the sound of music live

[JanaDee]

But Carrie Underwood is a professional and successful singer...

It was glaringly obvious the differences in vocal training between Underwood and the rest of the actors.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Well I have eaten at restaurants that are celebrated as being the best and I did not like the food as much as I like some of my mother's dishes. So yes we like what we like.

The American public, record sales and concert turn outs show that time and again many people do not value perfect vocal technique. That may be very important to you but not to everyone else.

That is very much their prerogative to enjoy being entertained by subpar vocal technique. But that doesn't make it on equal footing with excellent singing.

I love the indigo girls. I have tons of their cd's, listen to them all the time. I love the songs, I live the music, and I love listening to them sing. Are they excellent singers? Absolutely not! Are they nice and entertaining to listen to? Yes! They are very successful at what they do. But no one would ever compare their singing - although they are professional singers - to, for example, Audra McDonald. And I'm sure they are aware and fine with that!

Sent from me.

 

[JaneBanks]

It was glaringly obvious the differences in vocal training between Underwood and the rest of the actors.

Of course. Why are people acting like this is a surprise?

This is what I don't understand. Knowing that Carrie Underwood is not a professional stage actress, why are people expecting her to be one? Was she supposed to transform in to Julie Andrews over night? Just because she didn't, she needs to be ripped to shreds? It's not like she went out there and sung like a cat in heat. She sand wonderfully. Her acting could have been better but it's not like she was a fumbling idiot. She did a great job for what it was.

Not everyone is going to enjoy her performance, that's obvious and I'm not trying to change minds but man, some of these critiques are pretty harsh. IMO.

Just wanted to say this post isn't directed towards the person I quoted. It was meant in general.

 

[JaneBanks]

That is very much their prerogative to enjoy being entertained by subpar vocal technique. But that doesn't make it on equal footing with excellent singing.

I love the indigo girls. I have tons of their cd's, listen to them all the time. I love the songs, I live the music, and I love listening to them sing. Are they excellent singers? Absolutely not! Are they nice and entertaining to listen to? Yes! They are very successful at what they do. But no one would ever compare their singing - although they are professional singers - to, for example, Audra McDonald. And I'm sure they are aware and fine with that!

Sent from me.

The only people comparing Carrie's singing to the professionals are her critics. At least, in this thread.

 

[lisaviolet]

I haven't read the entire thread but a few thoughts:

*I never expected that much from Carrie Underwood, as she's not an actress and Julie Andrews in that role well, enough said. So it didn't put me off that much.

*Plus, in addition to seeing Broadway performances in NYC and that level of theatre here, I see a lot of community theatre. And that's the thought process I had for it, re: Carrie. She's not an actress or trained vocalist in that sense. So I had beginner thoughts for her a la community theatre. Sometimes actors are incredible and sometimes they are new and getting a hang of it. And some are awful.

I was surprised that I got past her inexperience to watch it, and enjoy it, but I did.

Now the fact that I did made me realize one thing:

I adore Christopher Plummer.

I missed their chemistry, I missed his intense sexuality in his being and playing that role. I missed his bravado and his flicker of vulnerability in those quiet moments.

I missed the gleam in his eyes. And his sarcastic play.

He's a Canadian treasure. Even at his advanced age, he is one sexy man.

Who knew? If you had asked me what was The Sound of Music to me, I would have said Julie Andrews. Nope. It really is him just as much or more for me after seeing this production. (Stephen Moyer? can't blame him - he didn't have a chance with me and zero chemistry with her didn't help)

Also, I realized that even as a child it bothered me how they seemed to portray Maria as young and naive when Julie Andrews didn't seem remotely either.

 

[dminnie]

I forgot to say I also really didn't like the wedding dress...it looked much too modern. Of course, nothing was going to compete with Julie Andrews' dress in the movie.

Plus, the dress didn't even fit her. It was too big around her chest. I really didn't think it looked good on her. They could have done a much better job on the costuming in general. That is not due to it being on live tv. The costuming seemed like a huge miss.

I give her credit for doing it. It's not a easy role with l very ittle or no acting experience.
I thought the captain was worse! Most of the cast was bad, so it's not all on Carrie.

