Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

'Company' on PBS's Great Performances


Recommended Posts

Oh well.

I'll start with the positives.

There were two: the opening title song seemed to give promise that one might experience a fairly good revival of the show. Secondly, the song 'Bless This Day/I'm Not Getting Married Today' is well-performed and the soprano singer (I'm not sure which one she was) had the best singing voice in the show).

That's it. 'Company' is THE Manhattan-Provincial Broadway Musical, much more than 'West Side Story' or anything else, and its strengths lie, I think, primarily in how deeply steeped in its time and place. I consider it one of the least revivable shows, but even with my 'hostility', this was not even passable. None of the performers was really outstanding, most were even amateurish, sometimes rising to mediocre. The instrumentation was cut down to a minimum with the actors, who are also musicians, also therefore playing parts of the score at times, and the songs are all re-scored, and this is what is supposed to be so innovative by director John Doyle and his musician associates. The result is not to hear the score, the rich plangency of synthesizers which gave the electricity of Manhattan a musical form in the original's orchestra (which you can still hear on the record, and there are samples on the web, I believe) have completely disappeared. There is no sustaining passion or mood ever present anywhere in the production. There is not even an attempt to set this in early 70s Manhattan. Alll of the electric speed of the songs has even been slowed down, which is literally incredible. As such, it is more like listening to the CD of 'Light in the Piazza' (which is to say more automated and electronic than excitingly electric, like the oriiginal 'company' so distinctively was) than it is like a real production of 'Company' once was, and still probably could be at least in fragments.

I've seen several revivals in the past year--'The Apple Tree', 'Gypsy' , '110 in the Shade', and even though 'Gypsy' is the only one I like as a property as well as 'Company', all of these 3 were light-years better than this sad affair. I looked back at Ben Brantley's mostly favourable review, which I had remembered, and he just seemed to make up things as far as I could tell. I kept thinking how little charisma Raul Esparza had as Bobby, and then there is this scene after 'ladies who lunch' in which Bobby says to Joanne 'What are you looking at, my charisma? Stop looking at my charisma.' Well, she hadn't been.

This one is less like something the tourists support by going to see it than like the tourists are now finally getting to 'be on Broadway'. It simply had no character.

Link to comment

Unfortunately I only saw Patti LuPone's GYPSY at Ravinia. Although that production did little for me, Patti was excellent.

I enjoyed THE APPLE TREE a lot due to Chenoweth's performance and COMPANY bored the daylights out of me.

Doyle's SWEENEY sent me over the moon so COMPANY was a huge let down. The production was so lifeless I'm still wondering if the characters were all supposed to be ghosts.

PS - I wish they had taped GREY GARDENS.

Link to comment

Well, I’m glad it wasn’t just me. I switched it off around about “Another Hundred People.” I may take a look at one of the repeats. Very dull to look at and listen to.

That's it. 'Company' is THE Manhattan-Provincial Broadway Musical, much more than 'West Side Story' or anything else, and its strengths lie, I think, primarily in how deeply steeped in its time and place.

And evoking that time and place is the only way to revive it successfully, I think. The depiction of male-female relations is hopelessly dated, and putting the characters into a contemporary setting does not work.

I know nobody thinks you need dancing in a musical these days, but the lack of it here was deeply felt.

I kept thinking how little charisma Raul Esparza had as Bobby, and then there is this scene after 'ladies who lunch' in which Bobby says to Joanne 'What are you looking at, my charisma? Stop looking at my charisma.' Well, she hadn't been.

Esparza was a disaster. What woman could resist that nondescript appearance and vacant gaze?

I wonder if that great D.A. Pennebaker documentary of the recording of the original cast album is on DVD. I expect some of it is on YouTube somewhere.

Link to comment
Well, I’m glad it wasn’t just me. I switched it off around about “Another Hundred People.”

Exactly where it was proved to be most unbearable. Easily the greatest song in the show, it is here sung completely without any of the loneliness, and yes, 'beautiful loneliness' (although I try not to indulge in this sort of thing, but think Sondheim legitimately achieved it here) by this big smiling girl who would have done as well to sing it in North Korean for all she understood of 'it's a city of strangers...and they find each other in the crowded streets and the guarded parks...look I'll call you in the morning or my service will explain...'

I wonder if that great D.A. Pennebaker documentary of the recording of the original cast album is on DVD. I expect some of it is on YouTube somewhere.

