Les Mis... What's the big deal?

[jbsegal]

So, after The Star Wars Trilogy Musical Edition ganked something like 1/2 its music from Les Mis, I decided it should actually listen to the original.

I borrowed The Complete Symphonic Recording from dancingdeer.

I'm not impressed.

Thoughts: While I'm not much of a fan of opera, so I can't really compare, it really feels to me like 50%+ of the show is recitative and I don't like it.

Related: This is the most un-lyrical musical I've ever heard. Much of the time, it sounds like it wants to be a straight play but someone decided to graft on music.

Yes, musicals often have themes or leitmotifs, it often feels like this show has, alongside the 50% recitative, another 30% made up of the same... 3? 4? songs, reused and reused and reused.

There's not a thing about the recording that evokes 'France' for me. The occasional french phrase feels forced and artificial, especially alongside the cockney accents of the lower-class characters.

The use of synthesizers in the scoring is... anachronistic, in a way I can't let wash over me.

Specific to this recording: I hate Gary Morris' voice/accent. As he's a TX? TN? born country singer, this isn't that surprising.

So, why the heque is this such a popular show? Sure, there are a couple of nice songs, but they're a very small percentage of the whole. Is it totally different live? Really?

Comments

[whuffle.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that this show is no masterpiece. If you want a masterpiece of light opera that would have been considered a musical if it were written today, listen to Strauss' "Die Fledermaus" But its tough to find a really stellar recording. All of the ones I have encountered have someone who's casting I object to.

That said, people like this show for its tragedy, pageantry, triumph, etc. Its the whole feel-good package. Just look at things like Phantom of the Opera and Mis Saigon. Same routine. Or Brigadoon and Showboat in their time. Or Chorus Line. Traditionally, a good musical has to be close enough in style to the popular music of its day that the tunes stick in every theater0goer's head and become unforgettable. Just look at shakespeare, half the music used in his plays was spoofed off common barroom songs. It was a hook for the common masses in the audience.

Today, I would say that the most revolutionary thing in theater is stuff like Lion King. Its productions where they are taking accepted theater tech and turning the usage on its ear. Where they are again working to integrate symbolism and style from a dozen cultures into a unified whole. People still love their pageantry and their stories and good music which they can grasp easily. So you still have to keep within certain accepted standards if you want to have a hit on your hands.

I worked on a pre-touring workshop production of a show about 10 years ago that was ultimately headed for broadway if its tour cities went well. (It never did, but that's a different story.) It was a musical version of Paper Moon. The reasons it failed: the music was stylistically based on period-authentic depression era music which really didn't play to modern audiences, and there was no chemistry between the adult leads (though the child and adult lead combos worked out great) and the show moved too slowly at certain points (which they fixed during workshop productions) and they had the poor fortune to try touring this damned show at the same time as the 20th anniversary of the musical Annie. The two shows had the same basic premise and case composition and the audiences just weren't interested in too many shows of this type at the same time. Its all about over-exposure and timing the subject matter...

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

I worked on a [...] musical version of Paper Moon. The reasons it failed: the music was stylistically based on period-authentic depression era music which really didn't play to modern audiences

A happy exception to this is "O Brother, Where Art Thou", which used the bluegrass music of the Depression and the "old-timey" music that the people of that time were listening to. My father grew up in the midwest hating bluegrass music, but when he saw this movie, he had to say "it really sounds good when it's played on-key".

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

Traditionally, a good musical has to be close enough in style to the popular music of its day that the tunes stick in every theater0goer's head and become unforgettable.

And here's part of my problem. The music isn't that good, IMO. I like old musicals, I like new musicals. But what they have in common IS good, singable, catchy tunes - more than just one or 2 signature pieces. I don't see that Les Mis has that.

I agree with TLK, from what I know about it. I agree with Brigadoon and Showboat and Chorus Line.

I've never had any interest in Phantom or Miss Saigon. Given my experience with their peer, Les Miz, I'm not going to be seeking them out any time soon. (In general, I find Lloyd-Weber overrated...)

I just do NOT have the Les Mis zeitgeist, I guess.

[coraline]

FYI, les mis isn't ALW.
neither is miss saigon (they're both boubil).
phantom and cats are (but i assume you knew that -- you probably knew the preceding as well, bt it wasn't clear from how you said it.)

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

I knew 3/4 of that... not that MS and LM are by the same guy.

Even LESS interested in MS now...

[coraline]

i have never seen either of them, but i enjoy the music from MS on its own, unlike les mis. but it definitely does the same emotionally manipulativ thing, if that bugs you. but i think it's a better musical (from a purely musical standpoint) than LM.