Frank Wildhorn: A Discussion

[CaroleeFan]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 11:23am

I know there are lots of Frank Wildhorn fans out there, but maybe this will lead to a good discussion.

I just can't connect to his music or his shows. I find his music predictable, and average. I do enjoy parts of Jekyll and Hyde, and 2 songs from Pimpernel, but I just can't get into his shows. His choice of material to adapt never seems to interest me. I think his songs work well as pop songs, but in the theatre, I think they lack the excitement and punch necessary. And his lyricists are just terrible!

Any thoughts on Mr. Wildhorn and his shows?

[WildhornFanatic]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 11:43am

Carolee Fan - Thank you for starting a topic on Frank Wildhorn.

First, I agree that the lyrics to some of his shows are bad. Leslie Bricusse's lyrics from JEKYLL & HYDE are incredibly predictable and rhymey. Jack Murphy's lyrics from THE CIVIL WAR are good in some spots, but still cheesy in others, and DRACULA's lyrics (Don Black & Christopher Hampton) are among the worst lyrics I have ever heard. Nan Knighton (SCARLET PIMPERNEL & CAMILLE CLAUDEL) takes the cake for the best lyricist Frank has worked with, in my opinion.

Second, in his previous work, his music has been predictable. The song structure was usually A B C A' B' C' D C' C''. DRACULA was the first Broadway show where Frank played with the structure of his music and it was less predictable. He still received blows from the critics, but all agreed that this was his first score where he tried his best to make his sound more "theatrical and less predictable."

I encourage you to find some sound clips of music from CAMILLE CLAUDEL. Not only are the lyrics among some of the best Nan Knighton has written, but the music is incredible infectuous. Frank REALLY plays with the song structures in this show and weaves a nice motif/ theme throughout the lucious score. PM me for more information.

WAITING FOR THE MOON is Frank's first swing/ jazz attempt and he does not disappoint. Going to school for Musical Theatre, most people do not like any of Frank's dark pop music but I shared the WAITING FOR THE MOON demo with them, and they've fallen in love. Jack Murphy's lyrics are good, for the most part. Some of the songs, like "I've Got Things To Say," have horrible elementary lyrics, but overall, they're not that bad. Frank's music is very uptempo, fun and bright and the strong book makes this show a winner.

For me, Frank Wildhorn's music inspires me to perform. I respect Frank because he went to USC as a History Major and decided to write JEKYLL & HYDE in his spare time. Frank always admits that he isn't a composition major, he just writes from the heart. How can you knock down someone who tries their best, goes with their gut instinct and has a huge fan base? Frank is one of the most persistant, determined composers around. His work has employed thousands of people. Hopefully one day I'll join that list.

Thank you CaroleeFan for starting this topic. I hope people have intelligent things to say.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 11:45am

Hmmm...

I see Wildhorn's works as the paperback romance novels of the theatre world. Some of his stuff is better than other of his material (I found Pimpernel to be very enjoyable, but J&H... meh), and you can always kind of see where his music is going, but if you want to just kick back and you want something that takes less brain power and emotional investment, it works as fluff. Some people view his stuff as trash, some people enjoy it as a secret guilty pleasure, and some people openly adore it.

[CaroleeFan]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 11:49am

I've heard bits of most of his shows. For me, I feel he sits down and says: "I'm going to mainstream this genre of music for the theatre". His work to me seems to lack the spontaneity that makes a good musical. I never feel like the book/music match up. His songs, at least for me, tend to stop the action rather than progress it. I guess contrived is the right word. I never listen to his music, and think: “Oh God this is crap!” but I’m just never moved by it. Maybe serviceable is more appropriate. I love songs like “Storybook” and “In His Eyes” but when I think about them as theatrical works of art, I just get more and more bothered. I think if he surrounded himself by better lyricists, and maybe someone with a good eye for dramatic action and where to place songs, he would find more success and praise.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 11:52am

I see Wildhorn's works as the paperback romance novels of the theatre world.

CostumeMistress---Nicely put!

"Pimpernel" was the exception. It was better than the others, by far... which I guess isn't saying much.

It's almost like he's the anti-Sondheim. Everything that Sondheim does seems to garner praise. Even the crap. (Yes, I said that.) Wildhorn seems to be branded as a "crapmeister" by the theatre world, guilty before proven innocent. "Pimpernel" was a very good show all around. People should judge these works individually, not by a "designer label."

