Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Last Edit: GrumpyMorningBoy 05:31 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 05:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| Easily one of the hottest men to ever work on Broadway or the West End. Easily. Chords of steel. Insane power up top. He seems to kinda forget to think about pitch every now and then. Hot as hell. Really not a bad actor at all. Very little voice training, according to things he’s said in interviews. Very few voice lessons. It shows. His poor vowel placement is nearly enough to drive me mad. But hot as all get out, even under all that scary Phantom makeup. ..... I haven’t sat through PHANTOM since a friend joined the cast waaaaaaaayyyy long ago and I checked out the Bway cast, and it’s always a lovely nostalgia trip to the late 80’s. It’s really not hard to understand why THIS is the one musical that’s outlived every other. It’s all so deliciously over the top, yet so easy to consume without having to think too hard. And if any plot lends itself to being sung, this one sure does. For a multi millionaire, it’s easy to forget how oft-maligned Sir Lloyd Webber often is. I gotta give him credit for knowing how to write melodies that feel familiar on a first listen, yet hold together within a cohesive score that works as a collection of songs. He’s great at building motifs to foreshadow & raise the stakes of the story. And the opera pastiche is all pretty fun, to be honest. I forgot how much of the opera and ballet portions weren’t on that original cast recording that I wore out back in the day. And let’s give it up for Sierra Boggess. Opposite Mr. Karimloo, her voice training really shines. Bravo, Millikin. For high notes this beautiful and clear, her low register is absolutely stunning. And she can act, finding the right style in a story where she’s tasked to help us suspend our disbelief and accept a plot of melodramatic pulp. - GMB |
|
| Link | Streaming: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA’s 25th Anniversary, Live at Royal Albert Hall |
| reply to this message | |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: Derek 11:52 am EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| Watching the 25th anniversary concert, I was reminded why - though I've always been impressed by the show, its music and its staging - I've never warmed to the main characters. Can anyone explain to me why people think this is a love story? Phantom: disfigured victim of society (depraved on account of deprived) or misogynist stalker? Kidnaps a woman, hypnotises/educates/trains her, spies on her, kills an innocent bystander, kidnaps singer's boyfriend, goes on the lam without paying for his crimes Christine: traumatised orphan or Eve Harrington climber? Misses daddy but happy to learn tricks of the opera trade from mysterious music-lover to get ahead, dumps him when she's acquired his knowledge and she gets a better offer from an aristocrat though (according to Love Never Dies) lives to her reget choosing status over love, paying the ultimate price. Raoul: handsome but weak aristocratic playboy who is interested in his former childhood love only after she's made something of herself onstage, encouraging him to win her heart, then break it by becoming a bankrupt gambler, drunk and jealous husband from hell in Coney Island. Madame Giry: mysterious relation of Mrs Danvers who has eyes everywhere but fails repeatedly to intervene and prevent misery. Opera owners: gilmet-eyed business men determined to squeeze as much out of their new investment - and performers - as possible, whatever the cost. It seems to me that Carlotta is the only likeable character in the piece. She's a prima donna handful, but at least she doesn't claim to be something else. Again, I don't mean to question the show's justified success -- it is a remarkable piece -- I just always feel I am missing something important that makes the rest of the world swoon. What makes these characters likable? I don't empathise with any of them. I'll take Sunset Boulevard any day. She's using him, he's using her -- and both know it. Thoughts? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 12:21 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - Derek 11:52 am EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Likability is an over rated virtue in drama. Having said this, I would hardly hold up Norma Desmond and Joe Gillis as likable characters. Mrs. Lovett and Sweeney Todd are not likable folk. Neither is Hedda Gabler, Neither is Troy Maxson from Fences. Complex, infuriating, charming, heart breaking but not "nice". | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: Derek 12:43 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - Billhaven 12:21 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I wouldn't describe Joe/Norma or Mrs Lovett/Sweeney Todd as likable either -- they are couples where one is using the other, but they are aware of it and, for the most part, even admit to it. Some are more emotionally invested in the transactional relationship than others, but no one is pretending to be noble/good That's what bothers me about Phantom and Christine: are they good people in impossible circumstances? Should we feel sorry for them that they are deceiving themselves as to their true motives? I've never been sure what the libretto is trying to tell us on this point. Again, I'm not just trying to provoke, and maybe I need to listen more closely, but I have simply never gotten what moves people about the show. I remember a woman telling me she found it so romantic, but couldn't say why. And I've wondered all these years why I don't get it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: mikem 03:39 pm EDT 04/23/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - Derek 12:43 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| If you ignore Love Never Dies (as everyone should), I don't think either Christine or Raoul are presented badly in POTO. Christine is not that ambitious. She doesn't volunteer to take Carlotta's place; she only agrees after Meg Giry brings up the possibility. Christine misses her father badly and looks at the Phantom as a father figure. She's also only 19 or 20, so she's a bit young and naive. Nothing that Raoul does in POTO is bad. He hasn't seen Christine in years when he sees her on stage. He's not drawn to her fame, but to her talent. He's an wealthy aristocrat; he doesn't need anything from Christine. POTO romanticizes The Phantom's actions. He does a lot of bad things, but because he allegedly does them because of his unrequited love of Christine, it's okay. It's kind of like Dear Evan Hansen in that a lot of the protagonist's questionable behavior is excused away. I think POTO should not have had The Phantom kill anyone. It is unnecessary, and it brands him as a villain. Otherwise, he's playing tricks on Carlotta, who is arrogant, and the owners, and none of them are very sympathetically portrayed. He's scaring people, but he's not hurting them. But then he kills an innocent stagehand, which the show kind of glosses over. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| LET ME JUST SAY.... | |
| Posted by: LynnO 07:01 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| As someone who often feels like the ONLY person on this board who loves PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, it warms my heart to see even a few compliments amongst the critiques. I have loved the show for almost 25 years, and it literally changed my life, most notably to you all, the number of musicals that I started attending per year after POTO. Everything gloriously came together in POTO, the staging, the costumes, the story, the music... just everything came together to make a "unicorn" of a show in my humble opinion. It was just the perfect combo of talents on all ends. I know theatre performers who refuse to see it, and even long-time fans who brush it off, but when I drag them or pay for them to see it in NY, they are always impressed by how much better it is than what they believed/remembered. I hope that the original staging (and direction) will always play on Broadway. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: LET ME JUST SAY.... | |
