bostonman

Agreed (even though I do enjoy watching the Tony ceremony, and some other awards shows - and have zero interest in anything having to do with red carpets, lol). It's the awards themselves that can help boost a Broadway show's status, not the awards ceremony. However, I do think that when the show excerpts shown on the awards broadcast are done effectively, they can also help spur interest in those shows.

Taking your post seriously - no, everyone really wouldn't watch. I think it's pretty much a given that these niche award shows don't get much viewership outside of the niche group. People that don't care much for theatre (particularly musicals, because that's the bias the Tony broadcast always has) aren't going to be interested, no matter who the host is. If Bernadette Peters were hosting some golf show, say - I wouldn't tune in, lol - I'd have no interest, even though I like her. And Broadway isn't dying. But there will always be the Eeyore Chorus of people who say it is. Every year, No matter what.

I'm actually glad to see Groban and Bareilles - two stars in the pop world who have both had recent unqualified Broadway successes - hosting the Tonys. Why not, lol? As long as Groban isn't given any reason to salaciously drool the name "Alan Cumming" throughout the show (Cumming disgustingly did that with Groban a few years back, and it made for must-turn-off TV). It will also be great to see Springsteen on the show. I doubt it will attract a large number of non-Broadway fans to watch the awards show - that kind of thing really never works. But it might make for an interesting show. That said, I really hate the constant hullabaloo over hosts for these awards shows every year. Often they are terrible, are given way too much to do, and make the show longer than necessary. Sue me. I don't get all the viciousness that has been all over the theatre chat boards about the Gypsy Robe thing. And Riedel is doing his best here to live up to his trademark snarkiness. I support the name change - I really don't think it's that big of a deal. No, the classic musical Gypsy will not be changing its name anytime soon, for good reason. Everyone is getting bent out of shape about this, and it's really annoying. There are so many more important things to be upset about, aren't there?

Well, again, I think that there is more artistic merit to this than you do, lol. To a large degree, I'm sure that the writers would rather have some say into how a show should be adapted for youngsters, instead of others making those decisions for them. The fact is that teens are of course going to want to get their chance to do shows like Rent, even if some may feel it's not the best choice. So I don't think that there adaptations are always about the money. In the case of a show like Spamalot, I would actually think that the target audience for the show is more around my age - those of us that were growing up when Monty Python was in their heyday. But, there's of course a lot to be said for legacy and for young performers learning how to play that kind of zany comedy, so I don't have an issue with it. I don't know what the adaptations in the school version are. Having had the privilege of working on a number of new pieces, I will say that a majority of composers/lyricists are quite eager to adapt their material to suit the performer(s) - but they also like to be asked at very least, and when they can also be involved in the process it's even better. This is one way they can be involved in, and have some control over, how their work is performed and seen. And that seems reasonable to me.

This is much better stated than another press release I saw where it was said that Midler had "lured" Pierce and Creel back into the show with her. Made it all sound very creepy to me.

But you're not taking into account that most schools don't ever "do it as written." I've rarely seen (or done) a high school production of ANY musical that hasn't made some significant changes to the material - songs cut, dances cut, scenes reworked to make them lass "adult" and on and on. And especially in terms of music, I've worked with my share of music teachers who have no real experience in being musical director for a show, and don't know how to handle effective ways of making cuts, adapting huge complex arrangements for inexperienced singers, etc. So one of the reasons the licensing companies started doing the "school editions" (and "jr" shows, etc) is to help make informed and reasonable adaptations. Now, I agree that some of them don't work well - they can go too far and make too many changes. But I think they can be a decent alternative to having drama and music teachers trying to make changes themselves without really knowing how to do it well. Interesting that the Les Miserables School Edition does NOT make any changes in language. (Or, at least it didn't at the time some years back that I played in the pit for several productions of it.) Mme. Thenardier still sings "lifelong shit" and "raise it up the master's ass," and refers to her husband as a bastard (and the "not much there" lyric referring to his, um, manhood is still there too), plus the Dock scene still has the lyric about "even stokers need a little stoke." There are no indications that changes to those lyrics are permitted, though of course every school has to decide how to handle that on their own, permission or not. But then there are misfires like the Avenue Q School Edition changing the iconic comedy of "The Internet Is For Porn" into a very weak tea rewrite about Facebook called "My Social Life Is Online." Awful. They should have just cut the song instead.

