1,562 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Sept 19, 2021 1:11:52 GMT
Clearly she was to the producers, otherwise someone else would have been cast...! It's not as if she's a name who got asked, or bought her way in. She had to audition like everyone else, and clearly no-one else impressed more. That is on them, not her. I didn't even think she was particularly exceptional in Dreamgirls, but the amount of backlash on here already is just depressing. If a Brit had auditioned better they would no doubt have got the job, that is the point of auditions, so saying it is taking away from British talent is just wrong. Maybe she did buy her way in!! Did you actually see her auditions? I'm kidding. A backlash? Hardly. Maybe there was something within the equity exchange that said it had to be an American, we'll probably never know, but I'm guessing any of the Queens from Six could be a great Satine. I'm trying to think, When did a British actress, who was a complete unknown, open a new production in NYC. Sam Barks was known fron the film of Les Mis, others went with a production. Sally Ann Triplett and Rachel Tucker in The Last Ship had both been on Broadway before. How about Hadyn Gwynn in Billy Elliot? She never did Broadway before. Cynthia Erivo wasn't know before (as was stated above) and neither was Bertie Carvel? Bertie coming to Broadway in Matilda is the same as Idina coming to the West End in Wicked. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 2:21:08 GMT
How about Hadyn Gwynn in Billy Elliot? She never did Broadway before. Cynthia Erivo wasn't know before (as was stated above) and neither was Bertie Carvel? Bertie coming to Broadway in Matilda is the same as Idina coming to the West End in Wicked. At least try and read some of the previous converstion before you chip in. Haydn Gwynn, Cynthia Erivo, Bertie Carvel all went to NYC in a production and role they had originated/been associated with in London. Frances Ruffelle, exact same thing. Idina Menzel,came to open the first 3 months, in a role she had done before and was associated with, same with KMP in Waitress. Amy Adams, Glenn Close, Jake Gyllenhall all household names and something very different from the above. We've had shows come in, as part of a larger world tour, that are 100% American actors. I have no issues with the above, it's always been that way. I'ts nothing to do with not allowing people in from different countries to work. But with Moulin Rouge, Liisi Lafontain is coming in to open a show she has no previous association with (that I am aware of) and honestly I don't really have a problem with that. What I am trying to say is, why is it not a British performer? Yes Liisi obviously smashed the auditions and 'she was the best for the job', but You're telling me there isn't a single UK talent that couldn't do the role, schedules and Contracts aside. Yes we send alot of our talent to the US too, but mostly its in straigh plays, rather than in musicals. When are we getting the next breakout star that can step up from ensemble and make a name for herself going forward, Like Ruthie Henshall in Crazy for You, or to a lesser degree, Kerri Ellis in Wicked. Of course UK talent gets to lead on some new UK shows. But when have we sent someone who is the lead in a new big Broadway production? Apart from Linzi Hateley nearly 30 years ago, It's part of the reason why people complain about it being the same names constantly suggested for new shows. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 19, 2021 3:22:30 GMT
Clearly she was to the producers, otherwise someone else would have been cast...! It's not as if she's a name who got asked, or bought her way in. She had to audition like everyone else, and clearly no-one else impressed more. That is on them, not her. I didn't even think she was particularly exceptional in Dreamgirls, but the amount of backlash on here already is just depressing. If a Brit had auditioned better they would no doubt have got the job, that is the point of auditions, so saying it is taking away from British talent is just wrong. Not necessarily. I don't know what has happened in the process in this particular case, but I do know from experience that the idea of the best auditionee getting the part is wishful thinking. In an ideal world, the casting director and panel will see people from all races and backgrounds then pick the best audition regardless of anything other than their performance. In reality things are enormously different. Specifically; - Producer mandates. Producers can have an enormous say behind the scenes on casting policy. It all comes down to status, ego and strength of personality. Some are happy to trust their creatives (David Ian) others are very hands on (Cameron). If hypothetically the US producers of this show insisted on US actors, because they trust them more than British ones, there could be a reason. - Nepotism, jobs for friends, Director's favourites. Casting couch. "There is always a part in the show for the producer's girlfriend/boyfriend". This happens a hell of a lot more even in 2021 than people are willing to admit. In the Dear Evan Hansen movie - it's no coincidence that Ben Platt's Uncle is Marc Platt, the producer of the movie. - Shared agents. The most common. Theatrical agents will recommend talent and offer their services, potentially with reduced finders fees as an incentive to take them alongside the talent they specifically wanted. This is extremely common. Ever noticed how certain performers seem to pop up in shows together multiple times? Check their representation. Chances are they share an agency and are reliable. Might not be the best auditionee (or have even auditioned!) but sure saves money and gives stability. In short, the best people aren't always cast and often for reasons which we might consider less than artistically driven. Once again, there's a lot more to casting than a subjective choice of who gave the strongest audition. |
|
|
|
Post by jamie2c on Sept 19, 2021 6:07:51 GMT
My guess is that US producers have chosen US actors they know and trust. It is a big cast and lot of money invested.
