526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Aug 20, 2016 12:22:25 GMT
I wouldn't say it's really the digital age that's changed it - more the practice of letting the press in before "press night" which has now morphed into "opening night" or even "gala performance". Nowadays that just represents an embargo date rather than a "you must review this on this date" date. But yes, that definitely was the tradition. Never really spread much outside of London though, I've never known a touring production have their opening night earlier than the rest of the run. Fair comment, danielwhit, though it still does help them for some overnights - and TV means they can hit the live news too. Interesting on touring, never thought of that. I suspect it is because "back in the day" touring shows were either remounts of West End productions or not high profile enough to be reviewed in the nationals immediately afterwards. And that half hour may have not generally been long enough for them to wire it down to London for printing either. If tours were reviewed by local press, they traditionally were afternoon papers and also wouldn't have suffered from the early printing deadline. Or it could simply be receiving houses didn't encourage flexibility in performance times. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 14:38:50 GMT
There is a "tenth anniversary" Broadway cast recording special edition which I expect the London show to try and pass off as their own. It is easier. And what a rip-off that one is. It's just the OBC recording with a few other versions of some of the songs on in, 2 of which were from the German cast album. There was nothing special about that album at all. It's just a few covers thrown together. I don't understand why they don't just do a live album, like Miss Saigon and Kinky Boots did. It's probably a lot cheaper and it sounds just as good, if not better. |
|
1,046 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Aug 20, 2016 14:46:41 GMT
There is a "tenth anniversary" Broadway cast recording special edition which I expect the London show to try and pass off as their own. It is easier. And what a rip-off that one is. It's just the OBC recording with a few other versions of some of the songs on in, 2 of which were from the German cast album. There was nothing special about that album at all. It's just a few covers thrown together. I don't understand why they don't just do a live album, like Miss Saigon and Kinky Boots did. It's probably a lot cheaper and it sounds just as good, if not better. To be honest I don't think they're in any state to be doing that at the moment. When I went recently the sound mixing was definitely off, I think the production team (not necessarily the cast) have become a bit complacent recently, just letting the show trundle along. Hopefully the cast change will bring a burst of new life to the show. |
|
46 posts
|
Post by chrisorsomething on Aug 20, 2016 15:47:55 GMT
Copyrights, contracts, red tape. Royalties and residuals, high production costs (£250,000 approx) let alone legal fees drawing up contracts and whatnot. There are always reasons behind the scenes!
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Aug 20, 2016 22:58:24 GMT
The story goes that when it was originally thought a London soundtrack would be a good idea, those in charge wanted to use the US track and just have our lot sing over it. Of course the London musicians kicked up a fuss and years later still no progress.
If they're so reluctant to spend the £s then why not crowd fund it?
The cast want to do a cd!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 8:40:50 GMT
To be honest I don't think they're in any state to be doing that at the moment. When I went recently the sound mixing was definitely off, I think the production team (not necessarily the cast) have become a bit complacent recently, just letting the show trundle along. Hopefully the cast change will bring a burst of new life to the show. Oh yes, definitely. The last 2 times I went the sound mixing was way off. The ensemble was hardly amplified during the first act. Songs like What Is This Feeling and One Short Day didn't really sound so good because of that. And then suddenly in the second act it was decently amplified and they suddenly sounded amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 8:43:42 GMT
The story goes that when it was originally thought a London soundtrack would be a good idea, those in charge wanted to use the US track and just have our lot sing over it. Of course the London musicians kicked up a fuss and years later still no progress. If they're so reluctant to spend the £s then why not crowd fund it? The cast want to do a cd! Yeah I read about that. That would have been a mistake because I think the orchestrations were changed for London, which sounds a lot better than the orchestrations on the OBC recording. And they don't need to crowdfund it. Surely one of the most successful musicals in the West End can afford this? Especially considering the fact that the CD would definitely sell very well. Many people kind of hate the OBC recording. It would be amazing to have a good recording. And people from the US would probably buy it as well if it has Rachel as Elphaba. |
|
|
|
Post by stevep on Aug 21, 2016 9:18:59 GMT
There is a "tenth anniversary" Broadway cast recording special edition which I expect the London show to try and pass off as their own. It is easier. They've been selling it at the Apollo Victoria for a couple of years now. Sister Act had a 7pm start at the Curve for press night |
|
46 posts
|
Post by chrisorsomething on Aug 21, 2016 9:59:57 GMT