I just have to share a family story -- This is about my wonderful and amazing maternal grandmother, who passed away shortly after her 101st birthday, may she rest in peace. Generally a very liberal-minded woman, as most of us are in the family. But, I guess everyone has their limits... I remember our Thanksgiving gathering in 1998, when the Lewinsky scandal was the big news. A few of us, including my brother and our grandmother were in a small group at one point, talking about it all, and my grandmother offered her opinion. If I recall, the affair itself didn't bother her so much, but - referring to the oral sex allegations - "who in the world would ever want to do THAT?" I remember my brother and I looking at each other, trying very hard not to laugh. Bless her...

Which, most likely, will be a repeat of the HD performance. This Saturday we also get a rare Saturday night broadcast - the live performance of Tosca, which will air on Sirius as well as the Met's live streaming service.

Indeed. I'm actually quite surprised that this version didn't take advantage of the idea of making Dr. Smith openly gay, instead of that "is he or isn't he" quality that Jonathan Harris brought to the role, in an era when actually being gay on TV would not have been acceptable. I watched a few episodes of the original 60's show recently - I think it was on the "Decades" channel. I hadn't really seen the show since watching it in syndication when I was a kid. I had forgotten how funny and clever it was, as well as campy. Or maybe better to say that I didn't quite realize how campy the show was - at that age I don't think I knew that term, even though I'm sure I felt it. I tend to think I won't be watching this new version - sometimes the old classics really don't need touchups at all.

I also feel somewhat reassured by the fact that nothing huge has happened to any sites that I know of since the law was signed. Everything that has happened so far happened before that, including the Backpage takedown, which was obviously one of the major targets. This is certainly not to say that other things may not happen - but it seems so far that the ISP’s are leaving things alone, and the first amendment seems to be safe. So far...

All in all, I think this site is run very fairly. And if Daddy needs to seem a bit harsh at times, well, so be it. Let’s also remember that tone does not always come through very well in typed messsages. So maybe sometimes the harshness is more perception than intention.

I understand that it only turned blue after about 4 hours or so...and I think I'd be shocked to see THAT just as much as they were. But seriously - I stand by my basic opinion - "fear no art."

But this wouldn't be an award for "a chorus member." It would be an award for an entire ensemble - something which may be hard to define, depending on the show. (In fact, it's already clear that the initial proposal makes a huge distinction between an "ensemble", which seems closer to an award for a strong cast dynamic, and the "chorus," which seems to point to just the choral/dancing forces, but NOT how an entire cast works together. I tend to think a lot of shows, especially smaller-scale musicals, will get caught in the middle somewhere. And there aren't many plays that have a singing/dancing "chorus" lol.) The original article cites the "Jeff Awards" - in Boston, we have similar local awards for "best ensemble." I have yet to determine what that has really meant. Most often, I'd say it's really the runner-up prize for a show that didn't get "best play" or "best musical," with a nod to the way the cast "clicks." I'm certainly all for recognizing more of a cast than just 4 of the main performers, as is the case now. But I'm not sure what an "ensemble" award really would be awarded for. If they could better define the parameters (and that's a big "if" IMO), maybe I could change my mind. But right now I think it's a meaningless idea.

I still have the "devil" logo - on my desktop, tablet, and iPhone.

I guess it's simple human nature, but I hear a phrase like "the start [or turn] of the century" and I have to remind myself that that means the 2000's, not the 1900's. But clearly no online site has been around since 1900.

