bostonman

I think that would allow time for just the so-called Elephant Love Medley lol. (And I guess I liked the show a lot more than you did, lol. That's ok...)

I went ahead. We met tonight. Positive review to be submitted soon.

I went ahead. We met tonight. Positive review to be submitted soon.

This is a very eye-popping article on the show's finances and one hell of a boo-boo... http://observer.com/2018/07/gettin-the-band-back-together-telecharge-error/

I would say there are also a lot of parallels to last season's Bandstand - a show that I finally got to see in its recent moviecast version. (It was the first of the 4 "Band" shows on Broadway in recent seasons - the other musical being the Tony-winning and deserving The Band's Visit, which is very different from the other 2 musicals in content, and of course the play The Boys In The Band.) But - unlike the assessment of Gettin' The Band above, I feel that Bandstand had a surprisingly clever score and smart lyrics, and even if I found the show's final plot twist to be rather non-credible, I really enjoyed the journey the piece took me on. Plus, its essential theme of WWII vets struggling to make something of their lives through music resonates much stronger than this "let's revisit our high school dreams" type theme, IMO. (Anyone remember Glory Days???) Bandstand ultimately did not do well. Some may say that this show could do better because it's lighter than Bandstand, which did have some heavy, dark themes to sell to the audience. I'm not a fan of seeing any show close - not only for all the effort and money it takes to put up a show, but also for the jobs lost once it closes - but I tend to wonder if word-of-mouth from satisfied audiences will be enough to keep this open, as the reviews don't seem positive. (Yet, any number of shows have stayed afloat despite their reviews.) Just, please, no more shows with "band" in the title (or about bands) for a while, ok???

That's good too. And they might be deliberately flubbing stuff just to throw everyone off the track...but they'd also know how to fix things.

I always wanted to be on Zoom, lol. That was a fun show. I can still speak ubbi-dubbi if I think about it lol.

I had (have, I should say) rather progressive parents, lol - I can't remember how old I was, but probably in my early teens, when my parents let me watch the George Carlin HBO special that was on, with his "7 words you can't say on TV" routine. I had probably never laughed so hard in my life lol.

You are right, though. And the writing - especially the humor - was really outstanding. Even at a young age, I realized how clever the writing was. (And all the puns that a lot of kids may not have understood - Morgan Freeman as "Easy Reader," or comedian Skip Hinnant as detective "Fargo North, Decoder.") Looking back on my memories of the show now, it almost feels like the Electric Company cast was more like a skilled comedy troupe than just a bunch of adults doing a kids' show. They really were a great ensemble.

That makes sense. Also - I'm not sure about this, but - it may have been the first large-scale kids' TV show to have a very diverse cast (among the actual adults, I mean). The Electric Company also had that. (THERE's a show I truly miss.)

I'm amazed I hadn't seen this thread before. Some years back, starting to watch a lot of baseball on TV, I started taking more notice of how often the players spit during the game. And I realized I felt something erotic in that, and started thinking about having a hot guy spit in my face/mouth etc. But it seemed so taboo to ever bring it up with a partner. I finally got up the courage to mention this fetish to a few guys. One in particular seemed very interested in trying it out. I remember actually being really nervous about it - what if it turned out that I didn't like it after all? Or that my buddy didn't like doing it? Would it feel embarrassing? Luckily I didn't have to worry - it turned out even better than I thought it could - and my buddy agreed. We kept it up, and he got me so wet that night lol. Ever since then, when I can get someone interested in doing it, it's almost always an amazing time. It's funny talking to guys about it. Most guys automatically assume that it's part of a larger interest in extreme dom/sub and humiliation play - and for me, it's really not. It's the eroticism that really gets me - that intimacy about another personal body fluid, the taboo nature of the activity, the sort of playful/goofy factor of doing it, etc. Now, sure, if I'm with some big hunky jockdude/fratdude/etc who also enjoys the power he feels as he spits at me - sure, that's hot too. But I've also had some very hot times with guys who were more just regular "guy next door" types - the ones that seem too nice to get so kinky - and it's especially fun when they also discover how hot it is to play like that. My big fantasy is that someday I'll find a real-life baseball player (doesn't have to be pro) who wants to get me all wet...

Actually, it's "one of these things is not like the other." And I also learned who the people in my neighborhood were. (Not to be confused with the people in Mister Rogers' neighborhood - they came on after Sesame Street.)

I also understand that "J.R."s real-life mom might have done a musical here and there?