|
|
5,817 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Sept 19, 2021 8:16:43 GMT
My guess is that US producers have chosen US actors they know and trust. It is a big cast and lot of money invested. The director has final casting powers, not producers. |
|
5,817 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Sept 19, 2021 8:19:26 GMT
How about Hadyn Gwynn in Billy Elliot? She never did Broadway before. Cynthia Erivo wasn't know before (as was stated above) and neither was Bertie Carvel? Bertie coming to Broadway in Matilda is the same as Idina coming to the West End in Wicked. At least try and read some of the previous converstion before you chip in. Haydn Gwynn, Cynthia Erivo, Bertie Carvel all went to NYC in a production and role they had originated/been associated with in London. Frances Ruffelle, exact same thing. Idina Menzel,came to open the first 3 months, in a role she had done before and was associated with, same with KMP in Waitress. Amy Adams, Glenn Close, Jake Gyllenhall all household names and something very different from the above. We've had shows come in, as part of a larger world tour, that are 100% American actors. I have no issues with the above, it's always been that way. I'ts nothing to do not allowing peiople in from different countrris to work. But with Moulin Rouge, Liisi Lafontain is coming in to open a show she has no previous association with (that I am aware of) and honestly I don't really have a problem with that. What I am trying to say is, why is it not a British performer? Yes Liisi obviously smashed the auditions and 'she was the best for the job', but You're telling me there isn't a single UK talent that couldn't do the role, schedules and Contracts aside. Yes we send alot of our talent to the US too, but mostly its in straigh plays, rather than i in musicals. When are we getting the next breakout star that can step up from ensemble and make a name for herself going forward, Like Ruthue Henshall in Closer To You, or to a lesser degree, Kerri Ellis in Wicked. Of course UK talent gets to lead on some new UK shows. But when have we sent someone who is the lead in a new big Broadway production? Apart from Linzi Hateley nearly 30 years ago, It's part of the reason why people complain about it being the same names constantly suggested for new shows. Ruthie in Closer to You? |
|
5,817 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Sept 19, 2021 8:21:40 GMT
Clearly she was to the producers, otherwise someone else would have been cast...! It's not as if she's a name who got asked, or bought her way in. She had to audition like everyone else, and clearly no-one else impressed more. That is on them, not her. I didn't even think she was particularly exceptional in Dreamgirls, but the amount of backlash on here already is just depressing. If a Brit had auditioned better they would no doubt have got the job, that is the point of auditions, so saying it is taking away from British talent is just wrong. Not necessarily. I don't know what has happened in the process in this particular case, but I do know from experience that the idea of the best auditionee getting the part is wishful thinking. In an ideal world, the casting director and panel will see people from all races and backgrounds then pick the best audition regardless of anything other than their performance. In reality things are enormously different. Specifically; - Producer mandates. Producers can have an enormous say behind the scenes on casting policy. It all comes down to status, ego and strength of personality. Some are happy to trust their creatives (David Ian) others are very hands on (Cameron). If hypothetically the US producers of this show insisted on US actors, because they trust them more than British ones, there could be a reason. - Nepotism, jobs for friends, Director's favourites. Casting couch. "There is always a part in the show for the producer's girlfriend/boyfriend". This happens a hell of a lot more even in 2021 than people are willing to admit. In the Dear Evan Hansen movie - it's no coincidence that Ben Platt's Uncle is Marc Platt, the producer of the movie. - Shared agents. The most common. Theatrical agents will recommend talent and offer their services, potentially with reduced finders fees as an incentive to take them alongside the talent they specifically wanted. This is extremely common. Ever noticed how certain performers seem to pop up in shows together multiple times? Check their representation. Chances are they share an agency and are reliable. Might not be the best auditionee (or have even auditioned!) but sure saves money and gives stability. In short, the best people aren't always cast and often for reasons which we might consider less than artistically driven. Marc Platt is Ben’s Father btw. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 9:56:46 GMT
Perhaps we'll see some British actors lead the Broadway production in the future. Natalie Mendoza, who's Australian, has just been cast as the replacement Satine in New York.