She was very stiff. It seemed like she was just reading the lines with no emotion through the whole thing. The same for the guy playing Captain Von Trapp. It was just stiff and not a very convincing performance at all. The only person I thought did a great job at acting (other than a couple of the kids) was his fiance.

Carrie Underwood was their star power and I don't feel bad for her to be criticized for this performance. She should have prepared more for it given how much she was probably being paid to do it. Many amateurs probably work harder at their performances than she did for this.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

The only people comparing Carrie's singing to the professionals are her critics. At least, in this thread.

She's the one that got on a stage full of professionals in front of millions of people. I was skeptical, but I thought we'll they didn't just randomly draw her name out of a hat of young pretty pop stars, so she must be good? Well I was very disappointed! And for what it's worth, all I said was her singing was bad until the question was asked a few pages back "who could possibly think her singing was bad" and then I gave my analysis as someone with education in the field.

I get that millions of people like her. I'm not saying you shouldn't. If that is your taste, that is your taste. But don't insult a profession of people who work hard at their skill for years and years and years by saying that (paraphrasing) "I like what I like and you like what you like and they are both just as good.". This is not directed personally at anyone. But I recognize that my taste in art might be different from someone who spent years studying it. That does not make my 6 year old's drawings "just as good" as Pollock.

Sent from me.

 

[brookepleins]

Maria (the real Maria) was 22 when she married Captain Von Trapp. Julie Andrews was 30 when she played the part and Carrie Underwood was 30 as well. If anyone is interested, the following books are about the real Maria and the Von Trapp family: The Story of the Trapp Family Singers (1949)
Around the Year with the Trapp Family (1955)
A Family on Wheels: Further Adventures of the Trapp Family Singers (c. 1959)
Yesterday, Today and Forever: The Religious Life of a Remarkable Family (1952)
Maria (1972)

 

[amg35]

She's the one that got on a stage full of professionals in front of millions of people. I was skeptical, but I thought we'll they didn't just randomly draw her name out of a hat of young pretty pop stars, so she must be good? Well I was very disappointed! And for what it's worth, all I said was her singing was bad until the question was asked a few pages back "who could possibly think her singing was bad" and then I gave my analysis as someone with education in the field.

I get that millions of people like her. I'm not saying you shouldn't. If that is your taste, that is your taste. But don't insult a profession of people who work hard at their skill for years and years and years by saying that (paraphrasing) "I like what I like and you like what you like and they are both just as good.". This is not directed personally at anyone. But I recognize that my taste in art might be different from someone who spent years studying it. That does not make my 6 year old's drawings "just as good" as Pollock.

Sent from me.

I have to ask this in all seriousness, you seem very upset by this whole thing based on all your posts in this thread, beyond just not enjoying a television show on a Thursday night.

Why?

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Deb in IA mentioned the flub and thought it was unprofessional.

I don't see it that way. This was, after all, the first time the cast actually performed the show.


In the mid 90's Sarah Jessica Parker starred in a revival of "Once Upon A Mattress". (The original production helped make Carol Burnett a star.) I was lucky enough to see the show in previews, and again after it opened.



The show was much better the second time around, the performances stronger. The cast was more comfortable in their roles.

When I saw the preview performance, Parker flubbed the lyrics of a song called "Happily Ever After". Blanked out on two lines. She was alone on the stage for that song, so couldn't be "rescued" by another cast member.

She looked at the audience, shrugged her shoulders, said "previews" and moved on.

And tge second time I saw "Phantom of the Opera" two of the minor characters flubbed some dialogue. I would never have known it if I hadn't seen the show before and memorized the cast album.


My point is, it happens mote often than you think,

 

[JaneBanks]

She's the one that got on a stage full of professionals in front of millions of people. I was skeptical, but I thought we'll they didn't just randomly draw her name out of a hat of young pretty pop stars, so she must be good? Well I was very disappointed! And for what it's worth, all I said was her singing was bad until the question was asked a few pages back "who could possibly think her singing was bad" and then I gave my analysis as someone with education in the field.

I get that millions of people like her. I'm not saying you shouldn't. If that is your taste, that is your taste. But don't insult a profession of people who work hard at their skill for years and years and years by saying that (paraphrasing) "I like what I like and you like what you like and they are both just as good.". This is not directed personally at anyone. But I recognize that my taste in art might be different from someone who spent years studying it. That does not make my 6 year old's drawings "just as good" as Pollock.

Sent from me.

So what you're saying is, is that people who disagree with your opinion are insulting to the profession?

"I like what I like and you like what you like" isn't insulting. That's art. That's subjectivity. Art is subjective.

 

[DWGal210]

So what you're saying is, is that people who disagree with your opinion are insulting to the profession?

"I like what I like and you like what you like" isn't insulting. That's art. That's subjectivity. Art is subjective.

I agree. I don't want to be argumentative but simply because a person has lots of training and/or experience in a particular art form doesn't mean the opinions of those who don't don't matter. I can appreciate someone saying "I am a singer / painter / dancer / writer etc and in my opinion....." but I don't like the notion that unless you're a professional, you can't participate in the discussion or have an opinion.

I'm a singer as well, I think a pretty good one. I've been singing since I was in junior high and have both amateur and professional-level experience. I don't say that to brag, only to provide context. I don't think that because I have experience in the field, that my opinion has more weight than anyone elses. For example - I don't particularly like Bob Dylan's voice. I don't see what the fuss is about Mick Jagger, either. Heck, there are many celebrated and lauded singers that I don't care for. HOWEVER, those are my opinions and even though I sing that doesn't mean they aren't good - they just aren't my taste.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

I wasn’t aware of the broadcast until about 3 days ago, when I saw the thread here.

Speaking from my theatre experience (done many little theatre shows – drama as well as musicals, and the fact that I’m a devoted musical/comedy aficionado) here’s my take.

I’ve seen both live stage productions of this show, as well as the movie several times.

I agree that the “over-acting” is really an effect of a stage production. The necessity to be broader in your gestures as well as crisp diction in order to be seen and heard in a large theatre makes it so. Unfortunately, these devices are not a necessary when performing a “live stage production” on the small screen.

I wasn’t able to see the whole show, although I was able to catch most of it. Part of the reason was I couldn’t stand the woodenness of (mostly) Carrie Underwood. She has a good voice and did the songs well. But the acting just wasn’t there. Her movements around the stage seemed very “I have to be here next”, and her delivery of the lines was really kind of monotone. Like “I have a line to say here”. Not really much emotion. I also felt that the Captain wasn’t much of a singer.

I also agree that the Captain/Maria age difference just wasn’t there. Even though, in reality, there is a gap, it just didn’t play that way.

And, while I agree the Mother Superior had a fantastic voice, she was too young (looking) for the part. And I’m in the camp that a black Mother Superior was really a glaring error in casting.

I didn’t really catch the dropped lines, but I did feel the scene where the Captain was being given his commission was really rough, like they hadn’t had enough rehearsal.

Overall, I watched as much as I could, until I couldn't stand it any longer, and then changed channels. I would put the effort on the skill level of a junior high school performance.

 

[Deb in IA]

Deb in IA mentioned the flub and thought it was unprofessional.

I don't see it that way. This was, after all, the first time the cast actually performed the show.


In the mid 90's Sarah Jessica Parker starred in a revival of "Once Upon A Mattress". (The original production helped make Carol Burnett a star.) I was lucky enough to see the show in previews, and again after it opened.



The show was much better the second time around, the performances stronger. The cast was more comfortable in their roles.

When I saw the preview performance, Parker flubbed the lyrics of a song called "Happily Ever After". Blanked out on two lines. She was alone on the stage for that song, so couldn't be "rescued" by another cast member.

She looked at the audience, shrugged her shoulders, said "previews" and moved on.

And tge second time I saw "Phantom of the Opera" two of the minor characters flubbed some dialogue. I would never have known it if I hadn't seen the show before and memorized the cast album.


My point is, it happens mote often than you think,

My DH actually saw that show with Sarah Jessica Parker!

