Having seen many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, the moderate song/dialog/song structure feels common to its form. In fact, it seems to live in a time capsule: a small regional musical inspired by Victorian operettas with no sense that it exists under the shadow of a late-twentieth century pop giant. The million dollar question remains: Is theater a visceral roller coaster set in two acts or can it challenge an audience to think? If the latter, what is the appropriate size and presentation to evoke thought? Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom of the Opera is limited in size, budget and, yes, talent. It is very easy for a newcomer to musical theater (or one who frequents only major touring productions) to be humanly dazed coming out of the Webber/Hal Prince production and then expect the rest of the theater world to deliver similarly muscular musicals. Now think of another: Sondheim, who is equally talented, but more often implicit and less commercial. If awl cant get Erik's name, why should I get his? The truth is, the explicit nature of awl's work is only one form of theater.

I actually liked this version and I have noticed that all the other reviews were made by what is termed 'weekend fans' that is to say, fans who ONLY like the awl version.

Bass hall phantom of the opera cast