haines his way

08/01/2002:
"A LOUD AND DEFIANT C#"

Well, dear readers, here I am again, writing today’s notes yesterday. That is because I must be off even earlier in the morning for another long day. Yesterday I asked all of you dear readers to send me all your Hainsie/Kimlet good vibes and you did and they were very helpful indeed. So, I’m asking all you dear readers to do the same again today – even moreso. Send me your absolute best dear reader good vibes for I shall need them all.
Yesterday, dear reader JMK pointed out that what I was calling an A major seventh chord was really an A minor/major seventh chord, and of course he was correct. That is because I’d originally put in an Ab major seventh chord (Ab, C, Eb, G) and then I decided to make it an A major seventh chord because I didn’t feel like having any unseemly flats around. So, I unflatted the Ab and Eb, and in my haste to sharp the G I forgot to sharp the C. Hence, we had a minor/major thing on our hands. I have since revised history like they do in Mr. George Orwell’s novel entitled Nineteen Eighty-Four, and made the chord a proper A major seventh chord, which is what it was meant to be in the first place. When in the key of A we must always sharp our Cs if we wish to remain major. I feel we need no minor chords in these here notes of August so we will only have sharped Cs whilst in the key of A. What do you think of that? Does anyone have a clue as to what the hell I’m talking about?
It looks like there was a very lively discussion going on, and many posts about the late Ben Bagley. I only spoke to him a couple of times late in his life, but I found him to be a delightful, if weird, man.
O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I? Why did that suddenly just come into my mind? I was sitting here minding my own business when suddenly I thought, O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I. Since I am neither a rogue or peasant slave I cannot fathom why that suddenly popped into my head like an unwanted Frisbee. Are all of our Cs sharped? Just checking – these notes have still not left the key of A, because we feel the key of A is the only appropriate key for the month of August. Perhaps for September we’ll change to the key of S.
Now, as soon as you are finished reading these here notes, you must go read our brand spanking new Unseemly Interview with Miss Alison Fraser – it is a total delight and quite sparkling. Just click on the Link to New Sections over there on the left, and then click on the Unseemly Interview Section. And if you missed Kerry Butler’s interview, there is a handy-dandy archive where you will find it.
Well, I do believe it is time to click on the Unseemly Button below whilst our Cs are still sharped.

Don’t forget, I will be answering all your excellent questions in tomorrow’s notes, so do stop by on your way to wherever you are going.
O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I. I can’t believe it, it happened again – it just came out. What is it with the rogue and peasant slave bit? Isn’t it fascinating that if you switch the “g” and the “u” around suddenly you are a rouge and peasant slave, which is a whole other box of canned beans. Quick, a sharped C will help us out. Everyone, on the count of three let us sing a loud and defiant C#. One, two, three… A loud and defiant C#!
That was excellent. I feel we could become the brand spanking new Mormon Tabernacle Choir. And our very first recording will be entitled A Loud and Defiant C#.
Do not fret, dear readers, these here notes will have actual content on the weekend – I’m just getting through them for these two days because, frankly, my mind is elsewhere. I hate when that happens. I’m here but my mind is elsewhere. Maybe I’ll show my mind a thing or two and I’ll be elsewhere and leave my mind here? What do you think of that idea?
Well, dear readers, I’m afraid I must hit the hay. Last night I hit the sack, and tonight I shall hit the hay. Perhaps tomorrow night I shall hit the hey. I feel it is very important to hit something at night whether it be the sack, the hay, or the hey. Do check out the Alison Fraser interview and do come back to see the answers to your excellent questions. Quick, everyone on the count (I just mistyped the word “count” and let me tell you one does not want to leave a letter out of that word) of three let us sing a loud and defiant C#. One, two, three… A loud and defiant C#!
What are we, the Norman Luboff Choir all of a sudden? What are we, Mitch Miller and the Gang all of a sudden? In any case, today’s topic of discussion: If you could put on your very own musical revue, what would be the subject of it (topical, songwriter tribute, satire, whatever) and, given all the performers working in the musical theater today, what five people would you cast in it? I don’t have time to actually think it out right now, other than to say I’ve always wanted to do a tribute to Livingston and Evans. But I’ll be back later with some ideas, whenever I’m able. Meanwhile – your turn.

