Phantom or Phantom?

I just learned that at the same time Webber was writing "the Phantom..." another team was writing music for the same show. It was released under the name "Phantom", so as not to confuse the two. I was really excited to hear it- and then very disapointed.
Phantom pros: The phantom has a name
The Phantom of... pros: everything else

What do you think of these two shows using the same story?
Does anyone like "Phantom"?

Maury Yeston's "Phantom" score is awesome - far superior IMO to ALW's musically boring version. There is also another (aborted) Phantom of the Opera musical that Ruper Holmes began work on - and the title song can be heard on the Varese Saraband "Unsung Musicals 2" CD (a great track with with super vocals by Davis Gaines).

---

Yeston's score features a lot of gorgeous music: "Home", "My Mother Bore Me", and "You Are My Son", just to name a few. It's also more faithful to the original source material.

I hate Webber's Phantom with a passion.

---

AC126748--The only thing Yeston's Phantom has that the original novel has in the names Erik and Christine. Everything else is COMPLETELY changed from the novel.


There are some pretty songs in the Yeston version, but it sounds too much like a disney cartoon musical, or like the Anastasia movie musical. Plus, the complete story changes turn me off it more than anything.

---

Yeston's version is the best.

Yea, there is rarely any material linking Yeston/Kopit's musical back to the original Leroux novel. I enjoy both scores but, probably because the Yeston/Kopit version is so radically different then the original novel, I find that a distraction. It makes a wonderful story period (especially the 1990 Charles Dance movie which I ADORE) it's just distracting. To me it's just giving a story written on a fan-fiction website a musical score and putting it on to the stage.

And there is something about Webber's score that keeps bringing me back. It's lush and big and I love his use of bringing back the melodies of certain songs into some filler music and into various other songs in the production (probably also a nod to the orchestrations director). It just tugs at my heart whereas Yeston's score just makes me nod my head and say "yea, that was nice"

The talent of the actors also has a lot to do with how someone is going to react to the songs and the overal score. I have seen too many actors in Webber's version just stand on stage and sound pretty and that's when it gets boring and extremely repetative. The sames goes for Yeston's score. If each score is delivered correctly the do wonders.

There are some pretty songs in the Yeston version, but it sounds too much like a disney cartoon musical,

- And ALW'S version sounds like recycled synthesized 80's garbage.

I'm not sure something can be "slightly enthralling"...

But yeah, Yeston does have some clunker lyrics. "Where every English horn/Makes me feel glad I'm born"...

Well, first off you have to look at the source material. In the original novel, the characters were all pretty "blah" and almost to the point of really corny (and some characters went beyond corny) but the unabashed romantic element was prevalent throughout and there was no apology for it. Yes, some of the plot was, in many places, were filled with "WHAT?!?" moments, but again . . . it was unapologetic in it's romantic thinking. I think Webber and Prince captured this very well and even made improvements over the original source material by giving Erik a voice of his own and made you really believe that he loved Christine and would do anything to have her.

The problem with Yeston's version, is that it COMPLETELY changed the plot to give it more of a back story to why Erik was the way he was and what brought Christine to the Opera house, but in doing that, it ruined the unforgiving romanticism of the novel. To me, the mystery of Erik was taken away and Christine was so stale of a character (I am only going by the cast recording since I have never seen the show) and Carlotta was even more of a corny character than she ever was in the ALW version. And I wouldn't have a problem with a back story of Erik if it was done right and stuck close to the original plot of the novel, but like I said before, it goes in a completely different (and I think) wrong direction.

People complain about the lushness and the spectacle of the ALW version . . . well guess what folks, that is how it is portrayed in the novel. The Chandelier falling is a VITAL moment in both the novel and the show and people act like it was something stuck in the ALW version to make it more special effect oriented.

Both have it's problems and I am in NO WAY saying that the ALW version is a perfect representation of the novel, but it is a lot closer than the Yeston version and that is my biggest gripe above all else.

---

ALW's has so much potential, but falls short in my opinion.

The idea makes me vomit a little inside.

Thaty's the thing, while I think ALW"s is underwritten and too vague, when you try to give backstory and character to thes epeople, at least in Yeston's to me it kinda comes off as silly. Maybe the story works best as a vague piece heavier on atmosphere than logic (did the Kopit miniseries keep the plot point that the Phantom's life is sustained by beautiful music and music like Carlotta's kills him?? LOL)

E

There are some pretty songs in the Yeston version, but it sounds too much like a disney cartoon musical,

That was my impression the first time I heard it. Not to say that it was bad, just not to my liking.

There was a made-for-tv movie in 1990 with Charles Dance as the Phantom, written by Kopit as a way of launching the musical. It contains real opera and none of the songs written by Maury Yeston. Much of the film dialogue is in the stage production.

I love that movie.

---