jcstar
|
I got the Warlow cast recording...... and I fell asleep listening to it. Not n a good way, either. I was bored by the music.
Most of the songs are awful. The orchestra is okay, but I've heard better (on OBC and Hasselhoff DVD). The singers are passionless when delivering the songs.
The music itself seems to be unfinnished or being written/re-written while the recording is going on. I could just imagine it: While recording a song, Frank write new music for the strings. He runs into the studio, and switches charts while the musicians are playing. He then whispers to them, "Okay. I just wrote this three minutes ago. Sight read the now!"
But Warlow blew me away with "This Is The Moment." My GOD! He's amazing on that track! He sings Jekkyl rather well, but the listener never really gets to hear his Hyde. My take is his portrayal of the roles is 70/30, when it should be an even split between the two.
He also impressed me in "Confrontation."
That being said, I prefer Hasselhoff in the roles. Maybe even Bach... but that's stretching it.
I prefer Emma as opposed to Lisa. Just sounds nicer to me.
Linda Eder is good. She's better on the DVD.
I still think that this should have been a rock/metal opera. I wrote a 40-minute mini opera based on the book, maybe I should find it and record it someday.
1 star out of 5.
Andy.
|
RainyCrystal
|
Re: I got the Warlow cast recording... | jcstar wrote: | | Linda Eder is good. She's better on the DVD. |
Linda Eder was never on any DVD. It's Colleen Sexton that you're talking about if you're referring to the video w/ David Hasselhoff. And Linda Eder to me was never "good", either on the OBC or on the complete recording. That woman has absolutely horrible vocal techniques.
| Quote: | | I still think that this should have been a rock/metal opera. I wrote a 40-minute mini opera based on the book, maybe I should find it and record it someday. |
I don't think that was the way this musical was ever meant to be. I don't think Frank Wildhorn ever wanted a "rock opera" of any sort with Jekyll & Hyde. Not everything in the world can be turned into a "rock/metal opera".
| Quote: | | The music itself seems to be unfinnished or being written/re-written while the recording is going on. I could just imagine it: While recording a song, Frank write new music for the strings. He runs into the studio, and switches charts while the musicians are playing. He then whispers to them, "Okay. I just wrote this three minutes ago. Sight read the now!" |
I think I can expect that from a "concept" recording. The Broadway production to me almost seems like the result of an almost complete rewrite. Frank almost butchered his own show w/ all those changes that he put in before the musical opened on Broadway. I am almost willing to bet, that Jekyll & Hyde probably would've been much more successful on Broadway had he kept it the way it was when this complete concept recording was released in 1994. I think that probably contributes a lot to the show's success in Europe: that it switched back to the original version before it went on Broadway, almost exactly like the 1994 concept recording.
| Quote: | | That being said, I prefer Hasselhoff in the roles. Maybe even Bach... but that's stretching it. |
Neither one of these two men is musical theatre material, and neither is a decent actor/singer. Anthony Warlow never played this role on stage, but I'm willing to bet that if he does one day, his one finger would be better than both of these 2 combined. Also, if you really want a great Jekyll/Hyde who's actually well-known for their portrayal of the role on stage, I would recommend Ethan Freeman, Thomas Borchert, Yngve Gasoy-Romdal, or the one on the Korean cast recording whose name I can't remember.
~Sissi
|
Singer
|
I totally agree with the above poster. I myself LOVE Anthony Warlow's voice and I think he does a stunning job on both roles. I have to say I don't understand what you meant when you said that the listener never really hears his Hyde. I can hear it just fine, and it spooks me!
I do not like Linda Eder, and I think she does not do a good job of singing Lucy. But I do agree with you that I much prefer Emma to Lisa. Lisa and Lucy sound way to similar.
God bless you!
Singer
|
jcstar
|
| Singer wrote: | | I totally agree with the above poster. I myself LOVE Anthony Warlow's voice and I think he does a stunning job on both roles. I have to say I don't understand what you meant when you said that the listener never really hears his Hyde. I can hear it just fine, and it spooks me! |
Well, I only heard the CD once. I seem to remember Jekkyl had more parts and songs than Hyde did. Maybe I should listen to it again.
| Quote: | | Neither one of these two men is musical theatre material, and neither is a decent actor/singer. |
Bach is a terrible actor, no question. (He almost singlehandedly ruined JCS' entire history, reputation and misrepresented it). But he was good (vocally) in J&H.
