131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 11, 2016 16:42:28 GMT
Well, I had one of the "nosebleed" seats when I saw it, and the view was great and unobstructed. The Richard Rodgers is a smallish theatre at 1,319 seats... it's not an opera house or orchestra hall where top tier means you literally need binoculars. My tickets were expensive but on per hour basis they were about the same as a rock concert by a top tier act. I certainly never felt ripped off. Remains to be seen if the experience is similar in London or the touring companies.
And in terms of "greed", the only thing that bothers me is scalpers and bots reaping the rewards of high demand instead of the producers and The Public (and, since they have a profit sharing agreement, the actors too!).
There are all sorts of ticket issues on the margin, but at the end of the day, it's inescapable that the hottest musical of the last decade is (for the moment) playing in one theatre in the world where less than 11,000 people can see it each week. Low supply, high demand is the reality on the ground. Keeping official prices low just means a) a ripe environment for scalpers and bots, or, b) even if you get them under control, even longer queues and overwhelmed websites (which, to be fair, may seem like a more equitable consequence to many).
And to be perfectly honest, any producer who said "yes" to a rap musical about Alexander Hamilton deserves a big reward, because it was a gutsy move to fund so daft-sounding an idea.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 10, 2016 3:17:49 GMT
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 6, 2016 19:42:58 GMT
Brandon will be great. I don't know much about Lexi but she has a great voice from what I've seen on YouTube. How exciting to get new interpretations on these roles. I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about new cast members; now I find myself really excited to see how the roles flourish under different actors. Too bad I'm out of money...
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 5, 2016 18:37:49 GMT
And as for Leslie- I think there was bad blood there. Either with Lin or with the producers. I doubt he'll return to the role in the future. I agree that LOJ's situation seems to have the biggest whiff of some sort of drama. Simplest explanations are that it's connected either to the profit sharing and/or his salary demands. Doubt it's with Lin as he seemed genuinely appreciative at the Tonys, but who knows. Sounds like a good journalistic scoop.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 5, 2016 17:19:37 GMT
I think the profit-sharing issue (led -- or at least brought up quite a bit -- by Leslie) is probably adding to complications. Yes, I haven't seen any evidence of this either way but it's easy to imagine the producers trying to claw back some of that on the wage side in negotiations.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 5, 2016 16:28:13 GMT
Really surprised no official announcements have been made, I think it's quite rare for a show to just change most of it's cast with extremely short notice. Something doesn't add up. The fact that so many have left so quickly, right around contract renegotiations, is hard to interpret as mere coincidence. And yet, not everyone has left: Daveed Diggs, for example, hasn't given any indication, even though he came out with an album in the interim! The hopeful possibilities are that 1) those leaving are in talks to join the London/touring casts, where I can see being a member of the OBC being of particular value, and/or 2) the profit sharing deal is freeing up the OBC to pursue other projects without having to stay on and risk getting type-cast (some of the cast has been attached to Hamilton since its workshop days). The negative read is that the producers are stiffing the OBC in renegotiations. Either way, it just feels like there's more to the story here...
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 30, 2016 14:14:38 GMT
In the "good but still overrated" column: The Producers. The original movie has always been one of my favorites, and I love musicals, so I should have been a tailor-made audience member. And... meh. I definitely laughed, but today I can't remember a single song or melody other than some vague sense of Nathan Lane's antics and the chants of "Unhappy" from "I Want to be a Producer". And "Springtime for Hitler" of course, but that was in the original movie, and anyway the musical version exemplified the repeated problem of the whole show: taking gags from the movie and pushing them one step too far over the top.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 28, 2016 20:31:58 GMT
Also, I had no idea it was a movie first until I read the Playbill.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 28, 2016 13:43:23 GMT
Hmm, I could be wrong here but I think the draw was more Sara Barellies than Jessie. Sara has been promoting the show heavily to her fans since before it opened and even had that album of her singing the songs. I also think the colourful, upbeat marketing helps. I didn't know of Jessie until Beautiful and I follow Broadway theatre fairly closely, so I don't see why tourists would know her name, especially as she doesn't do any TV or film. Sure having a Tony winner as the lead tends to bode well but I don't think this is similar to Audra, who I think has managed to make herself a star from theatre alone which is great in this day and age. That's to be expected though considering Audra has been doing Broadway for much longer and has the most Tonys for acting out of anyone. I'm not expecting to see a huge drop for Waitress after Jessie leaves to be honest. This is not to take away from her performance which is wonderful. I agree, it's predominantly a Sara Barellies thing, though having Jessie Mueller gave it some credibility. And as for the show itself, I thought it had lots of touches of great pop craftsmanship in the lyrics, but I was less enthralled by the score and rather actively disliked the ending. Mainly, I came away hoping Barellies tries her hand at another show in the future as she's a rare songwriting talent.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 27, 2016 14:07:55 GMT
Has anyone on this board argued that it's going to be a hit in the UK with the same fury as in the US? We've been fairly reserved in our predictions here IIRC.