A funny memory - Back when I was in my teens, I think (sometime in the late 70's perhaps?) our local TV stations started going from what used to be a half-hour dinnertime news program at 6PM, to a block that lasted an hour and a half, from 5-6:30. I still have this faint memory of one local anchor, who, in a very pompous "Ted Baxter"-ish way, would make this big fucking deal about "I'm now going to leave my 5:00 desk and make my way over to my 5:30 desk" or something like that. Maybe you had to be there, lol, but I always found it so ridiculous.

I'm learning bits and pieces, though a lot of it is mostly common knowledge, I would think. Though for younger viewers it's probably a good dose of history they may not know. But, I do generally like CNN's documentary series like these. The "decades" series are also very well done, IMO, and the current Pope series is interesting too. I haven't really gotten into the Amanpour sex series yet, but I'll catch up on those. Otherwise, it's ironic that although CNN used to be my default news station, I've found myself almost entirely switched over to MSNBC at this point.

Haven’t the news reports been referring to “associated sites” or something similar in wording? I assume that means the mirror sites, so they’re probably all down.

I'm glad for that. It would have been frustrating to have lost a way to contact them.

Do you have contact info for them, hopefully, if you want to see them again? The weekend after the Craigslist personals died, and speculation began, I started saving screenshots and phone numbers for RM escorts I was interested in potentially meeting (as well as making sure I had current contact info for the ones I'd like to see again). So in case RM goes down, at least I'll still have contact. Unfortunately, when ads expire on RM, the contact info goes away. Which is what prompted my initial question to you.

I will say, though, that I have yet to hear specifically of a sting incident from a Rentmen ad. Other problems have happened - guys who don't represent themselves accurately, etc - but no legal issues that I know of.

I agree. One of the moments I think Leveaux missed was the end of the end of the Mary/Peter moment in "The Denial." I've always thought it's stronger when Mary can sing directly to Peter, "It's what he said that you would do / I wonder how he knew" - and to see Peter's reaction to that revelation. But in this version, Peter had already exited by then. One can justify that he felt the need to get out of there and not risk being seen with Mary - but I think then we miss the point of Peter realizing he had fulfilled the prophecy. Webber/Rice give no specific moment for Peter to weep, as in the gospels, but I've seen productions where that happens there. I have to admit I wasn't thinking about the race of the actor at that moment. And I have to say I did like the way this moment was staged in this stylistic manner - though I understand why people might not. BUT - I did think it was otherwise a great and important choice to have Jesus portrayed by someone non-caucasian, without long blonde hair, etc. There actually was a criticism I saw on an online chat about that - someone who actually dissed the production for not having a "real" Jesus (i.e. giving into that iconic white male longhaired image). I responded back, pointedly asking if this person had been there to actually see the real Jesus - i.e. how did he/she know what he ACTUALLY looked like, and not to trust the images white male artists have foisted on us for centuries. I got no reply, naturally.

Oh, I dunno...do we know exactly how he met Stormy?

Ah - you are right. I hadn't checked recently. To be brutally honest here, it's congress that we need to place the blame on. Yes, trump will most surely sign this, but we should know from past experience that he really doesn't ever fully understand what he signs. I imagine that he may know that this is an anti-trafficking law, but that he has no idea what else the law will affect. Though yes, it is still horribly ironic.

I was wondering about that, as Backpage has been a known target for a long time now. But let's face it - when they shut their actual "escort" pages down a while back, they clearly weren't stopping people from making the "dating" section into wall-to-wall escort ads. Which they could have prevented, or at least attempted to. So this was a disaster in the making anyway. Craigslist solved the issue (at least for now) by shutting down all the personals, though ironically their "theraputic" section is still up and running, which could be a problem eventually. But I tend to wonder why BP didn't take a similar step. Meanwhile, I hold to the hope that the feds are really after hetero sites more than anything else. Even in the BP story, we're hearing objections to phrases like "little girl" as code in the ads. I'm not saying gay trafficking doesn't exist - I'm sure it does - but I do assume that the focus of the new law is much more on the advertising girls more than the gay guys. We'll see...