#and im generally not a musical fan

[oh-shit-i-spilled-my-genderfluid]

House of Wax musical. Is that anything

[presidentbungus]

heavy singing in his village's youth choir as their star bass as a teenager, bonding with spy who served a brief stint training as a tenor at a fine arts school and they both wish every day they could go back to it. hugest opera/choir nerds in the entire fucking world. do you seen my vision

[flagellant]

I'm sorry I'm just bitter because I saw someone asking how Hozier could possibly have come up with the concept for the song Eat Your Young. "How could he have come up with the idea to combine themes of gluttony and capitalism and climate destruction and the war machine?!" God who can say how someone might write something which compares gluttony to consumerism, the capitalist philosophy that has consume in the name. How could he have possibly made a modest proposal about the war machine's hunger for the young due to the desire of the powerful for more power? Truly, the idea of this specific combination of criticisms towards capitalism, the war industry, consumerism, and Christian hypocrisy--no one has ever had ideas like these even once for the past fifty or so years

[lesbiancarat]

want to give my two cents on the AI usage in the maestro trailer--

i think seventeen doing a whole concept that is anti-AI is very cool, especially as creatives themselves i think it's good that they're speaking up against it and i hope it gets more ppl talking about the issue. i also understand on a surface level the artistic choice (whether it was made by the members, the mv director, or whoever else), to directly use AI in contrast to real, human-made visuals and music in order to criticize it. i also appreciate that they clearly stated the intention of the use of AI at the beginning of the video

however, although i understand it to an extent, i do not agree with the choice to use AI to critique AI. one of the main ethical concerns with generative AI is that it is trained on other artists' work without their knowledge, consent, or compensation. and even when AI generated images are being used to critique AI, it still does not negate this particular ethical concern

the use of AI to critique also does not negate the fact that this is work that could have been done by an actual artist. i have seen some people argue that it's okay in this context because it's a critique specifically about AI, and it is content that never would have been done by a real artist anyway because it doesn't make sense for the story they're trying to tell. but i disagree. i think you can still tell the exact same story without using AI

and in fact, i would argue that it would make the anti-AI message stronger if they HAD paid an artist to draw/animate the scenes that are supposed to represent AI generated images. wouldn't it just be proof that humans can create images that are just as bad and nonsensical and soulless as AI, but that AI can't replicate the creativity and beauty and basic fucking anatomy that's in human-made art?

it feels very obvious this was not just a way to cut corners and costs like a lot of scummy people are using AI for. ultimately it was a very intentional creative decision, i just personally think it was a very poor one. and even if some ethical considerations were taken into account before this decision, i certainly don't think all of them were. at the very least i feel like the decision undermines the message they want to convey

i would also like to recognize that i myself am not an artist, and i have seen some artists that are totally on board with the use of AI in this specific context, so clearly this is not a topic that is cut and dry. but generative AI is still new, and i think it's important to keep having these conversations

[neuroticboyfriend]

i love music sooo

[asentienthaze]

Into The Woods: Why the movie was shit

I'm not the first person to talk about this, nor will I be the last. It's pretty widely accepted among theatre fans that Disney bungled up this fantastic show. But it's important nevertheless to talk about how it went wrong, 'cause adaptations are delicate things, and the core of a good adaptation is an understanding of the themes and messages that constitute the story, and not just the story itself. Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine together wove a fairly meticulous fabric that is this musical, and it's fascinating to see how Disney's adaptation reduced it to rags.

For a summary of this show's plot, I recommend watching the first few minutes of Sideways' video on the themes in this show, mainly because it's a fairly complex plot and he explains it well. This is especially important, since the plot of the movie is……definitely not the same.(The whole video is definitely worth a watch too, and it brings up points that I might talk about here too.) Done that? Good, let's keep going.

"The narrator comes on stage, and he starts, 'Once upon a time.' Now once he says that, the audience starts to relax inside. Now what I wanted to do was to wake them up immediately, so before [the narrator] gets to the fifth word, I wanted a loud sound from the orchestra, or the piano"

That was Stephen Sondheim talking about the very beginning of the show. The choices he made in the songs were almost all deliberate, they were for a reason.

Now what does the movie do? They say the entire first line of the song before playing the musical sting. They knew that they had to have that there, since it was part of the prologue song, but they didn't understand at all why the song was structured the way it was.

