Threaded Order Chronological Order
| NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: tocop 08:48 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Will score to NY NY be eligible for best score Tony award? | |
| reply to this message |
| re: NY NY Score: it seems to me | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 08:51 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: NY NY Score - tocop 08:48 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| As indicated below, the eligibility for 'Best Score' requires that 50% of the score be written for the theatre (for the new show). The song list isnt available online as yet as far as I can tell. I would be surprised if the producers/writers hadnt been sure to meet the 50% rule ... that said - that would be a LOT of new songs. | |
| reply to this message |
| the producers may not care | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:20 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score: it seems to me - NewtonUK 08:51 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| about best score tony and the competition this year with KAkimbo and Hot scores completely written for the show, they wouldn't win in this category anyway. The Tony for Best Musical is the only one that matters for ticket sales and even that didn't save last year's winner. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score: it seems to me | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:37 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score: it seems to me - NewtonUK 08:51 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| You highlight a part of the requirement that is overlooked (by some): that it is intended to apply to songs written for the specific show, which would seemingly exclude trunk songs. That is very hard to regulate though. A composer might say, for instance, that a song written decades ago was a diddle with this show in mind. Likewise, unless it had been performed, how would anyone know it was a trunk song. I have a friend who is a novelist who mentioned one time that he had about 20 "chapters" in his file cabinet that were untethered to any book (but the one we were discussing included such a chapter). Richard Foreman, in his heydey, got up every morning and wrote randomly for (I think) 2-3 hours. Later, he would pick up some of these scraps and write a play with them. It is kind of a chicken and egg situation. It does seem inconceivable the producers would not have kept their eyes on this ball particularly with the effort to keep everyone's eyes on John Kander. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: Likeitlots 09:22 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: NY NY Score - tocop 08:48 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, of course it will. Consider State Fair, which was eligible for the portion of the score making its Broadway debut. Of course every nominating committee is different, but a whole lot of the NY NY score is indeed new. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score/ Dorothy Fields for SEESAW | |
| Posted by: bmc 11:42 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - Likeitlots 09:22 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| I remember it well, when GIGI won best score over SEESAW. I thought it was too bad that Miss Fields' last score didn't receive a Tony. Don't know if the 50% rule applied then, buy I'm sure that "Gigi" and the songs from the film were uppermost in voters' minds. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The GIGI Score | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 02:44 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 02:42 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score/ Dorothy Fields for SEESAW - bmc 11:42 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| To my knowledge, there were no stated rules or guidelines for the eligibility of a best score nomination in 1974. There was speculation by some theatre columnists that the Gigi score was eligible simply because the songs had never been sung in a stage show before so they were "new" to Broadway. Similarly, the score for The Who's Tommy was nominated and co-won the Best Score Tony in 1993 despite having been performed on various English and American stages for decades and in a film released in 1975. The score for the 1974 Gigi did feature around 6 new songs including "The Contract", which is a stunning musical number that is made up of several different parts. Also, I believe a couple of the songs from the film had some new verses written specifically for the stage version. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The GIGI Score | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:32 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: The GIGI Score - BroadwayTonyJ 02:42 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| I just went searching for info about the rules in 1974, and I couldn't find any discussion of the Gigi issue in either the Times or Variety. Which surprised me. One thing I found, which I had forgotten, was that no one showed up to accept the Tony for Gigi, suggesting either that neither Lerner nor Loewe thought it would win under the circumstances or that they themselves were embarrassed that it was even nominated. It was a new situation, and I think you are right that no rules were in place. Also perhaps of interest is that it was initially announced that both Candide and Lorelei would be eligible for best musical. There were protests from various sources, and the decision was reversed. Btw, part of "The Contract" uses the music for "A Tojours," which is heard as underscoring in the film. If memory serves, the song was cut from the film, which makes sense since it was on that Evening With Lerner and Loewe two-LP set with Jane Powell, Jan Peerce, Robert Merrill and Phil Harris, released in 1959. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The GIGI Score | |
