Les Misérables: There will never be anything better....- Page 7

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 3:51pm

Cadriel,

Although I disagree with some of what you say, I must commend you for giving a really well thought out answer and really trying to get to the heart of why people love Les Mis so. It was a pleasure to debate with you! What you said used Broadway history to prove your point and your facts were all completely correct!

JMACLOVER, I highly doubt that the 100 legends care what you say either and further more I am sure regardless of what their opinion on Les Mis is, know which opinion comes from experience and widely-respected knowlegde. Just don't listen, mutter "Les Mis is the best 12 times under your breath and continue to think it for all I care. Because truthfully, in my opinion, you've run out of responses to make me angry and I just know that you'll always think that.

So if it is not you, maybe some other kid will be taking the trek to the video store to rent Broadway: The Golden Age. And that kid, whether they think Les Mis is the best musical or not, is my kind of kid.

[misterchoi]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 5:47pm

There are a lot of those kids.

If I look at Les Miserables as a direct descendant of the operatic form, I am able to appreciate it much more. It does have the feel of an opera through the entire piece, as it is so very different than the American Broadway musical and the spark that comes with that, and it is one technically(an opera). It is absolutely something to be noticed and watched, but I do believe that as opposed to Disney, it was this show and a few others that may have changed the face of musical theatre for the worse in the future.

[jmaclover]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 5:51pm

I agreed with the first part of what you said choi.

I started this thread for people who like Les Mis, not to argue if it changed Bway for the worse. If shows decided to follow suit, then it was because of financial gains. All I have to say is I enjoy Les Mis. Some people may not because they don't like "operas" or because they like "Traditional Broadway." Either way, the show is still going to be one of my favorites because of its story and its music.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 9:54pm

ok... I'm listening to the CSR recording... does anybody here not like the woman playing Fantine? her voice annoys the crap out of me... she ruined I Dreamed a Dream... as for Kaho Shimada.. i kinda like her Eponine... her On My Own could use a little more oomph, but I like her

[cturtle]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 9:59pm

i LOVE gary morris :)

[jmaclover]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 10:13pm

I don't care for the Fantine

Kaho is so annoying on the Japanese CD

[Cadriel]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 10:32am

Misterchoi:

I can't agree. In the '80s, aside from Sondheim, what American composers were doing anything truly interesting in the form? Who has succeeded in making really compelling and original theatre in America since him? Jonathan Larson had some really good, energetic pieces that probably needed more dramaturgical shoring up, but he died; Jason Robert Brown's a great composer (and a serviceable librettist, if you've seen The Last Five Years), but nothing he's done has really caught on (other than the cult following of L5Y that's cropping up). Most successful American musicals since Rent have been film adaptations, pastiches, parodies, or any combination of the three - the only exception I can think of is Wicked, which is really the first successful American take on the '80s megamusical. Pastiche scores (whether of classic musicals, like The Producers, or of other song styles, like Urinetown, Hairspray, and Avenue Q) and adaptations of films are not a sign of a genre that is mining fertile ground.

I think the musical form is, if not effectively dead, at least between movements, so to speak. If there aren't any artists who are willing to set out and define an idiom for musicals that is fresh, modern, and relevant - which the classic musicals were at the time, and the megamusicals were at the time - then I think the genre will clunk on with pastiches and film adaptations until no one remembers why Broadway means anything. And maybe it doesn't, any more.

-Wayne

[Phantom05]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 10:47am

I really disagree with the statement that Les Miserables and several other shows, I'm guessing you mean't Phantom of the Opera, Miss Saigon, and Cats, changed musical theatre for the worse. If you really stop and think about it, the shows listed above are probably what have saved Broadway and the theatre in general. I know many probably think the these productions started the trend for the technical aspects of production to take presedence of the the actual story, but honestly that choice lies with those who conceive them. As times change, things are just growing, technology is booming, and production design can easily become bigger and better. If the theatre world doesn't keep up with the times, then it may become obsolete. For those of you who decide to criticise the era of the "British Mega-Musical", you should stop and give them a little more credit than they're getting!

See Ya!

