Review - Kristina Concert at Carnegie Hall

I'm in New York for a two-show quickie. Last night I saw Kristina in concert at Carnegie Hall, and tonight I'm taking in a preview of the new musical Memphis. Look for my review of the latter sometimes after October 19th. (Press embargo, don'tcha know.) 

Kristina had been intriguing me for quite some time. As you may know, the show began its life in Sweden in 1996 as Kristina Från Duvemåla, which became the biggest hit musical in Swedish history. (Exactly how many hit Swedish musicals have there been?) The show is based on the novels of Vilhelm Moberg, and concerns a group of Swedish farmers who immigrate to America during the 19th century.

The score for Kristina is by Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson, of ABBA and Mamma Mia! fame. Yeah, I know, whatever. But I'm a huge fan of Chess, for which Ulvaeus and Andersson also provided the music, so I was hoping Kristina would fulfill the melodious promise of that tragically flawed musical.

Alas, no.

I knew there was trouble afoot when the show began with 10-plus minutes of bald-faced expressions of love by the two main characters of the show, Kristina (Helen Sjöholm), and her soon-to-be husband Oskar (Russell Watson). Thrown into the opening mix were some Greek-chorus-like chorale passages reminiscent of "Merano," the fun but un-stage-able opening number to Chess. The thoroughly static storytelling in the opening sequence brought me in mind of The Pirate Queen. (Note to show creators: you never want to put anyone in mind of The Pirate Queen.)

Things didn't get much better from there. The music to Kristina isn't all that bad; in fact, some of it is quite stirring. But the show is almost entirely sung-through, featuring huge swaths of bland recitative. The main problem with the show is that the authors didn't seem to have a firm grasp on what to musicalize. There is genuine drama to be found in this story, but the authors haven't yet found a way to bring it out. They really could have used an experienced librettist, or a strong developmental director to help steer them toward more effective song choices and placement. For example, on the boat to America, Kristina and Oskar sing "Peasants at Sea," in which they lament that they have to sleep apart on the boat to America. Well, boo-frickin'-hoo. How is that supposed to be dramatically compelling?

One major groaner of a song choice is "Lice," a song about -- you guessed it -- infestation, in which two characters accuse each other of spreading the bugs around. The song contains an atrocious passage in which one character actually talks about how you can put the lice between two slices of bread and feed them to your kids. Are you frickin' kidding me, here?! Another song, "Queen of the Prairie," regales us on how Oskar buys Kristina a stove for Christmas, and every one from the town joins in to sing about how beautiful this stove is. The show is full of similar questionable-at-best, ludicrous-at-worst musical missteps.

When the songs aren't ridiculous, they're typically either impenetrable or dull. In the act one finale, Kristina sings "Summer Rose," a God-is-my-witness anthem (yes, the show actually contains that phrase) to her newly born child. It's pretty, but it ends the act without creating any tension. There's no suspense, no cliff hanger, no reason for us to want to come back and see what happens to these people, which is typical of the show's complete lack of dramatic buildup.

There are a few decent songs in the score. "American Man" is a charming piece about the aging pastor whom the women take a shine to upon arrival in America. The always dependable Walter Charles imbues the pastor character with humor and gravity, despite his minuscule stage time. And the second act contains two stunning solo numbers, one for Oskar's younger brother, who returns from the California Gold Rush and bitter as hell. Kevin Odekirk gives a positively stirring rendition of "Gold Can Turn to Sand," which is really more than the song and the show deserve. And Helen Sjöholm got the evening's first standing ovation for "You Have to Be There," a soaring number in which Kristina confronts her God to demand an explanation for his seeming absence.

Kristina's other major flaw is its lack of a dramatic motor. The show is detrimentally episodic, passing through a series of unengaging complications that are almost always immediately resolved, making it hard to build up any empathy. The story is a morass of random and under-developed plot points: the religious persecution in Sweden, Kristina's contracting scurvy on the boat to America, Kristina's supposed rivalry with the local strumpet, played by Louise Pitre. In the middle of the second act, once the characters have relocated to Minnesota, some random guy comes in spouting pseudo-Native American babble about how this land belongs to no one, or some shit. It makes you think that there's going to be a subplot about a struggle with the local tribe, but like most of the other plot threads in this show, that potentially intriguing possibility is left unrealized.