I don't know, but count ME lucky. About a year ago I found it on VHS in a sellout for 2 bucks, and you have inspired me to finally watch it. I'll report on it on this thread.

The depiction of male-female relations is hopelessly dated, and putting the characters into a contemporary setting does not work.

Is that ever true, and the one thing that this production proved; but I think most people knew this beforehand anyway, so who needed this infernal deconstruction so that we could see that Furth's book was no more transferable to the 21st non-smoking century (I could not believe the crap about smoking in there) than is 'Oklahoma!' What's disturbing is that this survived on Broadway for 6 months, far longer than the 1995 version, which started off-Broadway then opened only to close very quickly. But last night I found snippets on the web of that version, and although the girl La Chanze doesn't please me in the same way Pam Myers did in 'Hundred People', it was infinitely better than this decaf version, and the 1995 version had all the instrumentation intact, from what I could tell. There is marvelous counterpoint in the orchestration that was totally thrown out for this carrying around of musical instruments--and Brantley says this proves that the otherwise unenviable married people were nevertheless 'making music' that Bobby (who never plays an instrument until his absurd piano-lounge version of 'Being Alive') was just not going to be doing as a result of being unmarried.

Actually, I remember thinking also that the production didn't feel comfortable updated to the present either, so that the feeble talk of 'not smoking' still was combined only with old 70's style drinking and pot-smoking, and there were no computers either. It ended up seeming what one might call 'vaguely 1983', given that they hadn't even thought through the styles, and even then got praise for one perfectly ordinary minimalist set that just looks like any number of restaurants from any of the last 4 decades.

Link to comment

I, for one, loved it. We fell for it and were incredibly moved by it.

I have not seen previous productions of the show, and so only knew the songs from CD. I agree that Another Hundred People was sung in too happy a way, and I had trouble hearing some of the voices over the instruments at times, but I totally fell for the show. I thought most of the cast top-notch. My husband (a former actor) and I were crazy about Raul Esparza. We saw him live in The Homecoming last month. Both times I could not take my eyes off him. He's not an extraverted magnetic presence, but, to us, he has a natural great stage presence and is a wonderful actor. My husband (don't tell him i said it) had tears at times (well, we both did at the end of Being Alive, which is one of my all-time favorite songs). I understand that his approach is not for everyone. In both this and The Homecoming he takes a more relaxed, non-chalant tact. I think it worked for this show because it contrasted nicely to the times when you could feel his discomfort or frustrations (at least we could).

While I don't think having the actors play the instruments was necessary or something to rave about, I respect the director's choice. It never bothered me, and, at times, it seemed to work very well (bobby fizzling out with the kazoo, and so being further isolated from his friends / instrumentalists).

Whether you liked it or not, there's no question this was a DIRECTED show. Yes, all shows have directors, but often you don't see their hand in the works, for better or for worse. I both respected and enjoyed the director's choices for this production. Not having seen any other productions of Company, I can't make any comparisons. But, for my husband and me, it was a version that worked and made us undertand why this is many people's fave Sondheim show (score).

Immediately after the show ended last night, my husband put Esparza's version of Being Alive on my iPod (I already have LuPone and Peters doing it).

-amanda

Link to comment
Not having seen any other productions of Company, I can't make any comparisons. But, for my husband and me, it was a version that worked and made us understand why this is many people's fave Sondheim show (score).

Thank you for speaking up, Amanda. We express ourselves freely in this forum. :thumbsup: Like you, I only know “Company” from recordings, and what I’ve read of other productions. This one started off pretty well, but for me it just went downhill.

In both this and The Homecoming he takes a more relaxed, nonchalant tact. I think it worked for this show because it contrasted nicely to the times when you could feel his discomfort or frustrations (at least we could).

You’re more familiar with Esparza’s work than I am (this was my first look at him), so I’ll take your word for it that he was good in The Homecoming and seeing him live makes a difference, I’m sure. When the show is repeated I’ll make a point of tuning in toward the end to hear “Being Alive.” Liking or disliking an actor can be very much a matter of taste – and I don’t mean that invidiously, as in good or bad taste. I just didn’t find him terribly attractive or appealing.

Easily the greatest song in the show, it is here sung completely without any of the loneliness, and yes, 'beautiful loneliness' (although I try not to indulge in this sort of thing, but think Sondheim legitimately achieved it here)

It’s a marvelous song.