And one upside to "hype": it's a sign that a work of art has spilled over into broader culture and is attracting the attention of writers and audiences who might ordinarily have missed out. People can like or dislike Hamilton itself but a show that's bringing in new theatre audiences based on the strength of its music and writing rather than big name stars or special effects seems like an unmitigated good thing for the stage.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 22, 2016 13:01:57 GMT
Been listening to the cast recording at work today, gosh 'Helpless' is just glorious!! That whole sequence of "Right Hand Man" - "Helpless" - "Satisfied" - "Wait for It" is incredible. I remember thinking on my first listen, "No way this can get bet--Wow, it just got even better."
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 16, 2016 21:55:53 GMT
It was very special to see it with LMM -- we don't often get to see writers act in their own works -- but it will be good to give him a break. His voice was a little strained at our performance and teetering on the edge at the Grammys and Tonys (though that may have just been emotion). I've heard Javier is good and John Rua, the second alternate, also got positive reviews the night he performed.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 14, 2016 12:53:17 GMT
Is he really arguing that the country that gave us Andrew Lloyd Webber has trouble making hit musicals? Even if you narrow the conversation to just contemporary works, I'm not convinced yet this is a problem the UK has. Matilda did very well just a couple years ago. Moreover, two of the top 5 grossing Broadway musicals in 2016 thus far are Disney productions, and one, Book of Mormon, was the product of writers who had considerable success and fame in TV and movies before branching out into musicals. All three of these are absolutely terrific but in addition to their quality they had legs up in becoming hits. That leaves Wicked and Hamilton, and really, even though Hamilton prompted the article, we're really only talking about Wicked right now since we have no idea yet how Hamilton's success will translate internationally. It's hard for me to imagine that there's something pervasive about UK theatre preventing hit musicals based on books (the source of both Wicked and Hamilton) to be written. The one possible twist that comes to mind is that shows are far more expensive to stage in Broadway than in West End. So perversely that might mean there's more "infrastructure" in the US to test and refine expensive new musicals before they open on Broadway. Hamilton in particular had a very long gestation period, and Wicked's run in San Francisco prompted some serious revisions before it trasferred. But even there I'm not convinced: UK shows have test runs too before transferring to London; it's fairly standard practice now. And even if the expense of Broadway motivates more ready-made hits surely the downsides are fewer risks (at least on Broadway as opposed to off-Broadway or in regional theatre) and fewer moderately-successful shows. The boring, but more likely, answer here is that Hamilton is extraordinary in the literal sense of the word, and doesn't really speak to the advantages or disadvantages of any particular theatre community.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 13, 2016 12:55:21 GMT
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 12, 2016 19:39:05 GMT
I think I'm the only one on this board who thinks this... But I just don't get Hamilton! Don't be a martyr. Lots of folks on this board have had reservations, starting on page 1. Their reactions are often very interesting.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 12, 2016 13:34:12 GMT
I can't cope with this Phillipa hate! She's my fav along with Leslie. Whoa, definitely don't hate her. I can easily think of actors in modern theatre who are proactively bad and she most certainly is not. But in a musical that runs over with riches she has always struck me as a tad underwhelming, both on the OCR and when I actually saw it. I'm open to the possibility that it's just the way Eliza is written, but pushing me the other way is the fact that I love "Helpless" and actually like "Burn" as songs but have never fully warmed up to Philippa's performances of them.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 12, 2016 1:52:19 GMT
I am completely happy to see Hamilton and Eliza replacements. Lin is fab, but I find him a teeny bit overpowering. And Eliza/Philippa is probably my least favorite, most vanilla and boring of the entire lot. I am happy come July if Leslie, Rene and Daveed are still in the cast. Totally agree. I can't tell if it's Philippa or the way Eliza is written. My suspicion is the former but I guess now we'll see soon enough!
