|
Post by esteveyb on Sept 16, 2024 11:12:41 GMT
Just seen it a second time, excellent! The only thing I’d say is the build up to Disco Ball is scrappy. I agree, it needs a definitive start - whereas the intro is underscored by the previous song. I saw it again for the third time on gala night, and I've actually decided that it's not necessarily for Gen Z after all. Particularly in light of some of the so-called younger "influencers" who haven't enjoyed it, there are actually far too many references for it to be for them. It's actually for millennials, like Lucy and Toby themselves - both were born in 1994. They were 6 in 2000 (when the music that is referenced in S N O G G E D was popular) - and approaching secondary school when the mid-00s emo-pop-rock was huge (Green Day, My Chemical Romance, etc.) between 2004-2008. Friends would have been culturally significant for them, especially when it ended in 2004. There's Something About Miriam aired the same year. Gen Z are defined as having been born between 1997 – 2012. Someone born in 2008-2012 is probably not going to get any of the show's main references. And actually, this is also reflected in the attitude towards being single in the show - studies have reported a change in marital perceptions between Gen Z and millennials, arguably for the former there's less pressure on being in a relationship thanks to millennials bucking previous trends.
|
|
720 posts
|
Post by sophie92 on Sept 16, 2024 12:17:03 GMT
Just seen it a second time, excellent! The only thing I’d say is the build up to Disco Ball is scrappy. I agree, it needs a definitive start - whereas the intro is underscored by the previous song. I saw it again for the third time on gala night, and I've actually decided that it's not necessarily for Gen Z after all. Particularly in light of some of the so-called younger "influencers" who haven't enjoyed it, there are actually far too many references for it to be for them. It's actually for millennials, like Lucy and Toby themselves - both were born in 1994. They were 6 in 2000 (when the music that is referenced in S N O G G E D was popular) - and approaching secondary school when the mid-00s emo-pop-rock was huge (Green Day, My Chemical Romance, etc.) between 2004-2008. Friends would have been culturally significant for them, especially when it ended in 2004. There's Something About Miriam aired the same year. Gen Z are defined as having been born between 1997 – 2012. Someone born in 2008-2012 is probably not going to get any of the show's main references. And actually, this is also reflected in the attitude towards being single in the show - studies have reported a change in marital perceptions between Gen Z and millennials, arguably for the former there's less pressure on being in a relationship thanks to millennials bucking previous trends. I thought when I saw the show that it was very clearly written by millenials (due to many of the same reasons and references you mention), but whatever the reason may be, it is very much being marketed to Gen Z, to the point where it may put off millenials and older generations from attending (I’m a millennial, and as I hadn’t watched anything that was put out before the show, it was the tone of marketing/social media posts that made me go in feeling apprehensive). It’s a curious one.
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on Sept 16, 2024 13:01:35 GMT
A great point, this is a Millennial musical aimed at Gen Z
|
|
|
Post by PineappleForYou on Sept 16, 2024 17:12:32 GMT
I don't necessarily think it is a Millennial musical. Generations starting and ending are a bit loose by definition. I represent the late 90s babies and we are like a little sub-generation that can relate to both the Millennials and Gen Z. We are in a strange position where we grew up with smartphones but also know how to use a VHS machine 😂. Technically I'm a Gen Z but "Friends" was still a big part of my year group's lives and so was emo rock of the 00s.
So this show is probably more accurately described as being written for mid to late 90s babies.
