Jr. and G2K Versions!

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 2:58pm

Last weekend, I saw my little brother make his musical debut in SEUSSICAL JR. (I'm so proud)! After reading the synopsis of the full stage production, I marveled at how convoluted it seemed, compared to the clean-cut and straightforward kids' adaptation. It was actually a great production.

Which brings me to the topic: which "beginner" versions of musicals do you think work the best? Are there any that surpass the full production?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 3:28pm

I think Seussical Jr is FAR better than the full length.  The other Jrs are pretty decent, too.  When I was teaching middle school, they were quite handy.  The only one I didn't care for  was Into the Woods....but I think they've re-edited that one.  There is also a slew of Kids editions too...for elementary schools.   I haven't looked at the JR series in a long time....and was surprised to see how many there are now.  (Can't speak to the quality of them all.) 

 

I did NOT like the G2K versions, as MUCH less care was taken to make it seamless.  I would not try them again.  

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 3:34pm

dramamama611 said: "I think Seussical Jr is FAR better than the full length."

Isn't the Jr. just the full length show without "Having a Hunch" and the General stuff?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 5:21pm

LYLS3637 said: "dramamama611 said: "I think Seussical Jr is FAR better than the full length."

Isn't the Jr. just the full length show without "Having a Hunch" and the General stuff?

 

"

All the juniors are basically edits.  I'm not actually as familiar with the full length, having only seen it once - which I HATED.   I know the general stuff is gone, and i dont even remember Having A Hunch...so you must be right.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 5:25pm

Isn't the Jr. just the full length show without "Having a Hunch" and the General stuff?

 

Yes, they cut the whole war subplot. I don't recall any other big cuts, but I don't have both versions in front of me right now to compare.

[wonkit]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 5:50pm

I recently saw a production of THE LITTLE MERMAID JR. and loved it. All the musical highlights are in it.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 6:31pm

Yero my Hero said: "Isn't the Jr. just the full length show without "Having a Hunch" and the General stuff?

 

Yes, they cut the whole war subplot. I don't recall any other big cuts, but I don't have both versions in front of me right now to compare."

 

"How Lucky You Are" became primarily a solo for Mayzie, with some backup from the Cat. There were also some internal edits within some numbers and some small lyric changes sprinkled throughout.

[MsEmilia]

Posted: 5/26/17 at 4:26am

I know that the junior version of Into The Woods is basically just the first act of the show, with pretty no real major changes - when i saw it done by some friends a while back, the word "raping" in the Beans rap was changed to "harassing" and there's not to be continued at the end of Ever After, but other than that it's pretty much the complete first act of the show with noting else.
I don't personally agree, but I have quite a few theatre friends who really hate the show's second Act (and based on what of i've read here that's not an uncommon opinion) so to people who only like Act 1 of the show it could be viewed as an improvement, I suppose? 

[trentsketch]

Posted: 5/26/17 at 8:50am

I've music directed quite a few of the MTI Jr shows. Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Honk, Seussical, and Shrek are all solid adaptations. Beauty and the Beast is too long and does nothing to simplify Beast or Belle's harder solo songs for younger voices. Same with Music Man and Into the Woods--the material is still very challenging for the age group's intended. Mulan's only advantage is a huge cast. Lion King is basically a staged concert in the Kids or Jr version.

I haven't worked on them yet (soon, hopefully), but Alice in Wonderland (now a JR version instead of a 30-minute Kids version), The Phantom Tollbooth, Freckleface Strawberry, and James and the Giant Peach all look like solid shows on paper.

Basically, these shows are only as good as the adaptations. It's not enough to just cut out lines and verses and say it's for children. I had to tinker around, for example, with quite a few of Ariel's higher phrases because they expected a young child to pop out some random High G's in the middle of otherwise altered phrases. The scripts are usually in better shape the scores.

I'm trying to get some people I know to test out the G2K Rodgers & Hammerstein shows. I think those classics, especially Cinderella and Once Upon a Mattress, could be well-suited for younger actors. Theatrical Rights Worldwide has some promising Young@Part editions of newer shows like Addams Family and All Shook Up; they have Curtains and Spamalot, too, but I question how those could be made content appropriate for younger performers.

[BroadwayMan5]

Posted: 5/26/17 at 12:43pm

I think there are a lot of solid youth editions (particularly the JR. ones from MTI more than Tams-Witmark or R&H's ones, I haven't seen or read the TRW ones.

However, I think Seussical JR. is the only one that is BETTER than the full version. It's a tighter, better version with much less extraneous elements,

[trentsketch]

Posted: 5/26/17 at 12:52pm

I forgot about the Tams Witmark shows. Wizard of Oz is very good. They keep Jitterbug, ditch the poppies sequence, and give Auntie Em a sweet little duet with Dorothy when Dorothy is trapped in the Witch's castle. That adaptation works.

And I agree that Seussical is the only one I know to improve on the material. It's more focused and sticks to the stories that children would actually engage with and enjoy.