The Folk Prophet

Problems with Les Miz: I just watched the 25th anniversary special. I don't relate to or understand the Javert suicide or his obsession with Jean Valjean. I don't relate to or understand the revolution and why it was worth dying for. I don't understand Jean Valjean's interaction with Fantine and adopting her daughter out of nowhere because she was an employee. I don't understand or relate to Jean Valjean's over the top melodramatic concern for a kid he doesn't even know (Marius). And the whole Thenardier presenting the ring as some sort of a-ha twist moment is a weak-sauce plot device, and the pay off is...what, exactly? Les Miz sells itself on "passion" but most of the passion is stupid and unrealistic and not how people actually behave or react with or toward others. Maybe the book and the details therein explain things better and it doesn't come across as silly. To be fair the musical hides the silliness pretty well because it does such a good job of selling the passion with the music and performances. But for being known and understood as a less silly musical that deals with serious drama and meaning...it's kind of silly. Not all of it, of course.

Apparently @Traveler is a fan of late Romantic period compositions.

Smothers Brothers? Simpsons? Both?

Warning: some language.

Oh, man, I'm down a youtube rabbit hole now:

Haha. I had to google it. I knew the song -- but from the Smother's Brothers version. I think I saw that musical once. Been a long time though.

Okay...just finished watching Carousel. So I tend to agree with the not really liking Carousel thing. But I don't think him hitting her (or her justifying it) is really the issue with it. In point of fact, it's probably just the opposite problem. Carousel is a dark musical. It's a hard story. It's basically about messing up your life hardcore. But because it was written in the 40s and entertainment (particularly musicals) just weren't rendered that darkly, it's suffers from the fact that it doesn't actually dig into what it's trying to say. It's fluffy. And it dated badly and not in a good way. Also, the main character played by Gordon MacRae was just cast too old. So the lay-about thing doesn't quite play as well. I mean the entire fact that the show is named Carousel and that he's a carousel barker just doesn't play. Maybe it did in the 40s. I don't know. My sense is that it could have been set up with more strength. But we don't really have barkers anymore, so relating to that now-a-days in any way doesn't work. But it would definitely work better if Billy Bigelow was cast as a 19 year old or something. Additionally Carousel has some real plot deadening numbers that don't really help. If they'd been able (or willing) to really dig into the subject matter with more guts the concept is actually pretty cool. The fact that he was a dirt bag and the type that would hit his wife plays into that. And the fact that she would be a battered wife who apologized for him and excused his behavior would also play into that. But it would have to be handled with less fluff. So overall I agree... I don't like Carousel. If I Loved You, Soliloquy and You'll Never Walk Alone are great. But the rest of the music varies from okay-ish and sort of fun to just pretty dead. What were they thinking writing a song about the clam bake? Bleh! But I can even forgive that sort of weakness, overall, if the story really punches. But it doesn't because they can't really dig in like they needed to back in ye olden days. They tried. But in this case it just didn't quite work. Maybe the stage play works better.

Speaking of soliloquies monologues*, coincidentally my favorite is from a musical. But not set to music. Which I find ironically delightful. Edit: I expect this is probably taken directly from the novel...so giving credit to the musical itself might be unfair. Giving credit to Peter O'toole, however.... *Edit 2: I realize that this isn't a soliloquy but a monologue. Whereas all soliloquies are monologues, not all monologues are soliloquys. The same can be said of solos or arias. They are all monologues. They are not all soliloquies.

Depends on what you mean by "the plot". It can certainly move the character arch forward...which some might argue is the only real important point of plot.

Maybe you're just not the type who talks to themselves. I do all the time. Even though it's mostly internally (mostly). For me, setting that to music sums up the solos. It's people talking to themselves. That being said, I mostly agree with you on most musicals. Solos run the high risk of killing a show. Good solos done right don't (in my opinion), but in a lot of shows they either aren't good enough songs or aren't done right some other way (staging, orchestrations, singing, etc.). Your thoughts are definitely worth consideration though.