That being said, I totally agree that those at the youngest end of the Gen Z banner will definitely struggle more with this show because of those references you've mentioned. I guess this just points again at how difficult this show will be to market.
|
|
|
Post by esteveyb on Sept 16, 2024 17:49:13 GMT
I don't necessarily think it is a Millennial musical. Generations starting and ending are a bit loose by definition. I represent the late 90s babies and we are like a little sub-generation that can relate to both the Millennials and Gen Z. We are in a strange position where we grew up with smartphones but also know how to use a VHS machine 😂. Technically I'm a Gen Z but "Friends" was still a big part of my year group's lives and so was emo rock of the 00s. So this show is probably more accurately described as being written for mid to late 90s babies. That being said, I totally agree that those at the youngest end of the Gen Z banner will definitely struggle more with this show because of those references you've mentioned. I guess this just points again at how difficult this show will be to market. I know the references are more targeted to millennials (if you were born in 1981, you were becoming a teenager when Friends first launched, you were there when it started coming out on VHS and DVD) and older Gen Z babies, but Friends was a cultural phenomenon and most people in their 40s and 50s also remember that and 00s pop music being everywhere, even without the rest. They do even make a ringtone joke at one stage - which is hilarious considering they would have been part of the Crazy Frog generation. However, it does also give them a 'get out' clause, should it be less successful - they and their team can say it was just 'difficult second album' syndrome - basically the only opportunity you get in your career to do exactly what you want. And so they have - it's subversive in a way, which maybe it shouldn't come as unexpected considering they basically became industry distruptors with Six - giving us a fun, effervescent, semi-autobiographical show, that playfully pokes fun at the conversations they've had about finding it difficult to write that 'second album', whilst putting an (iconic) queer character as the joint lead, and keeping their distinctive ear for melody and lyric intact.
|
|
4,850 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 16, 2024 18:11:46 GMT
Is the labelling really necessary?
|
|
1,052 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2024 19:48:20 GMT
Is the labelling really necessary? I think this board is a little bit obsessed with this Gen Z vs Millenials thing and I don't think when it comes to musical theatre that bears much fruit in terms of what will land with audiences. I can see why a 60 year old may not connect with content heavily geared to a 22 year old, but the idea that the 22 year old will feel greatly alienated because someone 5 or so years older than them wrote the material is a bit silly. The other thing worth saying is that I don't think bringing projects straight into large theatres is something to be discouraged. I know people like the scrappy fringe aesthetic of something coming up via the Southwark Playhouse or doing Edinburgh for 4 weeks, and I know it's worked well for other projects, but that's not a healthy state of affairs for the future of West End musicals. Miss Saigon (as a random example) makes the most sense when it's pumped full of money, is big and loud and filled with a large cast and big set pieces and a lush orchestra. It's lovely to have a route for smaller scale shows to grow and build audience and acquire additional layers of funding as they make their way to a big house, but to make that the only way you can get a new musical on in London would stop the creation of the exact shows that have defined successful British musical theatre for half a century. Moss and Marlow clearly were given a lot of leeway and have brought a show that perhaps shouldn't have got this far rapidly to the Garrick, but we're never going to reclaim from Broadway the ability to create big showstopping new musicals unless producers take a big punt on them sometimes. This time it's not worked out, but maybe next time it will.
|
|
|
Post by usbuzzer on Sept 19, 2024 10:20:38 GMT
Does anybody know if there's a conductor in view from the front row center? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by PineappleForYou on Sept 19, 2024 10:42:33 GMT
Does anybody know if there's a conductor in view from the front row center? Thanks! No, the band are at the top at the back of the stage. The MD conducts it from a keyboard up there which is hard to see from the front stalls.
|
|
1,104 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Sept 19, 2024 13:00:38 GMT
I found this deeply narcissistic and non-self aware, and really quite problematic in terms of being a show directly about identity which explores gender identity a lot, but ignores the existence of race and class, and ignores intersectionality. (All surely woke issues WAISS's target audience cares about?)
Six was held up as this little underdog show that could but it wasn't, really. Marlow and Moss are undeniably talented but they're also from backgrounds of extreme privilege, both from very wealthy families, attended elite private schools, and Marlow comes from an insanely well-connected theatre family. George Stiles is Marlow's oldest family friend, and he produced and mentored Six from its earliest days because of the family connection. Six had tremendous money and power behind it from day one.
