Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 0.190658 seconds.