Non Lloyd - Webber Phantom(s)

[heathurrr]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 9:18pm

I had no idea there were so many stage versions of the novel 'The Phantom of the Opera'.
I dislike Webber, but the Phantom story is interesting.

I'm curious. Can anyone tell me anything further? Thoughts? Opinions?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 9:56pm

What? You've never heard of the Yeston/Kopit musical version of "Phantom of the Opera"?

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 10:12pm

Here's a wonderful website devoted to Ken Hill's version. His was the first (as far as I know) musical version of Leroux's novel, and it was this show which inspired Webber to write his own version. I believe you can still get the recording through Dress Circle (I don't know for certain, though; mine was a gift). Trivia Time: Sarah Brightman had been approached to play Christine in THIS "Phantom..." musical, but she turned it down.

Ken Hill's "Phantom of the Opera"

Updated On: 8/25/08 at 10:12 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 10:28pm

I like the Ken Hill Phantom better than Yeston's.

[JoshuaEads]

Posted: 8/26/08 at 1:22am

The Yeston/Kopit "PHANTOM" is very rich in story; however, the score is pretty uneven. For every beautiful number there's another that doesn't quite fit. I've seen some pretty amazing productions of the show, though, and prefer it to most other versions ... including ALW's.

[tourboi]

Posted: 8/26/08 at 1:31am

SPOILERS....

The problem with Yeston/Kopit's "Phantom" (other than the uneven score) IMO is their story. It's so far removed from the novel it's based on that it's rediculous. The opera manager is the Phantom's father? Carlotta and her husband OWN the Opera House? Raoul doesn't exist, and is replaced by Phillipe (Raoul's brother in the novel). The Phantom was born IN the theatre? And when did it become a comedy? It's more "My Fair Lady" than "Phantom of the Opera."

As a fan of the novel, I find this version tedious.

I do, however, love the ALW version and have always wanted to see the Ken Hill version.

[JoshuaEads]

Posted: 8/26/08 at 1:50am

tourboi,

All very good points, and I agree to some extent; but, as a fan of the novel, I appreciate that they took the story and made it work for them. Of course, I'm probably a bit biased, as a local production of this version thrilled me beyond belief when I was young and just discovering the adult side of theatre. Who knew "The Wizard of Oz" and "Peter Pan" weren't all there was to Musical Theatre?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/26/08 at 2:26am

I agree. I know a lot of people here seem to hate the Lloyd Webber version, but one thing it has going for it, though simplified, it follows the novel pretty closely. Except for the movie and Las Vegas production which are further removed due to the falling of the chandelier being relocated to the end where as in the novel it occurs prior to the masked ball. The other musical versions, most notably Yeston's and David Spencer's seem to not want to trust their source material.