As I said, every situation is different, but Hadley Fraser's casting in the original Broadway production of The Pirate Queen must be pretty close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 10:03:18 GMT
Fun fact: Carrie was the first ever equity exchange. The cast was made up specifically of 50% Americans and 50% Brits, because they knew before the production started that it was going to NYC after Stratford. Incidentally, do you know who the equity exchange was for? In return for Linzi going to Broadway. |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Sept 19, 2021 10:42:26 GMT
Clearly she was to the producers, otherwise someone else would have been cast...! It's not as if she's a name who got asked, or bought her way in. She had to audition like everyone else, and clearly no-one else impressed more. That is on them, not her. I didn't even think she was particularly exceptional in Dreamgirls, but the amount of backlash on here already is just depressing. If a Brit had auditioned better they would no doubt have got the job, that is the point of auditions, so saying it is taking away from British talent is just wrong. Not necessarily. I don't know what has happened in the process in this particular case, but I do know from experience that the idea of the best auditionee getting the part is wishful thinking. In an ideal world, the casting director and panel will see people from all races and backgrounds then pick the best audition regardless of anything other than their performance. In reality things are enormously different. Specifically; - Producer mandates. Producers can have an enormous say behind the scenes on casting policy. It all comes down to status, ego and strength of personality. Some are happy to trust their creatives (David Ian) others are very hands on (Cameron). If hypothetically the US producers of this show insisted on US actors, because they trust them more than British ones, there could be a reason. - Nepotism, jobs for friends, Director's favourites. Casting couch. "There is always a part in the show for the producer's girlfriend/boyfriend". This happens a hell of a lot more even in 2021 than people are willing to admit. In the Dear Evan Hansen movie - it's no coincidence that Ben Platt's Uncle is Marc Platt, the producer of the movie. - Shared agents. The most common. Theatrical agents will recommend talent and offer their services, potentially with reduced finders fees as an incentive to take them alongside the talent they specifically wanted. This is extremely common. Ever noticed how certain performers seem to pop up in shows together multiple times? Check their representation. Chances are they share an agency and are reliable. Might not be the best auditionee (or have even auditioned!) but sure saves money and gives stability. In short, the best people aren't always cast and often for reasons which we might consider less than artistically driven. I’m afraid there’s a lot of misinformation here, and I don’t want to spend ages arguing nuances of casting but one thing I feel needs to be addressed in case young actors are reading this nonsense and believe it is that I have professional first hand experience of the casting process on many shows in the west end and I have NEVER heard of an actor getting a part because they share an agent with another actor. Most of the time the director will never know who the agent is (because, why would they need to know or care?) and the producer won’t know who the agent is until after the offer is made and they begin negotiations and issuing contracts. Of course, if you are an agent with one client auditioning for a show or being offered a show then of course you are then engaged with that casting process and may suggest other clients for other roles, but once an actor is auditioning it’s got nothing to do with their agent whatsoever. A better agent may have stronger relationships with casting directors so may get you better auditions, and they may negotiate you higher fees but the one thing they can’t do is win a job for you. Once you’re in the room it’s all on you. I also don’t understand what is meant by this saving money - each actor is paid a salary, via their agent who takes a percentage. It makes no financial difference whether a producer is paying 15 different agents or 15 actors via one agent. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 10:46:38 GMT
Oops.I meant Crazy For You, in my previous post, now amended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 10:54:20 GMT
Fun fact: Carrie was the first ever equity exchange. The cast was made up specifically of 50% Americans and 50% Brits, because they knew before the production started that it was going to NYC after Stratford. Incidentally, do you know who the equity exchange was for? In return for Linzi going to Broadway. The exchange was within the production. The American cast, including Charlotte D'amboise, Gene Anthony Ray, Barbara Cook were allowed to cone to Stratford, and for UK cast, e.g Linzi Hateley and Sally Ann Triplett to go to Broadway. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 19, 2021 11:41:21 GMT
