ASPECTS OF LOVE
Sat, 27 July 2002, 10:57 amBrigida14 posts in thread
ASPECTS OF LOVE
Sat, 27 July 2002, 10:57 am"Aspects of Love", the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical that critics have rated better than "Cats" and "Phantom of the Opera" is on at the Playhouse this week from Wed 31st July (the preview - a fundraiser for Anglicare) to Sat 3rd August.
See "What's on" for further details.
This is the first time that Aspects has been performed in WA and the feedback from rehearsals is that it is going to be FANTASTIC.
Tickets from BOCS or on 9442 1584 (limited tickets).
Brigida
Friends of Midnite
See "What's on" for further details.
This is the first time that Aspects has been performed in WA and the feedback from rehearsals is that it is going to be FANTASTIC.
Tickets from BOCS or on 9442 1584 (limited tickets).
Brigida
Friends of Midnite
It's a thin line .....
Wed, 7 Aug 2002, 03:48 pmI'm not going to join the review of "ASPECTS OF LOVE" specifically, as I haven't seen the show and probably won't get around to it.
Rather, this is a brief review of "Aspects of War", the ongoing debate between Justin and Erik.
Justin opened with a blunt disputation about Brigida's original publicity blurb claiming ASPECTS to be better than CATS or PHANTOM. He was quite careful in not bagging anyone in the cast, gave well justified reasons for the few things he disliked, and stressed that he appreciated the performances. The bulk of his post was a severe bagging of Lloyd Webber, giving "predictable", "repetitive", "plods", and "repetitive" as his arguments.
Not too long, and a strong supported opinion.
Erik severely disagreed. On all counts. He claims that the musical IS one of the best ever written, but that the performance itself was severely lacking.
Unfortunately, most of the justification for both of these arguments came not from introducing strong supportive material of his own, but by slinging off at anything Justin had said and making disparaging remarks about his competance and intellect. Perhaps with this personal vendetta in mind, all of his comments about the show also became disparaging and vindictive and somewhat cruel. He also made a large generalisations about Academy training that seemed based more on contradicting Justin than being supported by any concrete examples.
Disappointing content, but lively energy.
(Dance 10, looks 3).
As a post script, he tried to be clever and get another dig at Justin by insinuating that liking CATS is evidence alone of incompetent opinion.
To me, this seemed contradictory and hurt his own argument more than he realises. One, it was a petty, unnecessary addition to his previous post, which made me question his objectivity and conclude that he was just being "catty". Two, it insulted my intelligence a little, because it was heavily reiterating a theme he had already expressed quite well - insinuating perhaps that I, the reader, hadn't "got it". And three, by denigrating CATS he seems to be supporting Justin's statement that Andrew Lloyd Webber is overrated....something that rather contradicts his own assertions about ASPECTS.
The second act is where it really heats up.
Justin returns, with a long essay of rebuttal. He seems (rightly so) to be affronted by this personal attack, and heroically throws himself wholeheartedly into his justification, which perhaps becomes his tragic flaw.
He begins by reasserting his original stance on Lloyd Webber, with some even stronger opinions than before. He also asserts his own qualification to make these statements by giving examples of "highbrow" musicals that he DOES enjoy, and of his intellectual achievements.
He then goes on the offensive against some of Erik's generalisations about the Academy, and about Erik's seemingly bitter attitude.
He makes sure to revisit the original argument, and defends the performers of the production in question.
He finishes with a long tirade about the music and storyline of ASPECTS, pointing out why he finds it not to his liking.
At the end of all this, I noticed that while attacking the character of Erik, he still has a respect for his audience, and apologises for the rant he ha subjected us to. (Little does he suspect how we all love to watch someone else's rant). He shows restraint, in suggesting that any further argument should continue in private, if only "Erik" would be brave enough to attach an email address to his posts.
Naturally, Erik won't take this lying down. He decides to belittle and take the piss out of everything Justin has said. He starts by denying that he ever made the attack Justin has just defended. He uses his facts cleverly when he can, to correct small details Justin has asserted. He plays a status game, making light of revealing his own BA Degree, and showing his disdain of auditioning for WAAPA, in order to take Justin off his intellectual pedestal.
In response to Justin's distaste at the subject matter of ASPECTS, Erik makes a rather dubious connections about Egyptians (I assume he meant ANCIENT Egyptians, and not his politically incorrect assertion) having slept with siblings....as if this is a justification. Does he mean that therefore, the material should no longer be distasteful? His comparison to The Bold And The Beautiful really only seems to trivialise his argument, drawing it down to that lowest-denominator of television soap. Is he saying that that is a GOOD standard to compare to? In the scope of an argument about Lloyd Webber, I would have hoped for a more convincing comparison. Unfortunately, that only reconfirmed my own opinion about Lloyd Webber, and rather sealed Justin's argument.
Rather than finish on a fiery high, he proclaims his own boredom and disappears in a cloud of smoke (along with his argument), once again showing disdain for the audience he could have so easily been entertaining.