Replies: 49 Unseemly Comments

While we're on the subject of Ben Bagley (who was exceedingly weird), perhaps I would do a Shoestring Revue for the 21st Century featuring many of the great songs introduced on his albums or in his stage shows. The best singer/actors in the business at the moment, for me, would include Karen Ziemba, Susan Egan, Brent Barrett, Stokes Mitchell and, perhaps, Marilyn Cooper as a special guest star. Unfortunately, Ben did his shows at a time when 12 performers was not unreasonable, so some of his big production numbers (i.e., Man's Inhumanity To Man) would be hard with just five performers.
Posted by Robert Armin @ 08/02/2002 07:19 AM PST

Well, if you enjoyed this week's radio show as listener Craig Brockman discussed his 12 favorite showtunes, then you'll also enjoy the show going up this Sunday as listener Ron Pulliam talks about his 12 favorite showtunes!
Posted by Donald @ 08/02/2002 09:37 AM PST

I'm at work right now and then I'm off to DC to see the second performance of Night Music (they begin tonight and I'm seeing it tomorrow night). I'll have to wait and read the answers to the questions in the archives when I get home on Sunday.
Don't know what kind of revue I would do. I lean toward songwriter tribute but so many of them have been done, it's hard to know how to do another one. Mr. Armin certainly knows good talent. I'd use them in a heartbeat. If they are busy doing Robert's show then maybe I'd get Alison Fraser and Stephen Bogardus (loved him ever since March of the Falsettos). Need to think some more about my cast. I'll be back.
Posted by Ben @ 08/02/2002 10:02 AM PST

Something is HINKY on this here board. I say again, HINKY!
Are we having a second August 1st? Or is it, in fact, August 2nd?
And what can our BK be doing that has him so bedraggled and worn and tired-out that he would make such a heinous (I said HEINOUS) and egregious and HINKY an error?
Oh, yes! I have my suspicions. I have a feeling he's been dealing with the Dark Men!
I sure hope wherever he goes today that there is a nice set of carpeted steps for him to roll down!
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 08/02/2002 10:37 AM PST

I am glad that I am not the only person to see the hinkiness of this board. Why are yesteday's notes below today's on the front page? Calling Mark Bakalor... Calling Mark Bakalor...
Posted by Hapgood @ 08/02/2002 10:48 AM PST

I would do an old song and dance and skits revue (see: Two on the Aisle, et al.) I guess I would get Kander & Ebb to do the score and Neil Simon, Mel Brooks, Carl Reiner, Larry Gelbart & Woody Allen to do the sketches (too much??). To star: Nathan Lane, Dorothy Loudon, Kristen Chenoweth, Brent Barrett & Elaine Stritch.
Posted by Paul Fairie @ 08/02/2002 11:01 AM PST

I'd like to see a good satirical revue for the current times like Ben Bagley (see above and yesterday's comments) and Julius Monk did. These would feature material by up-and-coming writers and composers and a cast of talented performers on the verge of their breakthrough... just like Ben and Julius featured in the 50s.
And speaking of Julius Monk, does anyone know who controlls the rights to his cast albums and if there are any plans to release them on CD? Unlike Bagley who also produced specifically for records, Monk only did shows (Bagley's shows were in off-Broadway theatres and Monk's in cabarets), but most of them were preserved on LP of which I have a few. They were all on small obscure labels. They should be made available to the show music fans of today both for historical and entertainment value.
Posted by William E. Lurie @ 08/02/2002 11:02 AM PST

I'd like to put together a vaudeville show -- but I'd have to leave it to you show biz guys to cast it for me.
Posted by Laura @ 08/02/2002 11:11 AM PST

I noticed the Hinkies when I couldn't get on for over an hour yesterday and it's continuing today. But at least the posts go up.
Posted by Ben @ 08/02/2002 11:13 AM PST

I'd like to do something that would lure Rodney Gilfry onto a Broadway stage! I think he'd be a terrific "Sweeney" -- perhaps a Sondheim review of songs for baritones...Gilfry, Cariou, Hearn, I'm open to suggestions...
That could be the first half of the review -- the second half might be songs for les ingenues...and young men (Jack from "Into the Woods," Tobey from "Sweeney," Henrik from "A Little Night...").
And the third half (okay, change half to "act) could be songs for the mature females in Sondheim's works.
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 08/02/2002 11:14 AM PST

