Hamilton - An American Musical

Old guy who very much likes musicals but generally abhors rap. Saw Hamilton on Broadway. Thought it was excellent but that the hype was maybe a bit more than deserved. Tried to get tickets to see it again in Boston or Providence but unable to.
 
Saw Hamilton in person two years ago and signed up for Disney+ to see it again on July 4th. DH thought he liked it better on Disney+ since we could turn on close captioning and he could understand everything being sung. I like that the price was many, many times lower than what we paid to see it live and that I didn't have to wait in a virtual line for over 10 hours to get tickets!
 
Lewis Clark said:
I saw Hamilton live on stage last year and loved it.

Beforehand, I was worried about the pace of the rap music. We borrowed a CD of the music and found the lyrics online. Listening to the music while reading the lyrics in advance really helped me follow the songs when we saw the show.
Click to expand...
I was concerned I wouldn’t be able to follow the rap music, but only about 20% of the score is rap. And most of it is slow enough for any listener to follow IMO. Though rap is featured in trailers and excerpts, much of the music isn’t that unconventional.
 
Ready said:
I signed up for one month of Disney+ so I could watch the musical, but I figured I would check out the rest of their library while I have the month’s subscription. I browsed through the entire catalogue and literally could not find one other show I wanted to watch.

If you have kids I’m sure it’s great to have all the Disney classics for them. But for adults unless you like the Star Wars or Marvel stuff it seems like it’s not the right audience for us.

Is there anything in the Disney collection that would appeal to adults that I overlooked?
Click to expand...



We like the National Geographic documentaries that can be streamed on Disney+
 
If you read through an explanation of each song on Wikipedia you really get a lot of insight into the subtle things going on. The level of attention to detail is really amazing.
 
Cricky said:
Yeah...you might reply to the person who doesn’t know that.
Click to expand...

Whoops. I came to this thread via "unread posts since last visit", and your comment was the first unread reply. I saw your comment but didn't scroll up to see that it was in response to a previous poster. Sorry about that.
 
Good idea. Before attending the live performance a couple years ago, we bought the CD and listened to the lyrics a couple of times. The singing is very clear, but it does get fast, and the hip-hop style of singing may be unfamiliar to older listeners.

tulak said:
I watched it last night with closed captioning on, which is helpful since the dialogue moves quickly.

Well worth watching IMO. I’ll probably watch it again with DS/DD.
Click to expand...
 
Ready said:
If you read through an explanation of each song on Wikipedia you really get a lot of insight into the subtle things going on. The level of attention to detail is really amazing.
Click to expand...
Good idea. We watched it last night. I found Elizabeth Hamilton (Eliza) interesting. She lived to 97, unusual for that time. She birthed 8 children and these facts:

"In June 1848, when Eliza was in her nineties, she made an effort for Congress to buy and publish her late husband's works. In August, her request was granted and Congress bought and published Alexander's works, adding them to the Library of Congress and helping future historians of Hamilton view his works today. Along with getting Alexander's works stored while Eliza was in her 90s, she remained dedicated to charity work. After moving to Washington, D.C., she helped Dolley Madison and Louisa Adams raise money to build the Washington Monument"
 
Chuckanut said:
We should really push the $2 bill and put John Bogle's picture on it. My 2¢. Err.... $2.

Back to the musical... Is it on DVD?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. They're still making mad money by doing live performances, which are branching out to different cities. It used to just be in New York, and now I think it's in (or soon will be?) Chicago, San Francisco, etc.

Why charge $20 for a DVD when you can charge $200 and up for a live performance?
 
Our older son has a free year of Disney+ as part of his Verizon phone service. He set up his laptop to play on our living room TV and we watched it last Friday. I enjoyed it! The closed captioning was helpful.

And then I went right to Wikipedia to check the historical accuracy.
 
I saw it on Broadway a couple of years ago (post-original cast) and it was completely worth the big bucks for the tickets (one of my best blow that dough investments ever). DH unfortunately could not make the trip, so we watched it this weekend and he enjoyed it very much. Like a previous poster, I missed the energy of the live performance, but seeing some of the actors in close-up added a different level of emotion in some segments. They are both great, but different experiences.

I plan to watch at least once more (probably with closed captioning on this time) before I cancel the Disney+.
 
Sue J said:
And then I went right to Wikipedia to check the historical accuracy.
Click to expand...

Be careful using Wikipedia as a primary source of information. Most of it is crowd sourced and inaccurate information can remain for a long time and sometimes isn't corrected.
 
ExFlyBoy5 said:
Be careful using Wikipedia as a primary source of information. Most of it is crowd sourced and inaccurate information can remain for a long time and sometimes isn't corrected.
Click to expand...