I don't know, but count ME lucky. About a year ago I found it on VHS in a sellout for 2 bucks, and you have inspired me to finally watch it. I'll report on it on this thread.

I hate you. I think it is out on DVD in fact, but not for two dollars, obviously. The last time I saw it was years ago on a Blockbuster VHS, back when they actually made room for things like that.

Anyone else see this, live or on TV?

Link to comment
I know nobody thinks you need dancing in a musical these days, but the lack of it here was deeply felt.

Especially since Donna McKechnie's fantastic erotic dance after 'Barcelona' and close to 'Side by Side by Side' (I just checked, the number is called 'Tick Tock', not listed as such on the album, I believe) is never alluded to by any other kind of gesture, mention, or what-have-you. So, in listening to the cast album, it's possible that you might not have known that that was definitely a big thing in there. And yet it was her role in this show that made her a big star who would then go on to 'A Chorus Line' and while the original production played, it was one of the reasons that such a sophisticated show could last as long as it did. There wasn't anything erotic in this new production, but the McKechnie dance was accompanied by lurid music that was part of ushering in all kinds of erotica that would explode in a year or two with Linda Lovelace and Friends giving it the kick-off. You'd never know from this version that we live now in a world that has exponential porno increase since 1970. Our world is defined not by sexual profligacy and cyberworlds, but rather that 'people of our generation don't smoke'.

Link to comment
And yet it was her role in this show that made her a big star who would then go on to 'A Chorus Line' and while the original production played, it was one of the reasons that such a sophisticated show could last as long as it did.

One of the notable things about the show is that the minor characters (Bobby’s lovers) have a larger share of the big numbers than the more important ones (Bobby’s married friends) and as I remember the original cast album reflects that – the stronger singers and dancers had those roles.

(Which is why some of the weak singing last night didn’t bother me that much – those characters weren’t meant to tear the house down anyway.)

Link to comment
One of the notable things about the show is that the minor characters (Bobby’s lovers) have a larger share of the big numbers than the more important ones (Bobby’s married friends) and as I remember the original cast album reflects that – the stronger singers and dancers had those roles.

(Which is why some of the weak singing last night didn’t bother me that much – those characters weren’t meant to tear the house down anyway.)

I think both are meant to be sung to tear the house down. 'The Little Things We Do Together', 'Not Getting Married Today' , 'Sorry Grateful', and 'The Ladies Who Lunch' (all done by the married friends) are all as important, it taken all together, as 'Barcelona', 'You Could Drive a Person Crazy' (in the original this is strictly Andrews Sisters good camp, not those honks on the saxes, with the tempo slowed down, just as with everything else), and 'Another Hundred People'. Plus, there is 'Have I Got a Girl for Your' which is wedded to 'Someone Is Waiting', but does NOT segue immediately into 'Another Hundred People' before anything has had a chance to give off its particular fragrance. Even the big chorus numbers of 'Company', the title song, and 'Side by Side by Side' are big numbers, and for the latter, this production provided even less minimal choreography than Lucille Ball mastered in the movie of 'Mame'.

I think the greatest stroke of genius from the lyrics standpoint is in the bridge of 'Little Things You Do Together':

"It's not hope of God and the decade ahead that allows you to get through the worst..

It's 'I do' and 'you don't' and 'nobody said that' and 'who brought the subject up first?'"

The show is mostly acid until the end, and I have to admit that this version forces the fact that the show always insisted upon 'marriage' as the only alternative to 'being alone', and about this we should have even protested at the time, because it was a mere artifice even at the beginning. Seen with none of the 70s atmosphere, you do see this somewhat contrived ending more clearly (but B'way musicals are not operas, and they are not quite 'Mahagonny' either.)

Link to comment

McKechnie did the National Tour so as a young kid I had the pleasure of seeing her on stage at Dade County Auditorium.

Portions of her solo are still very clear to me.

Julie Wilson took on the Stritch role and George Chakiris played Bobby.

Just about two years ago I got to choreograph the dances for Tandy Cronin in an original production at the Victory Gardens Theatre in Chicago.

Ms. Cronin played Amy in the National Tour of COMPANY.

I wanted to mention that I really like Esparza's interpretation of "Marry Me A Little".

Link to comment
Julie Wilson took on the Stritch role and George Chakiris played Bobby.