I do that when we win too.

I wasn't really planning on commenting in this thread, but in my scripture reading last night I came across this: "And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting." Ether 3:19 And the distinct thought I had was this: Doubting is a part of faith. I know that's not conventional thinking. And semantics definitely comes into play with this sort of discussion. But that's what it says, right? He didn't have faith anymore, because the doubt was gone. The inverse is that as long as there's some level of doubt then faith is required. That actually makes a lot of sense with my other ways on thinking on faith. I believe faith is more akin too unknowing commitment, trust, and loyalty than it is to just sheer belief. Commitment without sure knowledge. At least that's how I have to reconcile it with various scriptures. Alternatively I can reconcile it by accepting that when the word faith is used by different authors there are some semantic differences. In certain ideas of the word faith never goes away even with sure knowledge. But in other senses of it, like the above, it does. Anyhow, I actually can't fully reconcile my thinking on the matter with everything said about faith from every church or scriptural source. And I'm not sure I need to. But what I thunk up last night on the matter I felt was an interesting insight at least.

Okay, @LDSGator may at least find this interesting since he seems to be enjoying the esoteric stuff. I've been doing some simple research into how many solos some musicals have (for the sake of comparison as I write my own). These numbers are approximate because what I considered a solo, in some cases, was "mostly" a solo, where a chorus would join in for the end or something. And I didn't count short reprise moments unless they were significant. And I may have missed some or messed up counting. It should be no surprise that Les Miz comes in high with 10-11. (12 before they cut the complete version of Little People). Miss Saigon has 7. Jeckle and Hyde has 13! And Phantom of the Opera has a grand total of 3. (4 if you count Why So Silent, but that's not really a "song" -- definitely not and aria -- it's more recitative.) These are all thru-sung musicals which is what I write. By comparison, South Pacific (which is known for having a lot of music relatively), a "Book Musical" (not all singing), has 9. Here's my assessment. Les Miz has one too many. Jeckle and Hyde has WAY too many. I'd never quite placed why I felt it didn't work as well as a show even though I love a lot of the music. Well...that kind of explains it. Too many solos can kill a show. What surprised me was Phantom. I never thought about it before. Think of Me. Music of the Night. And Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again. That's it really. Anyhow, I thought it was interesting. Maybe no one else will.

I found another one! Aspects of Love is a terrible musical. But this song..... Typical Andrew Lloyd Webber though. Hit song in a crap musical. That's his modus operandi. (Edit: This version is a bit 80s cheesy and has that silly 80s snare drum back beat going on. But....)

What the holy cow Alfie Boe!

Another tacky self quote...but.... This song is potentially fantastic. But I have yet to hear it EVER performed well. Not once. Every version of it I've ever heard is ruined by the performance. WHY! It's irritating.

Do you really expect those frequenting a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forum to put polygamy on the same plain as "wrong" with pedophilia and necrophilia? (And, yes, I just quoted the same thing as @mordorbund did above me...because that's when I saw the comment....so I found it to comment.)

Speaking of Mandy Patinkin and musicals not particularly loved but some songs that you do: Secret Garden with the songs A Bit of Earth, Lily's Eyes, Quartet, and Hold On.

Particularly when performed by someone like Mandy Patinkin: Edit: I realized listening to this that there's 3 swear words in it. Though they're not, you know...super severe words.... be warned. Oh, and one maybe Lord's name in vain...depending on whether you read it as a sincere plea or not. Considering the character's character, I'm going with in vain.

Haha. I'm just repeating what I read on wikipedia. Edit: Well not the review part. Just the history stuff.