I have to say, on a personal note, that I do side with the Anti-Lloyd-Webbers. I loved JC SUPERSTAR, but have been most disappointed by other Rice/Webber collaborations like EVITA. I can hum along with CATS, but I'm not impressed by it as a musical. PHANTOM was a spectacular production, but I can only think of one song that grabs me. What I find clever in JCSS - his continuous underpinning of about three basic riffs - bores me in most of his later work.
Unlike the protagonists in this little argument, I have NO degree, musical or otherwise. I just think I know a lot.
Apologies for butting in on someone else's argument, disecting it, disputing it, and taking the piss out of it in a dry, witty way, but "that's what I do."
Cheers,
Craig
Rather, this is a brief review of "Aspects of War", the ongoing debate between Justin and Erik.
Justin opened with a blunt disputation about Brigida's original publicity blurb claiming ASPECTS to be better than CATS or PHANTOM. He was quite careful in not bagging anyone in the cast, gave well justified reasons for the few things he disliked, and stressed that he appreciated the performances. The bulk of his post was a severe bagging of Lloyd Webber, giving "predictable", "repetitive", "plods", and "repetitive" as his arguments.
Not too long, and a strong supported opinion.
Erik severely disagreed. On all counts. He claims that the musical IS one of the best ever written, but that the performance itself was severely lacking.
Unfortunately, most of the justification for both of these arguments came not from introducing strong supportive material of his own, but by slinging off at anything Justin had said and making disparaging remarks about his competance and intellect. Perhaps with this personal vendetta in mind, all of his comments about the show also became disparaging and vindictive and somewhat cruel. He also made a large generalisations about Academy training that seemed based more on contradicting Justin than being supported by any concrete examples.
Disappointing content, but lively energy.
(Dance 10, looks 3).
As a post script, he tried to be clever and get another dig at Justin by insinuating that liking CATS is evidence alone of incompetent opinion.
To me, this seemed contradictory and hurt his own argument more than he realises. One, it was a petty, unnecessary addition to his previous post, which made me question his objectivity and conclude that he was just being "catty". Two, it insulted my intelligence a little, because it was heavily reiterating a theme he had already expressed quite well - insinuating perhaps that I, the reader, hadn't "got it". And three, by denigrating CATS he seems to be supporting Justin's statement that Andrew Lloyd Webber is overrated....something that rather contradicts his own assertions about ASPECTS.
The second act is where it really heats up.
Justin returns, with a long essay of rebuttal. He seems (rightly so) to be affronted by this personal attack, and heroically throws himself wholeheartedly into his justification, which perhaps becomes his tragic flaw.
He begins by reasserting his original stance on Lloyd Webber, with some even stronger opinions than before. He also asserts his own qualification to make these statements by giving examples of "highbrow" musicals that he DOES enjoy, and of his intellectual achievements.
He then goes on the offensive against some of Erik's generalisations about the Academy, and about Erik's seemingly bitter attitude.
He makes sure to revisit the original argument, and defends the performers of the production in question.
He finishes with a long tirade about the music and storyline of ASPECTS, pointing out why he finds it not to his liking.
At the end of all this, I noticed that while attacking the character of Erik, he still has a respect for his audience, and apologises for the rant he ha subjected us to. (Little does he suspect how we all love to watch someone else's rant). He shows restraint, in suggesting that any further argument should continue in private, if only "Erik" would be brave enough to attach an email address to his posts.
Naturally, Erik won't take this lying down. He decides to belittle and take the piss out of everything Justin has said. He starts by denying that he ever made the attack Justin has just defended. He uses his facts cleverly when he can, to correct small details Justin has asserted. He plays a status game, making light of revealing his own BA Degree, and showing his disdain of auditioning for WAAPA, in order to take Justin off his intellectual pedestal.
In response to Justin's distaste at the subject matter of ASPECTS, Erik makes a rather dubious connections about Egyptians (I assume he meant ANCIENT Egyptians, and not his politically incorrect assertion) having slept with siblings....as if this is a justification. Does he mean that therefore, the material should no longer be distasteful? His comparison to The Bold And The Beautiful really only seems to trivialise his argument, drawing it down to that lowest-denominator of television soap. Is he saying that that is a GOOD standard to compare to? In the scope of an argument about Lloyd Webber, I would have hoped for a more convincing comparison. Unfortunately, that only reconfirmed my own opinion about Lloyd Webber, and rather sealed Justin's argument.
Rather than finish on a fiery high, he proclaims his own boredom and disappears in a cloud of smoke (along with his argument), once again showing disdain for the audience he could have so easily been entertaining.
I have to say, on a personal note, that I do side with the Anti-Lloyd-Webbers. I loved JC SUPERSTAR, but have been most disappointed by other Rice/Webber collaborations like EVITA. I can hum along with CATS, but I'm not impressed by it as a musical. PHANTOM was a spectacular production, but I can only think of one song that grabs me. What I find clever in JCSS - his continuous underpinning of about three basic riffs - bores me in most of his later work.
Unlike the protagonists in this little argument, I have NO degree, musical or otherwise. I just think I know a lot.
Apologies for butting in on someone else's argument, disecting it, disputing it, and taking the piss out of it in a dry, witty way, but "that's what I do."
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···