| re: Scaramouche: Some More Thoughts About What You Were Saying | |
|
Posted by: |
steven_stuart 02:54 am UTC 11/17/10 |
| In reply to: | re: Scaramouche: Some More Thoughts About What You Were Saying - Scaramouche 12:57 pm UTC 11/13/10 |
| > > 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 Yes. Interesting list. Even though they are such different shows. Its something about that era that makes "Revved Up" suitable for all of these shows. Going off topic for a second, I think "West Side Story" is the most perfect piece of art but I absolutely loved "Cry Baby". > 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). Yes it would. The trouble is, how many times can you use BOOH? If its already ending the two acts - even though they are two very different versions (as Jim suggested to you). What if Jim and Steve Margoshes did a variation of the BOOH intro which was very different? I would like to see the motorcycle and the tombstones from the Bat 1 cover come to life at the start of the show (as you suggested) but that will happen at the end of Act One when the whole of BOOH is played (what happens in the wrokshop version of the script that you have read?). The start at the moment will be the kind of instrumental you describe with a light show by Marc Brickman. Slowly spotting different Lost Boys (as well as parts of Obsidian) until they break into "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. I'm sure. > > 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. Ah. Okay. What about that intro for the show intro? > > 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? I think that they want at least a "Variation On A Theme Of The Bat Introduction", so that its original. Although, there is a very powerful chap (not Jim) who wants the old fashioned medley of hits (and they all say: "Oh no. We can't do that!"). Wouldn't it be cool if Jim wrote a really wonderful original introduction that fitted into Brickman's light show and the lights picking out The Lost Boys and the different areas of Obsidan? > > 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 do like your vision. But if its not available for the opening, would using just the intro (made different by Jim and Margoshes), count as a third use of the song in the show? > 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? The last song is "We're Still The Children". They all agree that they need a different kind of song to actually send the audience home. This is probably why Jim suggested to you that a choir version of BOOH should be performed. That could be very powerful. > Lyrical tweaks are needed to probably every song just to > have a cohesive piece that makes PERFECT sense in a Peter > Pan context. I agree completely. What exactly did JD say about the "All Revved Up" lyric changes? Did she sound positive about them? Probably she did. BTW, did you notice that "The Wendy Speech" thread has been removed? Its not actually in the show. I did think that it was somehow too intimate to fit into the rest of the show the way Jim has written it. > 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). Yes. Bring on the tweaks. Do you think the London critics are as powerful as the New York critics? Even if they aren't, it would be lovely to get good reviews. > > 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. Did Hook and Mother Hook (or Mrs. Hook) sing "Paradise" in that version? BTW, what do you think of the idea of Karla playing Mother Hook? I think it would be great. Its too bad that meat Loaf can't play Hook. Those two reuniting for "Paradise" after all these years would be great for publicity. And it would fit into the story because the singers are now meant to be older. > There is a whole section on this site: > > http://www.jimsteinman.com/neverlnd.htm Thanks for pointing it out. I will make sure I read it. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Scaramouche: Some More Thoughts About What You Were Saying - Scaramouche 12:57 pm UTC 11/13/10 |
| Next: | re: Scaramouche: Some More Thoughts About What You Were Saying - Evil_One 01:55 pm UTC 11/13/10 |
| Thread: | |