Because the songs alone don't tell the story, this concert presentation needed to employ some direct narration and expository projections, which only served to emphasize that the authors weren't doing their job with the songs themselves. Perhaps the work has lost a great deal in the translation from the original Swedish. The show's new English text by Herbert Kretzmer features one uninspired cliche-ridden lyric after another: "all my body and my soul," "with every breath that I am taking," "no matter what, we will always have each other," and the aforementioned "as God is my witness." 

In fairness, I found the last ten minutes of Kristina to be genuinely moving. Suddenly, the songs take on greater complexity, and the drama becomes palpable and moving. The rest of the show needs this kind of focus. But, alas, it's too little too late, coming after a long, slow slog through an attenuated series of muddled scenes and songs.

I must admit that the Carnegie Hall audience was going wild for the show. I can only imagine that some of them were there just for the music, or the performers, and that they weren't necessarily considering the piece from a dramatic perspective. I was there to see if the show had legs to make it beyond the concert hall. My answer: not in its current form. Nothing short of a near-complete rewrite would make this Kristina truly sing.

Comments

[Encore Entertainment]

I know I shouldn't but I found this review hilarious. Good grief, though, this does not sound too promising.

[John]

I have seen the original musical 3 times and it is by far the best musical ever. I have seen most of the musicals in west end for the last 20 years and none can compete with Kristina; the plot & score are very genuine as well as Helen. Kristina as a concert event cannot be the same as the musical though... Get the DVD "As it is in heaven" if you want more of Helen http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382330/

[Lars-Erik Olson]

Having seen Kristina fully-staged in Stockholm, I'll admit the "concert" version isn't as dramatic. But you gloss over the fact that the audience LOVED this show last night. In fact, I've never seen such a reaction at this venue previously. What a cast! And how can a show that was one of the longest-running musicals in Sweden not be considered to "have legs?"

[karlstad]

I'm sorry, but this review is ridiculous! Kristina had been intriguing you for quite some time, but you've obviously never heard any of the music or done some real research? That's a first for a theater critic. I'm thinking you were underprepared and just wanted to hear "Chess" - a show that in the 80s first was introduced in concert, much like Kristina, with narration and no set and staging. Accept that this is a concert, and not the actual staged musical (an amazing experience in itself).
Lyrically it's befitting the (very religious) 1850s, the music is grand, complex, and very moving, and the beauty of the story is its simplicity and emotion-driven characters.

[John Carpenter]

This guy is like the blind man who feels the trunk of an elephant and says "I see. An elephant is much like a snake."

This is the third or fourth "critic" (I suppose when your only tool is a hammer you see every problem in terms of a nail) who prefaces a review of Kristina with allusions to "Chess".

What gives?

Displaced hostility. "Chess" has had God-knows-how-many chances to reinvent itself and it remains the theatrical equivalent of an NFL first-round draft pick that never becomes a starter.

"Kristina", on the other hand (as a reader suggested and a fact which has been given gratuitous acknowledgement by Broadway's cognescenti is that the audience was mad for the show.

It doesn't matter that they came in as true believers or not. It is understood that People who travel half way across the world to see Streisand are devoted fans of the woman.

This pundit, like three or four before him, plucks out a couplet from the libretto and attempts to suggest it defines the ceiling of the lyrics.

The lyrics to "West Side Story"? "Got a rocket in my pocket... ."

How about these brilliantly conceived lyrics from"Hair"?

They'll be ga ga at the go go
When they see me in my toga."

I'm waiting for one of these reviews to take the "Never" challenge: pick apart the lyrics, of Ulrica "The Happy One"'s, scalding first act soliloquy to her abusers.

If that's too much heavy lifting dissect the penultimate song--a choral that spoke of the dream that brought millions across the seas to America.

