|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 15:05:27 GMT
That may be true for you, and I can understand that. But in general, shows with a great score and mediocre books don't tend to do well, while shows with a great book and a mediocre score often succeed. Is there actual research to back this up, or just your observation?- Im curious. I'm trying to think of really succsful musicals (Phantom, Les Mis, Wicked) and while those don't have what I'd call 'weak' books- they aren't the smartest either. and other long runners (Mama mia, heck most Jukebox, Cats, Lion King) have books that in my opinion- range from boring to plain dumb, and their scores are the stronger contenders (but of course this topic is all very subjective to the individual). But it would be interesting to really dig deep into this one (maybe I'll make my thesis next year, maybe I'll make it about Sondheim and consult Michael ) Granted, it's not based on any scientific research. But I'm also involved in writing myself, and I've read lots of books and online articles about the structure of musicals. Virtually all of them say that a show with a great book and mediocre score has a bigger chance of success than a show with a mediocre book and a great score. I've also experienced that myself. For example Jekyll&Hyde has a great score but a weak book, and didn't do extremely well. Kinky Boots on the other hand has a solid book but a weak score (in my opinion) and is doing quite well. As for Jukebox musicals, they're an exception, because they are based on music that is already very popular. That means it's sure to draw crowds, many of them people who wouldn't see musicals otherwise. I think it makes a big difference compared to having a great score of new songs that no one has ever heard before.
To be honest, I love it when a musical has a great score, but I just can't bear to watch a bad story, even if the score is great. And I must disagree about Les Mis and Wicked. I think they have great books.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 15:08:29 GMT
I mean, EVERY show has a book. It's not just the dialogue, it's also the structure and the stage directions. So Cats must have a book, thin though it must be. I pondered that before I posted, but I'm not sure it's the case with Cats. Didn't ALW write music to TS Eliot's lyrics and then the creative team made a show? No one wrote a book of stage directions beforehand, did they? Yeah but every musical has a book. Even if there's no dialogue in it, there is still an overal story structure. For instance "Grizabella is alone in the moonlight and thinks back about when she was beautiful". I don't know Cats well enough to know what happens in that show besides a bunch of cats dancing and singing. But however thin the plot, if there is a plot, there's a book. Even ballets have books.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 15:19:04 GMT
Where is it?
|
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jul 25, 2016 15:19:42 GMT
Is there actual research to back this up, or just your observation?- Im curious. I'm trying to think of really succsful musicals (Phantom, Les Mis, Wicked) and while those don't have what I'd call 'weak' books- they aren't the smartest either. and other long runners (Mama mia, heck most Jukebox, Cats, Lion King) have books that in my opinion- range from boring to plain dumb, and their scores are the stronger contenders (but of course this topic is all very subjective to the individual). But it would be interesting to really dig deep into this one (maybe I'll make my thesis next year, maybe I'll make it about Sondheim and consult Michael ) Granted, it's not based on any scientific research. But I'm also involved in writing myself, and I've read lots of books and online articles about the structure of musicals. Virtually all of them say that a show with a great book and mediocre score has a bigger chance of success than a show with a mediocre book and a great score. I've also experienced that myself. For example Jekyll&Hyde has a great score but a weak book, and didn't do extremely well. Kinky Boots on the other hand has a solid book but a weak score (in my opinion) and is doing quite well. As for Jukebox musicals, they're an exception, because they are based on music that is already very popular. That means it's sure to draw crowds, many of them people who wouldn't see musicals otherwise. I think it makes a big difference compared to having a great score of new songs that no one has ever heard before.
To be honest, I love it when a musical has a great score, but I just can't bear to watch a bad story, even if the score is great. And I must disagree about Les Mis and Wicked. I think they have great books.
