The big ol' original musical debate — Page 3

Please describe the magical process by which Weidman "adapted" something we have no evidence he ever saw. We know from Sondheim's notes that Weidman wrote the book to ASSASSINS apart from the composer-lyricist. Certainly, they had discussed aspects of what the show would cover, but I've seen nothing that indicates Weidman had Gilbert's play as a model.

BTW, by your definition, the TV series, DHARMA AND GREG, and all such shows about lovers from mismatched families are "adaptations" of ROMEO AND JULIET.

I'm sure bobbyfrank will be posting any time now to tell you why you're wrong!

^Have you seen it? That's like saying Book of Mormon is based on the actual Book of Mormon. You must admit there is no previous scripted Book, Play or Movie from which the musical's script is adapted. Basing it on the real character of Jerry Springer seems to me no less original than basing Bloody, Bloody... on the real Andrew Jackson.

I agree with Charles on the issue of musicals based on historical figures.

By the same token, CALL ME MADAM is an original musical, even though it was based on the "idea" of real life hostess and ambassador, Pearl Mesta.

Whenever a musical has been based on an historical person, we may assume the writers consulted one or more biographies of their subject. That's not the same as saying they "adapted" said research materials--except in the few cases where the entire show is based on one source. For this reason, GYPSY is an adaptation and is credited as such, despite the liberties taken with the source material.

I realize that official credits can be corrupted for the right price, but without very specific evidence to the contrary, I think we have to classify something as an adaptation or not based on them. Credits such as "adapted from" or "based on" an alternative work indicate adaptations. "Based on" or "inspired by" an "idea" do not.

Otherwise, EVERY musical has been adapted, at least since THE BLACK CROOK. For they all borrow elements from previous musicals, such as a dancing chorus, lovers who are foiled until the denouement, comic supporting characters, eleven o'clock numbers, etc.

Updated On: 2/19/18 at 10:08 PM

Hardly new even when Ziegfeld, Kern and Hammerstein turned to Ferber Gaveston. Nor was it new when Mozart turned to Beaumarchais, let alone when Verdi turned three times to Shakespeare and four times to Schiller.

Let's not forget that a writer/composer/lyricist can be passionate about a particular past work that happened to also be successful, but its past success does not necessarily have to be the reason it was selected. It might be that it works as a correlation, not a causation - namely, if the original work was more popular, then more people would have originally seen it, thereby increasing the likelihood that someone who sees it will feel passionately about it and will want to adapt it into a musical in the future. That just seems logical to me and doesn't necessarily mean that people are sitting around thinking to themselves - 'what can we adapt that is already famous and will sell tickets?'. Maybe some creative types do ask that question, but i would imagine that at least some choose to adapt a specific popular work that they happen to be passionate about, but they would not necessarily want to adapt another similarly-popular work about which they don't feel particularly passionate.

Let's not forget that a writer/composer/lyricist can be passionate about a particular past work that happened to also be successful....

Absolutely, adam, it isn't either/or. In fact, some of the most mediocre musicals result not because the adapters chose the source material cynically, but because they were so in love with it they never really considered how their musical version would be different.

The result is what Sondheim calls a "why?" project. Frankly, I felt that way about SUNSET BOULEVARD, SINGING IN THE RAIN and GONE WITH THE WIND, to take but three examples. I won't pretend to see into the hearts and minds of the musical adapters, but what they produced was like a paint-by-number copy of a great painting: ultimately pointless, in my view, even though each copy has aspects that are appealing.

(I realize that others may disagree with my examples here.)

Perhaps the real question is whether better musicals have been adapted from wildly successful sources or from moderately successful and/or flop sources. I'll leave such a list to someone like henrikegerman whose memory is better than mine, but I think it's at least possible that the best musicals have been made from the less successful sources. Not so much baggage.

No problem and no offense taken, my dear friend henrik!

Perhaps the truth is that there are so many fewer new shows each season that the adaptations of blockbuster movies stand out more, not that the practice is at all new.

I believe there's something in Ecclesiastes about this whole thing.

---

But Song (aka Tell Me On a Sunday) has a very clear book. Dialogue, no. But it has as much of a book as that Best Book Tony winner Falsettos. Dance...well...I'm with ya there.

Well...but...now you're arguing quality. Which I'm not necessarily going to argue with you (though I do like some of the songs). It does have a very clear (if rudimentary) through line. You can plot it from A to Z, which is really all that's necessary to claim something has a book. I mean...In My Life had a book. It was INSANE. But it had one...as does Tell Me On a Sunday.