So because I've been so into musical talk lately, I decided to purchase the 6-movie pack of Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals on VUDU. (We own Oklahoma! and South Pacific on disc...but the other 4 we didn't own yet.) It included one show I'd never seen. State Fair. So we watched it last night. So the short review is: moderately fun but empty. I really enjoyed one thing about it. The verse with the pig singing in the opening song. That's awesome! Haha. I actually really liked the opening number overall except that it was so short. I really wish they'd developed it into a big number with chorus and maybe even dancing and stuff. Other than that...meh on the music. And super meh on the story. And meh on the acting. It was SO old fashioned. And I'm saying that as a relative idea. Old fashioned for Rodgers and Hammerstein. Old fashioned music. Old fashioned acting styles. Old fashioned camera angles. I mean it felt like watching something from the 40s more. And old fashioned in the structure and musical style. You see...for those who don't know...Rodgers and Hammerstein revolutionized musical theater. Primarily in 2 ways. There weren't the first ones to do these two things, but they unquestionably made them mainstream and popular and changed musicals forever moving forward. What were these two things you ask? 1. They incorporated the music into the plot instead of just using supplemental fluffy meaningless songs. 2. The wrote shows that had dealt with dark and difficult dramatic subject. Rape, murder, racism, war, slavery, etc. (There's a theoretical 3rd. They didn't write their shows around star power.) Anyhow...State Fair did neither of these two things. The music was supplemental, fluffy, and meaningless, for the most part. And the subject matter was light and fluffy too. (Granted...probably had more depth than Flower Drum song...another Rodgers and Hammerstein that didn't follow the two above ideas fully either. Well...the songs were more incorporated into the show mostly for Flower Drum Song. So.....??? The plot was worse. But I digress....) The music wasn't terrible -- except the opening solo by the female lead which wasn't my favorite it was moderately listenable if you don't mind oom pa pa type fluffy waltzes. But, yeah.... I'm not sorry we got it with the pack. We paid $60 for 6 shows (I probably should have waited for a sale...but.....) If I'd just purchased the 3 of the 4 I didn't own separately (excluding State Fair) I would have spent $45. $55 including State Fair. With the $60 I got digital copies of the two I owned on disc too. So that's worth the $15 to me. Call it $5 a piece for the three. Do I recommend State Fair? Not really. But it was okay. It's the only show they wrote for a movie instead of as a stage play. It's a remake of another movie. And it was very successful following on the heels of Oklahoma! But I think that's the primary reason it was successful.

No clue. I'm not familiar at all.

