not logged in
| re: Operas Vs. Musicals | |
Posted by:  |
wordnix 11:35 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Operas Vs. Musicals - Smeghead 10:57 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| I don't know if you were evaluated for this in school, and I don't claim to be an expert on these things, but you're probably an auditory learner, which means you can pick things up quickly from listening, especially with your theater experience. For people whose first exposure was the transcript rather than the recording, there's not much they can pick up that isn't from their own line reading or imagination. A recording reveals so many things that a transcript does not -- inflections and tones, for one. Also, any sounds that are heard can be easily interpreted, but some people need things spelled out for them. It's not a sign of them being stupid. They just learn differently. Saying that there were things in Neverland that didn't make sense and need to be fixed is preaching to the choir, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who's read the concept or the transcript, but especially elements of the concept that he's stated in interviews over the years, knows there is some shit that is just too much and that really doesn't need to be there (example: Nana as the ultimate guard dog that explodes to reveal a smaller version of itself inside, Max and Emily sharing hooks because a duck-billed platypus ate them off and a Geiger counter ticks inside it warning them of his approach--seriously, that didn't need to be there, they could have just had hooks with no explanation, etc.). As for helping Jim write a new draft, you've received my email when I was still off the forum, so you know I think you're as good as any. You have my vote. Just my two (million) cents. > 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 - Smeghead 10:57 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| Next: | re: Operas Vs. Musicals - Smeghead 01:32 am UTC 09/23/08 |
| Thread: |
|