Evita

[ali973]

richey, I haven't seen it yet and won't until end of September, but to say that it's better than the semi-recent Adelphi production is a bit of a stretch, no? Listen, everyone has their opinion and taste, but I'm surprised anyone who has seen both would objectively say it's a better version, especially given the fact that it borrows a lot of elements from that version.

[richey]

Aug 4, 2017 13:12:51 GMT ali973 said:

richey, I haven't seen it yet and won't until end of September, but to say that it's better than the semi-recent Adelphi production is a bit of a stretch, no? Listen, everyone has their opinion and taste, but I'm surprised anyone who has seen both would objectively say it's a better version, especially given the fact that it borrows a lot of elements from that version.

Well I have seen both and I'm sticking to my opinion.

[BurlyBeaR]

Aug 4, 2017 12:26:21 GMT richey said:

Aug 4, 2017 11:49:23 GMT ali973 said:

^ Agreed. WE generates its own nonsense, but at least its kept a lot of 4th tier tours out of London as well.

I dunno..maybe I was aggressive, but I think the standard has become so low in the last five years or so.

Well if the West End can't sustain the new shows like the ones that have passed through the Phoenix in the last few years what are the other options?

What about the brilliant productions which originate in the regions such as Sheffield Crucible? Jamie, Flowers for Mrs Harris, Showboat, My Fair Lady. And a host from the WYP, the Royal Exchange, Chichester etc. Etc

Ali dismissing regional audiences for dumbly accepting 'crap shows' is just snobbery of the worst order as well as being factually incorrect

[Dawnstar]

Aug 4, 2017 13:02:31 GMT ali973 said:

I think it's a question of good material, quality of the show and targeting. What's evident is that most of the shows that end up in London are still targeted towards an aging population. The Girls and Guys and Dolls hardly scream young, fresh and exciting. London has way too many shows serving a more mature audience (50+), which is fine, because that will always be a very dedicated theatre going crowd. But shows that can cater to a younger payer audience (25-50s) have the ability to bring in a demographic that is underrepresented in London theatre, and can be reached in more inventive and less expensive ways like social media. There will always be the classics that draw in a mixed crowd like Les Miz, Evita or Phantom, but the younger shows that are successful, like Kinky Boots, Dreamgirls, Book of Mormon and soon Hamilton, are all shows with a younger cast targeting younger audiences.

Isn't that a bit too much of a generalization as to who sees which shows? I'm 32. I've seen Guys & Dolls and The Girls. I haven't & won't see Kinky Boots, Dreamgirls, Book of Mormon or Hamilton. You can be (fairly) young & prefer more classic shows.

[ali973]

Yes, it is a generalization. I don't have the data to support my claims, but I don't think I'm way off.

[Dawnstar]

Aug 4, 2017 15:33:46 GMT ali973 said:

Yes, it is a generalization. I don't have the data to support my claims, but I don't think I'm way off.

I agree that the audience for "classic" shows tends to skew older. I guess it just bugs me that it is assumed that younger people prefer "contempory" shows when I don't. Ditto opera. The number of articles I've read saying how opera houses need to do all sorts of innovative productions to attract a younger audience. I've been opera going since I was 18 & I much prefer traditional productions & hate most regietheater.

[danb]

Surely any business person with a brain would target the audience with the most disposable income...hence the advent of premium seats for the upwardly mobile and lazy, known quantity shows to attract coach parties and old dears. Whilst sad and lacking creativity it is obviously how the west end survived the recession, and is going into the next one.

[ali973]

Aug 4, 2017 15:55:10 GMT danb said:

Surely any business person with a brain would target the audience with the most disposable income...hence the advent of premium seats for the upwardly mobile and lazy, known quantity shows to attract coach parties and old dears. Whilst sad and lacking creativity it is obviously how the west end survived the recession, and is going into the next one.

I'm not so sure about that. I think the argument that older people tend to splurge more and have more to splurge is out of touch with what people do and how much income they generate. Young(er) people could and do earn a lot of money and have substantial disposable income, and are likely to spend it on entertainment. When I say younger, I mean people in their mid-20s to late 40s. 

[welsh_tenor]

I'm 35 and would prefer more modern shows like BoM over the classics that have been in WE for years. But I'm also a populist and tend to follow the crowd, I saw Guys & Dolls because Rebel Wilson was in it and getting rave reviews - it had no attraction to me before her casting or the tour.

I also prefer to go to the theatre less often to have better seats, I'd sooner see a show every three months for great stall seats than a show a month in the circle.

[viserys]

Interesting discussion. I think the "blockbuster period" mid 80s-mid 90s seemed to attract more young fans and more new people taking an interest in the genre itself, whereas later trends like the jukebox musicals seemed more geared towards middle-aged/older people (who recalled the songs from their own youth). Personally I have been open towards all sorts of musicals, classics as well as modern musicals, but I guess what Ali means (maybe) is that there are a few "modern" musicals (if we use this divider) that attract a huge fan following of younger people who otherwise have no interest in the genre. Rent in the 90s, followed by Wicked, currently Hamilton and the gloriously overhyped Evan Hansen.