| Posted by: Kaoru 08:04 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: LET ME JUST SAY.... - LynnO 07:01 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I was wondering if you had a chance to see this Lynn. You are not the only one who loves POTO. Although the story is a melodrama, I think the structure of numbers and the use of reprise by different character(s) and the timing are ingenious. I rarely see this in new musicals. I think the cast must had an extra pressure for this filmed production as they used many close-up (excellent camera angles!). Sierra was the most excellent form, in her vocal and acting. I follow her on Twitter and she was hilarious in the linked post too. |
|
| Link | Yes I agree with you Sierra! |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: LET ME JUST SAY.... | |
| Posted by: GavinLogan1 09:35 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: LET ME JUST SAY.... - Kaoru 08:04 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Add me to this list. Phantom is, and always will be, a spectacular show. Prince's staging cannot be praised enough, and this was EXTREMELY evident when Laurence Connor's adapted version went on tour. The tour was competent and well done and completely anodyne. Prince knew that it was melodrama and knew how to squeeze the melodrama out of every word, note, costume,movement, and light. He did it in such a way that everything is perfectly, unbelievably believable. And Lloyd Webber's score is incredible. The contrapuntal writing in "Prima Donna", and Graveyard Trio, and the finale in the layer, with "Angel Of Music" and "Point of No Return" clashing against one another... and oft-overlooked numbers such as "Notes" (written in altenrating bars of 15/16 and 7/ 8 meter) and "Stranger Than You Dreamt It", all contribute to an atmospheric, haunting, exciting score. It's just chock full of thrilling music. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: LET ME JUST SAY.... | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 11:27 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 11:21 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: LET ME JUST SAY.... - GavinLogan1 09:35 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Add me to the list of ''Phantom'' fans. I couldn't agree more about Lloyd Webber's glorious and soaring score and Prince's spectacular staging, which emphasized the magic and mystery of the Phantom's appearances. Plus, brava for Maria Bjornson's extravagant and stylish sets and costumes. (I, too, loathed Laurence Connor's recent touring edition, but I wish I could've seen the 95-minute, one-act version of ''Phantom'' in Las Vegas.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I saw the Vegas Version | |
| Last Edit: LynnO 01:45 am EDT 04/20/20 | |
| Posted by: LynnO 01:35 am EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: LET ME JUST SAY.... - WaymanWong 11:21 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I had friends in the Vegas cast, so I saw it around 15 times. Also participated in the amazing Phan Fest that they put on, where I met Hal Prince! Loved the multi-day event so much, wished that they had done it again. Anyway, the Vegas version was cut way down to be around an hour and 40 minutes without an intermission. Seeing the show in Vegas was worth the price of admission for two things (well, maybe three..). The theatre itself was built to recreate the interior of the Paris Opera House, and it was stunningly beautiful -- there were actual dummies dressed in period costumes in the boxes surrounding the orchestra section. Second, the chandelier was mind-blowingly incredible! It started out as five or six pieces that looked like art suspended over the orchestra seats. When the famous music started after the auction, the huge chandelier pieces started to slowly move in circles overhead, circling, circling, crossing over and around each other (if there were wires attached, they would have all been tangled up), but eventually meeting at the center in the correct order to assemble the chandelier. The pieces all came together at the same moment like a huge choreographed magnet , and then it slowly moved up to the ceiling. But the DROP was just downright SCARY. It came down super fast, and straight down on the audience, no swing to the stage. It came down so fast, and the lights would go out at the very last second, accompanied by a massive cold WHOOSH in the dark -- that you really thought that you were going to die if you were sitting underneath it (which I did a couple of times). The third reason to go was to see Andrew Ragone as Raoul, who has a glorious velvety voice, is drop-dead handsome, and made the role out to be so much more than it was. Also, if you went early in the run, they had two different Phantoms, and you could have also seen Sierra Boggess... if memory serves, they had two Phantoms and three Christines in the beginning. Always one Raoul. The downside of the Vegas production was that they cut down the roles of Carlotta, Piangi, and the managers so much that they became minor characters. Also, the chandelier did not come down after Il Muto, it came down as a distraction during Don Juan Triumphant, which changed some things in the story. They did have some actual fireworks in the theatre in place of intermission, as entertainment for the New Year's party that normally opens the second act. Overall, the Vegas show felt like it had a faster pace, of course. They kept the theatre very chilly for the fireworks. I saw the Vegas version many times, but after a while, I longed to see the Broadway version again because I missed Carlotta, Piangi, and the managers, as well as the wonderfully slow rhythmic pace of the original version. And all the beautiful little details. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I saw the Vegas Version | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 02:02 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 01:53 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: I saw the Vegas Version - LynnO 01:35 am EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, LynnO, for your delightfully detailed account of the ''Phantom'' in Las Vegas. I've read that their chandelier effect was amazing and always wondered how it looked. I also was curious about the cuts. (If I were cutting, I'd excise ''Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again.'' Ha-ha!) I just looked up video of Andrew Ragone at YouTube, and you're so right. Any idea why he's never done Raoul on Broadway? Finally, ''Phantom'' is such a showcase for Andrew Lloyd Webber's melodies, but why do we almost never hear about the show's lyricist, Charles Hart? Wikipedia says that Richard Stilgoe (''Starlight Express'') wrote most of the original lyrics to the show, but Hart came in and rewrote many of them. (And reportedly some of Stilgoe's contributions are still there uncredited. Do you know which ones?) How did Hart's lyrics differ from Stilgoe's? Wikipedia even says Alan Jay Lerner worked briefly on an early version of ''Phantom's'' lyrics, too. Does Lloyd Webber address this in ''Unmasked''? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Why doesn't Charles Hart get more praise for his PHANTOM lyrics? | |