Hasselhoff is a great actor. I think people are looking for something that's not there. He's subtle, and it works... for me. I understand his characterisation of Jekkyl & Hyde. I can't explain it, but I love how he does the roles.
Not "musical-theatre" material? Your opinion. If I was to cast the show, I'd look for someone who sang like Freddie Mercury or Paul Stanley to play the roles. The show needs rock. Otherwise, it's boring as hell.
Andy.
|
RainyCrystal
|
| jcstar wrote: | | Not "musical-theatre" material? Your opinion. If I was to cast the show, I'd look for someone who sang like Freddie Mercury or Paul Stanley to play the roles. The show needs rock. Otherwise, it's boring as hell. |
They are not musical theatre actors. They're not meant for stage, period. Neither had the real training, and neither had the experience. And David Hasselhoff's singing is not good musical theatre singing, that is from the ears of a trained singer. And please, in God's name, anyone BUT Paul Stanley. For once, pick somebody who's actually a musical actor, who's actually studied theatre, who's actually trained to be on stage, and who's actually RIGHT for the role! Seriously, you think any random person who can sing a few notes can just play ANY role in ANY musical?
And the show DOES NOT need "rock". It was never meant to have "rock". Wildhorn did not write the musical w/ rock in mind, and it will just look plain ridiculous to make it rock. If it's boring, well, I'm sorry. The show is written in the style and form that I guess is just meant to be "boring" to begin with. And I'd much rather have a boring show than something that's completely absurd and funny looking and totally doesn't fit. It is just not that kind of musical. You might as well put "rock" in The Scarlet Pimpernel if you just randomly stick rock into Jekyll & Hyde. Seriously, what is your obsessions w/ "rock" in everything?
And do you even know what a "rock opera" is? You think just randomly stick some "rock" into a musical, then boom, we have a "rock opera"? Gee, when did things ever become that easy?
~Sissi
|
The Very Angry Woman
|
| jcstar wrote: | | Well, I only heard the CD once. I seem to remember Jekkyl had more parts and songs than Hyde did. Maybe I should listen to it again. |
Especially before writing such a long "review."
|
RainyCrystal
|
And for future reference, the name is spelled Jekyll. And when you listen to the recording again, listen a bit more carefully. Things that you didn't hear because you didn't even pay any attention, then you blame on the recording or the musical for being lacking or whatever... It sounds to me like you obviously didn't even finish listening to the whole recording if you "fell asleep listening to it".
~Sissi
|
The Very Angry Woman
|
I agree with Sissi -- AND I would've agreed with her had you given it a rave review as well.
|
jcstar
|
| RainyCrystal wrote: | | They are not musical theatre actors. They're not meant for stage, period. Neither had the real training, and neither had the experience. And David Hasselhoff's singing is not good musical theatre singing, that is from the ears of a trained singer. |
I understand. So, only "musical theatre" people should only sing "musical theatre" songs, because they have beautiful and trained and flawless "musical theatre" voice? What sort of logic is that?
Does Hasselhoff have the range? Yes.
Does he sing well? Yes.
Does he act well? That a matter of opinion. You say no, I say yes.
Did he get the part because of his name? Absolutely. I don't deny that. And I think he'd be the first one to say that.
| RainyCrystal wrote: | | And please, in God's name, anyone BUT Paul Stanley. For once, pick somebody who's actually a musical actor, who's actually studied theatre, who's actually trained to be on stage, and who's actually RIGHT for the role! Seriously, you think any random person who can sing a few notes can just play ANY role in ANY musical? |
In a 1999 interview, Stanley said that his family were brought up with all sorts of theatre... musical theatre being one of the styles that he and his siblings were taught.
KISS is a theatrical show. Have you seen them live in concert? It's theatre with the volume turned up to the 10. Floating drum kits, flying people, exploding guitars, fire, boms, and bloddspitting. You can't get much more theatrical than that!
Stanley saw PHANTOM OF THE OPERA in England in 1989, and expressed interest in the role. He couldn't commit when the audition came, because KISS was touring the world. When he saw PHANTOM again that year, he said "I can do that... better."