And these shows are important to bring fresh blood in. The current "old dears" still grew up with accessible theatre everywhere, but for many younger generations theatre is something that hardly exists. Their entertainment consists of concerts, festivals, movies or just staying in with computer games and Netflix. If you don't manage to pique their interest in theatre-going, there will be fewer and fewer theatre-goers. Yes, many of those who went to see Les Mis and Phantom 100 times in the 90s turned away from the genre some time, but I'm sure there were others like me who matured from seeing Starlight Express 40 times to seeing musicals of all sorts, straight plays, opera and ballet. So yea, I agree that London needs a few fresher shows to attract young people, stuff like Rent, Hamilton or Evan Hansen but perhaps with a more British slant. (God, you Brits do all these fantastic TV shows aimed at young people, like Misfits and Skins, surely you could do something similar on stage?)

I also think that London audiences are way more sceptic than Broadway audiences. There's moaning here that many of the recent new shows weren't great quality-wise. But I find Evan Hansen mediocre and clumsily written yet it sells like hot cakes on B'way. I thought Come From Away is a lovely little show with the heart in the right place, but it's a few people in street clothes on a single set with a few props, I'd never pay Broadway prices for this.

To finally bring this back to Evita: I can see both sides of the argument. I'd rather see something new, fresh and GOOD, but I don't mind these shows coming back either for brief runs. Rather them than stuff like Stomp and Thriller Live clogging up theatres.

[viserys]

Aug 5, 2017 8:08:06 GMT @theatremonkey said:

Now that's interesting viserys. I lived through that period, and in fact it was the older crowd who went to Cats, Phantom, Miz and Saigon. The kids weren't interested. It was only the dawn of the web that brought them out for Wicked etc.

Really? Maybe it was different in London/UK then.  Here on the continent (well, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands are the parts I can somewhat speak for)  the arrival of the big blockbusters such as Cats, Starlight Express, Phantom and Les Mis, and then home-grown shows like Elisabeth and Tanz der Vampire sparked a huge fan-following among younger people with tons of them lurking around the stage doors every day and fan clubs being founded even for the third understudy and second torch bearer to the right. To this day the commercial productions have printed photo cards of the entire cast to sign for their fans the way football clubs do elsewhere. I remember back in the days the stair case from the parking garage down to the Starlight Express theatre was completely covered in "I love you, (performer xy)!" graffiti and similar stuff, though I noticed it was gone when I re-visited in spring after a very long break.

I'd get so frustrated with continental fans who announced going to London again and (again and again) to only ever see Les Mis, Phantom, etc. for the 30th to 35th time but never giving any unknown or new shows a chance or -gasp- a play. I still see it here in Germany how stuff like Tanz der Vampire seemingly keeps going forever and the awful nonsense that are Frank Wildhorn shows are revered because it's exactly the style they were weaned on (sappy love stories with big ballads).  Nothing innovative, fresh or different stands a chance.

Call me crazy, but I'm seeing exactly one musical in Germany this year and that's only because my mother hasn't seen it yet and wanted to go (Rebecca, the DuMaurier adaptation of ignoble Broadway disaster fame) but I have four (!) trips to London booked for the next six months with three new plays and seven new musicals so far). I can't express in words how much this British (international) community here on the board means to me since I feel so completely alienated from the German scene that both clings to 90s-style big weepy musicals and to the overblown adoration of performers and mediocre shows.

[viserys]

Aug 5, 2017 11:42:37 GMT @theatremonkey said:

I guess all that happened a little later, too, in Germany and the rest of Europe. Also, I do agree that youth culture seemed very different from what I saw of it and remember. I rather like your account of fan culture, though. And love the thought of "team photos" for the West End, that's one for them to ponder. Also, you rather answer the number of overseas visitors at the older shows.

And you are not crazy. Well, no crazier than any other board member for sure .

Thanks for that   

And yea, I guess the audiences have now aged somewhat here too, with fewer young people discovering musicals as something new to be a fan of...  but then I'm an oldbie now and don't really frequent the places where young people today convene like Twitter and FB Groups.

[SageStageMgr]

I genuinely laughed out loud when my right honourable friend said the Kenwright Evita is better than Grandage's 2006 revival. Each to their own and all... but that's just bonkers!

[mallardo]

Aug 5, 2017 12:30:17 GMT SageStageMgr said:

I genuinely laughed out loud when my right honourable friend said the Kenwright Evita is better than Grandage's 2006 revival. Each to their own and all... but that's just bonkers!

In fact if you look to the top of this thread several people thought this production was a lot better than the Grandage revival.  I was one of them. 

