not logged in
| re: Scaramouche: Some More Thoughts About What You Were Saying | |
Posted by:  |
Scaramouche 12:57 pm UTC 11/13/10 |
| In reply to: | Scaramouche: Some More Thoughts About What You Were Saying - steven_stuart 03:05 am UTC 11/13/10 |
| > You replied: "I have a great Act 1 ending and will post > another 'vision' this week." > > I have been looking out for that but may have missed it. See new post above > I was thinking that "All Revved Up" would fit into "Grease". > Maybe sung by the girls who sing "Sandra Dee". 'Revved Up' could fit into most 1950's era shows/films. Grease, Happy Days, West Side Story, Cry Baby, American Graffiti, The Warriors, Streets of Fire etc etc > Would you like just the introduction to open the show? The more I think about it the more I'm sure the BOOH intro would make a perfect Overture (albeit extended and embellished with orchestration). > Then they could cut from the introduction to "All Revved > Up". It would make more sense to move into BOOH (the actual song) but you could move into 'Revved Up' or whatever. I'm sure Steve Margoshes could orchestrate a smooth merge. > Gosh. Its such a magical introduction. Isn't that why > Popovitch signed them to Cleveland Records? No, Popovitch got excited about the intro to 'You Took The Words...' that was the record deal clincher. > I have heard some people (not Jim) suggest that there should > be an instrumental medley with bits of all the best songs. > I really think that your suggestion is much better. A > medley would be too "Sound Of Music"ish, in my opinion. I agree. The Bat intro makes perfect sense as Overture. I'm surprised that this isn't an obvious choice to the creative team? > So would it work if "BOOH" is heard three times in the > show? No. Twice at most. In my vision BOOH opens Act 1 and a reprised version closes Act 2. Nothing added to the curtain call. I'm assuming Jim uses BOOH only once in the show (maybe in Act 1) and therefore feels the need to use it again in the curtain call, to give the audience another fix? > I think you are right about this. Some people will wonder > what the two "BOOH" albums have to do with "Neverland". > Even though Jim has publicly stated on many occassions > that he wrote the songs with "Neverland" in mind. Some > "lyrical tweaks" might satisfy the sceptics. Lyrical tweaks are needed to probably every song just to have a cohesive piece that makes PERFECT sense in a Peter Pan context. I think Jim may have written most of the Bat songs with Neverland loosely in mind, but they are not specific/focused enough to work (without tweaks). > You wrote: "Despite reading the Neverland workshop > script". > > When was the workshop? Was it before Bat 1 was released? 1977. It was staged before the Bat album was released (I think) but it was obviously worked on, in conjunction with the album. There is a whole section on this site: http://www.jimsteinman.com/neverlnd.htm | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Scaramouche: Some More Thoughts About What You Were Saying - steven_stuart 03:05 am UTC 11/13/10 |
| Next: | re: Scaramouche: Some More Thoughts About What You Were Saying - steven_stuart 02:54 am UTC 11/17/10 |
| Thread: |
|