not logged in
| re: Operas Vs. Musicals | |
Posted by:  |
Smeghead 10:57 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Operas Vs. Musicals - steven_stuart 09:21 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| I don't know. I got it the first time I listened to it and didn't need anyone to explain it. But then I got The CONFIDENCE MAN too, which people seem to find equally confusing. I think people must really be stupid. Obviosly there were a lot of things in Neverland that didn't make sense and needed to be fixed, but the overall concept really isn't that hard to understand. I would love the chance to help Jim write a new draft... > Jackster, I really enjoyed reading your response. You make > some great points. I hope that everyone takes the trouble > to read your post. > > I thought the most interesting line in your post was: > "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." > > It's like Jim has a grand vision of Obsidian in his head > but getting it down on paper is going to be very > difficult. > However, if you research Jim and listen to the things he > says, then you can get the Peter Pan/ Obsidian vision in > your head, without the need for a written book. > > This is one reason why I thought that Jim would naturally > have more success with lyrics than dialogue. He is known > to be a genius of lyrics but not of dialogue. He does say > that he is going to bring in a book writer (he can't be as > good at dialogue as he is at lyrics or he wouldn't need a > book writer) but there isn't one at the moment and he has > been saying that for several years now. The book writers > have been coming and going. > > But still I can see the fantastic Peter Pan in > post-apocalyptic Manhattan with Hook as police chief > instead of pirate Obsidian concept. I don't need to read > the book for the BOOH musical to really see that in my > mind. There is almost no way that Jim could write that > vision down on paper. Its him talking about it which is > magical. I think going with lyrics is the best way of > capturing that magic because Jim does create magic when he > writes lyrics and music. > > > > 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: | re: Operas Vs. Musicals - steven_stuart 09:21 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| Next: | re: Operas Vs. Musicals - wordnix 11:35 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| Thread: |
|