Not necessarily. I don't know what has happened in the process in this particular case, but I do know from experience that the idea of the best auditionee getting the part is wishful thinking. In an ideal world, the casting director and panel will see people from all races and backgrounds then pick the best audition regardless of anything other than their performance. In reality things are enormously different. Specifically; - Producer mandates. Producers can have an enormous say behind the scenes on casting policy. It all comes down to status, ego and strength of personality. Some are happy to trust their creatives (David Ian) others are very hands on (Cameron). If hypothetically the US producers of this show insisted on US actors, because they trust them more than British ones, there could be a reason. - Nepotism, jobs for friends, Director's favourites. Casting couch. "There is always a part in the show for the producer's girlfriend/boyfriend". This happens a hell of a lot more even in 2021 than people are willing to admit. In the Dear Evan Hansen movie - it's no coincidence that Ben Platt's Uncle is Marc Platt, the producer of the movie. - Shared agents. The most common. Theatrical agents will recommend talent and offer their services, potentially with reduced finders fees as an incentive to take them alongside the talent they specifically wanted. This is extremely common. Ever noticed how certain performers seem to pop up in shows together multiple times? Check their representation. Chances are they share an agency and are reliable. Might not be the best auditionee (or have even auditioned!) but sure saves money and gives stability. In short, the best people aren't always cast and often for reasons which we might consider less than artistically driven. I’m afraid there’s a lot of misinformation here, and I don’t want to spend ages arguing nuances of casting but one thing I feel needs to be addressed in case young actors are reading this nonsense and believe it is that I have professional first hand experience of the casting process on many shows in the west end and I have NEVER heard of an actor getting a part because they share an agent with another actor. Most of the time the director will never know who the agent is (because, why would they need to know or care?) and the producer won’t know who the agent is until after the offer is made and they begin negotiations and issuing contracts. Of course, if you are an agent with one client auditioning for a show or being offered a show then of course you are then engaged with that casting process and may suggest other clients for other roles, but once an actor is auditioning it’s got nothing to do with their agent whatsoever. A better agent may have stronger relationships with casting directors so may get you better auditions, and they may negotiate you higher fees but the one thing they can’t do is win a job for you. Once you’re in the room it’s all on you. I also don’t understand what is meant by this saving money - each actor is paid a salary, via their agent who takes a percentage. It makes no financial difference whether a producer is paying 15 different agents or 15 actors via one agent. I also have professional first hand experience of the casting process. I have known agents to negotiate lower salary for a pair of clients if they are taken together. It makes absolute sense for all parties involved, AND the actors. Producers pay less. Agent doubles income. Actors get work. I am sorry, you can rubbish what I am saying but this is absolutely true and I have experienced it myself within theatre production. As for all the other points I made, I'm sorry to discuss the "dark arts" here. I know it offends people's sensibilities that the W.E isn't this shiny, happy paragon of virtue where everyone is made of rainbows. But again, I've experienced both of those examples personally and heard similar from close colleagues too. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 19, 2021 11:42:02 GMT
Not necessarily. I don't know what has happened in the process in this particular case, but I do know from experience that the idea of the best auditionee getting the part is wishful thinking. In an ideal world, the casting director and panel will see people from all races and backgrounds then pick the best audition regardless of anything other than their performance. In reality things are enormously different. Specifically; - Producer mandates. Producers can have an enormous say behind the scenes on casting policy. It all comes down to status, ego and strength of personality. Some are happy to trust their creatives (David Ian) others are very hands on (Cameron). If hypothetically the US producers of this show insisted on US actors, because they trust them more than British ones, there could be a reason. - Nepotism, jobs for friends, Director's favourites. Casting couch. "There is always a part in the show for the producer's girlfriend/boyfriend". This happens a hell of a lot more even in 2021 than people are willing to admit. In the Dear Evan Hansen movie - it's no coincidence that Ben Platt's Uncle is Marc Platt, the producer of the movie. - Shared agents. The most common. Theatrical agents will recommend talent and offer their services, potentially with reduced finders fees as an incentive to take them alongside the talent they specifically wanted. This is extremely common. Ever noticed how certain performers seem to pop up in shows together multiple times? Check their representation. Chances are they share an agency and are reliable. Might not be the best auditionee (or have even auditioned!) but sure saves money and gives stability. In short, the best people aren't always cast and often for reasons which we might consider less than artistically driven. Marc Platt is Ben’s Father btw. I stand corrected. That makes all the difference. |
|
2,417 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Sept 19, 2021 13:27:22 GMT
Ben Platt's father being a co-producer of the DEH film has nothing to do with why Ben was cast in it. Ben was cast because he originated the role on Broadway, he's been with the production since the workshop, he has a massive fan base, he's brilliant in the role and he won the Tony for it. He IS Evan.