None of this matters, however, "Kristina", like so many other shows given a tepid or hostile
review by "A" or "B" list critics is critic proof.

John Simon wrote this about "Wicked":

"Two of the producers of the musical Wicked bear the name Platt, which (in German) means flat, and one the name Stone, which (in English) means heavy. Why not also one called Long, although it is too much to ask for one called Boring, all of which apply to the show... .

Never mind that, what of a score by Stephen Schwartz, who has clearly lost it? Only one song, “Wonderful,” has a memorable tune, and even that rather trite. "

Frank Rich on "The Phantom of the Opera":

"The melodies don't find shape as theater songs that might touch us by giving voice to the feelings or actions of specific characters.

Instead, we get numbing, interchangeable pseudo-Hammersteinisms like ''Say you'll love me every waking moment'' or ''Think of me, think of me fondly, when we say goodbye.'' With the exception of ''Music of the Night'' - which seems to express from its author's gut a desperate longing for acceptance - Mr. Lloyd Webber has again written a score so generic that most of the songs could be reordered and redistributed among the characters (indeed, among other Lloyd Webber musicals) without altering the show's story or meaning."

Apparently numbness and "pseudo-Hammersteinian" is a potent cocktail for Broadway success.

If Simon couldn't drop "Wicked" or Rich keep POTO under a 15-year run what are the chances "Kristina"s detractors will derail a show with a built in audience many millions?

[Marco Paulo]

I think people in USA are not so used by an european way of telling a story, which can be mostly carrying by the feelings and the depth of the music; and this night wasn't the theatrical version which probably doesn't help to capture the brightness of this real masterpiece. Like for Chess (really underated when it was on Broadway and now acclaimed like one of the best score of the 80's), critics made too soon show reactions on little aspects in few lines and try to destroy an incredible sum of work and talents (3h of fabulous music). Probably the release as a CD of these 2 concerts will help people to be more familiar with this kind of artwork before seeing in a fully-staged version.

[Hanna]

I agree with Lars-Erik Olson! I've seen the original Kristina at Circus in Stockholm and it was amazing. I just don't think you can compare the concert version with the original musical.

But I do think you're probably right about it loosing some of it's magic in translation. There is a melancholy, "a blue note" sort of speak, in the Swedish language wich just does not translate in to English. Listen to Kristinas "You have to be there" in it's orginal version "Du måste finnas" or "Min Astrakan" (summer rose) and you'll hear the difference in the langauge. And expressions of immense depth and sorrow in Swedish often sound cliché and plain when you translate them in to English, simply because they've been used a thousand times before and have lost their meaning. It takes more skill to find that same note in English.

Also, you have to remember, the books that this musical is based on are some of the most beloved books in Swedish litterature. Most Swedes have read them and know the story very well so the smaller subplots in the musical are actually bigger stories in the books and the Swedish audience knows this. That may be another reason why the simple concert version doesn't translate as well in to an English version.

[Betty]

I can't stop humming so many of the tunes from this delicious musical presentation. The primary actors were incredible and so talented! I felt priviledged to be in the audience and partake of these excellent performers singing such dramatic songs. Obviously we were in a venue like Carnegie Hall to witness the music and not the theatrics. I hope we will see Kristina in our furure on Broadway. The richness of the music is there and the goosebumps emerge as they did with Chess. Please don't give up on creating a production we'll be able to enjoy with delight. A Tony will be in Kristina's future!!!!!!!!!!

[atty]

The show in CH was "only" a concert adaptation of the full musical wich contains the storytelling in depths.

[ccaggiano]

I would sincerely like to thank those of you who submitted reasoned responses to my review and did not engage in ad hominem attacks against me as a person.

The fact remains, I did not like the show. I am under no obligation to do so. It's the creators' responsibility to craft a show that works. In my opinion, Kristina doesn't, at least not in the form that I saw it at Carnegie Hall.

