Page: 1

Jekyll and Hyde Tour....I HATE Paul Nicholas..with a passion!

Jwaa
Broadway Star
joined:11/28/04
Broadway Star
joined:
11/28/04
How-****ing-dare he!!!!!!!
He made me sit through one of my favourite ****ing shows and massacred the whole ****ing thing!

The chorus were fantastic, as was the Lucy...she was brillaint...Lisa Carew was ok, she could sing but there wasnt anything special about her...

Paul Nicholas.....he has a disgusting vibratto that came out even when he spoke! He could sing about 3 bass notes and spoke the rest! God I was sooo angry to hear him make a ****ing mockery of the show....it was disgusting...After Lucy died i felt like leaving...i didnt clap for one number of Pauls....a disgrace....he should go and perform in something he can do...like an old man you in supposed to sing low...not Jekyll and Hyde!

Jekyll and Hyde Tour....I HATE Paul Nicholas..with a passion! Jekyll and Hyde Tour....I HATE Paul Nicholas..with a passion! Jekyll and Hyde Tour....I HATE Paul Nicholas..with a passion!

poor lucy and the girls..and most of the chorus tried to save that show....i would pay to see Lucy again, but would pay not to have to go through Paul's performance again!
Mollyfair
Chorus Member
joined:3/29/04
Chorus Member
joined:
3/29/04
Come on Jwaa, just say what you really feel!

fleur
Understudy
joined:1/21/05
Understudy
joined:
1/21/05
saw seb bach do j and h on broadway in 2000 he was fab, who gave PN the role, mind u isn't it his pro co who put the tour on ? PN was great as jesus in jcs in 92 tho so give him his dues for that at least
Eastwickian Profile PhotoEastwickian Profile Photo
Eastwickian
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/04
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/04
I'm not having a go or anything, but full sentances take remarkably little effort and make messages a little easier to read

On the subject - I've never a particular fan of Paul Nicholas who has always had rather a 'light' voice. This is just about OK in Jesus Christ Superstar, but Jekyll/Hyde really needs someone with power. Maybe Michael Ball could move from The Woman in White the bring this into the West End? re: Jekyll and Hyde Tour....I HATE Paul Nicholas..with a passion!

"Murder is a very British thing, isn't it? I mean, it's almost like a hobby over there."
"Why do you insist you must hear the words? When you know I cannot give you words. Not the ones you need..."

Mollyfair
Chorus Member
joined:3/29/04
Chorus Member
joined:
3/29/04
Eastwickian, now that you've mentioned the name Michael Ball, no doubt Fleur will have her say on the subject. It will be fairly vitriolic, though probably a lot more eloquently put than the almost totally illegible post on this thead!!

My views on Michael Ball in Jekyll & Hyde? Of course he could do it - the man's a brilliant performer, capable of pretty much anything (relative to his age etc.) in any musical you care to name.
sharon1
Broadway Star
joined:6/3/03
Broadway Star
joined:
6/3/03
I have to agrees with you. Michael Ball could do this role. If he can pull off Count Fosco, which he is doing, he can do this. I only saw the show with Rob Evan and he was also brilliant in the role.
fleur
Understudy
joined:1/21/05
Understudy
joined:
1/21/05
some people maybe at work when posting, if u have nothing better to do than pick up on PETTY matters then i feel sorry for u, ok i HATE mb with a passion, always have always will but i'm not alone so i will speak my mind, if u don't like what i say don't ansa my posts it is quite simple to do.
west end fan
Swing
joined:3/17/04
Swing
joined:
3/17/04
I have to agree with Jwaa. Paul Nicholas is dreadful in this production.

It is a good show and the rest of the cast are very, very good. It is such a shame they are let down by the lead.

Michael Ball would be wonderful in the role. His rendition of This is the Moment is far superior to any other I have heard.
Mollyfair
Chorus Member
joined:3/29/04
Chorus Member
joined:
3/29/04
Well, actually, Fleur I wasn't answering your post - I was answering Eastwickian's post. I wouldn't venture to answer your posts as I have no idea half the time what you're saying! Code breaking was never my strong point ...
sweetaspie Profile Photosweetaspie Profile Photo
sweetaspie
Chorus Member
joined:11/27/04
Chorus Member
joined:
11/27/04
Josh, you hit it on the button.
I'm just glad i got to see it for free. - Imagine having to snog him, he could have been her (grand)dad.
Ok, ok... a little harsh, it is acting after all and it's all money at the end of the day. It sounded like he might have nodules or something, his voice has definately been better. I was just angry about 'this is the moment' - it was lile a complete trainwreck. I used (and in time hopefully continue) to love that song.
He ruined the show.
Plus his acting wasn't as hot as it could have been, plus he didn't make sense of what he was singing - he just let it come out of his mouth. Had he acted his songs i wouldn't have minded (the only exception to this was 'confrontation').

laters all
xx
If you keep your goal in sight, You can climb to any height. Everybody's got the right to their dreams...
InTheMoney Profile PhotoInTheMoney Profile Photo
InTheMoney
Leading Actor
joined:6/20/04
Leading Actor
joined:
6/20/04
I personally didn't think Paul was that bad. Yes his singing wasn't up to standard, but his acting was far from poor. A bit hammy in places, but better than a lot that is seen in the West End now. Personally, I think he should see a vocal specialist as it definitely wasn't lack of range which stopped him from singing the notes - it was almost as though he hit a physical block.

