Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Last Edit: EvFoDr 10:41 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 10:40 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Marlo*Manners 10:10 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Do you know why the new version of Loveland was written? I like it quite a lot but can't figure out why it was changed. I swear I have seen productions (including Roundbout revival?) that use the original Loveland meoldy but when it comes to the spoken parts they spell out the entire word: LOVELAND. Whereas the original only spells the word LOVE. Am I crazy? The other changes are clearer. It's worth noting that Country House is not just an additional song, but that it REPLACED The Road You Didn't Take. This change, along with the swap from Live, Laugh, Love to Make the Most of the Your Music were, I believe, made to make the show less of a downer and Ben less hopeless. They thought this hopelessness made the original less of a success. I don't think either is an improvement, but do love the line from Country House that goes: it's my board/oh dear lord/and they can't be ignored/yes and you can't afford to be bored with your board, can you? God that man is clever! And of course Ah But Underneath added due to Rigg being a singer more than a dancer. I agree with you that the last line is odd because there isn't "nothing" under the surface of Phylis. I don't think the character thinks that either, even in her self delusion. But I enjoy listening to this number the most of the three written for this slot. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:39 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - EvFoDr 10:40 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| The original spoken section of "Loveland" doesn't spell out love. In fact, there are six spoken bits in that version as opposed to four spoken bits in the later version. The original was written specifically to show off costumes, with six showgirls coming down in elaborate costumes representing the theme of each couplet, whereas the later version needs only four showgirls, each carrying a letter. So productions opt for the later one (and probably don't always use showgirls for each). | |
| reply to this message |
| my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 01:51 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - AlanScott 01:39 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| The lyrics that go with each letter seem to me to be too knowing, to in on the bitter nightmare of the Follies fantasy sequence. The original lyrics have two sides to them, with an edge on one, the new ones are mostly just the edge. It is obviously from the beginning that we are not in a real follies number, and I don't know why Sondheim would want that. It takes me out of it completely. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:55 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters - Chazwaza 01:51 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. I don't like the new "Loveland" for precisely the reason that it's too openly satirical and mocking. It doesn't sound to me like a real period song but a very satirical (although not funny) comment on one, whereas the original almost does sound like a real period song. I hate it every time I have to sit through a production using even the spoken parts. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:18 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters - AlanScott 01:55 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Not to mention how cheap and lame it looks when they bring out the cut out letters... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:43 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - EvFoDr 10:40 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure I'd really say that "Country House" replaced "The Road You Didn't Take" as the songs function in entirely different scene contexts. (More accurate to say that the whole scene was added.) And obviously I feel that "The Road..." is sorely missed, and the the rethinking of Ben's track wasn't effective. But I also agree that "Country House" on its own merits is a fun song. The afford/bored/board line is clever, as are others - though in a lot of ways, the ending is my favorite part. The "second honeymoon" moment where maybe we think they're actually going to find a moment of peace or even romance with each other...then the barb he can't resist ("should be better than the first") - her impulsive response as the bubble is burst ("there are times when you can be a louse") - then a pause, and Ben's perfect cap of "the hell, let's get a house" (which could be played in various ways but certainly leaves Phyllis stymied). Though also - for those people that agree that the song stylistically feels a bit too much like Sunday or especially Woods, there is that moment about "the child" that does feel very Woods...especially with the sting chord in the orchestra at that point. So be it... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 11:56 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Chromolume 11:43 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe replaced wasn't the best word. But they took a solo moment examining Ben's psyche and now it's a duet exploring the relationship between Ben and Phylis. The songs occur in a pretty similar spot in the chronology of the evening. As far as House sounding like 1980’s Sondheim, it totally does. There is a word, which you might know, that I read in one of the Sondheim music analysis books—maybe Banfield. It’s a style of composing where he sort of just moves around the notes as opposed to having a more traditional melody. This is the style in which Country House is written, and used heavily in Sunday, Woods, Assassins, and Passion. What Can You Lose? Is also in this style. I wish I could remember the word, it’s bothered me for years!!! Argh. The other Follies songs, even the non-pastiche book songs, aren’t in this style. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.017637 seconds.