Phantom05

[jmaclover]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 1:39pm

I couldn't agree more Phantom!

Except meant doesn't have an apostophe

HEHE

[mizzie]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 5:13pm

How about Les Misérables: The Sequel?

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 5:51pm

Guess you haven't heard of "Cosette," by Laura Kalpakian.

(And don't ask about it until you've googled it...she has a very google-able name.)

[sanda]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 7:09pm

gherbert,

I understand your facination about the golden age of Broadway. There are so many masterpieces which shine from past time till today. Fiddler, Gypsy, Man of La Mancha, Camelot...the more I watched or listened those beautiful treasure, the more I wish that I could live in that time. My time should be 60's.

However, I totally disagree your opinion that it is Les Miz which kill this time and tradition. It is unfair. Les Miz is a masterpiece too, no less than those masterpieces I mentioned. You don't like Les Miz, that is fine. But because you don't like it, you accuse that it kills your dream show is unfair. Yes, there aren't as great works as those in 60's , or 70's. But is it because the British musical? I don't think so. There are not as many good American works as before simply because the American musical creators did not do their jobs as good as before. Thus the British work took the place. Why American creators did not do the jobs well? I don't know. But I know they should not blame other's better work.

I am not Webber's fan though I loved his Joseph and JesusChrist Superstar. But I am uninterested in his Cats and Phantom. I love Les Miz very much, but I don't think Miss Saigon deserved the reputation (that show is wonderful too, just cannot campare with Les Miz).

[jmaclover]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 7:14pm

YAY!

Intelligence from sanda

(but I like Cats)

BUT YAY!

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 8:59am

Look, if I thought that Les Mis had "saved" the theatre as you said I would admit it and just say that I didn't like the show.

But I do think that it did a disservice to the theatre. I mean today it is about production and spectacle and familiarity --- Les Mis put an end to the show being the thing. The point is to NOT have the helicopter in Miss Saigon, it is to create moments like that. The point is to NOT have the tire in Cats. And although Cats came before Les Mis, Les Mis is the show that really clinched the deal.

It also started this era of long runs. I mean, we have few theatres as it is and now these show sit down and play a vulgar ten years. So sure, Les Mis caused a phenomenon, but it began sucking the life out of new works and now Broadway has become much more of a commecial struggle than it ever was.

And I am not saying that I don't like change. A Chorus Line was a change, but a change for the better. Sweeney Todd was a change, but it was a change for the better. Dreamgirls was a change but a change for the better. Not typical Golden Age fare, but it contributed to the musical theatre and opened up doors. Les Mis did not. It was a change for the worse. And you say that the British rock operas saved musical theatre, but the year that Cats opened, Nine opened. The year that Les Mis opened, Into the Woods opened. While neither of those are my favorite show, they prove that the musical was still surviving. Les Mis and Cats are what kicked real musicals off the map to clear the way for more vulgar rock operas.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 10:55am

I am sorry, who are you talking to?

Wew, you said " A chorus line is a change for better.Sweeney Todd is a change for better. blah blah. Les Miz is a change for worse."

Then I said " Les Miz is a change for better. Miss Saigon is a change for better. A chorus line is a change for worse. Sweeney Todd is a change for worse...." How is it sound? Are you or am I the kind of person who can make this judgement? If not, what is the meaning of this nonsence?

As for long run, hah, tell me, who starts this? Les Miz? I remember the first long run show is Kiss Me, Kate, isn't it? How about Fiddler on the roof? OK, they are not long enough. How about A chorus line? Who defined this long run is right or wrong,or long enought? By you, my friend.

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 1:27pm

Okay, your post was hard to decipher, but you made some points that are good and I want to address:

Yes, there were other long runs before this. Honestly I just forgot about A Chorus Line, but before these big long-running mega-musicals, only the cream of the crop could rise and have long runs. Les Mis, Cats, and yes A Chorus Line too all contributed to the fact that today you do not need to actually be a well-written, well-performed show to run. You just need to have good PR and go after a core-demographic and you can run. Take Mamma Mia! The show itself is one of the most poorly written shows and the set is pretty atrocious (it does, howver have very good performers in the leads usually), yet it will run forever because it appeals to the core demographic that buys tickets. When show that are bad run this long then shows that could potentially fill that space and bring new life to Broadway can't and all I am saying is that in an age where EVERY musical runs at least 2 years there's just not enough room for new works to grow.

The American musical theatre was on a wonderful course through the 60's and the 70's with deveoping new styles that progressed the art form. A Chorus Line, Sweeney Todd, and Dreamgirls were very different from the traditional musical, yet they served to deveop the musical theatre more and create new paths. The musical theatre was doing fine in the 1980's. We had Dreamgirls, Nine, Sunday in the Park with George, La Cage aux Folles, Into the Woods, Grand Hotel. But the rock operas kind of overshadowed all of that and slowly dominated Broadway. So the American musical stopped developing. There is a decided gap in the 1990's with the progression of the musical.

And you could say, "Well the rock operas were a new path too." But if you look at it they all had tortorously long runs and not that they are going out of style the quality of the Broadway musical is sub-par to before, not only the Golden Age, but from the 1980's. And that is a result of nothing happening in the 1990's as a result of these massive rock operas.

Regardless of whether they are good shows or not and I will admit that I am partial to some of the material in Phantom and Evita, they didn't do anything for the musical theatre because if they did they would endure and continue to be produced. But after Cats, Les Mis, Phantom, and Miss Saigon . . . they'll just be gone. I mean the ripples and effects only went so far.

P.S. I know you are going to throw Martin Guerre and The Woman in White in my face but since both recieved rather mixed reviews I think they prove that the age where critics were enamoured with gothic mega-musicals is over.

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 1:36pm

Oh, and just a side note. I used to be fine with Les Mis. I never liked the show, but never really disliked and just thought that it was there and that was okay and I went to The Lion King and oohed and ahhed at the big puppets, but I realized that Broadway still could have the wonderful freshness and excitement it once had and thought, "What happened?" So I went back through all of my history books and watched documentries and researched and found that it was quite clear that it was around the time of Les Mis when it started coming to a halt. And it was painfully obvious that in the 1990s was where it lost something and that was the age of the rock opera. And then you go back and say, well which of them really did it? Cats was a phenomenon, but the first and did not single-handedly ruin Broadway. And then you say, Miss Saigon was really one of the last, and so it makes sense that Les Mis was really the show that sealed the deal.

And that may seem really incoherent, but it makes sense. Liking the material or the direction or the sound quality of the show is really subjective. I don't care about that anymore, that is what makes you and I different, but all I want is someone to say, "Yes, I like Les Mis and it moved me and it is my favorite musical, but I realized that the overall effect of it and the rock opera was damaging to the institution of musical theatre."

[jmaclover]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 1:50pm

About long runs: Has nothing to do with the show. Well, it does. It means the show is good and people are coming to see it. Are you upset with the producers of Les Mis or the show itself? Les Mis is a show that happened to draw lots of audiences.

I like how in your long spiel, you never mention POTO, which is still playing. Miss Saigon, POTO, Cats, and Les Mis (for whatever reason) used to be a bundle - if you know what I mean. From advertisements to history books, those four shows were/are always mentioned together.

The fact that, Miss Saigon excluded (partly), these shows ran for so long depicts the changing audience. These shows ran for a long time for a reason. Perhaps instead of being upset with the show, be upset with the audience.

I figure you'll say, "Well, had the shows never opened, the audience's wants would not have changed." I guess we will never know for certain, but people liked these shows enough to keep paying money to see them.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 1:54pm

You know what ? I feel pain to discuss things with you now. Why you try to assume what I want to say? Did I metion that I will "throw Martine Guere or Woman in White on your face?"

Besides, tell me, what are we talking about? Your first opinion is that " Les Miz ruined Broadway." Now you address me mama mia, lion king and lost 80s and 90s. Focus the topic, please. Who ruined Broadway , I cannot make judgement as easily as you do, but I cannot believe it is Les Miz. Is that clear? Please, if you donot want to debate,just shut up, don't change the topic.


I want to point you that you begin to mix cats, saigon, les miz and phantom with lion king , mama mia to one thing Which I don't agree either. The first 4 shows belongs to 80s and most of them are closed now. So, they could not ruin your dreaming " new century glorious Broadway." As for Lion King, Mama Mia, maybe they are not masterpiece, but they are fun to watch and suit the newest audience, that is the Tourists. If you want to blame, blame the changing of Bway from a theatre center to a tourists hotspot. Do I like the changing, I don't know. I just know that it is useless to weep for the lost glory.

I would say "Yes, I like Les Mis and it moved me and it is my favorite musical.And I never agree that the overall effect of it and the rock opera was damaging to the institution of musical theatre.Musical theatre is strong. And if it is not great as before, it has its own problem. "

Sorry to disappoint you. Updated On: 12/10/04 at 01:54 PM

[jmaclover]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 2:01pm

BACK ON TOPIC: Les Mis: There will never be anything better....

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 2:33pm

Sorry, jmaclover. I will shut up after I address sanda.

Sanda, I am sorry that you do not agree with me. I feel that you made some valid points and that I made some valid points as well. I am not aboe admitting that many find Les Mis to be a great show and that it saved musical theatre. That is one way of looking at it. But when I looked at the whole picture, I found that Les Mis damaged Broadway more than helped it. That is my point, agree with it or not.

Crying over the lost glory of Broadway is not a bad thing. Sure, you might like Broadway now, but the reality, as you said, is that it is tourist generated and that creates crowd-pleasing shows, but that was always the case. Lynn Fontaine told Carol Channing when she was staring out in the 1940's that after four months of a Broadway run you are playing to Omaha anyway, yet daring things like Cabaret and Company still surfaced. It is an interesting subject, but I don't plan to just gripe my whole life about lost glory, I plan to work and restore it. And we WILL never be able to restore it all, but if Broadway would have just one musical that captures some of that glory it would be a start.

Sanda, let me also just say that it seems you have a really good grasp on the subject and that I feel like you are a person with whom I would like to talk more. Your posts were intelligent and it is obvious you know what you are talking about whether I agree with it or not. So in short, no hard feelings! See you around the board.

And I am sorry to disrupt the post with my gripings. It should really only have been that one post, but I got a "tinsy" bit carried away because I have a lot of opinions when it come to the subjects and when they are challenged, I go up on the strong defensive.

But if anyone can learn anything from these posts it is that people have different tastes and opinions. No, Les Mis is not the best thing Broadway has ever seen and no it is not the worst.

As jmaclover said, "BACK ON TOPIC."

I'm going to leave now with my dignity intact. I think sanda and cadriel for being really worthy debate opponents. I look forward to speaking with you two in the future.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 2:45pm

Wish you good luck. It is always good to have a dream. You know, Man of La Mancha is my second favorite and Don Quixote is my most beloved role.

I love the old time musical too. (Les Miz cannot be replaced, of course. :) If you like to discuss 60s, you are most welcome.

[jmaclover]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 2:59pm

HeHe....I guess we can keep debating - otherwise it'll get boring to hear/read all the OMG LES MIS posts - wait, wrong show.

I understand musical history, understand what you are saying, but still wonder how Les Mis ruined Broadway? If anything it got people interested in Bway. Maybe it is not the glitz and glamour show of old B'way, but nevertheless...

Personally, I know many ppl, including myself, who became interested in theatre b/c of Les Mis (I don't think I have to name the song that did that). This does not only include people my age, but also people in their 40s who liked musicals but never had a huge Broadway interest.

If anything, by bringing people into the theatre environment, Les Mis has helped make the American culture much better...

[kangaroo]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 3:52pm

I loved Les Miserables, and I'm really glad because we are going to be performing it this year. It's going to be the most difficult show we have ever done.
On the other hand, I am also nervous, becuase there are a lot of expectations and other schools waiting for us to mess up.
I think this show and its producers changed Broadway. I love Les Miserables and Miss Saigon too.
~Kangaroo

[Loge]

Posted: 12/10/04 at 3:58pm

I can name two that are just as good (if not better): Sweeney Todd (the perfect musical) and Ragtime!