|
|
5,817 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Sept 19, 2021 13:41:08 GMT
Ben Platt's father being a co-producer of the DEH film has nothing to do with why Ben was cast in it. Ben was cast because he originated the role on Broadway, he's been with the production since the workshop, he has a massive fan base, he's brilliant in the role and he won the Tony for it. He IS Evan. He was BRILLIANT in the role on stage.. and rightfully won the Tony. But he shouldn’t have been cast in the film IMO- his looking much older has been a fatal distraction to the film (and the wig). They should have cast an unknown in the role and given someone else the chance of that break. |
|
2,417 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Sept 19, 2021 13:59:41 GMT
I'm watching the film tonight so I'll report back, but for me he's so strongly linked to that role, I can look past the wig and the age.
Back to Moulin Rouge, the casting doesn't excite me at all, so I'll catch it next year once the hype has died down a bit.
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 19, 2021 14:24:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 19, 2021 14:57:59 GMT
He also wears prosthetics to look younger, which are a bit in the uncanny valley for my taste..
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Sept 19, 2021 17:15:25 GMT
I’m afraid there’s a lot of misinformation here, and I don’t want to spend ages arguing nuances of casting but one thing I feel needs to be addressed in case young actors are reading this nonsense and believe it is that I have professional first hand experience of the casting process on many shows in the west end and I have NEVER heard of an actor getting a part because they share an agent with another actor. Most of the time the director will never know who the agent is (because, why would they need to know or care?) and the producer won’t know who the agent is until after the offer is made and they begin negotiations and issuing contracts. Of course, if you are an agent with one client auditioning for a show or being offered a show then of course you are then engaged with that casting process and may suggest other clients for other roles, but once an actor is auditioning it’s got nothing to do with their agent whatsoever. A better agent may have stronger relationships with casting directors so may get you better auditions, and they may negotiate you higher fees but the one thing they can’t do is win a job for you. Once you’re in the room it’s all on you. I also don’t understand what is meant by this saving money - each actor is paid a salary, via their agent who takes a percentage. It makes no financial difference whether a producer is paying 15 different agents or 15 actors via one agent. I also have professional first hand experience of the casting process. I have known agents to negotiate lower salary for a pair of clients if they are taken together. It makes absolute sense for all parties involved, AND the actors. Producers pay less. Agent doubles income. Actors get work. I am sorry, you can rubbish what I am saying but this is absolutely true and I have experienced it myself within theatre production. As for all the other points I made, I'm sorry to discuss the "dark arts" here. I know it offends people's sensibilities that the W.E isn't this shiny, happy paragon of virtue where everyone is made of rainbows. But again, I've experienced both of those examples personally and heard similar from close colleagues too. Ok, I’ll bite… I’ll admit that my experience is more of plays than musicals and I don’t know the ins and outs of large ensemble casting for musicals. BUT the idea that a director would be persuaded to cast someone in a principal role that they didn’t want to because an agent of another actor said they’d do a deal is just absurd. As I say, 99% of the time the director has no idea who the agent of the actor they are meeting is. On a relatively separate note, it makes me much more excited to see this show that there isn’t an obvious “name” in the company. It makes me think that the producers and director trust the show name to pique initial interest and the relatively unknown cast to get the reviews and word of mouth to make it a hit. Fingers crossed anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 19, 2021 18:11:10 GMT