| Last Edit: GrumpyMorningBoy 09:48 am EDT 04/21/20 | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 09:45 am EDT 04/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I saw the Vegas Version - WaymanWong 01:53 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Why doesn't Charles Hart get more praise for his PHANTOM lyrics? 'Cuz I don't think they're all that good. They're CERTAINLY not as clunky as Tim Rice's often are. Throughout parts of JCS, JOSEPH & EVITA, it's not unusual at all for the audience to be thinking, "I'm sorry, but WHAT are you saying up there?" I once knew a cast of EVITA who would intentionally swap out the post-"Don't Cry for Me" crowd chant of "Evita Peron, la santa Peronista!" with "Evita Peron, a pepperoni pizza!" just to see if their stage management even noticed. Tim Rice's problematic issues are more often related to the way a lyric scans, with the emphasis of the words not matching up with the natural emphasis of a melody, making the singer sound as if they're putting the stress on the wrong syllable of a word. Or, with someone just blurting out things within a scene that they'd never say. "Monotony passed! Suburbia departed!" (I'm not saying that Tim Rice doesn't have his talents. His way of analyzing politics certainly led to some terrific commentary in both JCS & EVITA.) But if that's the standard that Lloyd Webber had, leading up to PHANTOM, I'd certainly say that Charles Hart was a step above. There isn't a single awkward lyric in "Music of the Night." That whole thing is pretty much exactly what you need it to be. Very singable, evocative, lush, romantic. Is it a bit too on the nose? Probably. Does it surprise the ear with cleverness? Never. Is it right for the moment of the show? Absolutely. Does it have anything actable, relying on dramatic action? Kinda. A bit. It's probably more of a true aria, but one could say that it represents the Phantom's seduction, especially within the context of the scene and Hal Prince's direction. It's good. As for the rest of the show, I think Hart fails to win notability because the lyrics are so often less than ambitious. Within all the sequences around "Notes," there were certainly all sorts of opportunities for clever turns of phrase, setups and payoffs, and he doesn't really aim for that. The lyrics work, though, and they're easy to understand, and they move the scene forward. They're definitely above average. But let's be honest: for most of the show, we get lyrics like this: "Christine, you must have been dreaming. Stories like this can't come true. Christine, you're talking in riddles, and it's not like you." Anything wrong with that lyric? God no. Does it scan? Yes. Do we understand it? Sure. Is it actable? Sure. Double meaning or cleverness? No. Clever internal rhymes or ear surprises? No. Room for actable subtext? Not much. There you have it. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why doesn't Charles Hart get more praise for his PHANTOM lyrics? | |
| Posted by: mikem 11:47 am EDT 04/21/20 | |
| In reply to: Why doesn't Charles Hart get more praise for his PHANTOM lyrics? - GrumpyMorningBoy 09:45 am EDT 04/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree completely. All I Ask of You has always bothered me as the title. It's a beautiful melody, and most of the lyrics are very romantic and sweeping: "Say you'll share with me one love, one lifetime," etc, etc. But then the kicker is: "That's all I ask of you." Um, what? What exactly does that mean in this context? It comes out of nowhere. Does the singer think they are asking for a lot or a little? It's a weird climax to this love song, and it kind of undermines the prior lyrics. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I saw the Vegas Version | |
| Posted by: LynnO 02:22 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I saw the Vegas Version - WaymanWong 01:53 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Wayman, you've hit the depth of my POTO knowledge, I don't know about the details of the lyrics. I haven't even read ALW's book, but I definitely want to now! Glad you found clips of Andrew Ragone, he is amazing! I've seen him in other shows (Vegas and regional), and he shines brilliantly! I have no idea why he hasn't done Raoul on Broadway... he should!! I bet he would be an awesome Phantom, too. I'm not a fan of "Wishing" either, but I do love the way that Sierra and Lisa Vroman used to deliver it... made it a more bearable lead up to one of my most favorite moments in the show, "Wandering Child." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I saw the Vegas Version | |
| Posted by: mikem 01:35 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: I saw the Vegas Version - LynnO 01:35 am EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I saw the Vegas version and was extremely impressed with the physical production, particularly the chandelier. As LynnO said, it came down extremely quickly. I was sitting in the mezz, but I think someone in the audience below it actually screamed when it came rushing down. As LynnO mentioned, they basically cut out everything except the big songs and scenes. It was like watching the Cliff Notes version of the show. It felt a little bit like the whole show was at a 10, rather than having higher points and quieter points. The regular version is much better. I think I saw Brent Barrett, Sierra Boggess, and Tim Martin Gleason as the leads. I think there were more than 8 performances a week, which is why the roles were double-cast. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| On the subject of pronunciation, perhaps he could be paired with Patti LuPone | |
| Posted by: winters 08:07 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| They could do a musical version of ‘Wheel of Fortune.’ Me. Karimloo could buy vowels as needed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On the subject of pronunciation, perhaps he could be paired with Patti LuPone | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:30 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: On the subject of pronunciation, perhaps he could be paired with Patti LuPone - winters 08:07 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I just wanted to make a general comment that the way different singers produce vowels is one element that can make some people's singing more distinctive than others. We may have issues with one singer's vowels or another singer's consonants, but at least those eccentricities can make for an easily identifiable, distinctive voice, rather than a voice that sounds very much like many others. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On the subject of pronunciation, perhaps he could be paired with Patti LuPone | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 05:53 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: On the subject of pronunciation, perhaps he could be paired with Patti LuPone - Michael_Portantiere 05:30 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I've always felt this way about LuPone (who I LOVE) and several others. I call it "vocal personality". Sometimes people use the word "mannered" in what I interpret as a critical way, but I think that's part of it too. Laurie Beechman comes to mind, another vocalist I ADORE. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On the subject of pronunciation, perhaps he could be paired with Patti LuPone | |
| Posted by: Ann 09:40 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: On the subject of pronunciation, perhaps he could be paired with Patti LuPone - winters 08:07 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| A more clever way of expressing my first thought when I saw this :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The ending of this version (spoilers) | |
| Last Edit: mikem 06:43 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
| Posted by: mikem 06:36 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| (spoilers) At the end of this version, Christine's kiss of the Phantom is much more sexual and passionate than I remember seeing in other versions. And then she starts singing "Say you'll share with me one love, one lifetime" to the Phantom before Raoul snaps her out of it and brings her back to the real world. I think of Christine in POTO as being fond of the Phantom as a mentor/father figure, but not seriously thinking of him as a romantic partner. This seems very influenced by Love Never Dies, which premiered a few years before this concert took place, with Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggess as the leads for both. I have not seen Phantom since Love Never Dies premiered. Is this concept that Christine has a strong sexual/romantic attraction to the Phantom present in the more recent performances on Broadway or on tour? I think the show works better with the Phantom as a tragic figure rather than a serious romantic option. He's killing people and terrorizing her friends. Christine shouldn't want to be with him as a romantic partner, and the Phantom's realization that she's better off without him should be part of what drives his actions at the very end. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The ending of this version (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:42 pm EDT 04/25/20 | |
