Jekyll Hyde Tour /w SPOILERS

What do I think? I think we should stop making all these threads about this show which is still on tour. This is like the 4th thread about this show. Just this morning I was in a thread that had a lot of pages. Let's use what we have to keep stuff together.

^I think this orchestration for Jekyll & Hyde only utilizes two less musicians than the Broadway orchestration, but I do agree to a certain extent. In my opinion, the Broadway orchestrations were one of the best elements of that incarnation, and all of the others before and after were a bit campy and more 80s sounding. These "new" orchestrations are just terrible and it's hard to believe that they were even done by the same orchestrator. MTI doesn't even license the Broadway orchestrations as far as I know. It's a shame.

For Les Miz, I do actually like some of the new 25th Anniversary stuff. I agree that it was probably done in an effort to cut costs and it's not fair to mislead the public the way that they do, but there is some stuff that I can't lie and say that I hate. I really enjoy "Javert's Soliloquy" in particular. I'm not a music expert so I can't comment on what exactly they changed, but the bit when he's about to jump, and the music sort of drops out behind him, is really cool. The whole "I am reaching, but I fall" bit was really chilling to me. That effect disappeared after a while though. It lost its impact on repeated listenings.

Updated On: 11/18/12 at 02:41 AM

Sad about "Confrontation", best part of the original Broadway show was watching Mr. Cuccioli go back and forth which was amazing. ( robbed of Tony IMO)

bwayto, you're getting that list from MTI. MTI doesn't license the Broadway orchestrations. The playbill for the original Broadway production lists 14 musicians and not 17.

*** and Kim Scharnberg is a man? Seriously?!?

Updated On: 11/18/12 at 02:11 PM

I can live with orchestral reduction and adaptation of the original orchs. The true loss and infuriating practice that must stop is this "new" orchestration bull that is only a recent trend, where they either completely redo the orchestration or throw in a bunch of things to distract people into thinking it's a whole new work, when the motive really lies in reducing the required number of musicians and reorchestrating as a way around that, or at least hoping that by reorchestrating they can't be accused of cutting and depriving musicians of jibs.

The new orchestration thing isn't a gift nor an update (much less a needed one) for fans. It's a roundabout way of cutting costs by cutting staff and resources and redoing the orchestration, which just HAPPENS to require less than half of the original requirement most of the time. A true gift to true fans would include an expanded version of the original orchs if you want to get demanding. I've always been happy with anything, even a solo piano, as long as it is adapted skillfully, retaining the original musical language and upholding the works integrity.

I probably got you all confused now. But it really has little to do with the strict number of musicians used. Of course, the larger an orchestra, the better, but as was the case with the 25th ann. concert of Les Mis, that orchestra could have been even bigger and I would not have cared, because the atmospheric magic and musical identity in John Cameron's original musical language was lost to a reedy, whiney mess that makes me shudder with how easily it has been accepted by just about everyone who claims to LOVE that musical. What did they like? The screechingly high notes, I guess, cause music can't possibly be a factor. There's no way.

This new J&H has no variety, sounds monotonous, and of course it's pretty, but that's not a compliment when that's all it sounds like, and offers no substance and no character.

It isn't all tragic though and the intro to "In His Eyes" held me for a while, but then let go as the female vocalists shone above even the horrendous mixing job. Brava to them!!

---

Updated On: 11/18/12 at 07:46 PM

Never stated ALL rewrites are wrong or bad. I'd be stunningly close minded if I ever did.

But much like most revivals today, a great majority suck balls. And they suck balls because, unlike the originals which are almost always focused on the storytelling, the revisals are done to conceal the axing of musicians. This concealment is usually half-assed and half-hearted, and sometimes filled with ornamentation consisting of bombast and sound effects, designed the woo audiences and is actually not really orchestration. I can "spice" up any song by inserting random timpani and sleigh bells, and it might sound pretty and appealing, but my standards aren't limited to appeal and "pretty." I want to be swept away and these revisals fail to do that, and these days, fail at that so consistently.

---