I saw him as the Phantom in 1999 and I can't stop singing his praises. He was brilliant! He brought something fresh and new to the role, and hos Phanto was SO popular, that they extended the last run one more month and asked him to come back for that last month (one night, he starred opposite Sarah Brightman).
Stanley was offered J&H as he was performing PHANTOM in Toronto. The reason why he didn't get the part is because of KISS commitments, and he gave it to Hasselhoff.
| RainyCrystal wrote: | | And the show DOES NOT need "rock". |
I think it does.
| RainyCrystal wrote: | | It was never meant to have "rock". Wildhorn did not write the musical w/ rock in mind, and it will just look plain ridiculous to make it rock. If it's boring, well, I'm sorry. The show is written in the style and form that I guess is just meant to be "boring" to begin with. And I'd much rather have a boring show than something that's completely absurd and funny looking and totally doesn't fit. It is just not that kind of musical. |
Just try to imagine "Facade" with a heavy drumbeat, synths, a pounding bass and a screaming guitar. "Lost In The Darkness" played on an acoustic guitar with the Broadway orchestration. "This Is The Moment" with the volume turned up a bit more. There's parts of J&H that could rock out. It would sound great... in my opinion.
What's so absurd about that?
| RainyCrystal wrote: | | And do you even know what a "rock opera" is? |
Yes.
JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, RENT, TOMMY, JOSEPH... DREAMCOAT, are prime examples.
| RainyCrystal wrote: | | You think just randomly stick some "rock" into a musical, then boom, we have a "rock opera"? Gee, when did things ever become that easy? |
You tell me. To me, it does seem easy.
I'm done here.
Andy.
|
RainyCrystal
|
A. Paul Stanley was a terrible Phantom. I'll give him credit for the fact that he really tried, and that he loved the role and really wanted to do it well. But no, it was something beyond his abilities. Some people just arent' suitable for certain things, and that's not always the people's fault.
B. Not every pop, rock, or whatever singer can be turned into a musical theatre actor, that is sadly a fact. No matter how much Madonna tried, she just can never be Eva Peron. She will forever be Madonna the pop star. And David Hasselhoff might be able to sing. But is he a "great" singer? From the ears of someone who's been trained in singing for years, NO! He is FAR from "great"! And just because someone can sing and has some sort of a range does not necessarily mean they're good for musical theatre and stage in general. Emmy Rossum can sing, yes. But is she a good Christine? NO! Can I picture her on Broadway or West End? NEVER!
C. Jekyll & Hyde was not meant to be in the "rock" style, just like The Scarlet Pimpernel. If it's not the kind of musical, why should it have something that it never meant to have in the first place? First of all, the story of Jekyll & Hyde is not very suitable to be rockish in the first place. Second of all, why does it have to have "rock" to be good? Things that don't have rock are just boring and not as great and interesting as things that do have rock?
D. As someone who grew up studying music, and as someone who's currently a music minor, NOT everything can be turned into a "rock opera", and randomly sticking rock stuff into a regular musical does not make it a "rock opera". That is just NOT how things work. BTW, just for your imformation, a "rock opera" is not necessarily an "opera" that's "rock". Les Miserables can be called a rock opera, the German musicals Tanz der Vampire and Elisabeth can also be called rock operas.
E. | Quote: | Just try to imagine "Facade" with a heavy drumbeat, synths, a pounding bass and a screaming guitar. "Lost In The Darkness" played on an acoustic guitar with the Broadway orchestration. "This Is The Moment" with the volume turned up a bit more. There's parts of J&H that could rock out. It would sound great... in my opinion.
What's so absurd about that? |
I tried to imagine, and all I can say is, they will sound and look ridiculous. They are just not meant to be done like that. Jekyll & Hyde can probably be turned into a rock opera if done right, but not by adding random rock'n roll stuff, like you had suggested. A "rock opera" does not necessarily involve rock'n roll and/or modern rockish music. If those stuff are not suitable for the theme and the type of musical, they'll just be random and ridiculous and out of place in a show.
~Sissi
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
And who says you're the one who has the inside scoop on what J&H was supposed to be? Wildhorn was inspired to write by JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR. And he planned J&H (in college, and it carried over into current productions) as a dark, scary, gothic, ROCK thriller. It may not sound rock, but it was written with that vein in mind.
|
RainyCrystal
|
| Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote: | | And who says you're the one who has the inside scoop on what J&H was supposed to be? |
As someone who understands music and musicals, as someone who's been a fan of Frank Wildhorn and his shows for a long time, as someone who's done some research on him and his works, and as someone who knows a bunch of people who've talked to and interviewed Frank Wildhorn more than once.
