Musical Theatre

If you like Jesus Christ Superstar, you'll probably like the other Andrew Lloyd Webber/Tim Rice collaboration that is Evita, an other wonderful rock opera, imo.

In extension, and more 80s, there is Chess: the Tim Rice collaboration with Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus (of ABBA fame). I saw that one in London at that time - very good.

One of the things that bothers me some, is not the amount of rock music, or jazz music out there. It's how it has hurt a lot of the classical music output. 

For many years, there were massive names in the classical music arena, be they great voices in opera, to incredible talent with an instrument, to conductors that created some incredible touches in a lot of music to the point that it is easy to say that I only do Beethoven under one conductor's hands, or Wagner under another, or Puccini under another. And it helped sell a lot of LP's at that time.

The advent of rock music incredible fame, and media attraction that started in the late 60's is a wonderful thing, but in a sense, one of the things it hurt the most is classical music, and the likes of opera. A youthful audience, that likes rock, metal, prog, rap ... will not see a lot of classical music probably for many years, and thus the development of the arts in the classical music area will suffer and the "musical" is one thing that has been hurt the most. I remember seeing Richard Harris in LA with CAMELOT ... and even he was already talking backstage about how the whole theater thing was falling apart ... and he was not complaining about getting paid ... he said he did it for half price for the love of it. It didn't matter. 

I do not, under any conditions, want to see experimental theater, musicals, dance ... lose the attraction ... why would most rock fans want to see an opera when there are vocals in rock music that are much better expressive than most rock music in the planet. And one of the major things in that rock music was "attitude" which is something that opera does not quite allow. And this poses a problems for musicals ... do you go for the traditional stuff, a la Hollywood, with the pink or blue scrims in the background to give you the feeling of emotion, or would you rather go see a PG, or MJ, or BS ... people that you know put their heart into their words and do an excellent job. All of a sudden, the "lightness" that musical theater is about, is not an attractive thing to be able to advertise and sustain for a couple of weeks so it doesn't lose more money.

So we stick to some rock folks that have done "conceptual" this or that and it becomes a sort of a musical ...heck I thought of TOMMY, QUADROPHENIA as rock operas, and even Amon Duul 2's MADE IN GERMANY was shown up as a rock opera. And I saw OPERATION MINDCRIME, and many other things, although I missed TAAB and APP by Jethro Tull, but even Laurie Anderson had some amazing conceptual stuff which included a lot of the writer Burroughs ... and that's not conceptual?

I would rather see a conceptual piece if it is true and strong. How to show it as some sort of "musical theater" is a problem ... I don't think that some pictures on the wall and lights make the whole concept come alive ... it was mostly imagined and driven by the lyrics of the singer, and we believed it. I have not heard anyone talk about MINDCRIME at all, except the band itself performing it! And the majority of the folks ignoring and saying that the band had better stuff!

But, we may have to "define" this musical theater a lot better ... if it is going to improve and stand up ... not disappear because no one knows it or has heard it ... though these days, you can just about hear everyone of those things, whereas 50 years ago, this was not the case and it was mostly impossible.

I liked things like HAIR, and it had meaning for me, although it was raped by some pop bands for hits, and then destroyed by what the media called the stench of the hippies. Like the Republicans or Democrats of today don't have it at all!

JUst like a lot of music here, there is a lot that we do not seem to take to as much as we probably should, because ... yeah ... another solo thread ... and sadder still is the listing of new things in various threads and although things are LISTED ... no one says much of anything about it, except a blurb that is not even descriptive of the music itself.

As a progressive fan, right from the start in the late 60's, there is a lot of value in the stuff ... there should also be a lot of value in the stuff that we don't exactly listen to or understand. And here comes another discussion about ... solo ... this or that! You think that "musical theater" has a chance? Think again!

A few listings of things that are considered "rock operas", though we might not exactly think so.

Some neat stuff, though I have not heard that original Nirvana. Pippin and Hairspray, are better known for their films I think. I have not heard The Fat Boys either.

One set of films that should be mentioned, that I had forgotten ... the Jacques Demy films "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" and the follow up film ... were all about all the characters singing, and this would be considered a pop opera, thus, a rock opera ... and it does not stop ... the whole story and characterizations is about the singing all the way through, which ... for me ... made it a bit tiring, but it was far out and interesting to see this ... this would qualify as PURE musical theater/film, but it will never be seen or appreciated by many ...  

The composer Michel Legrand made his name in these films, btw ... 

PS (Later): Sad that the OP has not shown up ... I tried to help add to his palate ... which I thought was very weak, for his desire and presentation ... but I know it meant well, and hope that he can get an appreciation for a part of live performance, that is called "theater" and sometimes has music! Bit, in general, rock music has tried to kill "musical theater" even though it has to be called that, but the fact that it is, still, just a rock band and one singer, takes it away from the idea of it being "theater" at all. And just thinking and imagining that it is, only hurts the actual theatrical definition of the terms, and its history! Rock music has failed, horribly, what would be considered "musical theater" and its proper definitions.

Hi,

CHESS is an interesting combination ... I, originally, did not think that Abba and Tim Rice, was not ideal, but it worked out OK. I actually got familiar with it, with the hit song "One Night in Bangkok" in 1984 by Murray Head, someone I had a couple of his albums (Nigel Lived and Say It Ain't So), and had seen him in one film with Glenda Jackson. As good a singer, and actor he was, I thought that was interesting, but I was not aware, at the time, that this was from the musical CHESS at all, and found that out later.

One bit about "big time" musicals in the BIG city ... rarely will they not be good. Usually a lot of care is taken/given to ensure that the show stands up really well, and most of the big musicals tend to do well, specially when they have a big time cast. For most of us, that do not live in the "big city" the only musicals we know are the ones the high school does once in a while, and we usually laugh at most of them, and how silly they are. I suppose that the only thing that turns me off some musicals, are the ... over and over and over revivals of the same thing ... and I can not tell you how good they were but knowing that a big name furry animal musical closed in a couple of weeks, I imagine that folks were not impressed, or the direction and design was really cheap and poor something that might go over well in those  under 99 places in NY, but in a big time theater? No way! But, generally, those 99 places in NY can not do musicals .... by the time you get orchestra, players and everything else, you got more folks on the stage than you do in the audience! Even Sam Sheppard would have a hard time with that, unless everyone knew he was going to dump 10,000 ping pong balls on the stage! (no kidding!!!), in which case we all go over there to have some fun! Who cares about the play?