This isn't necessarily a reply...just sharing more thoughts on the matter. The problem with the whole "gay" ideology (and I'm talking specifically in the church where we, theoretically understand sex and love and commitment and relationships and all that stuff from an eternal perspective) is that it tends to claim something that isn't really ultimately true for anyone. It's like this special case that applies to gay people but no to one else. That claim is of two parts. That they need to be "attracted" to be sexually fulfilled, and that they cannot be happy if they aren't sexually fulfilled. Like this is the party line: Heterosexual Latter-day Saints get to be sexually fulfilled but homosexual Latter-day Saints have to not be and commit to never being fulfilled that way for the rest of their lives. But when you consider that it falls apart really quickly. First, what is "fulfilled"? I mean what does that even mean? Sex with someone who's attractive to you? Is that really what fulfillment means? Or can an individual actually have a fulfilling sex life with someone who isn't their idea of attractive? The latter is, actually, true. Myriads of faithful husbands know this. But everyone likes to pretend the first, shallow, meaningless idea of sexual fulfillment is true. But that's not true and never considered requisite in heterosexuality in LDS circles. When some guy goes around saying he'll only marry and stay with someone who REALLY turns him on, everyone knows immediately how shallow and short lived that idea actually is. Heck, even when I was a young man and seeking that super-model ideal, I knew it was shallow and I ought to grow up and consider other things than symmetry and size of facial and body features. Which brings me to my second point. That stuff is short lived! It's not for the rest of their lives for heterosexuals either. What every man ought to know is that even if he gets lucky enough to actually marry the exact perfect woman that's ideally attractive to him, that doesn't last. That especially doesn't last if one has the priority to procreate and have a family. Babies ruin bodies. Everyone knows that. Stretch marks. Fat. Saggy breasts. Hemorrhoids. Scars. Spider veins. Cellulite. And that's adding to the reality of old age where all of those things might ultimately happen anyhow...not to mention the wrinkles and graying. But a lot of people know and expects two things in the heterosexual world: 1. Even if your wife gets unattractively fat and wrinkly and has stretch marks and saggy breasts YOU DON'T LEAVE HER OVER THAT! And 2. You can, actually, still have a satisfying and fulfilling sex life even when that becomes the case. You can learn, change and adapt. I'm not saying cellulite and stretch marks become attractive. Maybe...I guess...some guys... shrug. But you can learn to find sexual fulfillment despite those things. That I know to be true. I don't buy for a second that the theoretical inability to have sexual fulfillment justifies any of the lies being told by that progressive Latter-day Saint crowd. Yeah, not getting what you want sexually can be a struggle. It can be difficult. Get over it and move on. All men who don't will turn into lecherous adulterers. Nor do I buy the lie that you can't find fulfillment if you aren't being sexually stimulated by what ideally turns you on. I do, very much, understand the challenge of it. I don't accept that because it's a challenge (which fidelity is for ALL men at some level) it justifies any level of infidelity in thought or deed. Every man ultimately ends up with a wrinkled, unattractive person as their spouse, because eventually they're going to be 80, and what young man looks at an 80 year old woman and thinks, "Oooo baby!?" None of them. Because they aren't attractive unless the man adapts and learns to appreciate (or at least look past) things that aren't necessarily naturally attractive to them. Some men don't adapt and leave their wives for younger models. But everyone kind of knows that 70 year old with a 20-something-year-old on his arm is probably a creep. But in the gay world the idea of leaving someone you've made promises to who doesn't turn you on for someone who does makes you a hero? The hero is the person who puts their lustful, sexual, shallow, meaningless selves aside for a higher way, and learns sexual fulfillment despite the lack of perfect attraction. The hero is the one who, even when his wife is fat and old, or disabled, or has issues that make arousal difficult so they don't have much of a sex life at all, but they stay true and committed and actually love their wives anyhow! That man walking tenderly and lovingly next to his aged wife, round-bellied, breasts sagging down, hunched over with age, wrinkled and decrepit, spider veins and cellulite everywhere... that man's a hero. That's the man we should all strive to be -- and we all darned well know it! Yes...men lose their libido and can be, in many cases, less interested in sex, and therefore less concerned about the attractiveness of their spouse when they age up. But that simply argues even more for how short-term and shallow the idea of putting the ideal of perfect sexual fulfillment as a priority in one's life -- especially when one understands the temporary state of this life and what a blip in time it will be in the eternities, and if we just show a bit of willingness to sacrifice and bind our passions what glory and joy can be ours. So at best one could argue that for a relatively short period of time those with homosexual drives in the LDS world are asked to live differently that those with heterosexual drives. How long that time is won't be consistent. One man might have his wife remain relatively thin and attractive until she's quite old. Another may have his wife get into a disfiguring accident on day 2 of their marriage. Another might be more mature than I was and actually look at things other than looks and marry the chubby girl I never would have taken a second look at because she's awesome, and then learn to find sexual fulfillment with her despite the fact she was not what he'd have chosen as the ideal physically. Etc. etc. Worst case, we live a SHORT life. A couple more than a hundred years at best. More likely around 70 to 80. I understand those outside the gospel having this messed up in their heads. In the church -- it's sad. We should understand these things better. We understand the eternities. We understand life-long marriage and commitment. We understand baby-making and the trials it brings and that it's worth it. We should know better, regardless of what particular natural perversion we have.

This one. Though "platonic" should be replaced with "Christ-like".