Poll
Thu, 12 July 2001, 01:38 pmWalter Plinge44 posts in thread
Poll
Thu, 12 July 2001, 01:38 pmI have a couple of queries regarding the current poll. Firstly, it asks us to vote for our favourite "broadway" musical. By saying "broadway" I assume that means that angled strip in NYC around which most of the NY theatres are. So, does that mean we are being asked "Which of the current musicals on Broadway now (or recently) do you prefer?"? If so, I don't get it because there ain't too many of us here in godzown what get to go to too many "broadway" musicals. The voter base would be very small.
If the question should have been a more general "Which of these is your favourite musical?", why is there not somewhere for Leah and me to vote "None"?
If the question should have been a more general "Which of these is your favourite musical?", why is there not somewhere for Leah and me to vote "None"?
RE: Musical Bashers.
Mon, 16 July 2001, 05:12 pmI knew someone was going to bring up the bloody miking issue...
Musical theatre performers do not need mikes because their voices are in anyway inferior, or they have had a lack of training. They perform eight shows a week, and the mike, in my opinion, is a form of vocal protection. If anyone doubts a musical theatre performer's ability to project, stand next to an un-miked belter sometime - then come back and argue your case. You probably won't be able to though.
As for 'most' musicals being dumbed-down and fluffy, I would like to add to Dario's list: 'March of the Falsettos', 'Falsettoland', 'Blood Brothers', 'Hair', and even more popular works like 'Jesus Christ Superstar' which, in its time, gave the whole anglican church (and then some) a major shake-up. I would even add 'Les Mis' to this lot - in no way is it a dumbing down of the book. While it doesn't match Hugo's epic in terms of word count, it makes up for it in terms of emotion, passion and character development through the music alone - something which the non-singing, desperately unsuccessful movie versions have all failed to do.
And finally, I don't think I'm the only person who has gone onto explore the sources of the alleged 'dumbed-down' versions we see in music/movie theatres. My edition of Les Mis is falling apart I have read (and loved) it so much, as a direct result of the musical. Reading of 'The Odyssey' prior to seeing 'O Brother Where Art Thou' only enabled a greater appreciation of the movie, and prompted another reading of the work to find other parallells with the text (I refuse to believe the Cohen brothers' claim that they have never read it-the movie was way too clever). I have also noticed that this particular work is an awful lot easier to obtain in commercial bookshops now. I find it impossible to believe that this is a bad thing.
It will be interesting to see if the new Heath Ledger film 'The Knight's Tale' will have the same effect on Chaucer sales!
Amanda Chesterton
P.S. If anyone brings up Sound of Music again as an example of a 'typical' musical I'm going to cry. I would be the first person to tell you not to see that show if you're anti-musical - you have to really love the artform to get into that musical, and it is by no means representative of musical theatre as a whole. It's like saying that 'The Seven Year Itch' is representative of all western non-musical theatre. Enjoyable but by no means typical.
Musical theatre performers do not need mikes because their voices are in anyway inferior, or they have had a lack of training. They perform eight shows a week, and the mike, in my opinion, is a form of vocal protection. If anyone doubts a musical theatre performer's ability to project, stand next to an un-miked belter sometime - then come back and argue your case. You probably won't be able to though.
As for 'most' musicals being dumbed-down and fluffy, I would like to add to Dario's list: 'March of the Falsettos', 'Falsettoland', 'Blood Brothers', 'Hair', and even more popular works like 'Jesus Christ Superstar' which, in its time, gave the whole anglican church (and then some) a major shake-up. I would even add 'Les Mis' to this lot - in no way is it a dumbing down of the book. While it doesn't match Hugo's epic in terms of word count, it makes up for it in terms of emotion, passion and character development through the music alone - something which the non-singing, desperately unsuccessful movie versions have all failed to do.
And finally, I don't think I'm the only person who has gone onto explore the sources of the alleged 'dumbed-down' versions we see in music/movie theatres. My edition of Les Mis is falling apart I have read (and loved) it so much, as a direct result of the musical. Reading of 'The Odyssey' prior to seeing 'O Brother Where Art Thou' only enabled a greater appreciation of the movie, and prompted another reading of the work to find other parallells with the text (I refuse to believe the Cohen brothers' claim that they have never read it-the movie was way too clever). I have also noticed that this particular work is an awful lot easier to obtain in commercial bookshops now. I find it impossible to believe that this is a bad thing.
It will be interesting to see if the new Heath Ledger film 'The Knight's Tale' will have the same effect on Chaucer sales!
Amanda Chesterton
P.S. If anyone brings up Sound of Music again as an example of a 'typical' musical I'm going to cry. I would be the first person to tell you not to see that show if you're anti-musical - you have to really love the artform to get into that musical, and it is by no means representative of musical theatre as a whole. It's like saying that 'The Seven Year Itch' is representative of all western non-musical theatre. Enjoyable but by no means typical.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···