bostonman

Another observation - I think one of the reasons that jukebox musicals have been so prevalent is that the producers know that the average (and non-theatre savvy) audience member can "hum all the tunes" BEFORE seeing the show.

Generally, in my experience, if there is such a tune you can hum on the way out (in a score you're hearing for the very first time), it's the one the orchestra is playing at the time - and/or the last song in the show. It's never a question of remembering some big tune in the middle of Act I that you've only heard once. No one remembers that in any show. But it certainly could be that "hook" from the last song you just heard. This is one reason why older shows tend to contain lots of reprises, especially in Act II - in the hopes that the tunes will "stick" due to lots of repetition. (They'd also be used in scene change music, incidental music, overtures, entr'actes and bows/exit music of course). Not that reprises are a thing only of the past, but generally, composers don't use them in the same way as they used to - meaning that we're not as exposed to the tunes, and therefore they don't get in the brain as easily. it's not about the complexity of the music - one example is some of the musically complex themes in Evita that do tend to stay with you, because Webber uses them over and over and over. Also, older composers relied on radio play of the tunes, along with cast recording sales, sheet music sales, etc. And, overtures were often written with the expected big tunes in mind, so that you would have already been exposed to the big melodies before hearing them sung for the first time. But I do find that even when I do know a score well, the tune that I "hum" afterwards is the last one I heard in the theatre. (And of course if a composer is smart, they'll try to put their biggest tune or tunes in the exit music, for that very reason.)

I disagree. The term "musical comedy" isn't current in the biz anymore (and I'm in the biz). It now only generally refers to an older style of classic musical, or a show specifically written in that nostalgic format (like 42nd Street of The Drowsy Chaperone etc). Generally they're simply called musicals now. The subtitle on the original 1776 logo is "a new musical" - not "a new musical comedy." It would kind of be like calling a cellphone a "telephone" or calling movies "the pictures." Not that the terms don't have some validity in of themselves, but the language is dated. Shows like George M! and Two By Two, which premiered in the same period as 1776, might still be properly referred to as "musical comedies" given their style. But 1776 didn't play in that same kind of "traditional" style. Man Of La Mancha, a few years earlier, deliberately called itself "a musical play." I'm not sure that its bookwriter, Dale Wasserman (who conceived the piece as a play before it was developed into a musical) would have wanted it called a musical comedy. In any case, as I said. the term is really now only used for a certain style of musical, not as a general term for the whole genre.

At first, I thought - wait - the "Met Gala" is always on New Year's Eve. But of course that's the Met OPERA.

Musical comedy? I mean, it's a musical, and it does have a lot of comedy in it - but it's not what I'd call a "musical comedy."

Actually, that sounds right for a note/word-complete production of the original material. But you may be right that for a rethought production like this one, it seems longer than it might be. I have yet to hear opinions from anyone who really loved the rethought "dream ballet." They probably should have just cut that.

Technology has changed significantly since then lol. Also, consider the fact that the last 2 live musical presentations (NBC's Jesus Christ Superstar and Fox's Rent) were done on a unit set. The Midler TV Gypsy was done on a very realistic level in terms of set - they could certainly do a different approach this time around. No, the issue wouldn't be the set - it would be the fact that Babs, despite a long and amazingly distinguished career, would simply not be up to the vocal demands of the role. And she's also way too old to play the part realistically. (What 77 year old woman has given birth to kids still under the age of 10??) And yet, of course, if she WERE to do this, we would all watch it, wouldn't we? I actually tend to wonder if the current age of live TV musicals may be coming to an end. Fox is bowing out of them, from what I hear - and their Rent was a disaster. NBC's flabbergasting decision to propose Hair as a TV musical was thankfully aborted, but no stellar future plans seem to be in the works. (There's still talk of Bye Bye Birdie, but it sounds like no one's really pushing for it.) Most of the NBC musicals have been sub-par in many ways (with Hairspray and Superstar the shining exceptions). So - we'll see...but I tend to doubt there will be a Gypsy in the near future, with Streisand or with anyone else.

I remember seeing that Gypsy medley when the concert was televised. She was working so so so damn hard to prove she could do Rose's songs. Not in any way appealing in that sense. (With a good Madame Rose, you marvel at how one can make it seem so easy. With a bad one, you wonder if she'll have a larynx left at the end of the night. Put Ms. Streisand in the latter category, even just with the excerpts she did.) On the other hand, in that same concert when she was revisiting many of her earlier, classic hits, I was mostly charmed. Yes, the voice isn't what it was anymore - but I sensed a real relaxation and joy in her performing - something I often feel I miss with her. But no, her Madame Rose days are way past.