Let this be an omen as to how the movie will adapt this musical.

Another important part of the first song is the constant quarter note motion the piano makes throughout. It's what keeps the energy of the first song going, and is the song's connective tissue. Guess what the movie didn't do? As a result, it makes the prologue feel like five different disconnected small songs.

The main problem that the adaptation suffered, was the removal of seemingly small things, but which ultimately led to the plot of the movie collapsing in on itself.

The first major one is the removal of the narrator and the baker's father. Yes, the movie technically had a narrating voice, and the father got….like one scene, both played much more prominent roles in the original musical. The baker's father, initially a mysterious old man, pulled many of the threads that made the various characters really interact, and he's an outside force helping move the story along. As for the narrator…well it's important to note that the narrator is a character. A major feature of the show is that it's a story with characters, and the show knows that. The narrator dictated how the story would go, and when the witch sacrifices him to the giant, the characters are left to fend for themselves, and that is how most of the destruction in the second act really happens.

The second one is Rapunzel's death. In the musical Rapunzel is crushed by the giant, and it leads to Witch's Lament:

"This is the world I meant. / Couldn't you listen? / Couldn't you stay content, safe behind walls / As I could not?"

An important thing to note is while yes her relationship with Rapunzel is definitely toxic, there's a complexity that arises out of her over sheltering Rapunzel to protect her, and then as a result she comes to despise that "shelter", and is then ultimately killed. The fact that she is grieving the loss of her daughter plays largely into her character in the second act, something that is entirely lacking in the movie. SO MANY OF HER LINES get undermined by this one detail, that Rapunzel never died, and that she was wrong the whole time.

Lastly, songs that were cut. There are four main ones that are important to talk about.

First, Maybe They're Magic. It's sung right after the Baker and his wife sell the beans to get the cow. It's the first time the question of whether or not they'll really have to lie and possibly steal to obtain the items, and what the ethics of it really are, arises. It also exemplifies the character of the Baker's Wife, and her more clever side, which we further see when she obtains her items mostly through either deceit or persuasion. This glimpse into her character helps set her up for 'Moments in the Woods', a song much later which also expresses her inner thoughts.

Two: Ever After/Prologue: So Happy. This is how the show ends its first act and begins the second. In the movie the events in the second act occur immediately after the wedding, while in the musical there is a time gap between the acts. The music is referenced in the instrumental track, but it's never actually sung. Although the songs are definitely very much suited for a theatrical performance, cutting both the songs means that the resulting events that occur within them have to be shuffled and rearranged. The way that the characters make their way into the woods changes, and the prince and Rapunzel run off together much later, which doesn't allow for their later scenes to ever happen in the movie. It's where the cracks in the movie start to show, and ultimately the way the decisions made for earlier parts snowballs into the later parts of the movie.

Three: Agony Reprise. Agony as a song is famous from both the movie and the show. However the reprise happens in the second act, when it turns out the two princes are not focused on the giant, but in fact on another maiden somewhere else, much like how they were in the first act. Except now they're married. Removing this song is basically like telling a joke without the punchline. Yes, Agony by itself is funny, but it's the perfect setup for its reprise. As the plot stood in the movie, it's clear why it couldn't be put in, but,,,like that's the problem. That's the whole problem

Finally: No More. This song is the one I'm most mad that they cut out. It's the final interaction the Baker has with his father, just after he runs away leaving his baby son with Cinderella. The movie,,,,badly paraphrases it, and then cuts to the Baker,,,,,crying? There's no actual emotional development, no actual introspection, and it removes one of the best written scenes in the show.

"Where are we to go?

Where are we ever to go?

Running away—we'll do it

Why sit around, resigned?

Trouble is, son

The farther you run

The more you feel undefined.

For what you left undone,

And more, what you left behind"

I implore you, watch this scene, if nothing else. It's a work of art, and the fact that it's completely cut out is a crime.

Pretty much every character in the movie became a duller and flatter version of their original, but the most egregious examples are Jack and his mother. Jack is older in the show, significantly so. He's basically in his late teens, and is sweet and naive, but not particularly bright. In the movie, however, he's,,,,a child. Like just straight up a child, and now his personality is no longer "too ungrounded for his age" but instead it's exactly how a child his age might act. Conversely, Jack's mother is overbearing, but ultimately 'stern but sweet', and is much more gentle with Jack than in the movie. In the movie though, she's mean and almost callous towards Jack, in a way that doesn't make her an enjoyable character.