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 11, 2016 1:53:40 GMT
You must have been fortunate enough to miss this: We'll have to see if any chart successes come from the Hamilton mixtape that's coming out in Autumn as well. Ha! Well there you go, someone did Not the song I'd have expected to be covered though. Seems almost as inappropriate as "I Dreamed a Dream" being used to advertise Freeview. It's tough to produce a radio single from a musical where virtually every song is plot-specific. "Story of Tonight" is one of the few that doesn't name a particular character or plot point. That said, there are some lovely covers by professionals gradually dripping out. This one from Javier Colon -- former winner of The Voice US -- is a standout:
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 10, 2016 1:12:39 GMT
Top price £85 according to Baz. Well the highest prices on Broadway now come out at £588 or so, so it could be much worse.. I wonder if they'll go for those £150-£200 straight away or wait to see how it does first. The success of this show is going to be extremely interesting to watch. Is it me, or does it sound more like he's surmising rather than delivering sourced information? I cannot imagine they've set price points yet.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 9, 2016 16:36:44 GMT
As I've said before, the subject matter of a show really really doesn't matter. Look at Les Mis. It's based on historical events, in a non-UK country, events which most people are so unfamiliar with that even people who've seen the show can come out believing it's about the French Revolution, and yet it's been running for years with no sign of stopping. And does it matter if a show is peculiarly American? Why not ask Book Of Mormon, which is only three years old here but still going strong without a single dip in its sky-high ticket prices? If Hamilton fails to find an audience over here - and that's always a possibility - then it's not going to be because of the subject matter. To add to this, Hamilton has been firing on many different cylinders at once in the US. Most of them are pretty plausible to see catching on in the UK: the breadth of the music, the clever lyrics, the emotional story. Hell, it's just a fun musical to sing along with regardless of where you're from. A couple aspects of Hamilton may not translate, or may translate in unexpected ways. For example, in the context of American culture it's hard to understate the significance of Hamilton recasting the US founding narrative as one populated by people of color, humanizing the Founding Fathers, and further by lauding Alexander Hamilton rather than Thomas Jefferson (the traditional 'forefather' of the US Democratic Party). It's fair to say that it's dominated the recent conversation among Early American historians. I wouldn't expect that side of Hamilton to resonate as powerfully with UK audiences (through no fault of their own of course). But! On the other hand, maybe it elicits a conversation about how the UK confronts its own history and identity. After the uproar over the casting of a black Hermione in Harry Potter it's not crazy to think there's broader exploration to be done here. It's hard to predict. Related to this, Hamilton's focus on immigration makes it quite timely in America. Even before the nomination of Donald Trump, there were political tensions between America's self-identity as a nation of immigrants and the perceived strains of immigrants on economic prosperity. Now of course that's front and center in the political discourse. But again! Immigration is a major issue both in the UK (maybe even bigger right now than in the US) and the continent, so maybe the American undertones of immigration and identity running through Hamilton will resonate just as strongly -- or even more so! -- when it transfers. One more thing: I'm cautiously optimistic about how well Hamilton will do in in London but for what it's worth I have found that teenagers tend to be really good canaries-in-the-coal-mine about musicals. Maybe it's the combination of their sophistication and thirst for the emotional, but if I were ever to consider investing in a musical I'd absolutely do an all-teen preview first.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 7, 2016 19:17:49 GMT
It's a show that meant a lot to me back in the day, but I doubt it'll be the same now I'm no longer in any flush of youth whatsoever. Still, it's coming to my local, so I guess I'll book myself a front row seat with all the legroom and a short walk home rather than trudge into London to gamble with the St James. I hope it's not a nostalgia production. Rent Remixed was a disappointment, but the general idea of trying to break with just doing a carbon copy of the original Broadway production was the right one. The good bits of Rent are so, so good, it's worth the effort of trying to keep the whole show fresh.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 2, 2016 16:30:12 GMT
Based on this thread in Broadway World from last year, that would put it in the company of about 16 other musicals: www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.php?thread=1083204Although I have to say, in the age of streaming services and a-la-carte track downloads, platinum certification strikes me as an even more impressive feat than in the past. Bear in mind that Youtube and Spotify (free) streaming of songs count as album sales (2 songs= album), and the fact that the cast recordings consist of two cds means they only have to sell 500 thousand rather than a million copies to go platinum Still impressive, just not as much... Important point, but I thought the ratio was 1,500 streams : 1 album? www.riaa.com/riaa-debuts-album-award-streams/
