Ima just leave this here an go tidy my room…..

John Laurens (via incorrect-hamilton-quotes)

XD

Two of my favorite things!

Hamilton at the White House

Oh I love this pic!

Also is it just me or did Rebecca Onion indirectly compare our interpretations of certain historical figures as queer to Jefferson’s sexual relationship with (i.e. rape of) Sally Hemings

No, she directly compared it:

That was the exact moment I just gave my screen the finger and clicked out. The direct comparison of speculating about consensual same-sex historical relationships to plantation-rape is disgusting; it’s insulting obviously to all queer people - diving into a long, long history straight people have had of depicting all same-sex relationships as depraved - and also to black people (straight and LGBT+); especially since from the tone of her choice of words - “political opponents and radical abolitionists” - it doesn’t even sound like she believes the Jefferson-Hemings affair happened. 

And rape victims

W! TF! HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO CHILD MOLESTATION AND RAPE

HOW TF ARE PEOPLE STILL BLITHELY COMPARING THEM

haattttttttteeeeee

CALLING ALL HAMILTRASH

stop scrolling. stop scrolling RIGHT NOW and appreciate this:

yes. that is Lin-Manuel Miranda saying Laurens, I like you a lot and Anthony Ramos going ayyyyyy… at the fucking White House.

What a wonderful world

ev’ryone give it up for America’s favorite fighting cockblock

also i love laf’s shirt 

The Bill of Whose Rights? Andrea Dworkin (via drziggystardust)

just a heads up–i’m going to make this blog my main art blog–i’ll start posting other art, such as original art and les mis art on here as well, since it’s gotten too tedious for me to log in and out of my accounts. claquesous will be my aesthetic blog for now–so look forward to more art! i’ll continue posting hamilton and history here, but there’ll be some other stuff every once in a while, as well, just to let you know!

Yes good.

The world turned upside down. :')

“Here’s the thing about artists—their job is to fall in love for a living.” –Lin-Manuel Miranda (x)

Damn. Yes, good.

you could say I ship it 😉😉

Alexander Hamilton about John Laurens (via incorrect-hamilton-quotes)

Like, I’m poor and I definitely will not be able to afford to watch Hamilton in NYC anytime soon, and I get it, but I’m also an artist and I wanna be paid for the things I create, you know? Bootlegs are always a tough issue tbh

Here’s the thing. Broadway tapes every single production. Then they store that tape in a vault, and won’t let anyone see it unless they’re doing research with certain theater organizations. Sometimes, they’ll release the tape for a limited time 50 years after the show ran as a collectors piece and charge almost as much as they would for tickets. Broadway could make this available if they wanted to. It’s not up to Mr. Miranda, and he’s the one getting hurt by the bootlegging, so that’s got to stop.

But it is up to Broadway. And they’re evil. And that’s why they won’t do something that would actually be both generous and probably financially savvy. Welcome to for-profit theater.

Stop with the bootlegging. That’s not hurting execs, who have control, and is hurting artists, who don’t! Seriously I would be furious if someone did that with one of my shows. The executives make these decisions not the artists. The artists in this case have beant over backwards to give as much access as execs will likely allow. They are still working to broaden that access. Supporting theft of their work because you don’t like the way insulated execs do things is rude, disrespectful, and insulting. Eventually we will probably all get to see it in some form just wait for it.

Bootlegging doesn’t actually hurt the artists, though? The people who watch bootlegs are generally huge fans of Broadway/the show itself who would pay the money to see the show on Broadway if they could, but they can’t. No one’s thinking “I’m going to go watch a bootleg INSTEAD of seeing the show.” People who watch bootlegs are choosing between watching the bootleg and not seeing the show at all. Also, bootlegs often create fans of theatre, who then spend money on the show. Way back in May, I watched a bootleg of Deaf West Spring Awakening in LA, and it actually wasn’t a terrible bootleg. Did I then think, “well, I’ve seen the show; now I don’t need to pay money to see it later?” No. Because of that bootleg, I became a huge fan of Spring Awakening, and then, when the show came to Broadway, paid money to go see it twice. Which would not have happened without the bootleg. And if I lived farther away from New York than I do, and had been unable to see the show, it still wouldn’t have hurt the show or the artists producing it, as I wouldn’t have seen the show either way.