Jekyll and Hyde ran for 4 years and is very succesful in the international/ touring/ regional/ highschool fronts, Kinky Boots hasn't reached that yet on either count- so there is no knowing which will outlive/ be more succesful the other. There are many examples though that I and Baemax listed in this thread for the most succesful shows, non Jukebox, currently running or otherwise- that have very poor books but memorable scores. I would be interested to see (or look into) statistics for this though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 15:22:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 16:36:13 GMT
Granted, it's not based on any scientific research. But I'm also involved in writing myself, and I've read lots of books and online articles about the structure of musicals. Virtually all of them say that a show with a great book and mediocre score has a bigger chance of success than a show with a mediocre book and a great score. I've also experienced that myself. For example Jekyll&Hyde has a great score but a weak book, and didn't do extremely well. Kinky Boots on the other hand has a solid book but a weak score (in my opinion) and is doing quite well. As for Jukebox musicals, they're an exception, because they are based on music that is already very popular. That means it's sure to draw crowds, many of them people who wouldn't see musicals otherwise. I think it makes a big difference compared to having a great score of new songs that no one has ever heard before.
To be honest, I love it when a musical has a great score, but I just can't bear to watch a bad story, even if the score is great. And I must disagree about Les Mis and Wicked. I think they have great books.
Jekyll and Hyde ran for 4 years and is very succesful in the international/ touring/ regional/ highschool fronts, Kinky Boots hasn't reached that yet on either count- so there is no knowing which will outlive/ be more succesful the other. There are many examples though that I and Baemax listed in this thread for the most succesful shows, non Jukebox, currently running or otherwise- that have very poor books but memorable scores. I would be interested to see (or look into) statistics for this though. If you do look into it, please let us know what you find. The thing about a show with a good book standing a better chance than one with a good score is something I've read multiple times, and it makes sense. But I don't know if it's actually statistically correct.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 16:36:52 GMT
What do you mean, where is it?
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2016 17:05:04 GMT
T.S. Elliot would be turning in his grave... Well, he might be a little pissed off that you can't spell his name, but his poems were used as the lyrics of Cats and not as the book. And I think your irony detector is broken.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 17:40:43 GMT
And I think your irony detector is broken. I don't. Perhaps my sense of humour?
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2016 17:45:03 GMT
I wonder why you dismiss anything with Sondheim's name on it? I don't like his melodies very much either (depending on the tone of the show- but they do sound the same-ish to me too). Is it the lyrics for you? The tone he writes in? I'm genuenly curious- because his shows are quite different (especially the ones he didn't compose) in tone and subject at least, and the books he writes for are usually very finely tuned. Do you not like west Side Story either? I still owe you an answer to this. I never cared much about Sondheim. But after I read all the positive posts and rave reviews in the old board about Sondheim, I bought two cast recordings (I think it was Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods) and listened to them. A few songs into them, my ears were bleeding and I was grimacing with pain. Horrible doesn't even come close, and while I can usually understand people appreciating things I don't, it is completely beyond my undestanding how anyone can enjoy Sondheim. My first exposure to his material was so bad that I promised to myself to never ever see a show that Sondheim is involved in, irrespective of whether he wrote songs only, lyrics only or both.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 17:48:19 GMT
The flaw in your methodology is that Sondheim is a theatre composer and so the proper way to assess his shows is to attend them.