Copyrights, contracts, red tape. Royalties and residuals, high production costs (£250,000 approx) let alone legal fees drawing up contracts and whatnot. There are always reasons behind the scenes! Further to the above, I don't understand the confusion. It all comes down to contracts. Whether it's crowdfunded or not makes absolutely zero difference. Wicked is an IP (intellectual property) with undoubtedly a very complicated structure of backers/producers. There are legally binding contracts in place between those, the creators, possibly original cast members, upcoming movie producers etc to prevent exactly this from happening. Why? 1. Asset protection. If I own an IP worth X million that was raking in X million easy profits, with the cast album still selling to anyone who hasn't already got a copy, then why risk damaging my brand with a cast recording which is potentially going to damage my brand. 2. Niche market. You think everyone is clamouring for a new cast recording. They aren't. The average Joe/Joanne doesn't care like you do. It's just another musical. They don't dayseat, they don't know any of the actors names - they probably don't remember any of the characters names. They just want showtunes to sing along to in the car. 3. And most importantly. Contractual obligations. A movie deal has been signed which will, undoubtedly mean a movie cast recording. Any other cast recordings released will be in direct competition to the sale of theirs and therefore reduce profits. Finally, please look at The Phantom of the Opera. Ever wondered why there hasn't been another cast recording? It's in Michael Crawford, Hal Prince, Sarah Brightman and a host of other people's contracts that an English language album of the show cannot be produced without their consent. Well, why don't they just give consent? They're so mean! That'll be because they earn very healthy royalties on every single cast recording ever sold. Enough for Crawford to essentially retire on. Any deal they signed would still involve paying them - even if they aren't on the cast recording. |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Aug 22, 2016 9:34:35 GMT
I've heard a verbal rumour, from a good source but could still be a case of Chinese whispers and this being utter rubbish, that Willemijn is returning to Wicked. London was not specified, but I presumed that was the place being referred to, but still I don't know how far to believe this rumour.
|
|
446 posts
|
Post by tr252 on Aug 22, 2016 9:54:29 GMT
As excellent as Willemijn is, I'm hoping that stays as a rumour.
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2016 10:03:38 GMT
They should have gotten her back instead of Rachel. That said, I do hope for someone who hasn't played the role before to take over from Rachel - or Alice Fearn being bumped up.
|
|
|
|
Post by welsh_tenor on Aug 22, 2016 10:29:30 GMT
They should have gotten her back instead of Rachel. That said, I do hope for someone who hasn't played the role before to take over from Rachel - or Alice Fearn being bumped up. Lots of talk over the weekend in Bradford and the general consensus for London seems to be that Alice will take over when Rachel leaves. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 11:31:16 GMT
They should have gotten her back instead of Rachel. That said, I do hope for someone who hasn't played the role before to take over from Rachel - or Alice Fearn being bumped up. Lots of talk over the weekend in Bradford and the general consensus for London seems to be that Alice will take over when Rachel leaves. If it's a consensus of fan opinions, then that's pretty meaningless. Or does this come from reliable sources? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 11:32:54 GMT
I'd love to see Rachelle Ann Go as Elphaba. How much longer is she going to stay at Les Mis?
|
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Aug 22, 2016 11:34:19 GMT
I think Alice has done enough in London to gain enough experience to finally get a leading part, and by bring stand by hopefully she could develop her interpretation and be on top form if she gets the full time role.
|
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Aug 22, 2016 11:34:40 GMT
I'd love to see Rachelle Ann Go as Elphaba. How much longer is she going to stay at Les Mis? December I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 11:44:30 GMT
I'd love to see Rachelle Ann Go as Elphaba. How much longer is she going to stay at Les Mis? December I think. That could work then. |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Aug 22, 2016 11:49:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 11:54:05 GMT
They probably haven't cast it yet, so there's a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 11:54:40 GMT
Or big plot-twist: Katie Rowley Jones is only leaving Nessa because she's taking over as Elphaba
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2016 12:02:05 GMT
I don't think Wicked London News is an official Twitter account, so I presume it's wishful thinking from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 12:45:06 GMT
I don't think Wicked London News is an official Twitter account, so I presume it's wishful thinking from them. Of course. It's all just whishful thinking. So is the assumption that Alice Fearn will be bumped up to lead. |
|
1,046 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Aug 22, 2016 13:16:06 GMT
I don't think there's any way we can predict - they're just as likely to get someone new in, as they will need a new Morrible and Nessa anyway because Anita Dobson and Katie Rowley-Jones leave at the same time as Rachel Tucker.
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Aug 22, 2016 16:41:59 GMT
I can't see there being any huge shocks with casting in January but who knows... Wicked may surprise us with something Wonderful  |
|