For me, I'm most excited to hear David Yazbek's score. I've been a huge fan of his ever since The Full Monty. His work, for me, is always inventive, clever, surprising, and also wonderfully tuneful (and/or whimsically quirky). I feel that he's a composer/lyricist that is always going to deliver something worth hearing.

That very well could be - but then, why has that never happened to me before???

I actually should have been clear that that was a paraphrase - that may not have been her exact words - but that was the intention of whatever it was that she did say. What I found rude about it was that she literally cut me off with that question before I was able to finish the order. The part about the upselling that got me was the wings. I already ordered a burger and fries - Why would I ALSO want wings? (The "pie" part I can forgive her. Though I generally don't get dessert at fast food places - but she certainly didn't know that.)

I grabbed a very quick dinner at Tasty Burger the other night. I've been there before - I don't think they're all that good - but it's what was available. I ordered a burger, and was of course asked how I wanted it cooked. But then literally before I could get another word out to finish my order, the cashier asked me something to the effect of "Is that all you want?" I paused, just a bit annoyed, and then continued to order the fries and shake I was going to ask for before I was (in my view) snapped at. But - that would have been enough - then she started the upsell. "Any pie?" "What?" (I didn't even realize they had pie, lol.) "Would you like any pie?" "No." "How about some chicken wings. We have those now." She pointed to the ad for the wings right near the register. "No," I said politely, but a little confused. I mean, I had just ordered dinner after all. She then pointed to what I think was another flavor of wings, or something, still trying to get me to buy more. At this point, I have to admit I was very close to cancelling the order and walking away - but I needed some food and this was it. I uttered a rather emphatic "no" to this 2nd offer of the wings, with an implication of "are you fucking kidding me" in my tone. I just want to know if she does this routine with every customer. The whole ordeal was very annoying. Can't I just fucking order what I want to?

The Cape Playhouse, yes. A very good production in general.

The Cape Playhouse, yes. A very good production in general.

The Cape Playhouse, yes. A very good production in general.

I wish I had been able to see her in that show - but never got to see the Broadway production. I did see Jo-Anne Worley in a summerstock production, and she was fun, but it was a very different kind of humor. I don’t know if the role was created with Engel in mind or if she was cast after the fact, but it seems to me that Engle’s style fits the role much better.

I wish I had been able to see her in that show - but never got to see the Broadway production. I did see Jo-Anne Worley in a summerstock production, and she was fun, but it was a very different kind of humor. I don’t know if the role was created with Engel in mind or if she was cast after the fact, but it seems to me that Engle’s style fits the role much better.

I wish I had been able to see her in that show - but never got to see the Broadway production. I did see Jo-Anne Worley in a summerstock production, and she was fun, but it was a very different kind of humor. I don’t know if the role was created with Engel in mind or if she was cast after the fact, but it seems to me that Engle’s style fits the role much better.

Yes. I regret that I only saw her live once - in a 20th anniversary tour of Nunsense back in 2002, which despite the cast (Engel as the "ballerina nun" Sister Mary Leo, along with cohorts Kaye Ballard, Mimi Hines, Darlene Love and Lee Meriwether) was a very disappointing production. But, Engel was her adorably funny self regardless, and it was a true kick to get to see her (and the others) onstage live. The whole thing just needed, metaphorically, a few more bottles of "rush" (that's an in-joke for anyone who knows the show - for those who don't, Reverend Mother at one point gets high, unwittingly, on poppers. This production was conversely on an overdose of sleeping pills). But for most of us she will always be the brilliantly naive and airy-voiced Georgette, which is a pretty impressive legacy all by itself.

Please come to Boston sometime.

Hmm. Perhaps I'm right to be using Expedia instead?

"feat." is such a hip-hop thing. Can't we actually say "featuring" or in this case, even "starring?"

I think that "Tina - The Tina Turner Musical" is one awful mouthful of a title. Sounds actually like they couldn't decide to go with the standalone first name or a description of the show, so they just threw it all in. Meh.

Rodgers was lucky to have 2 amazing long-term partnerships with insanely talented lyricists. But he was unable to find that spark a 3rd time with any of the collaborators he tried after that. And they were an impressive group, actually - Sondheim, Harnick, Charnin, Peter Stone, Laurents, ...but none of those collaborations worked very well. I don't have much love for the 2 songs he wrote himself for the film of The Sound Of Music (to be honest, I despise "Something Good"), but they have become classics because of the iconic nature of the film. "The Sweetest Sounds" and "Stay" are two melodies I admire a great deal from this period of his writing, but he really never had another hit song in this time. Sad, somehow, for the man that Noel Coward once quipped could "pee melody."

Rodgers' estate (i.e. the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization) would have had to approve it, yes. But that doesn't mean they have to live by Rodgers' aesthetic myopia lol. In fact, they have also approved some new "music videos" that have been made of some of the classic R&H songs with new, more contemporary takes.