|
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jul 25, 2016 18:01:43 GMT
I wonder why you dismiss anything with Sondheim's name on it? I don't like his melodies very much either (depending on the tone of the show- but they do sound the same-ish to me too). Is it the lyrics for you? The tone he writes in? I'm genuenly curious- because his shows are quite different (especially the ones he didn't compose) in tone and subject at least, and the books he writes for are usually very finely tuned. Do you not like west Side Story either? I still owe you an answer to this. I never cared much about Sondheim. But after I read all the positive posts and rave reviews in the old board about Sondheim, I bought two cast recordings (I think it was Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods) and listened to them. A few songs into them, my ears were bleeding and I was grimacing with pain. Horrible doesn't even come close, and while I can usually understand people appreciating things I don't, it is completely beyond my undestanding how anyone can enjoy Sondheim. My first exposure to his material was so bad that I promised to myself to never ever see a show that Sondheim is involved in, irrespective of whether he wrote songs only, lyrics only or both. I was worried I had offended you. I think you were just exposed poorly- Sondheim, I think, is very hit or miss. Sweeny Todd, at least musically, very much an aquiered taste, but I like the show well enough. Never listen to a recording though (but have watched the Lupone concert twice) Into the Woods bores me, I've listened to the Obc, and only watched half the movie. I LOVE Passion (if I could play any role in my lifetime it would be Fosca) but its such a weird show and many people booed it at the theatre so make of it what you will. You haven't said what you thought of West Side Story, you must have heard at least snippets of it. I'd really suggest watching Gypsy- the music is Jule Styne and not at all reminiscent of Sondheim's "same ol tune" music- its a light easy going musical score, quite clever. The lyrics are very strong, and suprisingly not pretentious, as I find Sondheim sometime goes. And the book is, as I said, probably the best book a musical ever had that I'd seen. I have a free link to Imelda's- It's a good production and she's very good in it. Just in case you change your mind I'm not a Sondheim fanatic by any means- but I really do recommend it. You can blame me and ignore for the rest on our days of it sucks too >< But thank you for answering either way
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 8:40:37 GMT
I also think productins of Sondheim can do a lot to help or hinder-a director/cast that 'gets' him and the piece will usually make an audience feel the same, likewise it's very easy to get wrong and turn the entire audience off.
Though while we're on the subject unpopular opinion-I really hated the LuPone Gypsy which then made me have zero desire to see Imelda no matter how much people raved. That said I'm well aware I was tired grumpy and hot the night I saw it (and had a large man with a big head blocking my view) which possibly accounts for my dislike...
|
|
2,705 posts
|
Post by viserys on Jul 26, 2016 8:51:42 GMT
I think Mama Rose is a role that needs to be got "exactly right" in order for us to care about her. While I haven't seen LuPone in this and thus don't feel like I can pass judgement, I could see how she might have overegged the pudding and thus just irritated people.
When it comes to Sondheim I'm in two minds. I'm in the camp who cares more for a good book and intelligent lyrics than good music. Not that I don't welcome good music, but inane lyrics and a dumb story turn me off way more. I know many are able to "switch their brain off" and go with the flow, enjoy the music, etc. but when the characterization thoroughly irritates me, it's more than I can handle, for example Boublil/Schoenberg's whiny I-need-a-man-women or Wildhorn's trivialization of European history.
Once in a while Sondheim is excellent at storytelling - Passion for example, when done right, is a fantastic theatrical piece where I don't mind the lack of easy tunes at all. Same with Sweeney Todd, A Little Night Music or the first act of Into the Wood (I think it sags terribly in the second act). But sometimes I feel like he wants to be too clever. And unfortunately some of his shows seem rather dated now. I only saw a cinema broadcast of the Company concert from New York (with Neil Patrick Harris) but I hated it intensely for its vibe that a man (or woman) can only ever be happy in a relationship. But that's just me, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 9:00:35 GMT
I agree! I meant to add (but got side tracked by LuPone, and you're right for me her Mama Rose just felt over-egged and too much) that some of Sondheim's just don't work for me, in particular Into the Woods and A Little Night Music. I don't hate them, but I find myself often bored and wanting to cut great chunks of them. But I love Sweeney and Passion for the exact reasons you say!