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your point, and if this were a typical, 8-performance a week show, I can agree. Repetition can cause lapses of concentration, which is usually when flubs happen. But it was a one-shot deal, and I expect the actors to all be laser-focused and hit all their cues and marks. And I know this was their first performance, but they surely have rehearsed and rehearsed for it.

Just difference of opinion . . .

 

[Lorelei Lee]

My DH actually saw that show with Sarah Jessica Parker!

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your point, and if this were a typical, 8-performance a week show, I can agree. Repetition can cause lapses of concentration, which is usually when flubs happen. But it was a one-shot deal, and I expect the actors to all be laser-focused and hit all their cues and marks. And I know this was their first performance, but they surely have rehearsed and rehearsed for it.

Just difference of opinion . . .

I am sure that I could probably find lots of evidence of flubs back in tge days of live TV by professional and well rehearsed actors.

 

[Disneylover99]

Well I just finished watching it now and loved it! It was fun and I enjoyed everyone's performance and loved all the songs.

 

[Katlyn]

Well I just finished watching it now and loved it! It was fun and I enjoyed everyone's performance and loved all the songs.

I'm watching it now and enjoying it too

 

[Imzadi]

I'm sorry, but that is hysterical.....yeah, cause that's why I'm not going to see a show on Broadway. Because of a TV show. Uh, no.
I think people a just a little bit smarter than that. Maybe a lot smarter than that. I mean seriously, it's Broadway.

Considering some of the opinions on this thread alone, of people defending a subpar performance as good, and a couple people saying that it's true they don't get to see much live theatre in "Middle America," and others saying they didn't really pay attention to the Tony Award winning performers as they didn't know who they are, I stand by my statement. I don't think some people have a clue as to what excellent live theatre is. AND there is a couple people saying we shouldn't even have a standard for that if we aren't professionals.

Heck, the international Olympics coverage should be cancelled, and only the actual, professional athletes & judges should watch or comment.

Of course. Why are people acting like this is a surprise?

This is what I don't understand. Knowing that Carrie Underwood is not a professional stage actress, why are people expecting her to be one? Was she supposed to transform in to Julie Andrews over night? Just because she didn't, she needs to be ripped to shreds? It's not like she went out there and sung like a cat in heat. She sand wonderfully. Her acting could have been better but it's not like she was a fumbling idiot. She did a great job for what it was.

You and others are saying why compare her to Julie Andrews? You do know that Julie Andrews is not Maria von Trapp. This wasn't an autobiography of Julie Andrews. Even Julie Andrews was cast in the production and she was expected to be able to actas well as sing. Julie Andrews CAN sing AND act. As did Mary Martin. Both of them were hired to do both jobs equally well, and they did it.

Why shouldn't that same expectation and standard apply to Carrie Underwood? Especially when she takes on a show that was performed on national TV, not community theatre. And if you say there is no high standards for TV, there is the primetime Emmy Awards.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Apparently no one should ever study voice at all, or any other instrument. Lets do away with all music training, dance training, acting classes, art school, anything that is "subjective." It is pointless to try to excel at any such skill because everyone's tastes are different. Fire all the art critics, film critics, and food critics. No more culinary school either. Some people prefer canned biscuits and Kraft Mac and cheese and who is anyone else to say that it isn't good?

Sent from me.

 

[Jennasis]

Apparently no one should ever study voice at all, or any other instrument. Lets do away with all music training, dance training, acting classes, art school, anything that is "subjective." It is pointless to try to excel at any such skill because everyone's tastes are different. Fire all the art critics, film critics, and food critics. No more culinary school either. Some people prefer canned biscuits and Kraft Mac and cheese and who is anyone else to say that it isn't good?

Sent from me.

Study all you want, but at the end of the day the PRODUCT (the voice, the music, the art) is completely subjective to those who are listening to/viewing it. You can be FANTASTIC at playing the theremin, but it still sounds like a dying cat to some. And so on.

I once got blasted by a "musical academic" for my unabashed non-enjoyment of early experimental Coltrane jazz. It sounded like the orchestra on the Muppet Show warming up before the show starts. Just not my thing.

But I like Nickelback. Go figure.

It's entirely possible that Carrie and others in the cast didn't do a stellar job, AND some folks STILL enjoyed it. Neither right, nor wrong.