That casting is as good as the original. I saw it a few months after it opened, Dean Jones was in it I think less than 2 months, because Larry Kert was already in it by then, and he was superb. But I can quite as easily see Chakiris being pure magic, possibly even better than Kert--Chakiris was a great showguy. Julie Wilson is quite a babe, I saw her at the Carlyle 20 years ago, and just 2 years ago she was at a small club called Helen's in the West Village, which has since closed. Talk about a trouper, she was one (hopefully still is). But that kind of sleek urbane style is not being cultivated the way it used to be. It's not only not the mode in the country as a whole, it's not even the mode in Manhattan any more.

Esparza was the best in this production vocally, he is simply without any trace of romanticism as I understand it. This is actually a very romantic show because of the lushness of the music, and maybe even because of the somewhat absurd ending, but this has gone mostly unnoticed, and nothing in this production was concerned with it. 'Follies' is very romantic as well, Sondheim's subsequent works all less so IMO (even including 'Little Night Music', although I like it well enough).

Link to comment
I don't know, but count ME lucky. About a year ago I found it on VHS in a sellout for 2 bucks, and you have inspired me to finally watch it. I'll report on it on this thread
.

The movie has a very genuine feel – it’s not like those glossy pre-formulated “The Making of ________________” that you get nowadays – it’s a real documentary. You see singers looking and sounding tired, trying to get it right for the forever and perfect take after hours on their feet. It’s about an hour long. Sondheim and Prince are there, of course, and Thomas Z. Shepard and Harold Hastings. And it’s the seventies, so take in the clothes, the false eyelashes, the cigarettes. It all looks much more fun.

Link to comment

This is a very interesting discussion, which makes me sorry I missed this televised version. Thanks to everyone for your posts.

I did see the original production with Kert, McKechnie and Strich. I seem to remember feeling that the story-line actually detracted from the wonderful songs, which may explain why it took so long for the work to be revived.

The songs are much better, I think, when sung out of context. They flourish in concert versions or loose-framework revivals like Side by Side by Sondheim, which has (I believe) at least 7 or 8.

I can't imagine "Another Hundred People" being sung with a grin. In fact, most of these songs are best interpreted with a sensibility that treads a very fine line beween contempt and affection -- rage and acceptance -- sharp irony and a surprising amount of sadness.

"Little Things You Do together," "Barcelona," Being Alive," "You Could Drive a Person Crazy," the title song "Company," "Getting Married Today." "Little Things You Do Together," etc. etc. Wow!

YouTube has a clip of Elaine Stritch from the original 1970 recording session --doing "Ladies Who Lunch," which I don't believe was in the original Side by Side, but was last time I saw it earlier this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qNJupQTW8I

Link to comment
[...] The songs are much better, I think, when sung out of context. They flourish in concert versions or loose-framework revivals like Side by Side by Sondheim, which has (I believe) at least 7 or 8. [...]

Thanks, Bart, for articulating what I've often felt about a lot of Sondheim, not just Company. I think this is especially true about Merrily We Roll Along, as well--on the "macro" end, the reverse-chronology concept is poignant, and on the "micro" end, the songs are moving and brilliant ("The Way it (never ever) Was" song, for one). But the "middle" level--the book, the plot, the narrative, whatever you want to blame--just isn't interesting, and I think this is what people notice about Company--as much as I love it--and other shows such as Little Night Music. There are exceptions, of course--Follies, maybe? Anyone else want to weigh in, or 'nuff said?

Also--Ned Rorem in one of his New York Diaries, takes SS to task for his orchestrations--anyone remember where, and what he was talking about? The orchestration is part of what I like about the production in question--I find that playing the instruments adds a layer of seriousness to the performances. Unfortunately, as many here are noting, it perhaps drags down the pacing (i.e., that turgid pre-"Barcelona" dialog!).

Link to comment
Also--Ned Rorem in one of his New York Diaries, takes SS to task for his orchestrations--anyone remember where, and what he was talking about?

Sondheim does not do his own orchestrations as a rule. (Jonathan Tunick did the orchestrations for the original 'Company' and they are excellent as is his work in general.)

Link to comment
[...] The songs are much better, I think, when sung out of context. They flourish in concert versions or loose-framework revivals like Side by Side by Sondheim, which has (I believe) at least 7 or 8. [...]