I kept checking and checking...the Dark Men only know how long the "new" column has been up. I finally scrolled down to one of the "Unseemly" click-ons and clicked on today's. Boy! Was I surprised to see that the 63 posts I expected had dwindled to three.
And does anyone else remember reading -- yesterday -- that BK would tell us about what he'd been doing all day yesterday and today? Or did I dream it? It's not there anymore, so I can only assume (1) I fantasized it, or (2) it was removed.
???????????????
Let's all send a humongous positive Hainsie-Kimlet vibe toward him right now!
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 08/02/2002 11:17 AM PST

Nothing is amiss. Column #270 was posted @ 12:21 AM on 8/1/02 and column #271 was posted @ 11:58 PM on 8/1/02. This means two columns were indeed posted on 8/1/02 which is why they appear on the same main page.
P.S. You're all crazy!
Posted by Mr. Mark Bakalor @ 08/02/2002 11:22 AM PST

So it's BK's fault!!!!
Posted by Robert Armin @ 08/02/2002 11:36 AM PST

Mark, that still doesn't explain why there are two columns dated 08/01/2002.
Ron, it wasn't the Dark Men, it was the Bad Men, although I'm sure that Benjamin Kritzer would agree that even the Dark Men must be quite fearful.
And I agree with Ron: It's time for a super duper powerful Hainsie-Kimmlet group vibe to go out to BK right now this very minute. Bruce asked for our support and by golly and by gosh, and even by gum, we're all going to give it to him. On the count of three: ONE, TWO, THREE!
Posted by Susan Gordon @ 08/02/2002 12:09 PM PST

Mark, that still doesn't explain why there are two columns dated 08/01/2002.
Ron, it wasn't the Dark Men, it was the Bad Men, although I'm sure that Benjamin Kritzer would agree that even the Dark Men must be quite fearful.
And I agree with Ron: It's time for a super duper powerful Hainsie-Kimmlet group vibe to go out to BK right now this very minute. Bruce asked for our support and by golly and by gosh, and even by gum, we're all going to give it to him. On the count of three: ONE, TWO, THREE!
Posted by Susan Gordon @ 08/02/2002 12:12 PM PST

Opps! That definitely was the work of the Bad Men!
Posted by Susan Gordon @ 08/02/2002 12:13 PM PST

I see.
I agree
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 08/02/2002 12:14 PM PST

I see.
I agree
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 08/02/2002 12:14 PM PST

Me, too.
Posted by Robert Armin @ 08/02/2002 12:16 PM PST

Me, two.
Posted by Robert Armin @ 08/02/2002 12:17 PM PST

Sure it does. There are two columns dated 8/1/02 because two columns were posted on 8/1/02.
Posted by Mr. Mark Bakalor @ 08/02/2002 12:20 PM PST

I understand Mark's reasoning. Obviously the heading date is based on the date posted so if the 8/2 notes were posted at 11:58 pm on 8/1 the computer automatically dated them 8/1. Bruce was obviously not aware of this or he would have waited three more minutes to post them and they would have had the correct date. Understand now Susan?
Posted by William E. Lurie @ 08/02/2002 12:20 PM PST

The date thing I understand, but am still unclear as to why the first half of yesterday's notes appear right below today's Unseemly Button. Not complaining, mind you, simply curious.
Posted by Jed @ 08/02/2002 01:16 PM PST

It displays both columns for the same reason that they're both dated the 1st of the month. They were both posted within the same day and therefore are displayed together. When only one column is posted in a day you only get that one column. If three were posted in the same day you'd get all three. Make anymore sense now? :)
Posted by Mr. Mark Bakalor @ 08/02/2002 01:21 PM PST

(Sigh!) Yes, yes, I do understand. But does Bruce? It is totally unseemly to have two notes posted on August 1st and none posted on August 2nd. Well, well, to set things straight, Bruce will just have to post another set of notes before the stroke of midnight tonight. (And will someone please explain to me why it is called a 'set' of notes when there's only one going up? Today, we got a set of notes: August 1st and August 1st. Isn't that enough?)
Posted by Susan Gordon @ 08/02/2002 01:26 PM PST

