| Side Show | |
| Posted by: | jtong43 03:36 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| Side Show was a financial failure when it first was on Broadway. Have there been shows (Pal Joey?) that were hits after failing the first time? Seems like a real risk to me. I love the score and have seen a wonderful local production so I do not want to sound anti Side Show. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Side Show | |
| Posted by: | PlayWiz 04:56 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Side Show - jtong43 03:36 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| The first revival of the comedy "Morning's at Seven" was a big hit, having flopped originally. "Pal Joey" didn't necessarily flop the first time -- shows didn't run that long back then, and it got both great reviews as well as rather hateful ones. But even in noted revivals here with Bob Fosse and Harold Lang, they weren't ever really long runs. But the show's worth pretty much became clearer over time. You have to also remember that "Side Show" had a mention on the front page of the NY Times with an index to its review the day it opened. Even though it didn't run long, it had admirers from the start, including the paper or record in NYC. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| "paper of record" nm | |
| Posted by: | PlayWiz 04:57 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Side Show - PlayWiz 04:56 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Side Show | |
| Posted by: | bruceb 04:48 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Side Show - jtong43 03:36 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| The show has been substantially revised - almost 50%, So it's a different thing altogether than say, PAL JOEY. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Side Show | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 04:36 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Side Show - jtong43 03:36 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| Pal Joey was actually a success the first time around (1940), as well as the second (1952), though the revival did run longer than the original. But Candide really did fail in 1956, but was a big hit in revival in 1974. That revival, though, was a radical revision of the original. There may have been musicals that flopped the first time around and then were hits in revival in substantially the same form, but I'm not thinking of any off the top of my head, and the list can't be a long one in any case. There are probably more plays than musicals that succeeded in revival after failing originally. Morning's At Seven would be one. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Porgy and Bess & Zorba | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayTonyJ 05:57 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Side Show - keikekaze 04:36 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| The original production of Porgy and Bess in 1935 ran only 124 performances and was not a commercial success. The revival in 1942 ran for 286 performances (and the subsequent national tour returned to Broadway in '43 and '44) -- this revival was a commercial success. The 1953 revival ran for 305 performances and was also declared a "hit" by Variety. The original production of Zorba in 1968 ran for 305 performances and was not a commercial success. The 1983 revival with Anthony Quinn and Lila Kedrova had a long pre-Broadway tour, ran for 362 performances on Broadway, and was declared a "hit" by Variety. It should be noted that the original Porgy and Bess opened in the middle of the Depression and received great (if not unanimous) critical acclaim. Zorba also pretty much well-received critically and (I believe) closed prematurely due to health and related problems of both the leads. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Side Show | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 04:46 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Side Show - keikekaze 04:36 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| "Chicago" was a modest hit in its first incarnation, and its revival has become a monster long-runner on both Broadway, West End, and the movies. Not quite the same thing as the original question, but certainly an example of a show doing much better in its second incarnation than its first. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| this isnt a typical revival | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 03:48 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Side Show - jtong43 03:36 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| There have been major revisions to book and songs. So the reviews will be focusing on that and I think will be very positive portions of reviews. Only time will tell whether its a hit or not. Having a broadway revival will probably increase interest in regional productions and maybe a national tour which the show never had. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| The girls can't belt like the originals! | |
| Posted by: | KingTheatre 08:21 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | this isnt a typical revival - dramedy 03:48 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| I'm worried about the comparisons in the reviews... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The girls can't belt like the originals! | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 10:28 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | The girls can't belt like the originals! - KingTheatre 08:21 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| Whenever I think of examples of "Belting I Hate" I immediately think of SIDESHOW and Ripley/Skinner screaming their guts out during "Tunnel of Love". Wisely that hideous song has been removed, but belting has clearly wrecked Ripley, once the owner of an exquisite lyric soprano, but now can barely muster up a decent belt. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Tunnel of Love hasn't been completely removed. | |