~Sissi
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
| RainyCrystal wrote: | | Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote: | | And who says you're the one who has the inside scoop on what J&H was supposed to be? |
As someone who understands music and musicals, as someone who's been a fan of Frank Wildhorn and his shows for a long time, as someone who's done some research on him and his works, and as someone who knows a bunch of people who've talked to and interviewed Frank Wildhorn more than once.
~Sissi |
If you understand music and musicals, you'd know the viewpoint he was writing from. As a fan, that doesn't give you the right to generalize what you say as if it's the truth. So you've done research; apparently, it wasn't very good if you don't know what I do (and I haven't even listened to some of his stuff). Big deal, you know people who interviewed him -- that's still not direct contact with the man himself, and while I have not had that, I've read enough about him to know where he was coming from.
|
Evan Grubbs
|
| Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote: | | RainyCrystal wrote: | | Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote: | | And who says you're the one who has the inside scoop on what J&H was supposed to be? |
As someone who understands music and musicals, as someone who's been a fan of Frank Wildhorn and his shows for a long time, as someone who's done some research on him and his works, and as someone who knows a bunch of people who've talked to and interviewed Frank Wildhorn more than once.
~Sissi |
If you understand music and musicals, you'd know the viewpoint he was writing from. As a fan, that doesn't give you the right to generalize what you say as if it's the truth. So you've done research; apparently, it wasn't very good if you don't know what I do (and I haven't even listened to some of his stuff). Big deal, you know people who interviewed him -- that's still not direct contact with the man himself, and while I have not had that, I've read enough about him to know where he was coming from. |
You're slipping Gibby.
You just accused her of something and did the same thing.
Get better.
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
Well, she obviously has her answer wrong, Grubbsy. Wildhorn himself said on his new label's forum that they're laying down tracks for the new J&H CD with a JUDAS PRIEST guitarist. Shows how much she knew about what the show was supposed to be.
|
jcstar
|
| Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote: | | Well, she obviously has her answer wrong, Grubbsy. Wildhorn himself said on his new label's forum that they're laying down tracks for the new J&H CD with a JUDAS PRIEST guitarist. Shows how much she knew about what the show was supposed to be. |
Now THIS sounds cool!
Andy.
|
Lord Moe
|
Hey Andy. Now we're both fans of JCS (and both members of JCSnet) but this show is fine just the way it is and making it a rock opera would just make it worse. There are other shows out besides Rock operas.
|
jcstar
|
I understand that. I love most other forms of musical theatre.
J&H just had this whole "heavy metal/hair band" thing going through my head when I read the book.
Even reviews I've read have noted that songs were like "1980's power ballads." So, I want to hear synthesizers, drum machines and all the stuff I love about the '80's in these songs.
J&H can work if the amps are turned up to the 10, you know.
Andy.
|
BwayJuvinile
|
Go back and watch hasselhoff, he rushes the music, and is pitchy at times. Plus his acting in this is the moment is probably the worst thing i have ever seen.
Warlow was brilliant simply because this was just a concept and he created his own version without doing anything onstage.
|
Jekkienumber24601
|
Warlow had the best character and singing voice for both jekyll and hyde. I love the simple orchestrations on this one. very gothic, not typical full broadway, you know? No one has beat Warlow yet and he hasn't even performed it onstage! Rob Evan comes close but not close enough, followed by chuck wagner and t eric hart. (in english) Tom Bruckhart is pretty damn good.
|
Anno_Domini
|
Have you seen Hasselhoff's version of "Transformation" and "Confrontation"? Two of the most crucial, tragic, and dramatic moments in the play, yet thanks to his poor acting they are two of the campiest, most overdone, and overall worst scenes on the DVD.
I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive Hasselhoff for killing that show (it closed after a 4-year run shortly after he was cast. It had showed no signs of slowing down till then.)
|
jcstar
|
It's such a pity that you think that way.
Andy.
|
Anno_Domini
|
Oh no, I feel that I am the one who should pity you
|
