Jesus Christ Super Star

I'm shocked quite how bad the last five(?) puns were, even on this forum!

I'm washing my hands of any further involvement - if this thread is resurrected I'll have to involve Snow Dog - has anyone herod what he has to say on the matter?

Hmmm - only just seen this thread.

The original album (Gillan, Head, Elliman et al); one of my favorite albums around the mid 1980's - Gillan giving it all he had on "Gethsamane"... the interplay between Ciaphas & Annas (without the dsitractions of the comedy Sanhedrin you had in the film); I guess in a (rather odd) way, this album could be described as 'progressive rock' (whatever that may mean here nowadays... ), certainly a very early rock concept album.

Inclusion to PA, though???

Maybe under 'various artists' - hey, here's an idea! Let's have a vote & a heated debate .

Easy Livin wrote: We should be clear about which version we are talking about though. The original with Ian Gillan as Jesus was not a soundtrack, it was released some years before the stage show or the film. As Cert says, it was a rock opera. I'd agree it should be added to the Various artists section.

I agree exactly, the original Opera was excellent, the movie soundtrack was good but the song added is really out of place, they needed one more ballad (Could we Start Again Please) to sell the movie better.

I agree with adding it in various but no way to add Lloyd Webber or any other of his works.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

Jesus Christ, superstar!

What a difference punctuation can make....

 

 

Sorry -- carry on!

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Incidentally: I thought that it was a musical, not an opera. Please be as exact as you expect your "opponents" to be.   Why do you persist with this moot point?

I'm only trying to annoy you, Cert.

Actually, after reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_opera

I agree that JCS may be more an opera than a musical.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Incidentally: I thought that it was a musical, not an opera. Please be as exact as you expect your "opponents" to be.

 

Why do you persist with this moot point?

 

JCS has recitative and aria, and it is acted. It is a drama set to music, based on an epic story - ergo Opera. A good example of an Opera is Verdi's "La Traviata".

A Musical is a play whose action and dialogue is broken up with songs. A good example, or an example that illustrates what a musical is, at least, is Lionel Bart's "Oliver!".

An Operetta comes somewhere between - it may have dialogue, but only to flesh it out - e.g. Mozart's "Die Zauberflote".

A Pantomime is an allegedly comic interpretation of a children's fairy tale, typically performed after Christmas, that features dialogue and song, in a similar style to a musical, but with audience participation, a large and often topical range of jokes, and dialogue that is often in rhyming couplets.

 

I wonder why I suddenly thought of a pantomime...

 

Please learn the terms before taking on someone who has a deep understanding of them - then you stand a chance of at least approaching the argument from a more appropriate level 

 

Or are you thinking of changing your handle to Fozzie Bear?

Edited by Certif1ed

I wouldn't want to see a page for ALW myself, as he is not a performer. I do support the inclusion of JCSS, but in the Various Artists section.

"it's a fully-fledged opera with recitative and aria in the traditional sense"


ahhh OPERA ARCHIVES - sorry I seem to have taken a wrong turning somewhere

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Snow Dog wrote: A Rock Opera is progressive Rock by default? No it isn't! Agreed. Neither concept albums nor "operas" make something prog "by default".

Yes, actually, a Rock Opera IS a very progressive thing to do - not many have achieved it. Tommy isn't really a Rock Opera, as it doesn't have proper recitative passages or arias per se.

But having Classical influences and using them with Rock is just one of  a number of important progressive elements.

There is also a very diverse range of styles in JCS - as there should be in an opera. This is another important Prog element.

The music itself develops as the work progresses - this is fundamental to Prog Rock.

The initial productions were scored for Rock band, and would have been very different to any of the recorded versions, but there are several recorded versions, and each is markedly different in character. It's so loose that it can be re-interpreted - ie very progressive.

I'll stop now - 4 solid reasons should do for the time being (in addition to those I've already given).

 

But that is a minor and moot point you're both picking up on (and not for the first time, I might add...) - the point is that not ONE single reason has been given for why this is not Prog Rock.

FOR: At least 4 good reasons.

AGAINST: It's by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Compelling...

 

Edited by Certif1ed