[SageStageMgr]

Aug 5, 2017 14:01:06 GMT mallardo said:

Aug 5, 2017 12:30:17 GMT SageStageMgr said:

I genuinely laughed out loud when my right honourable friend said the Kenwright Evita is better than Grandage's 2006 revival. Each to their own and all... but that's just bonkers!

In fact if you look to the top of this thread several people thought this production was a lot better than the Grandage revival.  I was one of them. 

Remarkable!

[Deleted]

Yep me to, much preferred kenwrights version to the lazy and dull Grandage revival

Although i find the movie the best version ive seen so far. It just flows better from a story point of view than the stage version

[richey]

Aug 5, 2017 12:30:17 GMT SageStageMgr said:

I genuinely laughed out loud when my right honourable friend said the Kenwright Evita is better than Grandage's 2006 revival. Each to their own and all... but that's just bonkers!

Well life would be boring if we all liked the same thing 😉

[SageStageMgr]

Aug 5, 2017 14:48:44 GMT @outlander said:

Yep me to, much preferred kenwrights version to the lazy and dull Grandage revival

Although i find the movie the best version ive seen so far. It just flows better from a story point of view than the stage version

Now I do love the movie...

[ali973]

Could it be because the Kengwright version utilizes elements from the two major productions? It's like the illegitimate child of the Prince and Grandage version without a trust fund.

[SageStageMgr]

I don't hate the Kenwright production by any means. I reviewed it several times professionally on a previous theatre website and really enjoyed it. But when I saw it in London with Marti Pellow last time around the circuit, I loathed it. The cast was crap, it looked tired and falling to bits. As a stage manager by trade, I can tell a show which sorely needs a kick up the arse, a good tightening of the screw. It looked terrible and it had Pellow in it.

When I compare *that* to Grandage's slick, tight production it's on a different level.

I saw every cast in the tour and largely hated the casting. Mark Powell was the understudy in the Grandage, and they were selling off all the unsold Grandage 2006 production's merchandise. Before him, a talent show runner up who was way out of his depth. The brochures had embarrassing photoshop work. I didn't enjoy Louise Dearman or Rachael Wooding. Mark Heenahan was Quast's town understudy. The whole thing just felt quite literally second rate in comparison. Earl did it for a bit and he was good.

But I LOVED Abi Jaye as Eva, the best I have ever seen in any production and gives Covington a run as my absolute favourite.

Now Abi Jaye in the Grandage would be a dream.

[Deleted]

Long-time lurker, first-time poster here with a burning question: why were the keys lowered in this production?

When I saw the first preview I was disappointed to discover that Eva's parts in 'A New Argentina' ('He supports you/For he loves you...') have been transposed down to (most likely) Madonna's key.

Madalena Alberto sang the score as written a few years back at the Dominion. And I know that when she used to do it on tour, the last chorus of the song would always be sung in the original key.

Why change it? Is it even legal to alter the score in a professional West End production? I wonder if Lord Andrew is aware of the changes being made.

[AliceFearnFan2212]

Aug 6, 2017 20:35:52 GMT @finefineline said:

Long-time lurker, first-time poster here with a burning question: why were the keys lowered in this production?

When I saw the first preview I was disappointed to discover that Eva's parts in 'A New Argentina' ('He supports you/For he loves you...') have been transposed down to (most likely) Madonna's key.

Madalena Alberto sang the score as written a few years back at the Dominion. And I know that when she used to do it on tour, the last chorus of the song would always be sung in the original key.

Why change it? Is it even legal to alter the score in a professional West End production? I wonder if Lord Andrew is aware of the changes being made.

They haven't changed it... They've just lowered it for Emma

[jgblunners]

Aug 6, 2017 23:16:33 GMT AliceFearnFan2212 said:

Aug 6, 2017 20:35:52 GMT @finefineline said:

When I saw the first preview I was disappointed to discover that Eva's parts in 'A New Argentina' ('He supports you/For he loves you...') have been transposed down to (most likely) Madonna's key.

They haven't changed it... They've just lowered it for Emma

It believe that they haven't changed the key of A New Argentina, but Emma is singing those sustained high phrases (he supports you, etc.) an octave down. I'm sure there are people who know the show and it's history better than me, but I think that it is not uncommon for actresses to do this since those phrases are some of the highest in the score.

[daniel]

I hadn't noticed that they'd lowered it, but in any case lowering it is changing it. I would imagine that Kenwright would've had to seek permission from RUG before making any changes. I don't think it's massively uncommon for scores to be lowered when the lead can't sing them as written - I think Sister Act adjusted the keys for Alexandra Burke?

[Deleted]

Thanks for your input^^

I agree, it's not completely uncommon for scores to be lowered, I think Gavin Creel in BOM is another example of this practice.
However, as far as I know, they have never lowered the score in any major American production of Evita, including the tours. And Eva is definitely a tough sing, but to me that's one of the things which make the show so thrilling. Hence, I was a bit disappointed with this revival.