|
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jul 26, 2016 9:59:38 GMT
Yes for all the Passion love! Favourite weird musical of mine!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 10:10:30 GMT
I only saw a cinema broadcast of the Company concert from New York (with Neil Patrick Harris) but I hated it intensely for its vibe that a man (or woman) can only ever be happy in a relationship. But that's just me, I guess. Interestingly, the ending of Company was originally different where Bobby continued with his pessimistic take on relationships, with lyrics like: Someone to need you too much Someone to read you too well Someone to bleed you of all The things you don't want to tell That's happily ever after, Ever, ever, ever after In hell You can hear the original song on YouTube. Sondheim himself has said that he isn't a big fan of the ending of Company and I agree with him (and you). 'Being Alive' is an incredible song, surely in the top 10 he's ever written but the conclusion Bobby comes to in it makes little sense and comes out of nowhere. I agree with you that lyrics like 'alone is alone not alive' are almost offensive and just untrue. I think Sondheim himself knows that, as someone that didn't get into a relationship until he was 60. I think if Company was made today it perhaps would have kept the original ending, but at the time I guess they thought it was already too 'real' and they wanted to send the audience off with a bit of hope.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 10:19:00 GMT
I think where Company gets away with it is it's clearly presenting all this as Bobby's view. As a single person myself, I don't feel judged by the show, I just feel that Bobby's telling himself a lot of lies until he finally realises that actually he would like to be in a relationship after all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 10:43:47 GMT
I think the resolution is just a little weak and undeserving of the brilliant song written around it. Maybe that issue is with the book. I still think the other ending would be more effective but then again I enjoy a bittersweet ending over a happy one.
|
|
2,705 posts
|
Post by viserys on Jul 26, 2016 10:48:34 GMT
I guess that makes sense, Baemax. As someone who's been (happily) single for a very long time, I find that I'm constantly and even today struggling with being judged for that. Why don't you have a boyfriend? Why don't you go on dates? How can you exist? And so on.
And Musical Theatre is generally a rather sappy romantic genre with many love stories - which I am okay with. When it's a well-done love story I happily cheer for the couple on stage. But when I watched the Company concert, I just felt like being judged all over again and that my life choice is a questionable and even "wrong" one and sometimes it just gets too much.
I suppose it's what I like about A Little Night Music, where Sondheim shows a much more cynical and in my view more honest/realistic picture of relationships. Oh well, maybe some day they WILL do a Company where Bobby remains true to himself and sings the original version.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 10:58:09 GMT
Yes, it is incredible that the attitudes in Company that opened in 1970 are still so prevalent today. We now have so much freedom of choice and lack of judgement for many things that were once controversial but if someone chooses not to partake in romantic relationships (despite all the risks involved with them), they're still such an oddity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 11:27:43 GMT
Did I mention that Patti LuPone was the wrong choice for Evita?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 11:51:01 GMT
I only saw a cinema broadcast of the Company concert from New York (with Neil Patrick Harris) but I hated it intensely for its vibe that a man (or woman) can only ever be happy in a relationship. But that's just me, I guess. Interestingly, the ending of Company was originally different where Bobby continued with his pessimistic take on relationships, with lyrics like: Someone to need you too much Someone to read you too well Someone to bleed you of all The things you don't want to tell That's happily ever after, Ever, ever, ever after In hell This is a much better fit than Being Alive, much as I like the song. I first heard this in Marry Me A Little, which features a range of songs cut from Sondheim shows - great fun imagining how the shows would have run with them. Rather like "Bang, Bang" which was originally in A Little Night Music before being cut - seduction as a military exercise.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 11:53:55 GMT
Yes for all the Passion love! Favourite weird musical of mine! Oh, I struggle with this one, though otherwise enjoy Sondheim (with the exception of A Funny Thing Happened.....). I went to see it at the Donmar and really wanted to like it but couldn't wrap my ears round the music. Perhaps I should try listending to the CD a few times. My favourite Sondheim is Pacific Overtures though. Sorry, wandered off the topic of unpopular opinons a bit here.
|
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jul 26, 2016 12:54:53 GMT
Yes for all the Passion love! Favourite weird musical of mine! Oh, I struggle with this one, though otherwise enjoy Sondheim (with the exception of A Funny Thing Happened.....). I went to see it at the Donmar and really wanted to like it but couldn't wrap my ears round the music. Perhaps I should try listending to the CD a few times. My favourite Sondheim is Pacific Overtures though. Sorry, wandered off the topic of unpopular opinons a bit here. I'll admit that the only production I've seen is the film recording of the original cast with Donna Murphy- which I've rewatched several times. It is an odd one, very bleak and depressing. But I get Fosca- manipulating as she is. And you don't see many leading charachters like her.
|
|