Which is fine because nepo babies are everywhere and at least M&M are talented and hard working. I don't expect creatives to have to self-flagellate about their privilege, but you can't write an autobiographical show about your own personal identity and cast yourself as oppressed for liking to wear skirts without acknowledging other aspects of your identity. Because the show is all about why they can't connect with the dating pool, but is the average Tinder user really going to have much in common with 20-somethings so wealthy they need never work again? A show about Marlow and Moss coming to terms with how much Six changed their lives and grappling to stay grounded despite fame and fortune would have been much more interesting. Not moaning that watching Friends screwed them up.
And the writing doesn't help this. The meta autobiographical aspect doesn't jibe with the theme of "we don't need boyfriends because we have an epic love story with each other, because you're amazing babe, no you're amazing, no you're amazing." It would have worked better with fictional characters, but if your characters' journey is towards self-acceptance, they have to start as insecure underdogs. The journey from West End superstars who are slightly perturbed why they can't get boyfriends to West End superstars who know that they're amazing and that everyone else is the problem isn't that interesting because there's no emotional journey.
I get that they love each other a lot and wanted to celebrate that, but please don't write lines of dialogue where someone says "Oliver you are the most charismatic person alive, with the ability to walk into any room and make everyone in that room fall in love with you instantly" ABOUT YOURSELF.
|
|
|
Post by max on Sept 19, 2024 13:29:36 GMT
I found this deeply narcissistic and non-self aware, and really quite problematic in terms of being a show directly about identity which explores gender identity a lot, but ignores the existence of race and class, and ignores intersectionality. (All surely woke issues WAISS's target audience cares about?) Six was held up as this little underdog show that could but it wasn't, really. Marlow and Moss are undeniably talented but they're also from backgrounds of extreme privilege, both from very wealthy families, attended elite private schools, and Marlow comes from an insanely well-connected theatre family. George Stiles is Marlow's oldest family friend, and he produced and mentored Six from its earliest days because of the family connection. Six had tremendous money and power behind it from day one. Which is fine because nepo babies are everywhere and at least M&M are talented and hard working. I don't expect creatives to have to self-flagellate about their privilege, but you can't write an autobiographical show about your own personal identity and cast yourself as oppressed for liking to wear skirts without acknowledging other aspects of your identity. Because the show is all about why they can't connect with the dating pool, but is the average Tinder user really going to have much in common with 20-somethings so wealthy they need never work again? A show about Marlow and Moss coming to terms with how much Six changed their lives and grappling to stay grounded despite fame and fortune would have been much more interesting. Not moaning that watching Friends screwed them up. And the writing doesn't help this. The meta autobiographical aspect doesn't jibe with the theme of "we don't need boyfriends because we have an epic love story with each other, because you're amazing babe, no you're amazing, no you're amazing." It would have worked better with fictional characters, but if your characters' journey is towards self-acceptance, they have to start as insecure underdogs. The journey from West End superstars who are slightly perturbed why they can't get boyfriends to West End superstars who know that they're amazing and that everyone else is the problem isn't that interesting because there's no emotional journey. I get that they love each other a lot and wanted to celebrate that, but please don't write lines of dialogue where someone says "Oliver you are the most charismatic person alive, with the ability to walk into any room and make everyone in that room fall in love with you instantly" ABOUT YOURSELF. Sounds awful. I think above I said this about the film 'La La Land' - where we're supposed to weep for the couple that they both found great success a particular way, when they might instead have found great success a different way together. Just to underline their 'lucked out' privilege they do however do something selfless: they save the integrity of the Blues from the clutches of...the only prominent Black character in the film (a humiliated John Legend). If I come back to this board loving the show, then I really did love it, as I'll be going in with arms folded: 'impress me then'. Tbf it has happened before.
|
|
|
Post by danb on Sept 19, 2024 14:34:24 GMT
Likewise!
|
|