not logged in
| re: Operas Vs. Musicals | |
Posted by:  |
wordnix 04:56 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| In reply to: | Operas Vs. Musicals - steven_stuart 04:06 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| Well, that's not entirely true. It's not that Tanz had an entirely conventional book, but it did have some dialogue, and I don't think that it would work quite as well if it lost said dialogue. It was not a fully sung-through piece. As for where operas vs. musicals stands, JCS, while a great musical in my estimation, is fuel on the fire for those who believe that a fully sung through piece does not work, simply because after a while there are not enough new melodies to come up with. The show has essentially eight musical themes, and re-uses them over and over again (inventive in terms of character development for its fans, maybe, but they're basically the same eight songs repeated throughout the course of the piece, with the exception of two added for the 1973 film). Where I stand in terms of BOOH is that if it needs a book, then Jim should only provide the broad strokes to the secondary book writer and have full approval of the final product (and of course credit as necessary). It shouldn't be a DOTV situation, don't get me wrong, but he also shouldn't have more control than he can handle. Reading pieces like Dream Engine or Neverland or Rhinegold shows me as a theater fan that Jim got stuck in one creative bag and never left (unless he was either just composing, as with Tanz, or providing lyrics, as with WDTW). By that I mean that in the late Sixties, when Jim started writing for theater, non-linear musicals like HAIR were becoming the norm as opposed to the standard fare with pretty little songs and candy-ass chorus boys that meant nothing. Back then, Jim's work would have fit in as part of the "Off Broadway techniques taking over Broadway" aesthetic. Now, when he re-uses the material in more plot driven musicals (witness the 2001 draft for DOTV loaded with Neverland material), it makes no sense and tends to bring down the pace of a show. And if his script for BOOH is anything like Neverland, it may only succeed based on the score, the special effects (if any), and the Meat Loaf connection, because the original script made little sense unless you read every Jim article or bio ever written and began to develop an image in your head of what it could be. Just my two (million) cents. > Smeghead wrote (about DOTV):"Nothing wrong with Jim's > translatioins of the songs. The problem was Jim's manager > convincing him to change it from a Sung Through Musical to > a "Joke"-fest with songs and dialogue." > > DOTV should be a sung through if it opens in the West End. > Like Les Miz. Although with Jim's "Wagnerian Rock", it > would almost certainly qualify as a great opera. That's > why Polanski (who hates rock)wanted to direct it. > > The same is true for BOOH. I am sure that Jim has written > a really good book for it (and he may end up collaborating > with a book writer). But it seems almost unnatural for one > of the greatest lyricists ever to be writing dialogue. Jim > has the talent of both George and Ira Gershwin. If he > decided to turn BOOH into a sung through it would be a > fantastic work of art. The extra lyrics would almost > certainly contain memorable gems. > > The successful sung throughs of Andrew Lloyd Webber are > not really operas. Jesus Christ Superstar and Cats (for > example)are linked pop songs. Aspects Of Love was the > closest he came to opera but the lyrics were boring and it > bombed. Jim is quite different because he writes amazing > lyrics and operatic rock. I think only Pete Townsend is in > Jim's league. And I have read that Jim is a fan of both > The Who and Tommy. > > Tommy was a hit album twice with different versions. A > sung through BOOH would stand a better chance of being a > hit album than a collection of BOOH songs by various > performers. The same with DOTV (which is already a sung > through - so I hope any West End producers will keep it > that way and it might eventually have a second chance at > Broadway). > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Operas Vs. Musicals - steven_stuart 04:06 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| Next: | re: Operas Vs. Musicals - steven_stuart 09:21 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| Thread: |
|