not logged in
| re: Disgracefully Yours | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 05:08 am UTC 07/21/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Disgracefully Yours - Leesa 10:18 pm UTC 07/20/07 |
> Jim embellishing the truth has become legend but Jim lying > about composition I do not believe happens. He would not lie to say he wrote something he didn't, but yes, he lies about what he wrote and says he didn't write it, when it is too insurmountable to face the legions by saying the truth. However, in private company, and during his days before the specific problem, his presence at the theatre and on the set while socializing as he would have freely, it was an issue not denied. He mentioned the importance of it to him, his role in it, three distinct times to me between 1974, just weeks after the filming wrapped, and 1987, years after the cult took hold. >Jim claims he > did not write Rocky Horror--admittedly, there are some > stylistic similarities between Bat 1 and RH--I was very > attracted to both on style. There was at first an assumption I made that the writer of Meat Loaf's album was the same writer of RH, and THEN I looked at the album and saw the name Jim Steinman, and assumed at that point it was a pseudonym, without his egging me to it. The styles between the pair of works were indistinguishable to me on the levels I appreciate them on. It is more than an incidental coincidence that a movie role would translate itself so readily into a singing theatrical model. > Jim is a far more powerful > composer, both lyrically and musically. He is more versatile than you know, and capable of making the powerful musical elements balance with the dramatic and comedic elements of RH, just the same way he mixed humor and spoken word with powerful music of a past culture sexuality budding, just as happened to Brad and Janet in RH, in different settings. What do you expect, that he would write the same songs over and over again? :) :) :) > We're talking ancient history to document all that went > down musically throughout that period,and there was a time > that I'd tit-for-tat it to the wire but time no longer > serves, but I do know that JC Superstar as whatever, > struck me as being much closer to RH and Bat 1 on CERTAIN > THINGS than many offerings that came later. You are speaking with a chronology you went through. Pretty good ears from the womb, huh? You were as clueless then to the music that was going on as you are now. You have limited awareness of music. You'd tit-for-tat if you knew tit from tat. >But not enough > to prove that Jim Steinman HAD to be the one composing > O'Brien's work. A person who DID do a thing, is the one who has to have done the thing. What kind of phrase did you make? That's absurd. You are talking about proof? That's also absurd. Proof is nothing to one who won't see it. The fact you had breakfast on a morning is nothing to prove you had breakfast on the day before, so are you going to start elemental and semantical debates on minutia in order to win your argument? You can't win this argument. O'Brien for this purpose, was Jim Cypherd, using that name. His work IS O'Brien's work, until someone else turned the name into the same context. Then, Jim withdrew from that name, and let the garbage roll. > Similar styles. > Queen was another group I was very into during that period > and if you look close enough there are overlaps there as > well. You were very into it, when you were a zygote? Thaya, come on, as you used to say, ganook. (A zygote is the first division of the fertilized egg in gestation). You were into Queen because Hal was into Queen. You didn't do the worst thing in the world. The idiots may be the combination of your brother and Smith. So, just relax. Pretend we are in the Waverly, wondering if Bill is Tim Curry, and Bill didn't bring his bell yet. > In fact, if you dissect virtually anything around that > period you'll find the proverbial '6 degrees to' is alive > and well. Alot of these artists have mutual roots and it > does begin to show. RH would have gone nowhere fast if it had nothing unique to offer before the first dance, before the first bell, before the first rice. We were there. We know better. It was as special as a movie musical could have been. It was ripe for us adventurous adolescents to look at and wonder mystically at to all those symbols on the screen, those different elements coming at us one after another after another, which none of us expected at all. That is why, when someone saw it for the first time they were called virgins. It was why, without any other embellishment, people were coming back again and again, because they just couldn't believe how they could have such an amazing experience just by watching a movie. The dialogue was learned as well as the music, and all through the theatre in unison, without any other thing breaking the concentration, people heard each other in synchronization with the speakers. And nobody was calling Janet Weiss a tramp. Nobody was talking back. The first one to do that was YOU. Then Bill's companion decided he liked that, and started calling Janet Weiss a tramp. > Listen to offerings from the time and you'll realise that > much of it has alot more in common with each other than > anything today. That is preposterous. We are talking about music, musical theatre, and a musical on film. There was nothing comparable to it at all. > And yeah, you get to comparing the realitively new genre > of the rock 'opera/musical' that it was at the time to > stuff just meant to be heard on the radio, there was a > difference but you see the line being greyed much the same > way country merged into pop, especially with Mutt Lange's > involvement. Mutt Lange is hardly a trend-setter. Where does his name belong in this context you present? There is no merging of pop from anything in his works. He's hard metal pre-gothic. Just because you knew him doesn't mean you know how to drop his name. Now I recall, you never won an argument against me. >Jim pushed the envelope farther with Bat. > Keep in mind that musically RH never took off on it's > own--only audience participation in cinemas cemented it's > success--it bombed on stage as well. Careful there.........this is the thing that I write about, the kinds of things that happened which torpedoed the success. Lou Adler was in the theatre, inside the upstairs theatre at the Royal Court, bribing them to give him the dates and take the dates away from RH before it opened. The only reason why RH opened on schedule was because they didn't take the bribe. So, I kind of think it is just wiser to put other arguments to the fore. And, "audience participation" is not a thing that I discussed openly with you because you were the chief cheerleader and like a steamroller with eyebrows, but I tried, really tried, to keep you in your seat and away from others. I didn't know what to make of it. No, I'm not with her, I don't know who she is, don't look at me. You think your feelings are hurt? I'm just saying how I felt. You always knew you had too much of that kind of energy, and it worked against you in alot of ways, where it seemed to work for you there in that setting. I'm demure in my manner, the one who likes to be calm and genteel. I liked singing and reciting, looking at the things on the screen, and would have been happy to have seen "audience participation" turn into discussion groups instead of a rally of vandals. Vandals, of the very thing that attracted US in the first place. Or, at least, attracted me, even if Jim never told me of it in advance. The music is great. It can stand on its own. Just because moguls didn't let it, has nothing to do with "audience participation". >It's a very different > phenomenon and actually freakish in it's success. Not freakish in its success, Thaya, it was freakish in its failure before we ever really knew it at all. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Disgracefully Yours - Leesa 10:18 pm UTC 07/20/07 |
| Next: | re: Disgracefully Yours - Leesa 08:07 am UTC 07/21/07 |
| Thread: |
|