Radio City Music Hall
1260 6th Avenue,
New York,
NY
10020
1260 6th Avenue,
New York,
NY
10020
118 people
favorited this theater
Showing 2,801 - 2,825 of 3,332 comments
More trivia: The executive entrance on 50th Street was also used by guests of the management, celebraties, and preferred patrons, who could walk down a few steps, be greeted at the desk then escorted by an usher on to the executive elevator and taken directly to the first mezzanine.
From street level that would not have been a problem as they could enter by the front entrance thereby avoiding the line on 50th St. However they then would have had to deal with the main lobby. If they enterd by the lower level they still would have to have dealt with walking across the lower lounge to get to the elevators.
I’m wondering if the RCMH patrons who had first mezzanine reserved seats could enter that way and avoid the crowds, lines and general chaos of the lobby. The Metropolitan Opera also allows patrons who have dinner reservations on the Grand Tier to use the entrance located in the underground shopping and garage area.
I wonder if the Rockefeller Center management has some kind of plans for the box office. Not that long ago, a MAJOR renovation was done to the concourse area. Strange that they would leave the box office there. Either it has some kind of structural element, it’s landmarked as part of RCMH or they have plans for it in the future…
So when was this box office permanently closed? From the very early 70’s I don’t remember it ever being opened. Also when did the Music Hall start letting group sales in by this entrance? I seem to remember that the Music Hall didn’t start allowing group sales with preferential entrance privileges until about 1970. I believe Pauline Kael in her review of the 69 Christmas show writes about the groups of school children being forced to join the outside line which seems kind of strange.
Re: Radio City Music Hall underground boxoffice
Thanks Warren for the fascinating info — especially with the date of the article itself. With the date, it was a cinch to find the article to check it out. Given what I’ve read about Rockefeller Center in Krinsky and Loth, however, I’d like to offer a slightly different interpretation of what it says.
From the very beginning of the construction of Rockefeller Center everyone knew that there were plans for the Sixth Avenue elevated to come down, and for a subway to be built in its place. The underground concourse was planned with the subway in mind. The underground concourse was to provide a weather-controlled passageway between all the buildings of Rockefeller Center and the subway — and the corridors would be lined with shops.
But as it happens, until the subway was actually built, Rockefeller Center had a hard time getting people down underground to shop there. Which makes sense, really, when you think about it: who wants to go downstairs a full-story below the street in order to shop in small stores along narrow dead end corridors — and, especially during the Great Depression, when even more conveniently located street-level stores were having problems attracting customers?! (And what kinds of stores are going to be able to survive in such an inconvenient underground environment? With probably few store owners willing to risk it, there were also probably too few stores to attract shoppers — a vicious cycle.)
Actually, even unto this very day the concourse has some trouble attracting people outside of “rainy day” traffic and people using it during the rush hours. This is one reason that the landmarks preservation community didn’t raise a fuss (a grave mistake, in my opinion) when the new owners of Rockefeller Center decided to remodel large portions of it a few years ago.
The original (and much more severe) problem with the concourse was due, I think, to a combination of naivete on the part of the builders of Rockefeller Center (being pioneers, they didn’t realize it wouldn’t work at all without a subway) and the subway being built a little behind schedule (leaving them stranded a little longer than they thought they’d be). I don’t have the Krinsky and Loth books handy, but I think they discuss the specifics.
By the way, the creation of the skating rink at Rockefeller Center is related to the problem of getting people down to the underground concourse. Originally the area was intended as a plaza / grand entryway to the underground concourse (which is why the pedestrian way from Fifth Ave. slopes down towards the skating rink). With the concourse attracting far fewer people than expected before the construction of the subway, the owners of Rockefeller Center decided to make it into a skating rink in the winter — and the rest is history!
Getting back to the box office. My guess is that the box office was built and operated with the completion of the subway in mind. (Given the paucity of shoppers before the subway, it’s hard to imagine them building and staffing it for seven years solely to catch the nearly non-existent shopping trade.)
