not logged in
| re: also... | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 10:42 pm UTC 11/08/07 |
| In reply to: | re: also... - The_Jackster 09:23 pm UTC 11/08/07 |
I don't think "Neverland" is the be-and-end-all at all. I think he could have realized that the workshop was not working and that a more structural traditional story should have been used. Like getting rid of "The Dream Engine" (for some ancient revival one day) and telling the Peter Pan story simply in a futuristic context, incorporating the songs where they best fit. And that's another problem I have with Mr. Steinman. He writes the songs first and then crams them in later. You have to write the songs out of the action. For instance, "All Coming Back" being the climactic finale for Wendy. That song could be about anything. But then again, I appreciate the school of thought that Steinman was coming from when he wrote these pieces. It reminds me of something by Brecht, one of his plays, where he randomly shoe-horned in a bunch of songs that were only thematically related. It was a different thing to do in the theatre, just like Rodgers & Hammerstein did a different thing with writing a full integrated "musical play" and not a "musical comedy" where any ol' Cole Porter song would do the trick for a few minutes. Gotta love R&H > 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... - The_Jackster 09:23 pm UTC 11/08/07 |
| Next: | rockfenris2005 makes a great point! - AbbeyRoad 04:17 pm UTC 11/07/07 |
| Thread: | |