Did other people enjoy the show? Absolutely. But people stood and cheered at the end of Lestat, The Pirate Queen, and the recent Off-Broadway musical Frankenstein. They had every right to do so. I did not, and I wrote reviews about those shows that reflected my honest opinion about those shows.

Am I the last word on the subject? Hardly. Many other critics will likely weigh in on the strengths and merits of Kristina. But you know what? Even if I'm the only person in the world who didn't like the show, I stand by my review.

It's clear that many people feel very strongly about Kristina. If the show has a future, I look forward to seeing how the creators make it work in a way that is commensurate with your passion.

[Cisarovna]

I saw the show on Wednesday and I really enjoyed the music and the performances, I know everyone loves Helen Sjoholm, but Russel Watson, Kevin Odekirk, and Louise Pitre were fantastic. I noticed everyone sitting by me either were Swedish, or spoke the language, all having seen the show in Sweden. I was there as a Chess fan, and I suspect most everyone there fell into one of these two groups (Chess-freak or Swede).

I am not going to lie and say every song was magic, but there were enough quality numbers to make it a worth while listen for musical theater fans out there. I understand the point about the "Lice" number, but I thought it was important to also have some humor, also it is really the only chance we had to see Kristina have conflict with Ulrike, which is very important since these characters had every little conflict with each other. Most of their conflict is with external forces (government, weather/famine, immigration, indians) but less so with each other. The only exceptions really being Kristina and Ulrike (only one number) and between Carl and his brother, which was maybe only two numbers. I think this is the real reason the story ultimately falls flat, which is unfortunate.

I expected some things to be lost not only in the translation of the lyrics, but also in the form of presentation (concert vs fully staged performance), but I was surprised the screen wasn't used more to fill in the gaps in the story, and highlight important themes. Specifically I thought they could have made Kristina's devotion more evident from the very beginning, it would have provided justification for her later choices and would have heightened the internal struggle displayed in the big number that every person in the whole hall was waiting for.

I also have to wonder how close the musical is to the books, having not read them myself, I can't be sure. I do wonder if they didn't take enough risks with the material to make it dramatic enough for the stage, not wanting to offend purists. There were some elements I thought could be tweaked to make more dramatic. If they really want this to run as a successful musical outside of Sweden, they might need to face these kind of tough decisions.

[George]

To me, the single most important problem with the musical is the complete inability for myself to connect with its characters.

Who can sympathize with the plight of a woman who died basically because she wanted to have too much sex without birth control (and yes, it existed in the 19th century) despite stern warnings from the doctor. It is almost comical, in a way.
And this is the story of America, according to Benny Andersson?

Much of the rest of the plot is, in fact, very trivial and hardly dramatic and VERY difficult to relate to.

The only saving grace of this whole thing is the glorious music, the beauty of which can only be enjoyed with a big orchestra and I can't imagine a regular Broadway production with the orchestra of this size.

For me, Benny Andersson once again wasted his immense gift on a poor book and I absolutely agree with the verdict of Variety reviewer:

"the final half-hour of the piece concerns itself with Kristina being warned, after eight children and a miscarriage, that she must no longer lie with her husband. She convinces him nevertheless to throw caution to the winds, as it were, with inevitable results. They sing and sing and sing about it, yes, with suitably serious music; but U.S. audiences are likely to find this predicament -- and Kristina's epic tale -- less than gripping"

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117941228.html?categoryid=34&cs=1

[George]

The main problem of the musical is that it's impossible to relate in any way to its characters.
The main character dies because she wants to have sex without birth control (and yes it existed in 19th century) already having eight children and ignoring a stern medical warning.
It is actually almost comical, in a way.
The story itself is equally pompous and trivial without unique dramatic developments and events, and hardly gripping at all.

Yes, music is glorious, but as in the case with Chess it's wasted on a terrible book. It doesn't help that the beauty of the score is mostly evident with the large orchestra and it's unrealitic to expect it from a regular Broadway production.

If Kristina goes to Broadway, I bet it will bomb. But I'd be VERY happy to be proven wrong because musically it's a masterpiece.