| Posted by: Erik_Haagensen 11:16 am EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The GIGI Score - AlanScott 06:32 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| I do not believe that"A Toujours" was written as a song intended to be included in GIGI, Alan. I think Loewe wrote the waltz as underscoring for the ice skating sequence, and Lerner then wrote a generic pop lyric to it in the hopes of having a song hit. I have never seen "A Toujours" included in any Lerner script for GIGI, film or stage, and there is no prerecord of the song for the film, while other cut prerecorded vocal music does exist (deleted sections of "The Parisians" and one of the iterations of "Gossip" at Maxim's). In addition to using the melody of "A Toujours" in "The Contract," Lerner and Loewe also repurposed musical sections of "Katharine Receives Advice" in THE DAY BEFORE SPRING for it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The GIGI Score | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:15 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The GIGI Score - Erik_Haagensen 11:16 am EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for the additional info, Erik! I thought there was another part of "The Contract" that went back to The Day Before Spring, but I couldn't remember specifics. And, as you know but this may be of interest to others, parts of the Gigi title song also go back to The Day Before Spring, specifically the "She's a child!" music is from a song titled "Where's My Wife?" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The GIGI Score | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 03:46 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 03:41 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The GIGI Score - Erik_Haagensen 11:16 am EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| Erik: Alan says you pointed out that the 2015 ''Gigi'' revival features quite a number of rewritten lyrics that went uncredited. I guess I assumed that Heidi Thomas, who's credited with the ''adaptation,'' might've rewritten them. But if not her, who did it? And I wonder if that person didn't want the credit or if Lerner & Loewe's estates would've stipulated that no credit would be given. As for the 1974 Tonys, I looked them up on YouTube. Elliott Gould presented the category of Best Score. After reading the names of the nominees, he opened the envelope and announced: ''The winner is ... you got to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative ... 'Gigi,' Frederick Loewe and Alan Jay Lerner.'' As the orchestra plays ''I Could've Danced All Night'' (NOT from ''Gigi''), the camera pans the audience for Lerner and/or Loewe, but they are no-shows. Gould looks baffled and then walks offstage, without even saying the perfunctory, ''Apparently, they couldn't be here tonight, so I'll accept it in their honor.'' (Also puzzling: Why is Gould quoting a Johnny Mercer lyric before announcing Lerner & Loewe?) Is there any record as to Lerner & Loewe's thoughts about the stage version of ''Gigi''? Did he discuss it in his ''The Street Where I Live'' memoir? |
|
| Link | EntertainmentWeekly.com: Heidi Thomas Talks Vanessa Hudgens and Reworking 'Gigi' (2014) |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The GIGI Score | |
| Posted by: Erik_Haagensen 06:03 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The GIGI Score - WaymanWong 03:41 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| Wayman, as to the consistently awful lyric rewrites in the 2015 GIGI, I reached out to the press rep, Jim Byk, to ask who did them, as I was planning to write about the cast recording in my column for BwayTunes. The official reply was as follows: "The lyrics are by Alan Jay Lerner culled from several sources, including his materials for the movie, and his 1973 and 1985 stage revisions. Some pronoun adjustments have been made for the current production and in the case of 'Say a Prayer,' an added verse has been written by Heidi Thomas." This was obviously the company line (Jim Byk is a lovely and trustworthy guy), so I assume the Lerner estate did not want billing for an additional lyricist. It did the same thing on that terrible CLEAR DAY revision. I have numerous scripts for the film of GIGI and the two stage versions, as well as other sources for checking. The fact of the matter is that only four songs in GIGI 2015 -- "The Parisians," "A Toujours," "She Is Not Thinking of Me," and "I Remember It Well" -- had lyrics completely by Lerner. Every other song in the score contained lyric rewrites. One of the biggest rewrites was "I Never Want to Go Home Again," probably because it was assumed that no one knew it, as it had never been recorded. I wrote a whole article just on this subject that my BwayTunes editor, Andy Propst, had said he would publish on his American Theatre Web site. However, it took a fair amount of time to fact-check all my assertions as to the changes, which the article spelled out in detail. By the time it was ready, the recording had been out for a while and the article was no longer timely, and Andy never published it. (It was much too long for BwayTunes, nor did it fit the purpose of the site.) However, if you match the lyrics for GIGI 2015 to what was published in THE COMPLETE LYRICS OF ALAN JAY LERNER, you can see what the changes were. Dominic McHugh and Amy Asch quite rightly did not include any of those rewrites, as they were weren't by Lerner. And they didn't rely on just my research; they did their own as well. It infuriates me to this day that people who listen to the cast album of the 2015 revisal think that those lyrics are all by Lerner. I assume that Heidi Thomas made the lyric changes, as she was credited with the added verse for "Say a Prayer." However, I have no way of knowing for sure. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The GIGI Score | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 08:01 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 07:48 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The GIGI Score - AlanScott 06:32 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| Trivia: Lerner and Loewe wrote ''Brigadoon,'' ''My Fair Lady'' and ''Camelot,'' but ''Gigi'' represented their one and only Tony win for Best Score. That's because the Tonys didn't start giving out a Best Score award regularly until 1962. (''Camelot'' was in 1961, and not even up for Best Musical!) However, ''My Fair Lady'' won Best Musical in 1957, and that prize went to Lerner and Loewe and producer Herman Levin. Getting back to ''The Contract'' in ''Gigi,'' I love that witty, nearly 9-minute number, and Agnes Moorehead's talk-singing is so delightful. What a shame the 2015 ''Gigi'' revival, starring Vanessa Hudgens, cut down ''The Contract'' by a third and rewrote some of its lyrics. Boo! |