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 11:56am

I will say in his favor that his torch songs are great to work on with young singers - high-school age. "This is the Moment," "When I Look at You," etc, are great songs to work with in terms of learning to perform. Teens/young adults really relate to these songs and enjoy them, and they make great high-school-variety-show songs.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 12:07pm

My wife & i love his work. Bricusse lyrics were not that bad. The guy is in the freakining song writers hall of fame . Murphy's Civil War Lyrics were great

[Caleb]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 12:20pm

I think one thing that can't be denied is that Frank is an incredible melodist. His songs (listen to stuff even outside his shows) are so versatile and cover so many styles, yet always have those little melodic hooks that drag you in. I really think of him as a modern day Richard Rodgers (don't shoot).

The difference is, Rodgers had a real dramatist like Oscar Hammerstein working with him to channel his great musical talent into something that would make great theatre. I don't feel like Frank has ever had that. I would love for him to be involved in a project where he is not the driving creative force behind it. Find a really talented lyricist and bookwriter who already has a good idea and just needs music, and Frank could come shining through.

In my opinion, Frank is a textbook example of unfulfilled potential.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 12:45pm

My primary problem with Frank Wildhorn is that he chooses to adapt huge literature classics, none of which are from our own time, and then supply them with completely modern and simplistic music. If he had actually attempted to put some study, research, ANYTHING into looking into the time period/musical styles/overall sense of the time, perhaps he could craft a score that didnt just appear to be modern pop stars dressed in funny costumes singing pop ballads. I honestly thing he'd be quite successful if he could just craft an original story and set it in our own time. At least thatd be a step in the right direction.

[WildhornFanatic]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 1:46pm

Caleb,

I agree with you. Frank does write incredible melodies. His songs written for Linda Eder are some of the very best song I've ever heard, in my opinion. I almost like his songs for Linda better than some of the songs from his shows.

I would just like to say that I appreciate people's discussion of this topic. You guys aren't posting "Frank sucks," and leaving it at that. You actually explain how and why you feel the way you do about his music. It's very mature and I appreciate it.

[roquat]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 2:09pm

If you listen to "A New Life" from JEKYLL AND HYDE and then play Barry Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You", the chords and most of the melody are identical. To some extent, this is inevitable in the pop world, but it still points up my main problem with Wildhorn--he doesn't have a style of his own. He seems to be borrowing from Lloyd Webber (who is already borrowing from classical sources, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and heaven knows who else). It's car-radio theatre music. I also have yet to discover anything resembling a sense of humor in any of his shows.

[EganFan2]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 2:18pm

I think Pimpernel had the potential to be a great show if they'd retooled it BEFORE going to Broadway. Jekyll and Hyde is OK. I used to like it a lot more than I do now though it is still enjoyable. Civil War seemed boring to me, though. It is a unique idea, I'll give 'em that.

[wickedfreak]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 3:20pm

OMG..........I love that man!

He is a genius!!!!!

All of his music is so great!!!!!!!!!!!

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 6:50am

I'm sick and tired of discussing this because it all ever leads to is bringing out trolls (they haven't come in yet, but they're bound to) who will tear the man apart and everything thing he does. I'm sick sick sick and tired

I think he has a flair for melody, a bottomless well of tunes, and if anyone can't live with his success then so be it for you. He may have done this, he may have done that, and I could sit here all night and protest in case for him: but I just can't be bothered.

I'm sick of these threads that attempt to talk about Wildhorn deteriorating into "he's the worst thing to have ever happened in the history of theatre, fie fie"

I'm going to bed

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 8:03am

I thought the lyrics to CIVIL WAR were touching and brilliant. I cry everytime I listen to it. I also think that this album (Never saw the show) is his "masterpiece."

[bostonbroadwayfan]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 9:24am

I didnt like the direction he was taking Linda in the last few years and maybe it's better for her they've split. GOLD was terrible in my opinion.
I liked J&H I listen to the soundtrack quite often.

[WildhornFanatic]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 10:22am

bostonbroadwayfan - what didn't you like about the song GOLD and the show it's from, CAMILLE CLAUDEL?