Thanks, Bart, for articulating what I've often felt about a lot of Sondheim, not just Company. I think this is especially true about Merrily We Roll Along, as well--on the "macro" end, the reverse-chronology concept is poignant, and on the "micro" end, the songs are moving and brilliant ("The Way it (never ever) Was" song, for one). But the "middle" level--the book, the plot, the narrative, whatever you want to blame--just isn't interesting, and I think this is what people notice about Company--as much as I love it--and other shows such as Little Night Music. There are exceptions, of course--Follies, maybe? Anyone else want to weigh in, or 'nuff said?

Also--Ned Rorem in one of his New York Diaries, takes SS to task for his orchestrations--anyone remember where, and what he was talking about? The orchestration is part of what I like about the production in question--I find that playing the instruments adds a layer of seriousness to the performances. Unfortunately, as many here are noting, it perhaps drags down the pacing (i.e., that turgid pre-"Barcelona" dialog!).

No, not quite 'nuff said, even though I've already said. I'll here get to take the opportunity to disagree with you both--I do not think 'Company' fares better with its songs out of context. The problem is getting back that context that made the original production so great, and nobody has been able to do it. It should be treated as a period piece about Manhattan in the early 70s and left that way. Nobody thinks to put 'Oklahoma!' in modern-day Oklahoma after the Murrah Building, and nobody thinks to put 'South Pacific' in Iraq. Probably, the milieu of the original 'Company' still seems too 'modern' not to just ruin it completely by putting it in the 00's, but without giving it any 00's context to speak of. The book is not perfect, but it is neither weak nor slight. It is more about being alone or not (which is profound and valid) than it is about marriage (which it emphasizes a bit too strongly, but there were limitations as to how many comparisons to personal loneliness could be made in a Broadway show which has to be reasonably Broad anyway, and the demand that getting married is the only cure for loneliness would have been equally dated in the 40s or 50; by the 70s, people were not doing it all that much without loopholes for divorce potential; and many were just 'doing it'. )

The orchestrations look like they are more than they sound--you see the instruments, including the ones that make rude noises, but it's probably not even half of the instrumentation for a full production of 'Company'. All of the numbers are too slow and plodding in tempo in this production. But since the city is now more electronic than electric, perhaps some can find some sense or 'relevance' in that. I also saw the original production of 'Follies', and it had a lot of glories, but as a whole piece, I much preferred 'Company', which I'd seen a year earlier. I don't remember what Rorem said in his diaries about Sondheim, but there is a NYTimes article about their discussion of each other at YMHA, I believe. I may have linked to it on the Musical Scores thread or the Sweeney Todd thread, but you can find it quickly in a Times search. It was mainly 'I do this, and you do that and mine's better', or 'I do this, and you do that and mine's just as good', etc.

Link to comment
Also--Ned Rorem in one of his New York Diaries, takes SS to task for his orchestrations--anyone remember where, and what he was talking about?

Sondheim does not do his own orchestrations as a rule. (Jonathan Tunick did the orchestrations for the original 'Company' and they are excellent as is his work in general.)

I think this is what Rorem was chiding SS for--not doing his own orchestrations, and not insisting that they be a part of what he's particular about when a work of his is reset. Back to the books for me to find the quotations.

Link to comment
No, not quite 'nuff said, even though I've already said. I'll here get to take the opportunity to disagree with you both--I do not think 'Company' fares better with its songs out of context. The problem is getting back that context that made the original production so great, and nobody has been able to do it. It should be treated as a period piece about Manhattan in the early 70s and left that way. Nobody thinks to put 'Oklahoma!' in modern-day Oklahoma after the Murrah Building, and nobody thinks to put 'South Pacific' in Iraq. Probably, the milieu of the original 'Company' still seems too 'modern' not to just ruin it completely by putting it in the 00's, but without giving it any 00's context to speak of. The book is not perfect, but it is neither weak nor slight. It is more about being alone or not (which is profound and valid) than it is about marriage (which it emphasizes a bit too strongly, but there were limitations as to how many comparisons to personal loneliness could be made in a Broadway show which has to be reasonably Broad anyway, and the demand that getting married is the only cure for loneliness would have been equally dated in the 40s or 50; by the 70s, people were not doing it all that much without loopholes for divorce potential; and many were just 'doing it'. )