|
| Link | Agnes Moorehead in 'The Contract' from 'Gigi' (1973) |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The GIGI Score | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:53 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The GIGI Score - WaymanWong 07:48 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| There was a good deal of lyric rewriting, uncredited, in that 2015 Gigi, as Erik Haagensen made me aware. All of it for the worse. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: scoot1er 04:25 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - Likeitlots 09:22 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Having been a Tony nominator, I can tell you that the nominating committee has nothing to do with eligibility. Eligibility is determined by the administration committee. Your statement beginning "Of course, every nominating committee is different..." is therefore irrelevant. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: Likeitlots 08:36 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - scoot1er 04:25 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| How smug. What you say may be factually true, but I am pretty sure you understood the spirit of what I was saying. You might have corrected me with "actually, it's the administration committee..." rather than being quite so dismissive. Dare I say that your Tony nominator past is also... irrelevant. But do let me correct myself: Of course every administration committee is different..... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: scoot1er 09:17 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - Likeitlots 08:36 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| Words matter. What you said was wrong and needed to be corrected. If you think correcting you was smug, that's your problem. But thanks for correcting yourself. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: Likeitlots 10:00 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - scoot1er 09:17 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| I did not say that your correction was the problem. It’s your tone that makes it smug. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: twiceroyale 11:10 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - Likeitlots 10:00 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| hence the problem with email! How can the tone of an email being read guarantee the tone of the water's intention? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: twiceroyale 11:11 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - twiceroyale 11:10 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| writer's intention | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: scoot1er 09:20 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - scoot1er 09:17 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, and by saying that my having been on the Tony nominating committee is irrelevant is wrong, as I was and am in a position to know how the nomination and eligibility rules work. (Now, I am being smug, deliberately so.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NY NY Score | |
| Posted by: Likeitlots 09:56 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - scoot1er 09:20 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| Nothing like someone who, when their rudeness is pointed out, doubles down. Your “credentials” are like saying that because I have English degrees I can write. It may be factually true but the degree is irrelevant and my mentioning it is all ego. You could have stated the committee facts without smugly announcing your past role, which again, I find irrelevant even if it’s true. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: dramedy 10:02 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: NY NY Score - Likeitlots 09:22 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think now is over 50% new material written for the stage. I believe most of these songs are trunk songs, written for other shows that were not used. I assume they would count toward the 50%. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Most of the songs are not new nor are they trunk songs..they're from other shows | |
| Posted by: champagnesalesman 07:38 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: The rules may have changed in 20 years - dramedy 10:02 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Musical fans will recognize Marry Me from The RINK, Sorry I Asked from Liza at Radio City, A Quiet Thing, Walking Among My Yesterdays from The HAPPY TIME(w a different title), I'm One of the Smart Ones(Liza at the Winter Garden, originally from Golden Gate)I also recognized a instrumental of Sometimes A Day Goes By..and the most recognizable song, Let's Hear It For Me The Playbill doesn't actually say which ones are new and written with Lin ..I think 2 or 3 |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Most of the songs are not new nor are they trunk songs..they're from other shows | |