I think I'd do a revue of good songs from "bad" shows. I think I'd call it something like The Best Little Flop on Broadway! or simply Flop! Please note the obligatory exclamation points in the titles. This show would feature the one or two truly fabulous tunes from shows like Carrie, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Merrily We Roll Along, The Baker's Wife, and Aspects of Love.
Now for the cast...
Baritone: Brent Barrett
Tenor: Douglas Sills
Legit Mezzo: Jessica Molaskey
Legit Soprano: Kristi Chenoweth
Belter: Mary Testa
Side Note (not Side Show, though "I Will Never Leave You" would be in my revue)...would anyone else like to see Mary Testa at least understudy Mama Rose in Gypsy? I would!
Posted by Jason @ 08/02/2002 01:51 PM PST

Heehee...wouldn't that be a combination? Kristi Chenoweth and Mary Testa as the Hilton Twins?!?! Ha!
Posted by Jason @ 08/02/2002 01:55 PM PST

I think Mr. Mark Bakalor has been extremely patient with all of us.
That said, it's still HINKY!
And a touch less HEINOUS now that we know there's a reason for it other than the "Bad Men."
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 08/02/2002 01:57 PM PST

Yes yes, all now makes sense. Thank you, Mark, for your explanations and your patience with all us crazies.
Posted by Jed @ 08/02/2002 02:02 PM PST

Yes, but the question Mark hasn't answered is -- how difficult would it be for him to change the date of the second column? After all -- he is the webmaster.
Posted by Robert Armin @ 08/02/2002 02:06 PM PST

More difficult than one might think. Else, I'd have done it already. :)
Posted by Mr. Mark Bakalor @ 08/02/2002 02:10 PM PST

I just got my mint, sealed, never-before-played LP of "Together Again (A New Musical)" by that up and coming boy wonder Bruce Kimmel. Yippee!
Posted by Kerry @ 08/02/2002 02:44 PM PST

My revue would be based on the songs of Harry Warren. The "plot," as it were would NOT have anything to do with Busby Berkeley (although there may be a nod to his style in one of the numbers).
The cast:
Jason Graae
Liz Callaway
Sally Mayes
Brent Barrett or Marc Kudisch
and Bronson Pinchot (but only if Guy Haines were not available). Tell me, does Guy Haines know from comedy?
If I had more time to think about it, a revue about contemporary New York (kind of like an updated "Nervous Set") might be fun.
Posted by Kerry @ 08/02/2002 03:06 PM PST

As long as we can find someone to blame for the date/column problem, all will be well. Why am I suddenly into the woods? Just joking guys - in case anyone is sensitive at this time of the night/morning. (Sat 8.25am here).
Some great ideas above. Oh that we could have more of those delightful reviews a la Bagley. There is so much talent from which to choose. Jason Graae would have to be there but it so difficult to choose from all those wonderful people on the Lost in Bostons etc -Maybe Guy Haines would be worth asking if he could be removed from the tennis court.
Posted by Tom Guest (from OZ) @ 08/02/2002 03:18 PM PST

OK So I have just worked out it is Friday afternoon. Or is it evening in New York? Have a good weekend everyone.
Posted by Tom from OZ @ 08/02/2002 03:20 PM PST

Kerry, I'm curious if your new copy has as many ticks as my unplayed copy. I did manage to make a tick free transfer for BK but it took some effort. I may have just gotten a bad pressing.
I like you're casting, too. I've had the opportunity to work with Liz, Sally and Brent and have known Marc since Birdie days. They're all great people.
Posted by Robert Armin @ 08/02/2002 03:20 PM PST

Tom -- just look at the time listed after your comment and add three hours for New York time (i.e. 6:25 PM)
Posted by Robert Armin @ 08/02/2002 03:22 PM PST

Great idea, Kerry !
A Harry Warren musical revue,
or songs by Hugh martin
and/or Sammy Fain....
Now, it would star Jason
Graae, Brent Barrett, Anthony
Warlow, Judy Kaye, Rebecca
Luker and Karen Morrow.....
and would guest star Jason,
Michael Shayne, Robert Armin,
the two Williams, Freedunit,
Tom from Oz, Ron Pulliam,
Dolores, Laura,
Susanssss.....well, me, oh
my....all of you Kimlets and
Hainsies....Don't you love me,
y'all ?
"The Days of Hamchucks and
Pantaloons"
Bruce Kimmel and Guy
Haines will take care of the
production sides; Mr Trotter
would play piano, and, yes, I
would supervise the Box
Office.
I think that would be just too
too !....
If I could get a bigger budget, I
would add Maureen McGovern
and Margaret Whiting......
Posted by François @ 08/02/2002 03:56 PM PST

