It's overly bashed, but I get the feeling thats because of comments like this...



First off, the whole cap locks exclamation stuff just makes the fans seem childish, and they really go to quickly to there superlatives. This person likely hasn't seen all that many musicals (certainly not ALL of them of "ALL TIME"),

Its a better show than most give it credit for, but it is still highly flawed. The original cast was amazing, but the production just didnt live up to its cast (come on, Norbert Leo Butz, Chenoweth and Menzel...and NOT an awesome show? ). A lot of the lyrics are really not so hot, but thats pretty common from shwartz, the book itself is pretty badly written, and the message and moral content of it are just pretty weak and uninspired (especially compared to the original book). The music taste is personal I guess, but really I get the feeling lots of it is overrated. It appeals to those who like musical theatre and pop sort of stuff, but even at that Schwartz isnt the best (The Last 5 Yeras has lotsa Jazz/R&B/Pop influence stuff and IMO is vastly superior).

Also...the belting. No show to my knowledge has inspired as much vocal damage as this one.

Overall I give it a 6 outta 10. Not a bad show, but not what I'd call a good one either. Quite a disapointment (as I only give something below a 5 out of 10 if I hate it enough to not want to see it, and I love seeing musicals even if they arnt terribly good). If I factor in the fan response and overhypness and how big a letdown it is concidering the original cast, I'd give it a 4 out of 10.

~The Lone Wanderer

I think the orchestrations of Wicked are more problematic than the score itself. There's no real set of "ground rules" that the score sets for itself in terms of musical vocabulary and influences seem to be randomly drawn from all over the place without ever fusing into an integrated whole. And the further the sound moves into the world of synthesisers, the more overblown and bombastic it seems. I think that better, less synthetic orchestrations would have served the show a lot better.

Later days
David

A great show, I'd totally see it again, but some of the actors who came after the originals just don't cut it, you know?

i have a quick question about wicked. who is the "official" lead role? elphie or galinda/glinda? i THINK it's elphaba, cuz i think she has more singing and stuff, but i'm not a hundred per cent sure.

I would say Elphaba, though I haven't officially seen it yet. It seems that the show revolves mostly around her, although Galinda is an extremely close second.

Y'know, sometimes there are just shows that don't have specific leads. Take Lennon, f'rinstance. And Wicked is just one of those shows. I believe, though, that it's a tie between Elphie and Galinda.

Both roles are leads. However, it's supposed to be Elphaba's story.

I think Wicked is like Chicago in that the show has two evenly matched leading roles - the show works best when two actresses of comparable talent perform the roles together.

Later days
David

Elphaba is the lead while Galinda comes in as more of a narrator-type role. She has the opening number, whatever the hell it's called. She's supposed to be telling the story or whatever. Kinda like how Joseph is the lead in Dreamcoat while the Narrator, though she gets just as many/more songs, is not.

Now I'd disagree totally - why shouldn't a character be considered a lead role because they narrate the story? Both Galinda and the Narrator are lead roles because without them, there would be no show in the first place. Both characters are at the core of their repsective narratives.

Later days
David

It's supposed to be Elphaba and G(a)linda, but I still think Elphaba steals the show... it's more Elphaba's story than G(a)linda's.

A point you have. But narrators, usually, don't technically count as characters in the show itself. They only occaisionally interact with other characters (The Cat in the Hat, the Narrator (Joseph)). Glinda doesn't even. She's just a part of her own story, and not as big of a part as Elphaba at that.