I wonder if maybe the box office wasn’t actually put into operation until maybe just a few months or so before the subway opened — which, given the way things usually happen, probably opened later than originally announced. The article just says that use of the box office tripled — it doesn’t indicate, however, the period that they are comparing it to. So my guess is that they are comparing the period just after the opening of the subway with the few months prior to the subway opening (a period when the subway was supposed to be open, but wasn’t).
“Use of the subway-level box-office in Radio City Music Hall has more than tripled since the opening of the Sixth Avenue subway, it was reported yesterday by the management.”
The underground boxoffice was also very useful in that large prepaid -groups could be guided there to gain entrance to the theater and avoid conflict the patrons waiting in the street line. However, as far as my memory serves, the underground boxoffice was closed to individual patron ticket sales when there was a street line. As you can surmise, it would have been unfair to allow admittance to the theater by this little known route while others (possibly)were waiting in the rain and snow.
How unfortunate today that things must be extreme. Just saw some of the Big Spender number from the revival of Sweet Charity on TV last week. The jaded dance hall hostesses of New York 1966 have become soft core Russ Meyer vixens circa 1973. In todays entertainment world your either a dogma thunping fundamentalist or an arrested development teenage prostie like Britney.
The Hall is just another symptom of todays cultural rot.
Regarding sam_e’s comment about doing away with The Nativity scene altogether, I’m surprised that they haven’t done so yet. From a PC point of view, it might be considered too Christian (why not call it the “Radio City Holiday Show”?). I’m joking here…
During this whole “discussion” last week about the narration that I did not like, I thought EXACTLY as Vincent did of the beautiful Charlie Brown Christmas show and how nicely the integrated the story of the Nativity into the show without beating it over your head. It’s graceful and, most importantly, subtle.
No one wants or needs to have ANY religon rammed down anyone’s throats. What people DO like and appreciate is a story, even if it’s religous, told in an intelligent and thoughtful way. THAT is what made the old Nativity so good. It didn’t force it’s message on you. It made you “feel” by it’s subtle, beautiful and unforced presentation. Less is more…
It’s interesting that during all this talk about the Christmas show, no one has mentioned another seasonal and religious-oriented tradition: “Kol Nidre” that was presented every September (app.)during the high Jewish holy days. Like the “Nativity,” it preceded a regular show with the Rockettes, ballet, choral ensemble and symphony orchestra. The traditional “Kol Nidre” melody was played by a solo cellist at stage left and sung in cantorial style by a solist (seen) the choral ensemble (unseen). The backdrop was simply rolling clouds. There was no accompanying narrative, but it was reverential, brief, and tasteful. I can’t tell you when it began or how many years it remained a tradition.
Wouldn’t [that] be Loverly?
http://www.epinions.com/content_86937210500
$100! Sheesh!
For $100 I expect to see My Fair Lady.
With the original cast.
Vincent, perhaps they did me a favor. But at $100 a ticket, I want to see everything – good OR bad!
At the risk of offending just about everyone, it would seem to me that RCMH might do better staying away from the nativity sequence altogether and stick with entertainment. Leave the religious aspects to those institutions recreating nativity scenes already and in surroundings better suited to it.
Bob they did you a favor.
Yes there was a narration in the original Nativity. However it was more like the Linus narration in Charlie Brown Christmas which I happen to think is wonderful.
Banal pieties seem to have taken the place of eloquence and brevity.
When I went to the Christmas show a few years ago, there were quite a few people that left when the Nativity segment began. I had a family of 7 or 8 right in front of me (with small children) get up and leave. It took them several minutes to gather their things, and they weren’t trying to be too quiet about it either.
Needless to say, it was VERY distracting for those that wanted to stay!
Well, it was not in the Christmas shows that I saw in the 70’s.
