Good Musicals with Bad Books- Page 2

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 6:57pm

^^^ Yeah, that surprised me, too.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 9:35pm

GavestonPS said: "Fantod said: "Not possible. A show lives and dies by its book.

 

 

 

"

 

Exactly. You can have a good musical with a mediocre score, but not a good musical with a bad book.

 

"

I feel Oklahoma and Carousel have books that leave more to be desired, yet they are still widely considered classical American musicals.

[BroadwayMan5]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 12:38am

Godspell

Pippin

Aida

[aj88]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 11:17am

I agree that most of Stephen Schwartz' shows have weak to serviceable books but are buoyed up his scores and usually the performances and technical aspects. The fact that PIPPIN can be so amazing when done well is fascinating considering how weak the book is. And then you have cases like Children of Eden where it doesn't even feel necessary at times or in the case of The Bakers Wife, it is what ruins the show.

I also agree with Follies. As a Sondheim fanatic, it has never been one of my favorites of his as a full show primarily because of the book. Score wise, it is quite good. 

Any of the jukebox musicals have questionable books. I thought Beautiful was bland but it was solid enough that it didn't exactly damage the show as a whole. I still find it sad that it got buzz to topple Gentlemans Guide at the Tonys.

For me personally, one show that I really have a love/hate relationship with is Annie Get Your Gun. The book, no matter which version, is weak but the score truly does save the day. 

I would also argue that despite being fixed up by Maury Yeston and Peter Stone, Grand Hotel still never quite gelled but it was more so the book than the score for me.

 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 12:39pm

I hate the book to Company, which is otherwise a great musical.  For me, virtually all the comedy was cliched and unfunny when it opened.  It is now seriously dated as well.

 

Agree that Folloes is hurt by the book...this was always evident, but moreso in productions that did not benefit from all the other amazing things in the original production.

 

Most of all, I hate the book to Oklahoma.  I can't believe that the whole Will Parkr / Ali Hamim / Ado Annie wasn't considered corny when it opened.  Makes me hate sitting throught it, even with the great score and choreography.

 

Mack and Mabel has a special place on the list.  It is ruined by the book.  Period.

[Peter2]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 4:57pm

Big old fan of Sondheim though I am, I regret having to admit that many of his shows have book problems to one degree or another--but I don't agree about which ones! I find the Lapine shows pretentious, and really hated the heavy-handed way he directed them, especially Sunday. I can understand why people fault Follies, but I keep thinking it just needs the right director. (Most of the time when I've seen it, it moves just a little too slowly.)

 

To state the obvious just because nobody else has yet: Most of the pre-1940s musicals have poor books, which is why they're never revived without substantial rewriting, if at all.

[TNick926]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 5:21pm

It strikes me that if the source material is strong, the musical is often strong...such as Thorton Wilder's The Matchmaker (which he had re-made from The Merchant of Yonkers) gives a solid, funny forward-moving story to Hello, Dolly!  Mame, on the other hand, represents, for better or worse, the episodic nature of the original book by Patrick Dennis.  But when you add the glorious music to each, it's musical theater gold.  Fun Home, to bring up a more current example, has very strong source material, in my opinion, in Alison Bechdel's graphic novel, and then is given incredible added complexity and heft by the Lisa Kron book. The music (by Jeanine Tesori) and lyrics are so delicately laced into the forward and backward storytelling that it's more like a deeply felt play with music, yet is mostly sung thru...I am a HUGE fan of this show... 

The shows where they re-work Gershwin into a story to make a "new" musical are usually barely adequate books (My One and Only, Nice Work If You Can Get It, Crazy for You, etc) but that damn music is so great it usually carries the show, for me, anyway...this is a fun subject to think about...

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 05:21 PM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/7/16 at 10:08pm

CAMELOT

 Glorious music with a book that clunks along. 

[SLSigafoos]

Posted: 3/8/16 at 9:35am

I'm going to go ahead and throw Dr. Zhivago in here. Yes, I realize the show stuck around just long enough to be completely panned by nearly every critic alive. However, I never disliked the music and actually have the cast album (favorites are 'Watch the Moon' and  'Love Finds You', as I find the voices on it to be enjoyable and the score mostly pleasant to the ears. However, the book itself was so contrived that I can't even begin to imagine how anyone thought they could tackle Dr. Zhivago and do it convincingly. I realize that things like way overdone special effects are also what killed that show, but the book was just terrible. I hear they are still hoping to tour with this show; I can't imagine the tour would honestly do better than the show did on Broadway, unless they only plan to hit each city for one night.

Updated On: 3/8/16 at 09:35 AM

[illiniparkie]

Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:19am

Chess:  Great music with a story that has never really worked, although there was a production at Marriott Lincolnshire near Chicago by David Bell that was pretty good and provided a satisfying ending.

 

Spamalot:  What story? (Although I guess that's Monty Python for you.)

Updated On: 3/8/16 at 10:19 AM

[JRybka]

Posted: 3/8/16 at 11:44am

Chess had some of the most amazing music.  I have seen about twelve different versions and while most of them where not great...

I think the Sacramento Music Circus version and the Danish Cast Recording (with Stig Rossen) were the best put together.