I wouldn't have wanted Louise Dearman to sing any stronger - she must have had a cold or something cos when I saw her back in November she far overpowered Shona in IN HIS EYES - she certainly sounds very "Linda Eder".

I disagree that Michael could play the role. Yes he has the tenor/baritenor voice to pull off Jekyll, but I don't believe he has the bass/bass-baritone range for Hyde's music - he even takes the Phantom's lines into the tenor range and that isn't a particularly low song (I can sing it at pitch and I'm a mezzo!). The fact that he can sing THIS IS THE MOMENT isn't representative of how well he would do in the show as a whole - in fact TITM is one of the easiest songs in the show for the male lead!
Updated On: 2/15/05 at 09:11 AM
Mollyfair
Chorus Member
joined:3/29/04
Chorus Member
joined:
3/29/04
Actually, In the Money, I have to agree with you - at least on one point. I saw Paul Nicholas in the role and although his singing was not his strong point, I thought his acting was just fine. All in all, I enjoyed Jekyll & Hyde. My biggest complaint was that it was very over-amplified.

I DO think Michael Ball could play the role though. He would obviously have to change the range (I'm no expert on this) but I believe he could adapt the role successfully to suit his voice. I have seen Michael in Passion, Chitty and Woman in White and I think he could act the socks off the part.
InTheMoney Profile PhotoInTheMoney Profile Photo
InTheMoney
Leading Actor
joined:6/20/04
Leading Actor
joined:
6/20/04
I'm afraid I disagree with you, Molly.

Yes the range COULD be raised, but only to the detriment of the show.

The two roles are written in different ranges for a reason. It's almost a literal depiction of good and evil - the "good" Jekyll sings in a higher range, whilst the "evil" Hyde sings in a lower range. You will be aware that "high" and "low" have long been used with reference to morals and Heaven/Hell.

Similarly, you can only really get that dangerous "animal" quality (which is really quite essential as Hyde is to all intents and purposes an animal - he himself uses that comparison and runs on pure instinct) in the lower range of the voice.

Also, with no possibility of using makeup to alter the actor's appearance, and with how closely the two are intertwined by the middle of the second act the difference in vocal pitch and tone is essential to enable the audience to keep up with which personality is in charge at any one time. Acting cannot help us here - each personality barely gets through a line before the next change which doesn't allow time to establish a character. Keep the same vocal quality and the audience ends up hopelessly confused.


Example: Jekyll - I know who you are my dear
Lucy - For a moment I thought it was someone else
Hyde - For a moment... it almost was

In the above exchange (as in Confrontation) the personalities are shifting very quickly and fleetingly as Jekyll struggles to keep control. Altering the voice is the easiest way to show the contrast in personalities, taking the least time either to affect or to impact upon the audience.

The music and roles have been written the way they are for a reason (which can been seen in The World Has Gone Insane - why else write such an incongruous piece of music except to illustrate Jekyll's madness through melody - or lack thereof - as well as lyrics?). Confrontation in particular would suffer if an actor messed with the ranges.

As you can probably tell, I've considered this in depth - I would love for Michael to be able to play Jekyll/Hyde. Unfortunately, good actor or not, I think that it is one(two?) role(s?) he could not play. Audience and critics would be as damning of his inability to sing the lower notes as they are of Paul Nicholas's inability to sing tenor. It is THE most difficult role in modern musical theatre, requiring an actor to be able to at least sing over the full first bass to second tenor ranges, or preferably second bass to second (or even first!) tenor and, from both a musical & acting standpoint, cannot be compared to Passion or Woman In White - and certainly not to Chitty!
sharon1
Broadway Star
joined:6/3/03
Broadway Star
joined:
6/3/03
I do remember a recording MB did with a French woman whose name I cannot remember of Phantom of the Opera. He did it very low and almost gutteral sounding. Which might just be fine for the character of Hyde. Do you know the one I am speaking of???
InTheMoney Profile PhotoInTheMoney Profile Photo
InTheMoney
Leading Actor
joined:6/20/04
Leading Actor
joined:
6/20/04
I do - it was with Marie Zamora. Unfortunately, Michael didn't even sing that at pitch.