| Posted by: | KingSpeed 01:21 am EDT 08/11/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The girls can't belt like the originals! - Alcindoro 10:28 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| The song is still in the show. Same melody. It just has mostly different lyrics and a different name. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The girls can't belt like the originals! | |
| Posted by: | theaterdude 11:55 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The girls can't belt like the originals! - Alcindoro 10:28 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but most people loved the belting that Alice and Emily did during Side Show. I've never heard anyone think of Alice and Emily in Side Show as an example of Belting They Hate. It was featured in nearly every number for a reason. In fact, Alice was hired for that very belt in nearly all the shows she's done, not her lyric soprano, which was never really the prettiest sound. She was one of those belters who could also handle the music requiring her to use her lyric soprano- but her strongest asset was always her belt. She wanted to let people know she was capable of singing songs like My White Knight, and recorded it on one of the Duets cd's, but the response was more of an appreciation that she could actually do it on top of everything else. An actress with a great belt who could also sing that way when necessary. It worked great in a duet, but listening to it alone was never something you could compare with a Rebecca Luker type soprano. (Just an example) Also, Next to Normal is what killed her voice, which started declining in the Bway run. The national tour was the nail in the coffin. Finally while many agree thatTunnel of Love was laughable, there are just as many who regard it as a guilty pleasure, some of whom have already been on this board wishing it hadn't been cut from the new version. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The girls can't belt like the originals! | |
| Posted by: | chrisampm 06:18 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The girls can't belt like the originals! - theaterdude 11:55 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| I feel no guilt in my admiration for Tunnel of Love. I thought it fulfilled the conceit of using Side Show attractions as sources for numbers, like vaudeville in Chicago et al. It was staged and lit with panache. And the over-the-top passionate singing was more thrilling than anything in that, or the new, production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The girls can't belt like the originals! | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 03:45 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The girls can't belt like the originals! - theaterdude 11:55 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| Ripley's voice was going downhill long before "Next to Normal". Listen to her on the recording of "Little Fish", her voice is already shot. I was among those who were surprised that she was cast in "Next to Normal" in the first place, and even watching her in the Second Stage run was occasionally difficult. I loved Skinner and Ripley in "Side Show", and I loved them on their Duets CD. But by the second volume of that series, Ripley's voice is getting that hard edge that will one day lead to her vocal blow-out, and Skinner's melodious tones (yes, I'm biased) are helping to even out their sound and keep them both on track. Emily always seemed to have more control of her voice than Alice did (though, unfortunately, less control of her overall health), and she has kept her voice in shape. Ripley's voice now is a strange beast - I heard her recently in a new musical reading in which the songs made great use of the sounds she is able to make, and it was stunning. But her range and the material she can work with is limited. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The girls can't belt like the originals! | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 03:01 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The girls can't belt like the originals! - theaterdude 11:55 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| If you had read my post carefully, I was only referring to that one song as an example of "Belting I Hate", and not their contribution to the show as a whole, or even their work in other shows. I have been seeing her in shows and cabarets and special events ever since she came to NYC, and I particularly remember her as the Princess in the 1998 concert of Porter's JUBILEE, where she melted the polar ice caps with her luscious soprano. Then in the same season (I think) in Encores!' L'IL ABNER she chose to sing Daisy Mae in a high belt. It was very strange. The "White Knight" recording was done sometime after all this and clearly she was losing her grip on her soprano. She went where the money was, and it's her career to do with it as she sees fit. But I can't help regretting that Ripley has been horribly reckless with her voice. The results have sometimes been thrilling, but clearly took their toll not only on her "legit" voice but the voice as a whole. Her forays as a rocker haven't helped, either. I just think it's a crying shame. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The girls can't belt like the originals! | |
| Posted by: | John_Patti 09:48 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | The girls can't belt like the originals! - KingTheatre 08:21 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| if "belt" were all These actresses have fine voices, sing the heck out of the songs and now bolstered by an immensely better book they act the s#!* out of those songs - very memorable. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.113800 seconds.