| Posted by: JohninChicago 06:32 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: Most of the songs are not new nor are they trunk songs..they're from other shows - champagnesalesman 07:38 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| "A Quiet Thing" is from FLORA, THE RED MENACE, | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| i knew Marry Me and Quiet Thing | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:23 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: Most of the songs are not new nor are they trunk songs..they're from other shows - champagnesalesman 07:38 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| from other shows, but i didn't recognize the others. It took me a day to figure out the instrumental sometimes a day goes by. If that many were presented elsewhere and as rhog stated that it needs to be written for this show, then it might not meet the 50% rule. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 10:10 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: The rules may have changed in 20 years - dramedy 10:02 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. STATE FAIR (27 years ago) wouldn’t be nominated today. 0% of the score was new. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: duckylittledictum 10:25 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - KingSpeed 10:10 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| What were the rules in 1974 when Lerner and Loewe won a Tony for a few (mediocre) songs? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: mikem 10:58 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - duckylittledictum 10:25 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Someone please correct me if I am off-base, but I think that the "new" material has to be more than 50% of the score by time, not by song. So a dance break counts as "new" material, and I think underscore might also. So I think it is entirely possible that NY, NY has a new score as far as the Tonys go. The producers know the rule and will time things down to the second if it's close. I think we'll have to wait for an official ruling. Also, please correct me, but I believe that once the score is eligible, then the ENTIRE score, not just the new material, is taken into consideration by the voters. Speaking of which, am I correct that the Administration Committee has only met once this season so far to discuss eligibility? What's up with that? I think they usually meet four times a season. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: hanon 03:34 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - mikem 10:58 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Mikem said: “ Someone please correct me if I am off-base, but I think that the "new" material has to be more than 50% of the score by time, not by song. So a dance break counts as "new" material, and I think underscore might also. So I think it is entirely possible that NY, NY has a new score as far as the Tonys go. The producers know the rule and will time things down to the second if it's close. I think we'll have to wait for an official ruling.” I’ve arranged several Broadway musicals, and I’ve never heard of this! But it’s amusing to imagine a situation where dance music and incidental music are added to make a show eligible for a best score Tony nomination. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:20 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - mikem 10:58 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Someone please correct me if I am off-base, but I think that the "new" material has to be more than 50% of the score by time, not by song. So a dance break counts as "new" material, and I think underscore might also. A huge percentage of dance/incidental music in ANY show is based on the existing tunes. So I don't think this makes much sense. Otherwise, any revival of a show that has new arrangements of the old tunes could win best score, and that isn't true. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:29 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - mikem 10:58 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| In theory, only the new music can be considered for the award. In practice… | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: oddone 12:16 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - mikem 10:58 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Speaking of which, am I correct that the Administration Committee has only met once this season so far to discuss eligibility? What's up with that? I think they usually meet four times a season. Correct. They’ve only met once, and this is fairly unusual. They dealt with almost every show that opened in 2022, leaving out Between Riverside and Crazy for some reason. No idea what’s going on or why this change. I raised this issue back in January and someone tried to tell me it was totally normal and they only met ‘when they had enough to discuss’ but that’s just not true. It’s a stark change from years past. Whether it will continue into next season is hard to know. But at this point I’m guessing we will get one more eligibility announcement for the rest of this season’s shows, likely a few days before nominations are announced. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:16 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - oddone 12:16 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think you are reading too much into this. It is a committee most if not all of the members of which have a lot on their plates. It is also a committee without a fixed amount of work to do each year but that knows what it has pending well in advance. It is also worth noting that the only reason to meet more than once is so that super long agendas can be avoided. (That said, there is a school of thought among some that releasing the decisions as they are made disadvantages earlier opening shows because it potentially allows later shows a strategic opportunity that they did not have, and there could come a day when, even if there are multiple meetings, there would only be one announcement.) Finally, between scheduling conflicts causing some to back out and the high number of conflicts of interest (both requiring the different dance of having alternates replace them), getting this committee functioning sometimes seems like a game of whac-a-mole. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Last Edit: oddone 09:54 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| Posted by: oddone 09:49 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - ryhog 01:16 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| I’m not reading too much into this. I’m actually not reading anything into it. I’m observing that the schedule for this year is markedly different from recent (and even not so recent) pre-pandemic history. Every year saw 3-4 eligibility announcements throughout the season. These would often be announced with language like ‘this is the first of 4 meetings the committee will have.’ The Broadway season isn’t a mystery. People schedule these meetings in advance. And generally there are only a few uncertainties about which category something will be in. So to suggest that not announcing anything is somehow more ‘fair’ is just bizarre. The schedule of announcements is different than it was. And the reason for this has not been explained. And ‘it’s probably just that people are busy’ isn’t an explanation. People have always been busy. Maybe it’s a new chair who is running things differently. Maybe the committee as a whole decided to change things. Maybe there is some one-off thing about this year. Nothing has been announced so it is impossible to know. But it is a significant change- to go from 3-4 meetings / press releases that are explicitly communicated as coming out at regular intervals (and on dates that were pretty consistent from one year to the next) to… an unknown number of press releases announced at uncertain dates. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:37 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - oddone 09:49 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| ok. I think you are reading too much into it. You are adamant that you are not. Mox Nix. Regarding the change, I am obviously aware of the procedures past and present. You are correct that "the reason has not been explained." The questions I see are: why are you entitled to an explanation? what possible difference could it make to you (or anyone including those with shows involved in the decisions) when you [or they] find out the rulings? Regarding the "fairness" question, you seem to be missing the point. The position (as to which I was only the messenger here) is that when shows opening late in the season know the decisions [e.g., leading vs supporting] made as to their competition from early in the season, they can (and do) game what to petition on and not. That's the argument I have heard. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: oddone 03:13 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - ryhog 12:37 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| You're reading a lot into my comments that simply aren't there. I never said I was owed an explanation, or entitled to one. Just that there has been a change, but not an explanation to go along with it. That's all I've said. It's fascinating to me how simply making basic observations can lead to people arguing with you - "what are you talking about? Nothing has changed this year. The committee meets when they meet and there is nothing different at all. You're imagining things." I do have reasons for wanting to know what the TAC decides about eligibility, ones that are more than just academic. I won't go into what they are here, but I do have them. As for the "fairness" thing - I'm not missing the point. I get the argument. I just think it's dumb. Shows opening late in the season already have a huge advantage - they are opening late in the season. I doubt that any additional "advantage" that comes with knowing what the TAC decided for fall shows really matters all that much. I'm sure shows complain about this - I'm sure shows complain about lots of things. I just am doubtful it actually matters, and am even more doubtful that this is the kind of thing the TAC would react to, or that would cause them to change their ways of doing things. That said, I could be wrong. Maybe the TAC is changing up what they are doing (whether for this reason or some other), but prefers not to go into what is changing or why. That's their prerogative. But in years past they have been fairly transparent about the whole process, and that transparency seems to have gone away. All we know about this season is that they have only met once, apparently on the morning of Feb. 1, and they discussed 20 shows and one additional rule. No word about how many more meetings there will be (presumably one more, maybe on April 28), or why they didn't meet before February. At this point I wouldn't expect any explanation to be forthcoming. And if we see the same thing season, we can probably surmise this is the new normal for these announcements. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:52 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - oddone 03:13 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| I took "the reason for this has not been explained" and what follows it as a complaint. If that was not your intention, fine. I would note, though, that you now seem to contradict that some, when you say "I do have reasons . . . ." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The rules may have changed in 20 years | |
| Posted by: mikem 09:51 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The rules may have changed in 20 years - oddone 03:13 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's possible they'll meet this week. Nine shows have opened since the last meeting, and there are nine more yet to come. I'm curious whether Riverside will be considered a revival or a new play. I think there's a legitimate argument in both directions. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's going to make the cutoff for best production on either side, although it's got more of a chance in revival. It was an excellent production but the competition on the play side is very strong this year. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.247998 seconds.