I also have professional first hand experience of the casting process. I have known agents to negotiate lower salary for a pair of clients if they are taken together. It makes absolute sense for all parties involved, AND the actors. Producers pay less. Agent doubles income. Actors get work. I am sorry, you can rubbish what I am saying but this is absolutely true and I have experienced it myself within theatre production. As for all the other points I made, I'm sorry to discuss the "dark arts" here. I know it offends people's sensibilities that the W.E isn't this shiny, happy paragon of virtue where everyone is made of rainbows. But again, I've experienced both of those examples personally and heard similar from close colleagues too. Ok, I’ll bite… I’ll admit that my experience is more of plays than musicals and I don’t know the ins and outs of large ensemble casting for musicals. BUT the idea that a director would be persuaded to cast someone in a principal role that they didn’t want to because an agent of another actor said they’d do a deal is just absurd. As I say, 99% of the time the director has no idea who the agent of the actor they are meeting is. On a relatively separate note, it makes me much more excited to see this show that there isn’t an obvious “name” in the company. It makes me think that the producers and director trust the show name to pique initial interest and the relatively unknown cast to get the reviews and word of mouth to make it a hit. Fingers crossed anyway. The show doesn't appeal to me anyway, I don't usually dig jukebox musicals. I'll see it I'm sure in due course. Also, I never brought up principal roles and have no experience of that happening either. I've seen some very dodgy casting, where leads "happen" to be dating the director, but I have no evidence it wasn't related to their ability or, crucially, no reason to libel anyone. It was just one of many examples I made, originally disputing a point made that "the best people get the part". They don't. And I can absolutely 100% promise you certain directors in big musicals nowadays can be nothing more than creatives, whose job is to work with that they've got to bring the show to life in the rehearsal room and on stage. Sometimes they have little to no say on casting decisions. If you want an obvious recent example which is in the public domain, so I am not breaking any confidences or ethics here, look at Lucy St. Louis. Andrew Lloyd Webber stated she had personally sung Christine several times over lockdown, and he cast her off the back of that. Would she have been Seth Sklar-Hehn's choice? Who cares. Producer mandated. Point one AND two in my original post about this. (The "favourites" aspect, not anything untoward). |
|
5,817 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Sept 19, 2021 18:21:57 GMT
The point is that some directors are too powerful to take orders from producers- Sam Mendes… Nicholas Hytner… Marianne Elliot.. and Alex Timbers.
THEY have the final say on casting, and any decent producer who wants the best creatively for the show- listens to the director they have employed.
Lots of lower rank directors like whichever associate does Cameron’s and Andrews shows now just do what they are told. Harsh but true.
Casting the 45th cast change of Phantom is nothing like casting a London premiere of a new Broadway hit musical. Directed by a hugely respected director.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 19, 2021 18:31:42 GMT
The point is that some directors are too powerful to take orders from producers- Sam Mendes… Nicholas Hytner… Marianne Elliot.. and Alex Timbers. THEY have the final say on casting, and any decent producer who wants the best creatively for the show- listens to the director they have employed. Lots of lower rank directors like whichever associate does Cameron’s and Andrews shows now just do what they are told. Harsh but true. Casting the 45th cast change of Phantom is nothing like casting a London premiere of a new Broadway hit musical. Directed by a hugely respected director. I don't know the specifics of this case so I bow to your knowledge. I'm just commenting on standard industry practice. It's a cynical world out there. The theatre world needs more Hytner's and Adrian Noble's. What we don't need is a theatre version of Weinstein exposing the murky underbelly. Or do we? |
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 19, 2021 19:29:03 GMT
Although some people do become associated with companies don't they? I think I've seen Charlotte Wakefield in three different Music & Lyrics tours which seems a bit much for random chance!
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 19, 2021 20:11:09 GMT
Although some people do become associated with companies don't they? I think I've seen Charlotte Wakefield in three different Music & Lyrics tours which seems a bit much for random chance! Producers favourites...  |
|