[ccaggiano]

Again, I would like to thank those of you with level heads and serious things to say about the show. I'm happy to engage with anyone who has a legitimate view and can express it without vitriol.

To all who excuse the recent presentation of Kristina as merely a concert version, I would point out that truly great shows work in concert. Gypsy worked terrifically as a concert, as did My Fair Lady. And Chicago has been running for 12 years, even though the Broadway production isn't much different from the Encores version.

Quality shines through, no matter what the presentation vehicle is. The music to Kristina has much going for it. But the story and the lyrics are wanting. Big time. Could the show succeed on Broadway? Perhaps. Shows of far lesser quality have done so. But would that Broadway production represent an inherently strong and cohesive work? I have very strong doubts.

[George]

One other thing I also would like to mention is the breathtaking QUALITY of the performers at the concert.
All four principles were simply stunning, and those in lesser roles were a smash too.

I saw Louise Pitre and Helen Sjoholm before and was hardly surprised at their brilliance throughout (I did expect to be blown away by them and I was), but Odekirk and especially Watson made me cry at the sheer talent they possess. Especially when you realize that enormously gifted Odekirk is pretty much unknown. I hope he will benefit mightily from this exposure.

Watson's pure strong voice so effortlessly transitions between operatic and pop, I could only marvel. I hope that with an instrument like this he will move beyond his "people's tenor" trademark.

And the orchestra was so tight as if they rehearsed not a few days but much longer, a testament to the professionalism.

I must admit that I did cry in the end, but it was music and performances and abundance of highly talented people on the stage that moved me so much, not the story.

[Michael Moricz]

I've been listening to the original 3-CD version of this score in Swedish for over a decade, so I walked into the theater already a partisan. I have to admit I was surprised by how truly austere the story itself was, how much it is a very severe but earnest tale of peasant immigrants who carry their faith and simple humanity with them to a new world. It was SO far removed from what we would think of here as a contemporary musical that there was almost no basis upon which to compare it. It is much more akin to an opera than to any other form of musical theater.

I thoroughly enjoyed the performance, even while sensing clearly that there seems no way this could be a viable Broadway musical. It is not remotely an "entertainment," has none of the surface audience-grabbing narrative appeal that seems to be required (sometimes that's ALL that seemed to be included) for a Broadway musical. This is not a criticism of the work -- it is simply a totally different type of piece. It's about basic universal emotions, simply (in the best sense) told through music. That the story is of very austere people-of-the-earth, filled with a very severe but earnest brand of Christian faith, makes it true to its Swedish heritage. It is clearly and unabashedly a contemporary opera which references some sort of essential Swedish spirit and national character. This is the Sweden of Bergman's WILD STRAWBERRIES, not the Sweden of ABBA.

All that being said, for me the most rewarding aspect of the evening was the chance to hear Ms. Sjoholm performing live this role that she pretty much owns, and hearing that amazing mix/belt clarion purity and intelligence of phrasing make itself felt every bit as effectively in English (not her main language)as it clearly had in Swedish. Hers was a world-class performance, whatever you think of the material. I was also enormously impressed with Mr. Odekirk's singing. Russell Watson seemed miscast, not really remotely the type of voice for this material, though he is clearly a very talented man, albeit more suited for a different type of music (listen to Anders Ekborg's original take on Karl-Oskar to hear the difference -- by contrast Kevin Odekirk made his songs "his own" so that I had no need to compare it to the wonderful Peter Joback performance in the original).

So Chris, dramaturgically speaking, I'm agreeing with you, though I think there's a lot more power in the music itself than you're giving it credit for. It's rather a magnificent score in it's way, but it doesn't really fit the template of a contemporary "musical" by New York standards, nor is it likely to ever do so. But it was also only a concert version, with several cuts and without any staging or other theatrical devices to add dramatic momentum. I think the plan was just to get this music heard in New York, and where that goal is concerned they were very successful indeed, with large forces and strong voices, a huge orchestra and Gemigniani at the helm. To make it work as a Broadway musical B&B would probably have to surgically remove it’s basic Swedish character and sensibility, and why would they choose to emasculate what is perhaps the most quintessentially Swedish achievement of their careers? Certainly they don’t need the money, and I suspect they really love KRISTINA just as it is.

