Wild Party Question

This is something I've always wondered, don't know why I all of a sudden thought to ask just now. I did a search and found every Lippa vs. LaChiusa thread that's existed, and my question wasn't addressed, so...

I'm aware that there are two different versions, but my question is: how did this come to pass? How is it that two different composers decided to write two different musicals about the same story? I mean, I guess it's possible, but you don't hear about that happening too often. Has it in fact happened more than once?

I'm not familiar with copyright/legal stuff, but how is it that they were both allowed to happen? Is it up to the original author of the story to determine how many different adaptations can be made? I forget which one came out first, but was there any conflict or trouble when the second one emerged?

From a non-legal standpoint, how was this occurrence received within the theater community at the time? I mean, wouldn't people likely scoff at someone who wanted to "re-musicalize" a story that's already been made into a musical? I'm not too familiar with the plot, I've only heard some songs, but is it the type of story where you wouldn't be surprised if you heard there were many different adaptations?

Sorry for all the questions, but I figured I had the best shot of getting them all answered in one place if I posted here, rather than doing all the research on my own (I'm lazy, I admit...) And in my defense, any time I tried searching only brought up explanations of the differences between the two, rather than an explanation as to why there are two in the first place. Not just on here, but on other boards, Google, etc...

---

Well, they are both based on the same poem from the early 1900's.. What amazes me is how long it took to write one musical (let alone two) based on the poem (there had already been a "tamed-down" movie).

For whatever reason, call it coincidence, LaChiusa and Lippa wrote a musical version. Lippa's opened off-Broadway and LaChiusa's opened shortly after that on Broadway (Lippa's had closed already). Sadly, neither one made it very long.

The two musicals were very different as the main action began to happen. LaChiusa's is also truer to the poem, causing a different set-up and style than Lippa's. Because of this difference (IMO Lippa's is for a younger crowd, whereas LaChiusa's is for a more mature, theatre-going crowd), I don't think that the theatre community "scoffed" at the two musicals.

The ending of both shows is somewhat similar. The means to the ending is different in both.

Each one offers something the other does not, but neither is completely perfect.

In my opinion, while occasionally heavy, LaChiusa was able to have a similar ending as Lippa's, coherently, while keeping all the other characters involved. Lippa's reaches a point where the other characters seem to disappear into the chorus...where as LaChiusa's characters remain just that - characters.

Consider it like a movie being made based on a book - then another movie being made based on the same source material.

Updated On: 10/26/05 at 11:41 PM

Someone correct me if i am wrong because it is entirely possible. I believe this happened because the work went into the public domain, IE rights not needed. When this happened, because it was such a good subject matter, the two composers decided to start writing it.

I had to write a paper on Lippa's The Wild Party for a class and read something about this online. Apparently in the early 90s, there was an artist that took the original poem and made a bunch of drawings based on it and the book was reissued. Lippa and LaChiusa both got the book and were inspired by it.

http://www.curtainup.com/wildparty-book.html

---

Updated On: 10/27/05 at 02:02 AM

LaChiusa's music and lyrics seem more specific to the original text. Truer if you will. Although there are some enjoyable moments in Lippa's score, there is something modern and untrue about his adaptation. When I listen I don't feel connected to the material in the same manner I do when I listen to LaChiusa's take. Lippa's songs can be lifted out of the story and fit elsewhere, while LaChiusa's choices are purely specific the the story he is adapting. While LaChiusa used the story as a guide, Lippa seems to use it more as a starting point for ideas that seem to not fit with the poem's feel and message. Not that Lippa's work is bad, it just doesn't fit the text he is adapting. Had those songs been in another original text, I might find it more enjoyable. LaChiusa's work is guided by his source material, and it shows when you listen to the score. His characters have more depth and purpose, while Lippa's seem to be objects of the music. Lippa clearly had an aim to write something a bit more friendly to a naked ear, but LaChiusa writes with truth, honesty, and a great mind for the material he is adapting.

Art Spiegelman (Maus) beautifully illustrated March's poem, which got it back into circulation.

Many of his designs could actually be seen in the LaChiua's TWP. In fact, Dolores' (Eartha Kitt) costume is very similar to the costume pictured. Madaleine True (Jane Sumerhayes) also has a similar look.