[EganFan2]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 12:14pm

Did Linda have little to no say in what she recorded, or something? Just curious. I don't need personal details.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:03pm

I didn't see The Civil War except for the horrendous Tony performance, so this is based only on his three other Broadway shows:

Frank Wildhorn can write very good music (i.e. Jekyll and Hyde) or very bad music (i.e. Dracula). He's a mixed bag in that department, but most composers are, even Sondheim (Bounce, anyone?). I think his bigger problem is the people that he chooses to work with. Nan Knighton's lyrics for Pimpernel are terrible, and they make the music sound worse than it is. And as much as I love Jekyll and Hyde, Leslie Briccuse's lyrics are just as bad (and his book is even worse). If Wildhorn had better lyricists, his scores would be much better.

It also didn't help that the original J&H director sucked, and that Peter Stone (Pimpernel) and Des McAnuff (Dracula), despite being considerable talents, did very poor jobs (well, actually, Hal Prince, Peter Brook, and Michael Bennett all could have co-directed that show and it still would have stunk).

So, in summary, Frank Wildhorn is an OK composer who makes himself seem worse than he is by choosing the wrong people to work with.

And if you actually just read this entire post that I just labored over, then I thank you.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:11pm

Rockfenris, if you're so sick of discussing this, then don't post. If you took the time to read the thread, you'd find people discussing the pros and cons of Wildhorn's work with smart opinions and explanations.

[roquat]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:13pm

No, he's not the worst thing ever to happen to theatre. That would be Michael John LaChuisa. One writes tunes you seem to have heard before, the other writes tunes you hope never to hear again.

I also don't see that Wildhorn's that "successful" in Broadway terms. JEKYLL was a mixed victory at best (Forbidden Broadway--"The show that's not as good as PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, but just as long and dimly lit!"), and his other shows have gotten successively worse--critically, artistically, and financially. Their only salutary effect is to contribute a lot of obscure ballads for actors to oversell at auditions.

[Unmasked05]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:20pm

I don't think that what he adapts is the problem.."adapt huge literature classics, none of which are from our own time,"................that is really not the problem lots of musicals are from books that are not from our own time

example:
Les Miserables
The Phantom of The Opera
The Woman In White
Jayne Eyre

and some of these shows have done well...so whats he's adapting isnt the problem at all.

I think the man did a GFREAT job with The Scarlet Pimpernel and J&H and even Dracula. Wildhorn is a aquired taste.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:04am

In reply to the Fanatic, I've never set foot inside a Musical Theatre class and I've completed nine musicals (three to open in Scotland), working on ten more, and own a production company called Radical Wizardry Entertainment

Not everyone has to go to a Musical Theatre school: and I think Frank has had enough success to prove that, and Andrew Lloyd Webber certainly does: because he only studied at Oxford, then left, then did a course on Orchestration

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:17am

I freely admit that I enjoy the work of Frank Wildhorn. No, he doesn't incite endless hours of philosophy and debate like some shows do, and yes, his melodies tend to linger in a very similiar pop idiom. But that said, his shows that I've seen - Jekyll and Pimpernel - were enjoyable evenings of theatre for me. I agree that The Scarlet Pimpernel is his strongest show, much in part to Nan Knighton.

I think alot of the resistance towards his material today is that he can easily be seen as a throwback to the pop opera 80's (Phantom, etc.). Jane Eyre was a victim of this as well - I thought it had a beautiful score, a gorgeous physical production and an amazing cast (particularly Marla Schaffel). Yet the pop-opera literary adapation is viewed as very passe nowadays, and so it took alot of hits because of that. I sense that The Woman In White will get the same criticisms.

I'm mixed on his Eder material - some of it, like Vienna, Anything Can Happen, and Gold I loved - but then most of it sounds like one big band number after another.

On the obverse, though, he sure makes some interesting choices that he's mentioned for musicalization: Blade Runner? Frankenstein? Sometimes I feel like he starts at one end of the video store or bookstore and works his way down the aisles, looking for souce material.

[WildhornFanatic]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:38am

rocknferris - Well good for you. I said I admire Frank because he writes from the heart and he's successful at it. I NEVER said in order for people to write musicals, they must go to a musical theater school. Obviously it helps, but it doesn't mean anything.

And please, lets not play this game of how amazing you are because you've written 20 plus musicals. You can write 100 musicals. I still don't know who you are.
Updated On: 11/14/05 at 12:38 AM