Marshall came to “Side by Side by Sondheim” Sunday afternoon- and for much of the week before that, as we were working through final rehearsals, I kept thinking about how nervous I was about what he was going to think and fervently hoping that he would like it. When it comes to anything theatrical, Marshall is just about the most astute, discerning person I know. He is not easy to please in such things, but when he likes something he really let’s you know- unlike some people who just never seem to allow any such experiences to penetrate them at all. In other words, some “critics” seem completely incapable of enjoying anything at all. If they were present for the first Christmas, they would sniff “decent storyline, if a little corny- but I would have had four or five Wise Men instead of three – and what was with all those farm animals?” What I love about Marshall the Critic is that he is open-hearted about everything he sees- whether he hates it, loves it, or has mixed feelings about it. But his response is not buried under a veneer of jadedness or a sour attitude of “just try to impress me.” Nor is everything “the most wonderful blah blah blah I’ve ever seen!” which of course renders the compliments of such a person pretty much meaningless. He comes at everything with an air of expectedness – hoping to enjoy it and to be impressed, but not to give anything a Free Pass. I hope that’s my attitude, as well, when I go to things- but what makes Marshall’s critical verdict more meaningful than mine is that he knows so much more than I do. . . and a compliment from him about something theatrical is like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval times a thousand.
Thinking about this reminds me of something said to me back at Luther (so more than a quarter of a century ago.) A friend of ours who was not a music major but who attended a lot of recitals sat next to us one night, and after eavesdropping on our blow-by-blow appraisal of the recital – which songs we liked and didn’t liked , the singer’s strong and weak points, etc. – she said “I’m sure glad I just come to these and enjoy them.” I know what she was saying, and it’s a free country – but to me there’s nothing more enjoyable than seeing or hearing something and then analyzing/ discussing it. What was good? What was not so good? I like to do it with movies, with plays and concerts and operas, with TV shows, with sermons. . . even my dad’s stories. It’s a way to enjoy the experience a bit longer. Of course, such a thing can go too far and there are certain situations where one’s critical eye and ear should be left at home – like a goddaughter’s dance recital or a niece’s serenade at the dinner table. But for just about anything else, that’s part of the whole point of it. When you’ve just sat through something truly awful, it’s somehow comforting and therapeutic to talk about its awfulness. And when you’ve experienced something wonderful (like the first Harry Potter film, which Marshall and I both adored) talking about it makes the pleasure linger somehow. Or at least that’s how it works for me.
Anyway, he loved Side by Side by Sondheim – and hearing that verdict from him meant every bit as much as the standing ovations which have followed each and every performance.
(I’m just realizing that this is three blog entries in a row about Side by Side, but it’s one of those experiences that just swallows up everything else. I promise to write tomorrow about power tools or the Trader Joe’s Vodka Pasta Sauce I had for supper last night.)
By the way, here’s a cute line about professional critics which Sherrill Milnes quoted at the Nashville NATS convention: “Critics are to Music what Pidgeons are to Statues.” As the CD Critic for the Journal of Singing, I strenuously object! But I still laughed.
pictured: Marshall on one of his most recent visits, with Bobbi and Ellie.