Yes, he had a very low pitch on the SPOKEN lines. However, the Phantom's lowest note is bass D. He should drop a full octave on "And though you turn to me". Unfortunately, Michael took this up and sang it in the baritone range, instead of the bass range. His lowest note became Bb (aka the lowest note in ALL I ASK OF YOU or two octaves below the "money note" in LOVE CHANGES EVERYTHING) - no lower than Raoul's. (Raoul being the tenor lead, whilst looking at the sheet music shows the Phantom has to have a ridiculously wide range from bass D to tenor Ab. In that respect he is comparable with Christine, who must also have a huge range - bottom Ab to coloratura E). Michael didn't keep up the "gutteral" tone for his singing either - that was confined to the spoken lines.

Hyde's SUNG as well as spoken lines must have that animal, snarling quality. If Michael has to raise the Phantom's lines, then that suggests to me that he is less than comfortable with his lower range and definitely has trouble switching between the two - if he could manage Hyde's lines, I doubt he'd comfortably keep it up for 8 shows a week.
sharon1
Broadway Star
joined:6/3/03
Broadway Star
joined:
6/3/03
Thanks I couldn't remember the young woman's name. You are correct about the range I am sure. And the comfort level being maybe too hard for eight shows a week. Maybe that is why he has chosen not to do it as of yet. But who knows he might give it a shot. Or not. thanks again
Jwaa
Broadway Star
joined:11/28/04
Broadway Star
joined:
11/28/04
Hey bing!xxx...
anyway

You honestly couldnt tell whever this guy was singing of speaking, and by the confrontation, well his acting was just embarrasing, i infact along with the two other people i was with started laughing!

I cant believe people could of actually enjoyed this show, actually yes i could but only if you had never heard it before. Then you maybe could of mildy enjoyed it, or is P.N was ill and maybe a half decent understudy was on instead, or if you dont really have a knowledge of fine musical theatre....because thatw as no where near!
Mollyfair
Chorus Member
joined:3/29/04
Chorus Member
joined:
3/29/04
In The Money, thanks for your full explanation about this. As someone untrained in music I appreciate what you say. Actually, the role sounds almost TOO difficult the way you describe it.

As a matter of interest, who do you think could do the part justice?

Jwaa, I'm not saying I wasn't fully aware of Paul Nicholas' limitations in the role, particularly vocally. But I did think his acting was OK. Plus, I go to the theatre with the prime intention of enjoying it. I WANT to enjoy it; therefore, I nearly always do. I do think some people go just to criticise (not meaning you, as you are certainly not a lone voice where PN's performance in J&H is concerned).

It's a tough role all right - the applause was lukewarm and PN must be aware by now that he is not right for it.
InTheMoney Profile PhotoInTheMoney Profile Photo
InTheMoney
Leading Actor
joined:6/20/04
Leading Actor
joined:
6/20/04
Molly, when I first heard of the show I wondered how the hell they'd do it, and I do think that it is an almost impossible role to cast. I've heard all the cast recordings, and both Robert Cucciolli and Anthony Warlow were superb (Anthony in particular). However, I struggle to think of a current MT actor with the skill to pull both parts of the role off. I can think of many who would be good as Jekyll OR Hyde, but none who I've heard sing over the ranges needed. I would imagine there are many who could - Michael McCarthy springs to mind - but that any performer going into this role would need heavy vocal training before and during the run.

As I said, I found PN's singing very poor for the role. However, I believe in giving credit where it's due and his acting was really quite good. I was grateful just to be able to see the show live and, like Molly, fully intended to enjoy it no matter what. I went having read the reviews of PN, knowing what to expect, and was actually pleasantly surprised to see someone who could at least act the part decently enough, even if his voice wasn't up to it - it was a lot better than giving the part to some celeb who can NEITHER sing OR act as I've seen in the West End *cough-Caprice-cough*. Yes, I cringed during THIS IS THE MOMENT and I NEED TO KNOW and wished someone could persuade Anthony Warlow to come to the UK, but I don't think that OVERALL PN was half as bad as everyone is making out. I've noticed 90% of reviews (yours included Jwaa) focuse solely on the singing and say nothing about the acting. Musical Theatre requires a performer to be a good singer AND actor and it is unfair to focus on one discipline which the performer does badly & say nothing of the other, which he does well.

Yes, Fleur, it is PN's production company which is responsible for getting J&H onto the road. Interesting little fact: The production company are apparently giving their services for free (the show has an EXTREMELY limited budget - you may have noticed the chorus is double-tracked to make up for their lack of numbers? Cheaper to effectively only take the soloists round the country & add in their voices pre-recorded underneath the chorus numbers to add depth & volume).