[karlstad]

George: "Who can sympathize with the plight of a woman who died basically because she wanted to have too much sex without birth control (and yes, it existed in the 19th century) despite stern warnings from the doctor. It is almost comical, in a way."

Who can sympathise? Women. And hopefully all men, if they're in a real close relationship. Comedy would only ensue if you have a 19th century farmer's wife, deeply religious, suggest birth control. In fact even today, birth control isn't fully accepted by many groups in the US...

As for the relevance of the wonderful story of Kristina to the US audience, a question raised by a few people and critics, I really can't see why it couldn't be a huge hit. The story is really universal. When is immigration, heritage, poverty, love, religious freedom, and the notion of the American dream NOT important issues for Americans?

To put things in perspective, you might be interested to know that a fourth of Sweden's entire population actually emigrated and left for America (Minnesota) in the 1800s. It's a big national trauma for Sweden, and something the US should take pride in...

It definitely moves me immensly, just thinking about it. Benny Andersson's marvellous music just adds to the story. There's a beautiful clip of Kristina performed in Swedish in Minnesota: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYxdCgNrmGI
I might be sentimental, but the American choir singing in Swedish and the audience reaction gets to me every time.

[George]

Chris wrote:
"As you may know, the show began its life in Sweden in 1996 as Kristina Från Duvemåla, which became the biggest hit musical in Swedish history. (Exactly how many hit Swedish musicals have there been?)"

Well, to answer your question, Sweden being one of the most advanced countries in the world culturally boasts a vibrant theatrical life. There are few contemporary musicals written by Swedes but pretty much every successful West End/Broadway musical is staged in Sweden in Swedish, and performers and productions are usually first-rate.

Check the list of Guldmasken winners (Swedish equivalent of Tony Awards) here:
http://www.infosajten.com/guldmask.html

Helen Sjoholm, for example, currently stars in Swedish revival of My Fair Lady, for which she won The Guldmasken award.

[Kristina]

Crappy critic. How many ways can I say "You do not get this"?
It seems this guy was expecting a) a fully staged musical, not the concert version (which tends to be "almost entirely sung-through") and b) for some crazy reason Chess. Where did that come from? B&B have warned people this is nothing like Mamma Mia!, but appearently they should have said it's nothing like Chess or ABBA either, since some people obviously need it spelt out for them.
What's worse than this guy's lack of research (like someone already has mentioned) though, is his lack of historic knowledge. Granted, Americans can't know the Moberg books as well as Swedes do, but on some level even this guy should be able to understand the story. He doesn't. He seems completely unable to imagine the lives of these people - how hard it was to feed their family when the harvest failed year after year, how much courage it took to leave everything they ever knew and knowing they'd never return, the horrible months-long journey over the sea, the insecurity when finally reaching the new land, the hard work of finding a place and starting to create a new home, the obstacles they encountered due to language misunderstandings and cultural differences, etc, etc. Like B&B have said, the story is not a light-weight one, hence the song "Lice" being there as one of the mood-lighteners. The irony completely goes above this guy's head, though. And as for his comments on "Queen of the Prairie" - again the lack of historic knowledge when failing to see that yes, a stove could be that important when coming from the background these people did. And what's with his need for a cliffhanger - seen one too many tv-shows or what? How he can miss the drama already excisting in spades in this story is beyond me - and judging by the audience reaction, he was the only one who did. Benny's music is dramatic enough to carry the show on it's own, at least for me. Which brings me to the lyrics - from a Swedish viewpoint I can say that of course a few things went missing in the translation, but still Björn and Herbert have managed over my expectations to keep the core of and message in each song.
At first I was amazed by this review, that someone can experience it so differently and NOT GET IT. Now I simply think it's too bad this guy slept all through the show (except the last ten minutes). If it's not your cup of tea, why don't you just stay at home next time?