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 25, 2016 17:15:30 GMT
The Hamilton Original Broadway Cast Recording has officially been Platinum certified. #yayHamlet, as they would say Based on this thread in Broadway World from last year, that would put it in the company of about 16 other musicals: www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.php?thread=1083204Although I have to say, in the age of streaming services and a-la-carte track downloads, platinum certification strikes me as an even more impressive feat than in the past.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 16, 2016 16:24:12 GMT
West Side Story's issue IMO isn't the book but the fact it hasn't been allowed to evolve and change with revivals since the choreography has to stay the same and it's sort of become a museum piece which it shouldn't be, A Chorus Line has this issue to a lesser extent as well. That's interesting. I don't know if I agree (I think the book is pretty cringe-worthy) but will think about it.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 16, 2016 16:21:45 GMT
I'd also like to note that those musicals who reach the mainstream like Rent and Hamilton have pretty clever lyrics with some lovely messages like "No day but today" or "I'm not gonna throw away my shot" which elevates them (IMHO) above the endless deluge of sappy love songs. During the last weeks I've been struggling with some issues at work that gnawed at my confidence and really brought my mood down and I found that I kept singing "If mountains were easy to climb" since I had been listening to the Mrs Henderson CD quite a bit and I found the lyrics really inspiring and uplifting at that point. That's a great story. I think the reason it takes clever musicals to be musical watersheds is that audiences are exposed to a greater amount of media and are getting more sophisticated. Young audiences in particular can smell phoniness a mile away. So pushing the boundaries of musical theatre, folding in popular genres, and expanding beyond traditional audiences means not relying on the conventional suspensions of disbelief that frequent audiences get used to.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 16, 2016 14:52:44 GMT
Which is a perfect example of irony, as they specifically made up their own slang rather than using existing 1950s slang to prevent it from aging as quickly. Yeah, it was a clever idea on paper that didn't ultimately work as intended, precisely because it was too successful: Laurents concocted his slang through the lens of the 1950s, so it still sounds firmly of that era. Anyway, it doesn't ruin the show for me and there are certainly weaker aspects of the book, but it's the most obviously dated. By contrast, when I hear "Ol' Man River", or "Cool", or "Age of Aquarius", or "Seasons of Love", I never think, "Damn these songs are dated", I think, "Damn these songs are awesome." The only time that sense ever creeps in is with that artificial piano sound you hear from synthesizers in the 1980s, e.g. on some Les Miz and ALW recordings (of course synthesizers are ubiquitous now but they were kind of stuck in the uncanny valley of sound in the beginning...). I don't see why we should expect hip-hop musicals to be any different. In fact, if you look at Hamilton for example, its rap songs are already predominantly of an older, "classic" hip-hop style.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 16, 2016 13:01:18 GMT
Back in the day, the style of music in musical theatre was basically the same style as the popular music of the day. But as popular music has moved on, musical theatre hasn't felt the need to catch up. There have been lots of exceptions, obviously, what with rock musicals and jukebox musicals and hip-hop musicals, but musical theatre as a musical style kinda settled into itself and didn't move with the times. So yeah, a lot of musicals are going to sound dated if they don't purposefully set out to align themselves with contemporary tastes. Good music never really ages though. Show Boat, West Side Story, Chicago... their music is pretty clearly the product of a different time but that doesn't detract. To me, it's more common for musicals to age because of their themes or language. Take West Side Story: incredible music, but the slang in the book is now so antiquated it's downright distracting.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 15, 2016 1:35:53 GMT
Thank you all. As an economist by training, I found that whole segment terrific.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 14, 2016 21:40:01 GMT
Regarding the now infamous ALW interview on Nicole departing Cats, just actually noticed that they discussed Hamilton more than they discussed all his shows put together. Is there perchance a link to this?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 13, 2016 3:30:53 GMT
I mean, at least the characters in Hamilton are able to hold down jobs (somewhat). HA. In all seriousness, on paper it's not a musical I'd expect to do well in London. Then again, on paper it's not a musical I'd expect to do well anywhere. And I actually know a fair number of Britons who are hooked on it just based on the OCR. So my cautiously-optimistic guess is: better than a flame-out (Rent), but probably not a long-term mainstay (Les Mis).
|
|