not logged in
| re: also... | |
Posted by:  |
The_Jackster 09:23 pm UTC 11/08/07 |
| In reply to: | re: also... - rockfenris2005 03:34 am UTC 11/08/07 |
| I agree, he could easily have honed his sound in theater and brought it to the stage given time, but "Neverland"? Take a close look at that book. It resembles Off-Broadway ideals of the late Sixties, but Off-Broadway and Broadway had already moved far from that. Look at the contemporary musical theater works in the world around the time "Neverland" was being written: "A Chorus Line", "Grease", "Evita", "Godspell" (opened on Broadway in '76/'77 period), "Jesus Christ Superstar" (older, but still a hit at the time), etc. Theater was light years ahead of the time "Neverland" was written. On top of that, while we're taking a close look at the book, exactly what was he thinking? Non-linear story lines were out. "Hair" was a success, but shows like "Rainbow", "Hard Job Being God", "Dude" and "Via Galactica" killed the potential for further exploration in that area. And even so, the very thin line of story running through the work is barely noticeable between his attempts at shocking the audience (the character of the Historian, the near-constant use of obscenities, "Who Needs The Young?", etc.). Would his sound have succeeded? Arguably, yes. But take a closer look at "Neverland" before you decide it's the be-all and end-all as it was then. > > > > > In what way could he have taught ALW a lesson or two? > > Alright, so "Superstar", "Evita" and "Cats" was just as > daring as, say, "Neverland". I think he would have brought > that true rock/opera bombast sound into the theatre and > made it the Broadway sound. People's expectations would > have risen so high, and it may have appealed to the opera > audience. I just find, as good as Andrew's stuff is, it's > too pop and not enough rock. "Superstar" and "Evita" were > rock, in ways, but not like something "Neverland" would > have been. It was just sooo bizarre, if that show came in > and succeeded there's NO telling what kind of limits we'd > be going to these days. Steinman would have been the > Stanley Kubrick of the musical theatre. Whereas Andrew is > more like the Steven Spielberg. If Jim was successful in > the 80s theatre, he might have influenced Andrew to rough > it up a little more. > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: also... - rockfenris2005 10:52 pm UTC 11/08/07 |
| Next: | re: also... - rockfenris2005 10:42 pm UTC 11/08/07 |
| Thread: |
|