| In reply to: The ending of this version (spoilers) - mikem 06:36 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| "This seems very influenced by Love Never Dies, which premiered a few years before this concert took place, with Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggess as the leads for both. I have not seen Phantom since Love Never Dies premiered. Is this concept that Christine has a strong sexual/romantic attraction to the Phantom present in the more recent performances on Broadway or on tour?" I'm no PHANTOM fan or expert, but the interpretation that Christine does NOT have a strong sexual/romantic attraction to the Phantom has never occurred to me. This certainly seems true in the 1925 movie, and in the musical, how could the music they sing to and about each other be interpreted any other way? My own specific interpretation is that, at the beginning of the story, Christine has a strong obsession with the Phantom (and, of course, vice-versa). The physical attraction may (or may not) completely disappear after she sees his face, but I think the romantic/emotional attraction remains strong despite his face and despite the horrible things he begins doing, and I guess she ends up loving him at least in a pitying way. P.S. At a friend's recommendation, I started to watch LOVE NEVER DIES last night, but I only lasted about 40 minutes. I found both the story and the lyrics shockingly bad. One specific question, as someone here may well know the answer: When the boy Gustav plays the music box towards the beginning, why do we hear no melody at all? Both times he "played" it, I heard nothing. I thought it might have been some weird problem with the audio feed through YouTube, but that was the only thing I couldn't hear. Anyone? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! | |
| Posted by: LynnO 06:48 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: The ending of this version (spoilers) - mikem 06:36 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I love the end of this version. It was different because they didn't have the boat to sail off in, so in this version, she sings the first line to the Phantom before she runs off with Raoul. In the Broadway (original) version, Christine and Raoul run off, and then you see them sail off in the background in the boat, singing the whole reprise to each other, with the Phantom crying into the veil in the foreground. In the new modified US Tour version, at least when I saw it, Christine drops the ring on the organ and runs off without even addressing the Phantom! I hate the new ending! And I certainly hope that they don't re-tool Broadway into the horrific new US Tour version. In the Broadway (original) version, the two kisses are usually just as passionate as they are in this version, the only difference being that the Phantom usually never really touches Christine during the kiss -- but I think that Ramin gets sort of a hug in there in the filmed version, if I recall correctly? That being said, we all know that Ramin and Sierra have unmistakable chemistry, so maybe the kisses look more passionate? I always thought that Christine might have considered the Phantom as a potential romantic partner on some confused level, because his portrayal is usually sexy/mysterious, with the percentage of sexy/mysterious varying on who is playing the Phantom. This is not new, because I first saw POTO in the 1990's, and I immediately thought that Christine should have picked The Phantom instead of Raoul. The only time when I felt that Raoul was the correct choice for Christine was when I saw a combination of an un-sexy Phantom with an excellent top-notch Raoul! In the new US Tour version, the kisses aren't passionate at all, they seem to be a strategy to free Raoul, and the Phantom in the new version is portrayed more as a creepy stalker. Not sexy at all. I prefer this filmed version, where Christine has a real fondness for The Phantom, even though she sees him as a tragic figure at the same time. Like I said, the end is more lingering in this version, because Raoul and Christine don't have to run off for the boat. But in general, with the original Broadway version, I think Christine had a fondness for the Phantom, and is also grateful for the Phantom "making" her voice and career. And I do think that The Kiss makes the Phantom realize that she's better off without him, and that's what drives his actions at the end. I believe that POTO is beloved because of the romance of the story, and that's not with Raoul, at least as it's written. That is why I'm hoping that they don't bring the creepy stalker version of the Phantom to broadway. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) | |
| Posted by: mikem 02:06 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! - LynnO 06:48 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| (spoilers for Love Never Dies) LynnO, thank you for all the detail! It's been a while since I've seen the show, which I've seen twice - once on Broadway, and once in the Vegas version. Ramin kisses and clutches Sierra back in the filmed version. It's interesting that the US Tour version makes the Phantom more like a stalker and seems to remove any attraction Christine might have to him. That's a contradiction to Love Never Dies. LynnO, I assume you've seen Love Never Dies. I'm curious what your opinion of it is. I saw the US Tour. I enjoyed the music, and I think the title song is beautiful. But, as I think is often true in sequels, the writers feel like they have to create conflict by creating problems where none seemed to exist in the original material. I didn't like the way that Raoul was made out to be kind of a mess and a bad father. And when exactly during the course of events of POTO did Christine and The Phantom make a child? I also don't think the Christine of POTO would have left Raoul for The Phantom in the way that it happens. But the worst part was the end. The show was already making me lose my fondness for the characters, and then when Christine gets shot by Meg Giry and dies, I was sitting there thinking, "How could Andrew Lloyd Webber think that audiences will like this ending?" I guessing he was going for Tragic, but it was just a major downer to me and really left a bad taste in my mouth when exiting the show. I think the score of Love Never Dies is worthy of another attempt at the libretto, but a lot of the current plot needs to be thrown out for the show to be successful IMO. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) | |
| Last Edit: LynnO 02:38 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| Posted by: LynnO 02:31 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) - mikem 02:06 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Just to clarify, it is the NEW US tour version that is completely restaged and directed and makes the Phantom out to be more of a creepy stalker. The magic was completely sucked out of the show, in my opinion. I hope that they never bring that version to NY. Yes, I have seen LND, and I am not a fan, so you won't catch me making any connections from the wonderful original show to the odd sequel. There are several gorgeous songs in the LOVE NEVER DIES score that I love to hear in concert, however! I think attempting a sequel to POTO was a losing battle on all sides. To answer your question about when The Phantom and Christine create the child, they explain it all in one of the LND songs (Beneath A Moonless Sky). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) | |