I was moved by the narration at the end and felt it was in keeping with the nativity scene. But I seem to remember it even back in the 1970s when I saw my first movie at the Hall, “Bedknobs and Broomsticks.” So my question is, when exactly was this text added to the Christms Show?
I think the producers of the current Christmas show must realize that the Nativity scene has the potential to turn off viewers. Notice that it’s now at the END of the show, not the beginning as it was before. I remember how the house lights would dim and that solemn, beautiful Nativity scene would begin.
Honestly, it was the highlight of the show. Yeah, the Rockettes were memorable but for me, after all these years (almost 30! Oye!) it’s the Nativity that stays with me.
Leonidoff’s Nativity and Glory of Easter were two of my favorite theatrical events.
The current show is a manifestation of current religious smugness and righteousness(and Christians are not the only perpetrators.)
If RH were not so quick to label us as Christian bashers(I was raised a good Catholic boy) he or she would understand that what we find objectional is the reduction of a great theatrical pageant narrating the story of Christmas using imagery from Rennaissance painters to a flattened out fundamentalist tract that does little to impart the true meaning of Christmas and only reinforces a tendancy to assume superiority.
Leonidoff avoided this while at the same time creating a thrilling sense of exhiliration. And he was Russian Orthodox!!!
What in the world has happened to us?
Christian bashing indeed.
We’re not bashing Christians at all. Read my posts above and I state that the original Christmans Nativity scene (back in the 70’s) was truly remarkable. What I object to (and I’m sorry if this sounds like Chrisitan bashing) was/is the rather over the top narrative that is scrolled at the end of the Christmas show.
The original Nativity was a model of craftmanship. It was a subtle gem. You didn’t have to be a Christian to be moved by it. As a kid, it brought tears to my eyes it was sooooooooooo goood. And I was a non religeous kid to boot.
I brought my daughter to see the show expecting her to experience the same thing. And what did I get? The equivilent of an amusement park show with an underwhelming Nativity scene AND an over the top narrative to wrap it up. She, even at 8 years old, commented on how out of place it was.
I not bashing Christians. I’m bashing the present Nativity and Christmas show.
I’m amazed by the relentless Christian-bashing by many on this page. Multitudes exit the Music Hall each December grateful for having the true message of Christmas presented. That includes many life-long NYC residents, of which I am one. My parents took me for the first time on my 4th birthday in December, 1969. I plan to continue to bring my family for many years to come.
Oh, GOD…I did NOT ask for a transcript! Why did I have to read that! Again! I was appalled that the Christmas show would do something like that. Why would they do that? The one I saw as a kid was so subtlety affecting that it was a marvel. I’ve never forgotten it.
The only thing I can think of is that it’s part of the roadshow version of this show. They play this Christmas show across the country and someone genius must’ve thought this would’ve been great in red states. By in NY? Oye.
There were plenty of movies that could’ve/should’ve opened at RCMH this year. “Lemony Snicket”, though mediocre, would’ve looked great up there and it’s essentially a family film. Christ, even “Meet the Fockers” would’ve been a huge sell out with Stiller’s following COUPLED with Streisand’s (the gay attendence would’ve kept it there for weeks).
I KNOW people my age are ready for a return to the BIG movie houses. Just look at how well the megaplexes are doing. Why? It’s not just the stadium seating but the LARGENESS of the auditoriums and the screens.
I say kill the Christmas show next year, it’s time to put it out of it’s misery. Let us have a big December release movie and a new holiday theme stage show, with the Rockettes, produced by someone who has the vision to start a new tradition. I want the steam curtain, the stage curtain going up and down through out the show, and the orchestra to come up from the pit roll to the rear of the great stage. What else do we want?
This is what is said currently in the holiday show?
Are they insane?
I had mercifully forgotten most of it.
Thank God Leonidoff is dead so as not to see this travesty. He would be aghast.
Maybe they can invite Mel Gibson to stage The Gory of Easter.