|
|
Post by Daisy on Dec 5, 2006 12:54:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tanith Messenger on Dec 5, 2006 22:17:12 GMT
Great thanks hun  |
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Dec 9, 2006 15:38:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lynda on Dec 9, 2006 16:26:28 GMT
OMG I dont believe what is written about Richard Meek. The critic must need glasses and a hearing aid.
|
|
|
|
Post by alison on Dec 9, 2006 17:46:42 GMT
To be fair to the critic, we know he won't have seen Rich at his best, unfortunately. If he'd made that comment after seeing him on top form, I'd have been the first to run screaming after him telling him he must be deaf, heh. On the other hand, I firmly believe that even not quite at his best he's still very very good indeed.
The "not a star lead" comment, on the other hand ... are you sure you saw the same Richard Meek as the rest of us, Mr Sharpe? Are you sure it wasn't the Richard Meek who runs Richard Meek Computer Services in Torquay? Or the Richard Meek who is a lecturer at Lancaster University? Because the Richard Meek I know has star quality by the bucketload, and every time I've seen him - no matter how bad he might have been feeling - that much has been glaringly obvious.
But I shall do the mature thing, Mr Sharpe. I won't suggest that I wonder whether you are simply cursed with pure bad taste. I certainly won't imply that as an entirely unbiased theatre fan who absolutely raved about Rich after first seeing him in the role, my opinion is any more valid than yours, because we both know it isn't. I shall simply point out that Kieran's surname is spelled "Jae" and Russel's character is "Napthali". Should I assume that since you have made two obvious spelling mistakes in that article, you always make such errors?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Dec 9, 2006 21:22:12 GMT
Woo Hoo! Sock it to 'em Alison! I was waiting for your response to that one! Couldn't agree with you more, except I think what the odd reviewing man means is that the role is stronger than the 'name' that plays the part - you don't need a 'star' (i.e. a well-known name) to play the part - the writing is so good that a competent singer could do it justice. I don't think he means Ricahrd hasn't got star quality.  Oh, this is too deep. Does it matter?! NO!  Nice for Kieran and Russel to get a mention instead of the regulars!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Lynda on Dec 9, 2006 21:26:57 GMT
I couldnt have put it better myself girls
|
|
|
|
Post by alison on Dec 9, 2006 21:40:42 GMT
Yeah, I think you're probably right, Daisy. I'd quite like to make him say it though, considering that either way he wasn't exactly complimentary about Rich (who I am far too defensive of, but hey, I have an excuse). And besides, if he's not got enough sense to make sure there aren't any basic errors in his review before it's published, he deserves all he gets. It's called professionalism.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tanith Messenger on Dec 9, 2006 22:14:13 GMT
Oooooo this sounds like an interesting review must go see .....brb hehe
|
|
|
|
Post by Tanith Messenger on Dec 9, 2006 22:17:59 GMT
Back Hmmm very oddly written, 1965? ? hmm first Jo was in 1968 and Im sure they didnt meet much b4 then, maybe im worng....should know this shouldnt I lol which reminds me I MUST DO TIM RICE's section of the site, he gave me premssion a fair few years ago  oops You know I wish sometimes reviews would mention the non- star Joseph's they deserve a mention too!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Dec 11, 2006 13:32:19 GMT
Ooh, this is a lovely one, a review for Sheffield and in the nationals too! A special present for Kieran's birthday! In today's issue of the Independent, page 22 of the Extra section. If anyone wants it scanned, then I'm sure the lovely Lynda will post it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lynda on Dec 11, 2006 14:03:49 GMT
Think that is the best review I have every read. Only wish reporter would take a digital camera and get the correct cast pictured.
|
|
|
|
Post by alison on Dec 11, 2006 14:25:33 GMT
I definitely like this one. Although not 100% convinced about the Gene Pitney comment, but never mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lynda on Dec 11, 2006 14:30:07 GMT
Thanks Alison. Pic from 2004
|
|
oops