| Posted by: mikem 03:20 pm EDT 04/23/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) - LynnO 02:31 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| LynnO, thanks for pointing out where in the text of LND it explains the timeline of The Phantom and Christine's "romance." As I imagine you agree, that they would get together after the course of the events in POTO makes even less sense than it having happened during those events. Christine would not have cheated on Raoul after they were a couple. LND is just character assassination all around. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 08:41 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 08:38 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) - LynnO 02:31 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yet more questions: Since Charles Hart wrote the lyrics to ''Phantom,'' why didn't he write the lyrics to ''Love Never Dies''? ''Love Never Dies'' has 4 names attached to the book: Lloyd Webber, Ben Elton, Frederick Forsyth and Glenn Slater (who did the lyrics). What's that saying about ''too many cooks ruining the broth''? (Among its songs, however, I do love the soaring ''Til I Hear You Sing.'') |
|
| Link | Andrew Ragone: '' 'Til I Hear You Sing'' |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) | |
| Posted by: LynnO 12:36 am EDT 04/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Yay! Something that I can comment on with knowledge! (Spoilers for Love Never Dies) - WaymanWong 08:38 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Ah, like I said, I'm not that deep of a fan to know all those stories, I think you should do the research, Wayman! I adore "'Til I Hear You Sing," (thank you for that link!) and I also love "Beneath a Moonless Sky." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 08:08 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
| In reply to: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| He’s a great singer. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:32 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
| In reply to: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| "For a multi millionaire, it’s easy to forget how oft-maligned Sir Lloyd Webber often is. I gotta give him credit for knowing how to write melodies that feel familiar on a first listen...." Well, that's one very positive way to phrase it :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 06:11 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - Michael_Portantiere 05:32 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| This much I know. I’d never heard “Come to Me, Bend to Me” before I heard PHANTOM for the first time. Lloyd Webber, at his best, really doesn’t have to steal. He’s got a pop composer’s instinct, which — in this score — helps the title song just come on like a freight train. It was fun to watch this again and re discover what a gear change that is, albeit less so with the newer orchestrations and far less drum machine. Lloyd Webber really does have some very, very elegant compositional touches here. In that sequence in the middle of “Masquerade,” Raoul & Christine reprise “Think of Me” with a lyric that’s a pretty well written conflict scene. It ends with “let’s not argue, you will understand in time” set above some appropriately brooding foreshadowing in the music, which then blends into a few measures reprising the Phantom’s freaky “I have brought you...”sequence just after “Music of the Night,” before spinning into a swirling waltz time change for the melody of “Masquerade.” All in a matter of maybe 32 bars. That isn’t just deft composition, it’s deft scenework, and Lloyd Webber & co. deserve credit for it. To that end, I failed to mention above how masterful some of Prince’s staging is. The way he gets, what, 8 people(?) around the stage on the reprise of “Notes / Twisted Every Way” is just terrific. Looks effortless. Sooooo isn’t. This concert doesn’t have a proscenium stage, so obvi the scenery and staging is adapted, but Maria Björnson did excellent work here. At the end of the day, I think I’m fine with this being Broadway’s longest running show. I do think LION KING or HAMILTON have a chance to outlast it, but there really is a lot about this show that absolutely works. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Last Edit: mikem 08:13 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
| Posted by: mikem 08:08 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 06:11 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think the first 20 minutes of Phantom are extremely well-done. The quiet beginning with the auction that intrigues us, the unveiling and lifting of the chandelier to sweeping music, the spectacle of the Hannibal opera, and then the laying out of our cast of characters. Then the Phantom appears as if by magic, and he takes Christine away. It does what it needs to do: sets the stage, gives us some spectacle, and makes us want to see what happens next. I think the rest of the show has very high points and parts that are not as strong, but I think the beginning is uniformly very strong. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Totally agree about how well-written PHANTOM's opening is. | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 03:59 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - mikem 08:08 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| I actually read the Gaston Leroux when I was in high school, and while I don't remember much of it now, I remember at the time being so surprised to learn how much the opening of the musical was its own unique creation. I agree. It really is quite, quite strong. Coming in, knowing nothing, I think you'd expect that the show would open with a whole lot of music and an introduction to scary dude who you follow as he finds his way to an opera house where he's bound to wreak havoc. Or, we'd open on some sort of horror movie cliche, with the banality of the day interrupted by a freaky jump scare. The entire first act up through "Music of the Night" really is pretty darn terrific. It could have easily gone very, very differently. (And indeed in Maury Yeston's version, it did!) - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Totally agree about how well-written PHANTOM's opening is. | |
| Posted by: mikem 01:44 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Totally agree about how well-written PHANTOM's opening is. - GrumpyMorningBoy 03:59 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| GMB, you've made me curious how Maury Yeston's Phantom opens. I'll have to look it up. I had the cast album for many years before I finally saw the show. The libretto in the recording is extremely detailed and includes the lines not included on the album, so I had a very strong vision in my head of the show before I actually saw it. The staging was even better than I had imagined, particularly the chandelier rising and the original appearance of the Phantom to Christine in the mirror. I agree that the show deflates a bit after Music of the Night. The Phantom and Christine have this big confrontation after she rips away his mask, and it basically peters out with him calmly saying something like, "Well, I guess I should take you back now because they're probably wondering where you are." It's kind of an anticlimactic end to the scene. And then the action jumps in time, so we never find out what the reaction was when Christine returns. Are they wondering where she is? What did Raoul think about her disappearing like that? What kind of excuse did she give? As far as I can remember, it's never addressed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Totally agree about how well-written PHANTOM's opening is. | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:42 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Totally agree about how well-written PHANTOM's opening is. - mikem 01:44 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| "I had the cast album for many years before I finally saw the show. The libretto in the recording is extremely detailed and includes the lines not included on the album, so I had a very strong vision in my head of the show before I actually saw it. The staging was even better than I had imagined, particularly the chandelier rising and the original appearance of the Phantom to Christine in the mirror." I agree about the chandelier rising, but to this day, I still cannot believe how completely disappointing is the climactic scene of the chandelier "falling," and it's beyond me how the show ever became famous for such an ineffective effect. I do understand that safety reasons prevented a more realistic crashing of the chandelier, but I don't understand why anyone ever made a big deal over the way they wound up doing it, and why so few people have been vocal about what a huge letdown the actual effect is compared to the way it's described and the way one probably pictures it before seeing it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The Chandelier | |