I don't disagree with any of this, really, except perhaps for the intrinsic strength of Company's book--that is, I agree that its setting in early 1970s NYC is important (just as no one should move Sweeny Todd out of Victorian London), and I appreciate many of the crits on the current production on this point. For me the show is redolent of that era, especially since that's when I first saw it and, as a kid in a midwestern town, it represented the epitome of New Yawk sophistication after a childhood of making granola. There's a lesson here, perhaps, about letting earlier historical periods serve as allegories for our own time, rather than doing all the work for the viewer by transposing it for her. I think my point was that the songs have the ability to both evoke the larger contours of their setting and transcend the particularities, but they aren't so interesting as pieces of the plot or storyline. So it's not that Company fares better when its songs are excerpted, its that SS's songs have a life of their own that, for me, is often more satisfying outside of the context of the shows. One could say that this is true of many great songwriters, no?

Link to comment
I think this is what Rorem was chiding SS for--not doing his own orchestrations, and not insisting that they be a part of what he's particular about when a work of his is reset. Back to the books for me to find the quotations.

Thank you, I’d be curious to know exactly what he said. That would make sense. Traditionally Broadway songwriters didn’t do their own, partly owing to the exigencies of getting a show on its feet – often there wasn’t enough time. (I do remember reading that Kurt Weill was surprised to note this when he arrived here, and he did his own. Bernstein worked on his, too.) The most famous arranger and orchestrator was probably Robert Russell Bennett, who worked with everybody who was anybody, and with some composers he did more, with others less. Jerome Kern, for example, had very clear ideas about what he wanted. Gershwin relied on help when he began composing for orchestra, but he was studying orchestration and realized it was something he was going to have to master if he wanted to be taken seriously. I’m sure other posters would have more to add about this issue.

So it's not that Company fares better when its songs are excerpted, its that SS's songs have a life of their own that, for me, is often more satisfying outside of the context of the shows. One could say that this is true of many great songwriters, no?

I think you could say it’s true, but I would suggest it’s less true of Sondheim and other songwriters of the post Rodgers and Hammerstein era than it is of those from an earlier time. It’s not crucial to appreciation of ‘Little Girl Blue,’ and ‘My Romance,’ to know they were written for a Billy Rose extravaganza called ‘Jumbo,’ which involved Jimmy Durante and and an elephant, among many other features of interest, or that ‘There’s a Small Hotel’ was dropped from that show and popped up in ‘On Your Toes’ later on. But there are songs from ‘Follies’ to take only one example, that don’t make as much sense out of context as they do within the show.

sidwich? Anthony? (and anyone else out there)? Thoughts?

Link to comment
Also--Ned Rorem in one of his New York Diaries, takes SS to task for his orchestrations--anyone remember where, and what he was talking about?

As I recall it (I too cannot remember which book it was in), Rorem wasn't so much chiding Sondheim as expressing surprise that he would farm it out to someone else when it's such a pleasurable part of the compositional process. But of course that's the usual way it's done on Broadway, and at least Sondheim always has the best of the best, especially with Jonathan Tunick. That guy is some sort of genius. I remember reading an interview with Tunick where he talked about how during rehearsals, one day, to Sondheim's surprise, at the crest of "Being Alive" the orchestra suddenly added as counterpoint the melody of "Someone Is Waiting." Tunick's idea (a wonderful, touching one), and he was really worried what Sondheim's reaction would be to this liberty; but in the event, Sondheim came over to him with a "Charlie Brown grin." So I guess that sort of collaboration can have its own rewards.

Link to comment
Also--Ned Rorem in one of his New York Diaries, takes SS to task for his orchestrations--anyone remember where, and what he was talking about?

As I recall it (I too cannot remember which book it was in), Rorem wasn't so much chiding Sondheim as expressing surprise that he would farm it out to someone else when it's such a pleasurable part of the compositional process. But of course that's the usual way it's done on Broadway, and at least Sondheim always has the best of the best, especially with Jonathan Tunick. That guy is some sort of genius. I remember reading an interview with Tunick where he talked about how during rehearsals, one day, to Sondheim's surprise, at the crest of "Being Alive" the orchestra suddenly added as counterpoint the melody of "Someone Is Waiting." Tunick's idea (a wonderful, touching one), and he was really worried what Sondheim's reaction would be to this liberty; but in the event, Sondheim came over to him with a "Charlie Brown grin." So I guess that sort of collaboration can have its own rewards.

Thanks, Anthony--and dirac and papeetepatrick and bart--for such insight into something I clearly only have a passing knowledge of!

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...