Oh, I absolutely knew that before I went to Wikipedia. It was just an easy place to check the basics.
 
ExFlyBoy5 said:
Be careful using Wikipedia as a primary source of information. Most of it is crowd sourced and inaccurate information can remain for a long time and sometimes isn't corrected.
Click to expand...
They are crowd sourced but that doesn’t mean anyone can publish whatever they want.

Having written a very carefully researched page for Wikipedia, I can tell you they go to great lengths to try to prevent inaccuracies, copyright infractions, etc. Any claims made must be supported by a solid source, that’s why there are always many footnote references on every page. They don’t give the benefit of the doubt, if you’re source isn’t solid, they quickly strike the claim or the whole page.

If you don’t believe it, try to publish a deliberately false wiki page and see what happens - you won’t get far.

They’re not perfect but they’re a more accurate source of information than many sites on the internet. And it’s always wise to double check most information from anywhere online.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/

Study shows Wikipedia Accuracy is 99.5% https://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/

Even though Wikipedia’s guidelines for page creation and content changes are rather strict, they will still encourage you to use it with some caution. It is not meant to be the defining source for any one entity, but it does work well as a starting point, particularly for academic research. The way information and the website itself evolve is naturally going to lead to some general errors. But, for this interested merely in learning about something, Wikipedia provides some of the easiest access to information that you can imagine. With their requirement of reliable sources, they’ve also got a wealth of scholarly knowledge that’s often just a click away.

So, is Wikipedia reliable or is it all just a ruse? In theory, Wikipedia is closer to being reliable than it is anything else. Of course, you are always bound to come upon an entry that is un-sourced and is clearly spouting lies, but the benefit of Wikipedia is that that kind of information can be deleted with relative quickness. With any print publications, errors are only made known when the next issue is released. So, even though Wikipedia might be edited by a conglomerate of individuals who don’t have the expertise of some scholars, it still manages to be one of the most reliable resources on the planet.
Click to expand...
https://www.legalmorning.com/how-reliable-is-wikipedia/
 
Last edited:
ExFlyBoy5 said:
Be careful using Wikipedia as a primary source of information. Most of it is crowd sourced and inaccurate information can remain for a long time and sometimes isn't corrected.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I looked up the lyrics instead of using Wikipedia. Brilliant writing. Specifically the lyrics from Congress #1 and Congress #2. Reading the songs had a bigger impact than listening to the rap.
 
As we only subscribed for one month, we decided to rewatch Hamilton again before our subscription expired. It was well worth the time as the second viewing allowed for less effort following the plot and more enjoyment of the stagecraft and choreography of the play. Lin-Manuel Miranda is truly a great talent.
 
We did exactly the same thing this weekend. 'With close captioned on, I caught so much more of the lyrics that it is nearly impossible to pick up the first time around. Truly brilliant.
 
Midpack said:
They are crowd sourced but that doesn’t mean anyone can publish whatever they want.

Having written a very carefully researched page for Wikipedia, I can tell you they go to great lengths to try to prevent inaccuracies, copyright infractions, etc. Any claims made must be supported by a solid source, that’s why there are always many footnote references on every page. They don’t give the benefit of the doubt, if you’re source isn’t solid, they quickly strike the claim or the whole page.

If you don’t believe it, try to publish a deliberately false wiki page and see what happens - you won’t get far.

They’re not perfect but they’re a more accurate source of information than many sites on the internet. And it’s always wise to double check most information from anywhere online.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/

Study shows Wikipedia Accuracy is 99.5% https://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/

https://www.legalmorning.com/how-reliable-is-wikipedia/
Click to expand...
Thanks. I believe it's a little less than perfect but generally reliable & certainly is a broader source of subjects to start with than anything close.
 
spncity said:
Click to expand...


I should have clarified that, despite the preview photo and the first few scenes, this is not a documentary about the musical. It's a documentary about Alexander Hamilton.








.
 
I have had a great time watching it on my laptop with the captions on. I am on my second month of Disney + because I am not tired of it yet.
 
iloveyoga said:
I have had a great time watching it on my laptop with the captions on. I am on my second month of Disney + because I am not tired of it yet.
Click to expand...
+1. I’d seen it and loved it with DW twice, but we watched it with captions on the third time and we both picked up on a few minor but worthwhile story elements we’d missed in the first two viewings. Still my second favorite play of all time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
The Blues (music)
2 3
Replies
74
Views
1K
ronin
ronin
E
For Musicans - Music Notation
Replies
10
Views
362
razztazz
R
N
Travel Insurance Claim terms
Replies
0
Views
161
nwsteve
N
O
Music and Alzheimer's
Replies
11
Views
761
DrRoy
DrRoy
M
Do You Have an Air Fryer?
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
5K
MC Rider
M

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom