Phantom of the Opera or Phantom?

[Alivis]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 7:59am

Who has seen Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera AND Maury Yeston's Phantom? Which do you prefer? Which do you think is the better musical version of the novel? Or IS one better than the other? Maybe your take is they're different while both have wonderful elements.

I've seen both shows several times and while the Lloyd Webber version is a classic I prefer the Maury Yeston version. The score of Yeston's version is truly spectacular- some of the best music written for the theater ever! Very reminiscent of the kind of music Rodgers and Hammerstein used to write- melodic and memorable.

The book of Phantom-by Arthur Kopit- is very moving and, in my opinion, much more clearly defines the Phantom as a character.

Yeston/Kopit's Phantom has toured all over the world since the early 1990's and was recorded by RCA in 1993. Unfortunately, there will probably never be a Broadway run but I would love to see a PBS Great Performances production. Meanwhile, clips can be viewed on You Tube.

Don't get me wrong- I also love Andrew Lloyd Webber's version although I don't think Phantom of the Opera is his best work.
I think Sunset Boulevard is his masterpiece.

Please chime in with your opinions.

Updated On: 5/15/13 at 07:59 AM

[MCfan2]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 8:36am

I haven't seen both (unless you count the TV miniseries that Kopit did). But I have both cast recordings, and based on those, I like the ALW version better. I personally feel like it does a better job of creating a world that the listener can get caught up in. The Kopit/Yeston version does have some good stuff in it, though.

Updated On: 5/15/13 at 08:36 AM

[Alivis]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 8:50am

Thanks MCfan2 for offering your thoughts. I vaguely remember a TV miniseries. Wasn't that a non musical version?

[MCfan2]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 8:57am

Sort of. It used real opera music ("Faust" and so forth). No original music was written for it. I really liked the miniseries and still pop it in to watch every now and again.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 9:44am

The Phantom is going to get its London, UK debut, in a pub just outside London in Walthemstow The Ye Olde Rose and Crown. Funnily enough it had its first night last night and will play until the end of the month.

Dumb thing to do is to write a musical on one that is very successful already, definitely not a smart thing to do.

Updated On: 5/15/13 at 09:44 AM

[sparrman]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 10:21am

A little research before posting, please, Phantom of London. Yeston and Kopit's work on a "Phantom" musical began 3 years before Lloyd Webber's version arrived.

[JuanValjean72]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 10:43am

I was just about to make that correction. I also remember Webber mentioning in an interview, I believe it was "Behind the Mask" that he saw Yeston's production and wanted to adapt that version into his own musical, which proved to be a bigger success. And in a more recent interview with Rupert Holmes, he wanted to do a musical with Leroux's novel, but he learned of Webber's production opening in London and scrapped the idea, haha. I've heard a few songs from Yeston's production and I prefer his style of music better than Webber's. I also agree that Phantom of the Opera isn't Webber's best work.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 11:51am

^He didn't see Yeston's Phantom. He saw Ken Hill's Phantom of the Opera which was a previous stage adaptation that used real opera music. Webber initially planned to adapt that version. Yeston's Phantom didn't receive its world premiere until 1991.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 11:55am

I didn't know that about Rupert Holmes. Fascinating to think about what he would have done with it!

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 12:47pm

I remember seeing a college production of Yeston's Phantom some years ago and what stuck with me most was actually the director's notes in the program, where he tried to say that it was more faithful to the story and the characters than its more well-known counterpart. After that bit of absurdity I had a hard time taking the show seriously, as I kept counting every moment where the adaptation strayed from Leroux's novel, and there were far more places than Webber's adaptation did. I know that it was not the fault of Yeston or Kopit that the director made this statement, but it did diminish the work for me as I was keenly noticing all the liberties taken with the source material.

I also think the tone of Webber's score more closely matches the material. Webber gave us a very grandiose, faux (yes, I know very faux in most places) operatic score, which suits a show set in the Paris Opera House at the height of grand opera. Yeston's score comes across as much lighter, more akin to operetta than grand opera.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 12:59pm

i worked for the Redodndo Beach Performing Arts Center when they produced PHANTOM...and i loved it and the score is truly magic (YOUTUBE it like i did to refresh my memory)...the book did seem more focused as others here have mentioned...when i finally broke down and gave in to seeing PHANTOM OF THE OPERA on Broadway i was hugely bored and disappointed...and the chandelier was truly pathetic...but i had just seen the movie version and the chandelier was the star in that awful mess...

i vote PHANTOM over POTO...Weber's score is wonderful but that book...ugh i didn't know whether to laugh or cry while watching it...so i did both when i realized i had wasted $100...:)

[Alivis]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 6:16pm

After posting this message and following the thread today I went to You Tube to see what new clips from Yeston's Phantom have been uploaded. I discovered an interview with Maury Yeston himself about the creation of Phantom. There are also some well filmed clips of some of the best musical numbers performed by
various companies. There is also a complete performance of the show that is filmed with a steady hand from what looks like the
center front mezzanine. The problem is the sound is terrible. Alas, it's better than nothing. Enjoy.