I was never a huge Three Stooges fan, though I do enjoy that kind of pie-in-the-face slapstick in general. It's classic stuff. With this "Nailed It" thing, it seems to me that the only point of the show is that all of the "contestants" are set up for epic fails from the first moment. There's really no fun in that. I guess the real point is to see who fails the most, or most ridiculously - even though that works totally against the assessments made by the judges, who seem to be trying to rate the BEST results, not the WORST. But since the outcome from the beginning is that they're all going to fail to a major degree, it kind of takes away any of the fun sense that there could be in the competition. It could have been much funnier if, perhaps, unexpected new obstacles are occasionally being put in their way (or more like a "Candid Camera" where the contestants aren't aware of why things are going wrong, etc). As it is, it's just not all that interesting. Christopher Guest and company could have done something very very funny with this. The improv would have been far better, the comic stakes would have seemed more real, and the personalities would have been endearing in their incompetence instead of just plain incompetent. (I'm imagining what a bakery run by the cast of Guffman would have been like. THAT's comedy...)

I don't know Byer (no u) in any other context - but in this particular show, from what I saw, she is horrid. In one of the episodes I saw, one of the contestants hit the "help" button, and Byer came up to her and just kinda yelled and ranted and screamed incoherently. It wasn't funny. It was sad.

Saw the show on Sunday afternoon. For me it was a huge jolt of fun on an otherwise blah rainy day. Enough has been said about the design elements - and all is true - the look of the show is gorgeous and commanding, but also inviting. (I compare this to The Lion King, where to be honest, my eyes and brain were exhausted by the middle of Act II - there really is such a thing as too much of too much, and ultimately I found that show very disappointing because of that. This show, to contrast, had just the right balance.) Those who feel that the exceptional Olivo and Tveit didn't have the right chemistry, or that Tveit seemed a bit miscast in the character - I disagree. Maybe things have developed during the run and I was better off seeing it now instead of earlier. Who knows? In any case, I bought it. I also have to say I didn't see an issue with Mutu's portrayal of the Duke - comments from others set me up to think he was going to be much more charming than I thought he was, lol. In a plot that really is one-dimensional (one of my only real quibbles with the show itself), I think he found the right balance between being a credible love foil (which I think is important), and a man only after power and possession. The story makes it clear what kind of creature he is - Mutu was right not to concentrate on playing that so much. In general, the entire cast worked together so well - obviously the precision and specificity in the choreography/movement was drilled to the nth degree, but it all looked natural to me, rather than rehearsed. It's a long show (running time listed as 2:40 - I think it ran a bit longer yesterday) and could afford to be cut down just a bit, to be honest, but for its length it's certainly a helluva workout for the entire cast, and it doesn't show. It feels fresh, not routine. And on that - Olivo and Tveit especially should get a lot of credit for their stamina. Satine is a monster of a role, but Olivo doesn't seem fazed. And Tveit is faced with a very tough sequence of "big singing" in the 2nd act (Chandelier / Roxanne / Crazy / Rolling in The Deep) that, as a musical director/vocal coach, made even me go "how is he doing this 8 times a week???" As for the score - well, it won me over. As someone who myself is fond of creating what in this day are now called "mash-ups" (I prefer the older term "medley" lol), where a phrase of one song leads to something in another song, and on and on, Justin Levine's new arrangements for this musical version are outstanding. Yes, there were plenty of audible reactions (especially laughter) from the audience as familiar tunes appeared, but frankly, I feel that's something this musical embraces with class. There's never a sense of "wink wink nudge nudge" as the next hit song comes out of nowhere - they just play it all honestly as if they were all new songs coming out of the specific moment. It was clear that the show was written in expectation of the audience response, but it never played it FOR the laughs. The few moments where a song was there for a true sense of broad comedy (Danny Burstein's Zidler seeming appropriately and charmingly mismatched as he started to sing "Shake It Out" for instance) also worked well because we weren't getting that kind of gimmick for the whole show. The only moment in the show that gives me some pause is the post-show/curtain call. The ending of the actual musical play is very dark (as is the majority of Act II) and did have me shedding a tear (as did the high emotion and stunning choreography for "Roxanne", and a few other moments as well). But then, all of that goes away and we're treated to that moment I never much like in the big musicals that do it - the "extended reprise" ending. I've never liked the Joseph "Megamix" for example (and have never done it when I've done the show), I'm not really even a fan of the endless reprises that happen at the end of Dolly (though at least there, it builds on the joy of the final scene in an a fitting way IMO). I totally understand why the writers of Moulin Rouge felt the need for that "happy ending" pickup - but for me it went on way too long, and ironically (being a post-show moment) it did take me out of the show. I think I would have gone for a much shorter version of the same idea and found it more fitting. But, I doubt they will change it from what it is, because they know that in general, the sequence is a huge crowd-pleaser, and I get that. I guess they felt they needed something rather overreaching to contrast with the story's bleak ending, but still... But, perhaps the best thing of all was seeing this triumph of a show in this venue. If any of you don't know the disgustingly shameful recent history surrounding the possible fate of this historic Colonial Theatre, you can look it up. I've seen many shows here in the past, and I can say the renovation work is truly beautiful. Even if the show weren't as good as it is, IMO, just being "part of the event" (thank you, Mr. Sondheim) was a thrill in itself. Thank god this theatre was preserved, and that they had this huge and daring premiere to start its new era.