[chess]

Your reaction on all the comments of your review is honest. The fact remains though that you make harsh conclusions on the basis of a concert. Your review should have focussed on the music, lyrics and performances. You've reviewed it like a theatreproduction, which is simply not fair.
It's the difference between a great reviewer and someone who misses the point.
I've seen the musical in Stockholm and I have seen almost every popular musical of the last 20 years. I admit that for a Broadway production changes have to be made. But I can tell you that the Swedish production was without any question the best musical I have ever seen on this earth.
I am a big fan, probably the biggest fan in the world of musical Chess. But I will always admit that despite it's great music and fantastic lyrics, as a musical it never really impressed me.
Kristina have impressed me musically and as a very moving theatrepiece.

[Ian]

Chris, you are of course absolutely entitled to your opinion and I, for one, am very interested to read it. An important quality for a stage musical is that it must grab the virgin listener as one typically attends a show only once.

I think some of your criticisms of the work's dramatic problems are valid, but this was a concert version to introduce the music in the English language. (I note you have already addressed this point but I still think it is worth bearing in mind). I think you are too harsh on the lyrics. There were one or two clunky lines in the recitative passages but most of the songs had good lyrics. The use of the line "As God is my witness" in Ulrika's Never is absolutely appropriate in the context of the song. A familiar phrase only becomes a cliche when not used to its best effect. Here it is!

The most important thing is to recognise the astounding quality of the music in this work. In my opinion it is the most beautiful and sophisticated score to ever bear the name 'musical'. I hope you will listen again when the CDs are released. I think you will upgrade your tepid praise of the music at least.

Really it is closer to opera - both in its symphonic scope, in the episodic nature of the story and also in that it deals with deeper human emotions and preoccupations, whereas most broadway audiences seem to respond more readily to exaggerated dramatic events and spectacle. I believe Kristina would make a wonderful film but its best chance of working as a stage piece is in repertory at an opera house, with a big orchestra in the pit. I think this work surpasses anything by Verdi or Puccini (a composer much loved by Benny Andersson). I would not say it outclasses Mozart's operas, but the lyrics are better! In the opera house the focus has always been the music and how the drama is reflected in it. This is Kristina's strong point. The music is hugely atmospheric and sympathetic to both the sentiments expressed and the story's events. The result is a score of unparalleled sensitivity and haunting beauty.

Who else can match this quality? I love Sondheim, his lyrics are outstandingly good. But he cannot write music anywhere near as beautiful as Benny Andersson. As a musician, one of the best scores I have heard in recent years is Adam Guettel's Light in the Piazza but even this pales in comparison with Andersson's magnificent score for Kristina.

[CC]

I wasted my time reading this insipid and unprofessional review.

[CC]

It appears you write as a teenager. I'm not sure you're qualified to judge what makes or not makes a good musical. As I said, I wasted my time reading this banal review. I don't think you have anything of value to say about any musicals. Perhaps you're better off reviewing middle school musicals. That seems to be your strong suit.

[Rogue Zentradi]

Hey Chris,

Just for the sake of comparison in terms of storytelling and what not, what's your general feeling towards big shows from Europe, e.g. Elisabeth, Tanz der Vampire, 3 Musketeers, etc.?

Personally, I loathe Abba and didn't care much for Chess so Kristina is off my radar but it would help to put your view into a bit more of a refined perspective.

Also, now following your twitter from a different handle.

[ccaggiano]

Again, I would like to thank those of you who have replied to me with reasoned and level-headed responses. I'm sure that Benny and Bjorn would be proud of their fans who can engage in civil discourse without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks. I would especially like to commend those of you who signed your real names rather than hiding behind a pseudonym. It takes courage to stand behind your views and take public ownership of them.

As for the rest of you, I published your comments because I want my regular readers to witness your passion, and understand that there are a lot of people who feel very strongly about the show. I'm especially interested in hearing more from people who actually saw the Carnegie Hall concert, ones who can add nuance and perspective to our understanding of the show.