, or both, or neither. I am sure people are drawing there own conclusions based on their individual points of view (or blocked view). But I am special! I was told that at school. So small people be blowed. It is very important that the world can see *my* appreciation of the show expressed visibly by a standing ovation. The rest of you don't count.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Apr 12, 2017 19:18:15 GMT
No, selfish: a selfish expression of your enjoyment. "I am enjoying this so much I am going to express it by standing up and blocking your view, and stuff you if you don't like it."
But why should someone's appreciation for and enjoyment of the performance be curtailed because they have someone like you sitting behind them? It works both ways - and you have only to stand up yourself to re-establish the view, resent it though you may.
Your appreciation and enjoyment of the show isn't curtailed at all. Your *expression* of your appreciation and enjoyment should be subject to consideration for others. Your question is comparable to, "Why should my wish to hold an all-night party in the flat downstairs from you be curtailed by your need for sleep?"
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Apr 12, 2017 19:16:08 GMT
But why should someone's appreciation for and enjoyment of the performance be curtailed because they have someone like you sitting behind them? It works both ways - and you have only to stand up yourself to re-establish the view, resent it though you may.
Although I will add that your last comment seems a little flippant attending theatre as I often do with someone who is unable to stand for any length of time I'm sure you didn't mean it that way Selfish people don't think of the needs of others. "Oh, I want to express myself by a standing ovation and to hell with anyone behind who doesn't like it."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Apr 12, 2017 15:51:29 GMT
The fewer standing ovations the better. They are deeply selfish, forcing those behind to miss parts of the show or to stand as well. Hardly selfish. More an expression of one's enjoyment of the show. No, selfish: a selfish expression of your enjoyment. "I am enjoying this so much I am going to express it by standing up and blocking your view, and stuff you if you don't like it."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Apr 11, 2017 20:46:48 GMT
I think that a first preview for a show will probably be booked by people who are theatre fans and/or friends & fans of the cast. Therefore they're likely to be more enthusiastic than a "regular" audience. Thursdays audience was a bit subdued as well. Lots of applause but no standing ovation until the end and then only a few in stalls. More in dress. Strange as I've seen shows not half as good as this and everyone on their feet. The fewer standing ovations the better. They are deeply selfish, forcing those behind to miss parts of the show or to stand as well.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Mar 16, 2017 10:17:17 GMT
Seeing it next week in Leeds, and with a half price stalls offer too.. cant go wrong! It sounds as if sales are poor. The matinee on March 8 at the Edinburgh Playhouse was very, very thinly attended, with theatre staff herding the widely-scattered audience into the front stalls. I wonder whether the show will complete its tour.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Mar 11, 2017 20:42:19 GMT
WHY WERE WE SEARCHED?
People attending the matinee in Edinburgh on March 9th had their bags searched. The searcher said something about looking for high-grade chocolate but I take it that that was a joke meant to make the situation easier (or was the Playhouse trying to stop people bringing in their own chocolate instead of buying it there?). I was too taken aback to ask what it was all about. Does anyone else know?
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Mar 8, 2017 21:02:15 GMT
"But what really confused me was when John Partridge (whom I loved in Chicago as Billy Flynn) started to make standup-like jokes at the audience, commenting on what they are wearing (and making references to brands like Primark, Debenhams and Per Una - very Saint-Tropez!). This particular scene dragged mercilessly for me (but the crowd loved it). "
I didn't much like it either, but I could see a point to it. In previous productions of Cage I've seen, I don't remember much showing Zaza in performance as a star. Giving him an extended scene interacting the audience at least enabled you to see him as a performer in the club.
"(although my boyf was huffing and puffing because of all the people around us woo-ing all the time)."
Audience selfishness that is too common these days and which has led me to cut back considerably on theatre attendance. I really am fed up paying good money to watch what's going on on the stage only to have people chattering and whooping and rustling bags and eating and singing along and all the rest of it next to me. And standing ovations annoy me, too, because they tend to deny you the finale unless you stand up, too. Those wretched talent shows on TV seem to have encouraged this in audiences.
All told, I thought it was a pretty good show, but, like so many touring musicals, it was under-populated. The cast totalled 18: not enough. The Masculinity number was performed by a mere sextet, including Albin and Georges; I've seen production with a biggish cast of sailors and dockers and suchlike.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Mar 5, 2017 11:45:25 GMT
Wayne Sleep was absolutely hideous in it. Borderline embarrassing. Sam Barks wasn't much better, underpowered and lacking in anything approaching charisma. I'm coming to the conclusion that I haven't seen Samantha Barks in anything where I thought she was very good really but I'm sure it's just me. It was the Sleep/Barks combo that made me vow never to see Cabaret on stage again. The film was definitive. There is nothing more to say, anything further is bound to be a let down and I don't want to put myself through that. Viva Liza Over and out. I agree about the Barks/Sleep version--he actually came out of character at one point--but don't give up. There was a magnificent production at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland last year that dug up all sorts of new sidelights and was riveting from beginning to end. One kind of reeled out, thinking, "Wow! *That* was musical theatre." I'm looking forward to their "Chess" later this month.
|
|