For me, most famous for his musical films - Annie Get Your Gun, Kiss Me Kate, Show Boat, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, and Kismet.

I never got the Streisand gene, lol. While I can appreciate her talent, I often find her impossible to watch or listen to. To me, she's always trying too hard to show just how damn hard she's working. Instant turnoff when performers do that. When Sonny and Cher had their first variety show on in the 70's, I was too young to be up that late, but somehow I remember sneaking out of bed to watch it. I liked her back then. When she discovered the dubious joys of auto-tune (i.e. that awful single "Believe" that everyone loves) I kinda lost interest. But I like her in her film roles. Callas? IMO, A fantastic actress with a very flawed voice. But always fascinating to listen to even so.

As intimated above, Cher is currently busy pretending to be ABBA.

This is all fine and good, and yes, Madonna deserves a huge amount of recognition for an outstanding career that has included much more than just being a pop singer. But as for the article the thread cites, what's with the "definitive" crap? It's just another subjective list of someone's favorites, IMO. The internet is saturated with these kind of meaningless lists.

Let alone Charlene, the singer who put this song on the charts to being with. At the time, I remember the song was one of those that most people made fun of anyway, despite its popularity - Keel sure doesn't do it any favors, lol.

As at least one song was posted in this thread, I wanted to include what I think is a really touching and beautiful highly romantic song from this season's Tony winner, The Band's Visit. Papi, a young Israeli, is on a comically disastrous blind date at a rollerskating rink with a girl named Julia. The Egyptian visitor Haled is there with him. After Papi tells Haled about his total incompetence in trying to date girls (the wonderfully and hysterically zany "Papi Hears The Ocean,") Haled coaches him in the art of courtship with the song "Haled's Song About Love." There isn't a full video of this scene that I can find online (there's one of the ending which I've included), but there's a great scene midway through the song where Haled motions for Papi to go sit on the bench next to Julia, then has to show him how to put her arm around her (by doing it to him) and to rub her knee (again, by doing it to him). So for a moment, we have this sweet/funny homoerotic vision of Haled with his arm around Papi, rubbing Papi's knee, while Papi also has his arm around Julia, rubbing her knee. Once Papi gets it, he gently pushes Haled's hand away (which surely always gets a laugh). Then the pair get up and start skating around and finding a romantic connection as Haled finishes the song (and Papi joins in, singing to Julia). The scene is beautiful, as is David Yazbek's sexy slow jazzy music, and truly romantic, poetic lyrics. Here is the song off the cast recording: Here is the last portion of the song, as captured onstage in performance:

It really is a wonderful and touching and joyous film. I haven't seen it in a while, thinking I should go back and watch it again. Just fyi - Jamie's love interest goes by the name Ste, not Steve.

I have a friend in the ensemble - used to be a Boston actress, then did a national tour, and this was her first Broadway gig. She posted a wonderful post on Facebook the other night, expressing her sadness at the announcement and yet her joy at the privilege of having been part of the show. Of course, as I responded to her, I know she will be offered many more opportunities, even as it's tough to see this one go. What we can never forget is that, whether we personally like a production or not, that closing notice does mean a huge loss of work for all involved. As I get older and see more of my friends/colleagues/students get Broadway gigs, that has driven that point home more than ever.

I assume the real issue, of course, is that the plaintiff had never formally agreed to anything as a substitute for cash, so despite the defendant's brazen excuses, I would agree with the judge. Reminds me, in a basic way, of earning some extra money in college by doing music coaching. I worked a lot with one particular older student (can't remember if she was upperclass or graduate) and sometimes she'd pay in cash, but sometimes (in very good faith, I add) she bought me books, or other similar gifts she knew I'd like. (She was a lesbian, so no, no attempts at hanky panky lol.) Problem is, I really wanted (and often needed) the money. But of course, little freshman that I was, I never had the heart to tell her that, because she meant well, and everything she got me was indeed a nice gift. But - jumping ahead a few decades...there was this time that I saw a colleague's ad on Manhunt - someone I had worked with in shows, and that I did have a crush on. To my wonderful surprise, he was cool about having a little fun together, but logistics tended to get in the way (distance, schedules, etc). But then he got in touch one day saying that he was working on some new audition material, and wanted to come to town and hire me to do some coaching. I said yes, of course, and also mused that it was a shame that we couldn't *also* have a little fun. Well, our discussion led to a fun little agreement - he'd consider paying half my fee in cash, and inviting me to blow him in place of the rest. I was down for that. And it all worked out very nicely. Very. So much so that we did it again another day. So hey - as long as the terms are agreed by both parties, lol... (I guess that defendant should have kept that in mind...)