I’m not sure I can explain to you why having somebody else record/copy/whatever something you have worked that hard on without your knowledge or permission and then passing it around such that you have no control over it is upsetting if you don’t already get it. Especially if what’s being passed around is poor quality. Let me reiterate. If somebody did that to one of my shows, I would be livid. I would find them and extract both the master copy and an apology. And my shows are under $5 admission because I do care deeply about accessible theater. It’s not about money, it’s not even about credit, it’s about something you bust your ass to create and pour a part of your soul into getting bastardized and taken from you and spread around, and with theatrical performances it’s usually not even conveying the things you want it to anymore because it’s shitty quality. I’m really glad to hear about your love of Spring Awakening, but as an artist (and I can’t believe I’m calling myself one here lmao) please don’t do that.

I get why artists would be upset about bootlegs. I really do. And I’m not saying they’re not. But for so many theatre fans, it really is the only only option? It’s see the bootleg or not see the show at all, and I understand why artists would prefer them to not see the show at all, but if you live in like, Nevada, that’s cutting you off from a community and a passion that is probably a major, major part of your life. And people who watch bootlegs understand that it’s a vastly different experience than watching something live. They understand that they’re not getting the full experience; we just want to see the show so we can understand the story and the the context of the cast albums. 

For some shows, like Hamilton, where they’re sung through, I can kind of understand the “don’t watch the bootleg” argument because you still get to experience the show in its entirety, even if you can only see it with one sense instead of two. I have still not seen Hamilton. I haven’t watched the bootleg because I have tickets for the show in October and I want to see it live first. But I still became a huge fan because the cast recording is so comprehensive and it encompasses the whole show. But if we’re talking Fun Home, or Newsies, musicals where most of the action is done in regular scenes, and you can’t come even close to fully experiencing the show through a cast recording. (I would argue, that in those cases, the cast recording is more of a “bastardized” version than a bootleg, because even if they’re high quality, you’re experiencing a severely limited version of the show.) (And Hamilton’s music became accessible fairly quickly, while it can take over a year for the common public to even be able to get the recording itself for other shows.) Fun Home is a groundbreaking musical, having the first lesbian main character in Broadway history (or at least that’s what I’ve been told), and has been incredibly important, and even life-changing, to many people. If we didn’t have bootlegs, we would be denying that experience to everyone but people who can afford Broadway tickets, hotel fees, and airplane tickets. 

I completely understand why artists are angry when people bootleg. But until theatre is made more accessible (and good for you for keeping ticket prices down to try to make it accessible for your community), not having bootlegs would mean that a vast number of people would be completely excluded from the Broadway community. And I just can’t accept that.

So get the script from the library or purchase a copy and read it once it’s released? Sorry but as a straight-play person I’m having trouble sympathizing when you can at least hear part of it. Theater is by definition a “you have to be there” thing and yes that’s sad but if the problem turns out to be ticket prices, and since we are talking about big fucking musicals here, well, hey, there’s a movie of Newsies. There’s a movie version of Les Mis. watch the films. Funhome is a book, which you can read! Difference with the cast recording is that, while like photocall, it isn’t as comprehensive, the artists looked at it and said “this is what I want people to experience.” Watch the clips that are released, watch the Tony performances. Or maybe if all the people watching bootlegs started really lobbying the companies who control rights, prices on rights, etc, maybe then the prices would go down, shows could be performed in more places, and theater could go back to its roots of being a common art. And why can’t you participate in communities if you don’t have total and complete full access to the thing? Like… people post notes on the staging, post lines sometimes, and, once the show’s been out, the script is readable (as long as you don’t perform it which ugh). And I’m especially not buying the bootleg justifications on this show because of how many clips are available, how many performances by the cast are available, how comprehensive the soundtrack is, and because the artist has asked that people don’t do this. I will admit that I wouldn’t give a shit about bootlegs of rogers and hammerstein trash, because they’re dead, so they probably don’t care anymore, or at least don’t get a vote. And if Alison Bechdel was like “yeah, go ahead, if that’s how you can see it” then I also wouldn’t care. But in this case the artist has specifically asked, and especially considering how he’s doing his best to make it as accessible as possible, we should respect that.