| Posted by: LynnO 12:43 am EDT 04/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Totally agree about how well-written PHANTOM's opening is. - Michael_Portantiere 05:42 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree the chandelier drop isn't very exciting, but I imagine that it was very exciting in 1986, before computers were ubiquitous. The updated computerized chandelier in Vegas was worth the price of admission alone... I describe it elsewhere in these threads. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Chandelier | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:29 am EDT 04/23/20 | |
| In reply to: The Chandelier - LynnO 12:43 am EDT 04/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| "I agree the chandelier drop isn't very exciting, but I imagine that it was very exciting in 1986, before computers were ubiquitous. The updated computerized chandelier in Vegas was worth the price of admission alone... I describe it elsewhere in these threads." I experienced the chandelier drop when PHANTOM first opened on Broadway, and I thought it was a tremendous letdown even then. But thanks for the note about the Vegas chandelier. I guess maybe now I remember reading about that when that production opened, but I had forgotten, and I never actually saw it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Chandelier | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 02:23 pm EDT 04/23/20 | |
| In reply to: re: The Chandelier - Michael_Portantiere 12:29 am EDT 04/23/20 | |
|
|
|
| I didn't see PHANTOM OF THE OPERA until the early '90's because it was such a hot and expensive ticket when it first opened and I was a poor high school/college student. But, I finally went in the early '90's because it was part of a rare Shubert subscription series at the Forrest Theatre in Philadelphia and the series was chock full of others things I also wanted to see. I saved up the money for that subscription and was rewarded with prime seats at PHANTOM, in the center within the first 10 rows. What got me about the chandelier drop was not the drop itself, but that it dropped and then somehow, before landing on the stage, swung back out over the audience, right at me, in fact. I didn't know it did that and wasn't expecting it. And it scared the hell out of me, just for an instant. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Chandelier | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 04/24/20 | |
| In reply to: re: The Chandelier - JereNYC 02:23 pm EDT 04/23/20 | |
|
|
|
| "What got me about the chandelier drop was not the drop itself, but that it dropped and then somehow, before landing on the stage, swung back out over the audience, right at me, in fact." If my memory is correct, that swinging back out over the audience did NOT happen when I saw PHANTOM on Broadway. But that was right after the show opened, so I wouldn't be surprised if the effect has been tweaked and possibly improved on Broadway and in other productions since. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Chandelier | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 04:31 pm EDT 04/24/20 | |
| In reply to: re: The Chandelier - Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 04/24/20 | |
|
|
|
| The only other time I've seen the show was on Broadway, but it was close to 20 years ago and from the cheap seats in the back of the mezzanine that sold back then for $20. I don't remember if it happened at that performance, but I was probably too far back to really catch it anyway. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| that chandelier | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:15 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Totally agree about how well-written PHANTOM's opening is. - Michael_Portantiere 05:42 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Totally! It was hilarious to me when I finally saw the show in the early 2000s or late 90s... especially the slow speed and the way it falls as if being guided by a leg and right controller that have to be alternated for a safe landing. I also think the chandelier itself looks a bit unglamorous, the way it's designed. Not a very impressive chandelier... It looks like a UFO landing a bit more than a presumably 19th century opera house chandelier crashing down from the ceiling. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: that chandelier | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:44 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: that chandelier - Chazwaza 07:15 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Completely! And don't you think it's insane how the effect has become so famous even though its so incredibly lame and anticlimactic? It's almost as if people misremember seeing a chandelier crashing the way that should look, rather than the way it actually looks. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: that chandelier | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:59 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: that chandelier - Michael_Portantiere 09:44 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| The Dear World Effect. Maria Björnson was counting on it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| After Music of the Night | |
| Posted by: LynnO 02:13 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Totally agree about how well-written PHANTOM's opening is. - mikem 01:44 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| After Christine rips off the Phantom's mask, he goes ballistic, but then literally crawls back, and she feels sorry for him and gives him his mask back. They usually have a tender moment of silence before the Phantom snaps back to the present and grabs her hand, saying, "Come, we must return! Those two fools who run my theatre will be missing you!" They have to get back because the Phantom has those plans to insert her in Il Muto. There isn't a jump in time, the show just switches to the Manager's office where they are lamenting that both sopranos have disappeared/left. Carlotta re-appears during that scene, and then Madame Giry and Meg enter and announce that Christine has returned, and she's resting. Then there is the debate on who will sing Il Muto, and they decide to have Carlotta sing it, hence "Prima Donna." To answer your questions, they do wonder where Christine went, but they all received notes from the Phantom explaining that he has her. Of course they are all perplexed and worried, that's all dealt with in the "Notes" song in the Manager's office described above. Christine didn't give an excuse for disappearing, the Phantom explained it in a note. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: After Music of the Night | |
| Posted by: mikem 10:21 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: After Music of the Night - LynnO 02:13 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| LynnO, thanks for correcting my faulty memory and perception. I didn't remember the lyrics after all this time, so I looked them up. I think I mistakenly thought there was a time jump because Carlotta accuses Raoul and Christine of being lovers when they've literally been in the same room for about 5 minutes since childhood at that point, but of course Carlotta doesn't know that even if we do. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: tandelor 07:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 06:11 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| Last time I saw Phantom was because I wanted to see Norm Lewis. I had forgotten what a good show it really was and expected it to be creaky, which it wasn't. Watched the streaming version, and along with totally enjoying it I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the filming and the sound. Excellent. Thank you, Sir Andrew. I found it a real treat. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 07:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - GrumpyMorningBoy 06:11 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***Lloyd Webber really does have some very, very elegant compositional touches here. In that sequence in the middle of “Masquerade,” Raoul & Christine reprise “Think of Me” with a lyric that’s a pretty well written conflict scene. It ends with “let’s not argue, you will understand in time” set above some appropriately brooding foreshadowing in the music, which then blends into a few measures reprising the Phantom’s freaky “I have brought you...”sequence just after “Music of the Night,” before spinning into a swirling waltz time change for the melody of “Masquerade.” All in a matter of maybe 32 bars. That isn’t just deft composition, it’s deft scenework, and Lloyd Webber & co. deserve credit for it. *** I would phrase it differently and say I think ALW's instincts and talent as a musical dramatist are indeed excellent, far better than his purely musical instincts as a composers, and that's a major reason why his biggest hits have been so successful -- although that doesn't really apply to CATS :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: peter3053 02:23 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Streaming PHANTOM — can we start a petition to fix Ramin Karimloo’s vowels? - Michael_Portantiere 07:28 pm EDT 04/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| I wonder to what extent Lloyd Webber's dramatic instincts were refined by working with Prince on Evita and Phantom? It's often hard to know who brought what to the final feast, but Prince's ideas for Evita electrified the stage version, and the literalness of the movie sank it. Prince's rocking chair sequence for the generals was both theatrically and dramaturgically solid - setting up that sense of the wheel of fortune which brought the Perons up and then brought them asunder. It seems that Prince introduced the conflict into the scene which makes "Music of the Night" a dramatic song when it could have been a stage wait. I wonder how much actual structuring Prince did for the Phantom book. Even he says that it was always Lloyd Webber's idea to have the chandelier onstage at the start - and what a great effect that led to. I think that in Lloyd Webber's memoir he says that in the brief time Trevor Nunn came in as potential director of Phantom, Nunn's idea of the set was for the audience to see the show through the wings, so to speak - so the chandelier would go sideways. It seems to have been that sort of idea which made Lloyd Webber insist Mackintosh go back to Prince. Am I remembering rightly? Are any of Lloyd Webber's shows that were done without Prince as dramatically secure and suspenseful? I remember wanting to flee Aspects of Love before I fell into a Sleeping Beauty-like slumber for a hundred years; Joseph and His Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat leaves me feeling my brain has turned to marshmallow. Sunset Boulevard's songs tend to be stage waits - the action continues after them; it'd make a good non-musical movie if somebody like Billy Wilder directed it! But then, to pay him his credit, Lloyd Webber knew it needed to be sung-through, and it was Billy Wilder who apparently told Sondheim that it had to be an opera because it's about royalty - Hollywood royalty - which made Sondheim, who had just done Sweeney, turn off it. (If I remember my reading correctly.) Interestingly, Prince wanted to direct Superstar. I wonder what a Prince production of that would have been like - although I suspect we might get an inkling from his staging of Turandot for Vienna State Opera, captured on DVD - the most stunning and intriguing version of it I've seen; Pontius Pilate could have been up a stairway that tall! Nonetheless, having viewed the Albert Hall Phantom stream, one has to confess to being in awe of it as a composition both musical and dramatic, and of Lloyd Webber as progenitor. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 04:10 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 04:09 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - peter3053 02:23 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Seth Rudetsky just had Andrew Lloyd Webber as a guest on his ''Stars in the House'' podcast, and Seth urged theater buffs to read Lloyd Webber's memoir, ''Unmasked.'' Seth says he was surprised to learn that many of the plot points in the musical came from Lloyd Webber himself. (If anyone has a copy of ''Unmasked'' handy, I'd love to hear what they were.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: larry13 10:32 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - peter3053 02:23 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Sondheim discusses Sunset Boulevard on page 146 of LOOK, I MADE A HAT. His conversation with Wilder was about 1960, apparently the only time he ever considered making a musical of it and did any work on it. He states that he resisted the idea when it was raised after Sweeney Todd.(He also believes Wilder was right about it having to be an opera even after the ALW musical was produced.) "I had no desire to write an opera, which is a form I resist." Clearly, HE doesn't believe Sweeney is an opera. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 08:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - larry13 10:32 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I believe Sondheim has also said that a musical theater work is an opera if it's performed in an opera house, or words to that effect. It's all semantics, but SWEENEY TODD does fulfill all the requirements and descriptions of an opera, even if you don't want to call it that. And for what it's worth, I don't see any reason why SUNSET BLVD. would need to be an "opera" that would need to be called an "opera," or why it would have to be any more of an "opera" than SWEENEY TODD is. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:58 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - larry13 10:32 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think Sweeney is an opera either. BUT just cause 1960s Sondheim had no interest in writing one doesn't mean late 1970s Sondheim didn't... I think Passion is the only musical he wrote that I'd consider verging on being opera. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:10 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Chazwaza 06:58 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| "I don't think Sweeney is an opera either. BUT just cause 1960s Sondheim had no interest in writing one doesn't mean late 1970s Sondheim didn't... " And on that note, I seem to remember it was reported that he was going to write, or was at least considering writing, a musical of SUNSET BLVD. for Lansbury some time before the Lloyd Webber one came to me. How much of that was just P.R. content and not based in truth, I of course cannot say. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: larry13 08:43 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Chazwaza 06:58 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with what you write about Sondheim in 1960 vs. late '70s in THEORY but...He wrote LOOK, I MADE A HAT in 2011 and there has never been any indication he ever changed his inclination towards writing an opera nor, really, his attitude towards opera, PORGY or his own PASSION or SWEENEY notwithstanding. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - larry13 08:43 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Has Sondheim ever explained in any detail what exactly he means when he says he has no interest in writing an "opera," or in what way(s) exactly he doesn't consider SWEENEY TODD to be an opera? For those who would argue that the amount of spoken dialogue in SWEENEY makes it a musical rather than an opera, the fact is that several classic operas in French and German (if not so much in Italian) have a quite a lot of spoken dialogue, including CARMEN and THE MAGIC FLUTE, to name only two that come immediately to mind. Some have argued, and I understand the opinion, that the only way in which SWEENEY TODD is not a 100 percent, full-fledged opera is that the role of Mrs. Lovett is written for a type of voice that is never or almost never heard in operas that were written to be performed in opera houses. So maybe that's it? And/or maybe what Sondheim meant, at least in part, was that some people feel that, in traditional operas, the importance of the text is secondary to that of the music, and I guess it's easy to understand why Sondheim wouldn't want to write any work of which that could be said. I find it a fascinating and worthwhile discussion, even if I do think sometimes people get too caught up in semantics and the need for labels. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:24 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:14 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I don't really think any of the roles in Sweeney are written for opera voices... just because opera voices CAN do them doesn't mean they are meant for that kind of voice, or, more to the point, the kind of singing that singers trained in opera bring to whatever role they do. And the best performances of the show I've seen and/or heard never had opera singers in the roles. At least something like Candide is written for or complimented by that kind of singing and ability and in many sections requires singers to do that kind of singing whether they are "opera singers" or not (ex: Barbara Cook). And even that isn't full defined as an opera! (And frankly I think in almost every single case I've seen, including the most recent example of Renee Fleming in Piazza, but also all the opera Sweeney's I've heard, when opera singers do roles like this their training and instinct block their ability to act the lyrics fully/appropriately and/or make it too difficult to properly hear the words that are much more important in these kinds of musicals. As wonderful as Bryn Terfel sounds doing some sections of some of those songs, I would trade him out for Cariou or even Hearn any day) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:51 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Chazwaza 03:14 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with every word of your post immediately above, and I think it's likely that your excellent points are very much along the lines of what Sondheim may be thinking in terms of opera vs. musical. Whether or not it's primariy due to training, it does seem that relatively few opera singers have been effective in musical theater roles -- even in the sung sections, let alone the dialogue. For example, Terfel and Fleming are both considered in the first rank of acting ability in opera, but certainly not in musicals. Of course, there have been some notable exceptions, like Robert Weede :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: larry13 10:24 am EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, Sondheim has explained his attitude toward opera in general and SWEENEY as not being one. On page 332 of FINISHING THE HAT, wherein he makes the aforementioned argument that "opera is something that is performed in an opera house in front of an opera audience," he opts for SWEENEY as being a "dark operetta," "the closest I can come" to labelling it. "'Opera' implies stentorian singing." It's worth reading all his references to opera: see the indexes to both volumes of his Collected Lyrics. The page 332 references I've excerpted are actually called "Sondheim's distaste for" in the index. On page 334 he states "a chance to sing excuses everything, even dramatic logic." Page 150 of FINISHING THE HAT has been cited in the index as "bombast and lack of clarity in opera." Page 146: "I have successfully avoided enjoying opera all my life." Page 147: he acknowledges his "condescension toward opera." There's much more, of course, on all these pages as to his thinking about opera. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: GavinLogan1 09:42 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I argue that musicals and operas are the same thing: they are stories told using music. Just as there different singing styles in musical theatre, there are also several different styles in the world of opera. One rarely hears a Wagnerian soloist also appearing in a Mozart comic opera.... So it can't simply be the style of singing... I know I'll be flamed for this, or at least I think I will be, but I agree wholeheartedly with music critic Michael Walsh, who wrote in his book "Who's Afraid of Opera?" that there is no difference between the two genres. Even the word "opera" simply comes from the word opus, which means work: "They come from the Latin words OPUS & OPERA (plural). While the original meaning is closest to the Latin word No. 19 and the plural is in use mostly as a singular word meaning No. 1 (plural is operas), this root has become a word for any work which is planned, acted on, and carried through." As much work goes into a well-written musical as into an opera.... so... I don't know. I just can't see the distinction. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:34 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - GavinLogan1 09:42 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| ****So it can't simply be the style of singing... I know I'll be flamed for this, or at least I think I will be, but I agree wholeheartedly with music critic Michael Walsh, who wrote in his book "Who's Afraid of Opera?" that there is no difference between the two genres. Even the word "opera" simply comes from the word opus, which means "work."**** I basically agree with all of that, and yes, it's good to be reminded that "opera" just means "work." But when people do attempt to draw distinctions, I imagine they're usually thinking of the differences between very traditional, quintessential, famous operas like those of Puccini, Verdi, and Wagner as compared to musicals with lighter, "pop" style music. But on that note, it's certainly interesting that so many musical theater works written in the rock idiom are called "rock operas," and nobody seems to object to that -- nor should they. I guess Sondheim's statement about how musical theater works are operas when they're performed in opera houses (if I have that quote correct, or at least its meaning even if I don't have it verbatim) is probably key here. Although there are, as you say, "operas" with many widely varying types of music, and the same is true of "musicals," there are going to be some basic differences in works that are written to be performed by unamplified singers performing with unamplified, large orchestras in large opera houses, as compared to works that are written to performed in much smaller Broadway theaters with smaller orchestras -- and even more so over the past 50 or 60 years, a period during which the level of amplification of both singers and orchestras in musicals has risen tremendously. All of which brings me back to my remark that what probably would be best is not for any of us to feel these works need to be strictly labeled to begin with -- though I do understand the impulse. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.223678 seconds.