I won't blame the actors for most of this. Yes, a point can be made that some of the acting itself may have been bad, but most of the fault in what I've talked about goes to the directors and script writers.

In every adaptation, choices need to be made. Since this was no longer a theatrical performance, liberties had to be taken to fit it into a film format. But each choice has a consequence, and their choices to change parts of the story snowballed into the climax of the movie, making it almost entirely different from the musical.

We talk about Into The Woods as a Sondheim show, but it is just as much a show by Lapine as it is by Sondheim. Lapine's ability to craft a story with strong and clear themes, no matter how complex or abstract the plot is, is one of the show's greatest assets. The movie was a disservice to original stage musical, but most of all it was a disservice to Lapine, taking his carefully crafted story and muddling and twisting it, until the end product had killed the central spirit of the original.

[n7punk]

say what you will about who deserves to win various oscar nominations, i usually haven't seen enough to compare things in their categories, but it doesn't matter what anyone else did, barbie has to win production design. they caused a fucking international shortage of pink paint building all their sets like fr no matter how you feel about the film they went in on the visuals

[ikilledamanforthisurl]

If there are 10 Minami fans I am one of them. If there is only one Minami fan it is me. If there are no Minami fans I have been killed, buried beyond the earth, my soul sent beyond hell, and I have been entirely retconned from life history and existence cosmically

[desire-mona]

ive been soooo normal abt the whispering in speak by nickel creek so i had to figure out what the fuck was being said. so now im telling u

lyrics page & where i found the passages also the music video

[dulcevenganzaa]

i wonder if someone has actually written up about this frenzy of caring a lot about whether an artist is on top of the charts and how many weeks and how many number ones and how many streams they have

[arnold-layne]

ah, what an interesting video about hating on [80s rockstar] you have posted here, gen z tiktok user. did the virtue signaling feel good babe? was the harassment of [80s rockstar] fans fun? did the validation you got fill the void in your soul

[honeydewtreacle]

i know i don't have a whole lot of reach on here, but i was thinking about perhaps putting together an alex brightman iceberg chart for funsies, any fun thoughts random tumblr people?

[f1owermoon]

today was SO ASS

[turtlemagnum]

now, there are a few "generic" things that song lyrics tend to be about; money, love, sex, drugs, fame, so on. people who act like this is anything new or anything unique to a specific genre are either undereducated, stupid, or just flat out intentionally disingenuous. now, this has a variety of effects depending on genre. these generic song topics tend to be less of a problem in genres with less of a focus on what's actually being said. classic jazz, rock, old school pop, more emphasis is placed on the musicality of it, how those lyrics are delivered, the track surrounding it, it's a small part of decently larger picture. i'm not saying songs in these genres are never made or broken by the lyrics, but a lot of the greatest songs of these genres have pretty generic, essentially filler lyrics. now, here's the thing

when people act like the generic song topics are unique to a specific genre, it's almost always rap. the thing with rap is that i think its greatest strength lays not in the musicality itself, but the content of those lyrics. which again, isn't to say that the musicality itself is irrelevant, it's just that it's typically a fundamentally less important of a piece of the puzzle. rap, in its roots, is a very political thing, very much in the realm of black power and revolutionary change and all that. raps power comes from the "realness" of the lyrics, how they speak to the world as it exists, especially in terms of speaking truth to power. the musicality is typically limited to the beat, often with little to no tonal or instrumental aspects taking the center stage. as such, those lyrics take up arguably the most important aspect of the songs, and thus these generic song topics feel, to some, to be that much more egregious.

now, personally, i don't really mind it when rap is just a beat with somebody spewing generic sludge over it. at worst, it's usually just mildly annoying, and at best the beat is still good and hopefully there's some good shit to go along with the beat. but personally, if i wanted to listen to a good beat to shake my ass to, i'd probably just listen to drum n bass or something along those lines. while my favorite rap is definitely also interesting from a pure musicality standpoint, even the most interesting rap from a musical standpoint is improved with at least interesting lyrics. just look at death grips, for example.

[lucifer-kane]

im gonna be honest i really like the veilguard music :((. but granted im also like. not a fan of slower types of instrumentals and the stuff in veilguard is pretty intense and i like that way more