This is a simple choice of A) respect the artist's wishes and don't pirate their shit when they're going out of their way to give you such a huge amount of free content to begin with, or B) do what you want, because you think your fulfillment matters more than their feelings about it. Lin has clearly stated his desires. If you care about and respect him, then enjoy all the amazing work he's put out there already for us and don't pirate the experience that he wants to keep live-only for now. If not, well, no one can really stop you, but please at least have the decency to keep it on the DL and don't expect to not get called out for it.

Lin keeping his cool after Hamilton’s Grammy performance 

(Original Instagram video was deleted)

This was actually during the rehearsal, not the live performance!

If you listen closely, the obnoxious laugh that lasts too long is me. Like. It’s actually me.

cutie cutie cute

A list of all of the wonderful things Lin-Manuel Miranda has done for Hamilton fans since writing Hamilton (which was really the only thing he had to do)

Say No To This

ramimaleksgf submitted:

This was absolutely excellent!  Exactly what I imagined for a Hamilton/Laurens rewrite of this song.  Thanks for sharing!

Keep reading

And my God, he looks so fearless, And his body’s saying, “please, yes”

aaaaaaahh

You're making gifs out of bootlegs?

[withering, disappointed emoji]

See ya later, Arts n Crafts section.

Please don't make LMM sad! It's not worth it.

more photos of the hamilshoes

Ooh. G’damn.

Fiftysevenacademics’s essays on 18th century male sensibility has me thinking about how, while men long ago gave up their ability for such close romantic friendships in the name of middle class hypermasculinity, the closest modern equivalent that really exists to try and understand 18th century  male sensibility is modern female friendship.

Think of it this way: girls and women are encouraged to have very close relationships with other people of their own gender; they call each other their “girlfriends”; they’re expected to be able to be very emotional and supportive of each other; they’re allowed to be very clingy, very touchy with one another, even allowing the possibility of bedsharing without it being considered sexual; there’s even a mild ““toleration”” (can I use enough finger quotes there) of sexual “experimentation”, so long as at the end of the day, you follow heteronormative expectations and get married to a man.

Now obviously this allows wlw some shield for intimacy while remaining in the closest if they need to, in a way that just doesn’t exist for mlm nowadays. The double-edge of that sword tho is that you get straight women who are adamant that such displays of female friendships remain platonic and “pure”, that any attempt to bring permanent sexual feelings into it will somehow sully it.

Now imagine two hundred years from now, some historian is studying female friendships of this era. They see many women talking about going on “dates” with their “girlfriends”, and someone says, “Well that’s just how woman talked about each other back then”; aka “gal pals.” Now we know that a lot of women who do this really are straight and are just as aggressively no homo as straight men are, but we also know that there are wlw who took advantage of this and used it as an opportunity to be close to their significant others.

So when historians say “men just wrote flowery letters to each other back then” as an excuse to read all male romantic friendships as straight, put it in the context of some future historian doing that to modern female friendships (much like they now also do with female romantic friendships of the past, for the exact same reason).

Not only that, under those conditions, wlw who aren’t even trying to hide at all could easily fly below the historical radar. For instance, most modern Americans would know instantly, if reading someone’s personal journal, that this:

is a completely different situation from this:

...but how would someone from outside of our culture (whether in place or time) necessarily know that at a glance? If they’re looking for it and are somewhat versed in our culture already, they’ll probably have a different feeling about the first passage than the second. And even if they’re just open to the possibility, they can probably figure it out or look for more context clues. But if they’re not open to it, and are maybe even actively trying to deny it, then it’s trivially easy to say that the two sentiments are no different at all. I imagine the analogy to male-male 18th century relationships applies in this way as well.