not logged in
| re: Operas Vs. Musicals | |
Posted by:  |
Smeghead 01:32 am UTC 09/23/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Operas Vs. Musicals - wordnix 11:35 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| The things you mention were not in the stage script, they were in the movie script which was a whole different beast... and in my opinion from what little I've seen of it, not as good. It is making more of the spectacle and less of the story. > 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 - wordnix 11:35 pm UTC 09/22/08 |
| Next: | Come to think of it... - rockfenris2005 08:45 am UTC 09/23/08 |
| Thread: |
|