Virgin vinyl!! I actually got to slit the shrink wrap on the album. What glory! And you just slip the record out of its sleeve-- none of this trying to pop it out of its jewel case. So far the recording sounds good.
For the revue, I'd love to get John Barrowman in there somehow (for more than one reason). Ruthie Henshel (sp?)-- but not for ALL the same reasons.
Could I please have a bigger cast?
Posted by Kerry @ 08/02/2002 04:07 PM PST

"Virgin Vinyl" is going to be
Bruce's next prod, I hear ....
Let me just say that i got my
copy of FNM today and that i'm
listening to the cd soundtrack
of it, at work, on "my" iMac !
Just dandy ! Well, I can get
away with it..... it's 1:20am here
!
Yes, Mark, I'm crazy : i'm
French -- NO excuse, just an
explanation --
As Liliane Montevecchi would
croak: au revoir !
Posted by François @ 08/02/2002 04:20 PM PST

BRUCE,
Since you won't be answering the Ask BK Day questions until tomorrow, I have one more. Do you ever/have you ever collaborated on songs/shows with anyone? Has there been a Meltz to your Ernest (and vice versa)?
Posted by Kerry @ 08/02/2002 04:43 PM PST

I have returned. First let me say that your excellent good vibes and energy worked and I thank you all very much. It is now a time to move forward and heal. In my defense, I specifically waited until 12:10 (according to my computer clock) to post today's column. My computer clock is hardly TWELVE minutes off, Mr. Mark Bakalor, therefore there is most certainly something screwy and it's with youey. I'll be starting to answer you excellent questions later tonight.
Posted by bk @ 08/02/2002 04:49 PM PST

Francois, thanks for the thought. An entertainer I am not. I did take ballet lessons before my teenage years. I then moved on to what they now call Dance Sport!!! - more acceptable by my peers I guess. I even taught dance for a while. I am still better at dancing than singing! I am not quite ready for "70 Girls 70" but on the way.
Posted by Tom from OZ @ 08/02/2002 06:25 PM PST

Kerry: I hate to burst your bubble about John Barrowman, but...I think you'd have a better chance with Ruthie Henshall. Ruthie, by the way (BTW), is pregnant! Good for her...and even better for her for backing out of that Burt Bacharach musical.
Speaking of musicals, I just got home from seeing HAIRSPRAY and I have to say, it is every bit as good as everyone says and you must go see it NOW!! Harvey Fierstein stopped the show just by rolling out on a set piece. It was faboo. I'm so excited that I got to see it and I look forward to several viewings in the future. :-)
Posted by Jason @ 08/02/2002 08:59 PM PST

Now, Mr. Ron Pulliam, when you said there was something HINKY on this board, I said to myself, "Hinky? Hinky? What the FRELL is hinky? I've never heard such a word. Hinky is not a word," said I to myself.
And then this evening, my Joe and I were watching Stargate, as, I assume, were you, as an appetizer to the main course, i.e. Farscape, and the dialogue between the geeks goes something like:
"There's something hinky about this."
"Hinky? What is hinky? Hinky is not a word."
"It is so."
"In what dictionary."
Care to elucidate as to the etymology of this particular term, Captain Ron?
Posted by William F. Orr @ 08/02/2002 09:03 PM PST

Whatever dictionary Ron uses
must be the same as mine, for
I have heard/used the word
hinky for many a year.
Posted by Jed @ 08/02/2002 09:21 PM PST

"Hinky" is what it is.
If "d'oh" can make it into the dictionary, can "hinky" be far behind?
"Hinky" is anything that isn't quite right but you don't want to cast aspersions by using terminology that has too many decades of different associations attached to it.
"Hinky" means that something is frelled up without it being anyone's fault, necessarily -- it's that unknown quantity that informs you something isn't right and they're probably some weird mojo behind it.
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 08/02/2002 09:46 PM PST

Make that "....and there's probably some weird mojo behind it."
I cannot control what my fingers type...I hear the correct words in my head but my fingers just do what they want!
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 08/02/2002 09:49 PM PST

Hinky is Hinky Meltz. Any other Hinky is stinky in my book.
Posted by bk @ 08/02/2002 10:10 PM PST

Ask BK: Got a question? Ask Bruce Kimmel...

© Copyright 2001-2003 Bruce Kimmel.
All Rights Reserved. Site design by hijinks design.