Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by Lordy

Glad the movie is hitting bly-ray, finally. But if you are looking for the best recording, or soundtrack of the production then this is the one to get:

The Original Broadway Cast



Murray Head (Judas Iscariot) and Ian Gillan, formerly Deep Purple (Jesus), shine.

Murray Head din'nt do much after JCS, I just remember that one Night In Bangkok song from Chess in the 80s, a big radio hit.

Never saw Chess, a musical by ABBA members and tim Rice just sounds too strange, musical about a chess game!

[iamnoone]

This may sound sacriligeous, but I prefer the film's vocals and orchestration way more.

[hotFstop]

Originally Posted by Lordy

Glad the movie is hitting bly-ray, finally. But if you are looking for the best recording, or soundtrack of the production then this is the one to get:

The Original Broadway Cast



Murray Head (Judas Iscariot) and Ian Gillan, formerly Deep Purple (Jesus), and Barry Dennen (Pontius Pilate)shine.

That isn't the Broadway Cast album. It's the original concept album.

[hotFstop]

I prefer the film version as well. I'd love it if they would fix the mix.

[Lordy]

Originally Posted by hotFstop

That isn't the Broadway Cast album. It's the original concept album.

I stand corrected, thanks for that. I've always thought of it the other way. To me it is still the best production and recording. Ted Neely just can't match Ian Gillan's range and Murray Head's singing is more emotive than Carl Anderson's

Also worth noting is that three of the session players on the "original concept album", bassist John Gustafson, guitarist Neil Hubbard and bassist Alan Spenner all later spent time with Roxy Music. Gustafson played with the early incarnation of Roxy Music and then Hubbard and Spenner with the newly re-formed incarnation of Roxy.

[hotFstop]

It is a great recording. I grew up listening to it. It's probably a "tighter" recording. But I think Carl Anderson is a better Judas. And Ted Neely grew on me. To each his own. But the expanded orchestrations for the film should sing on blu-ray, and I hope they do. But when they are using the same cover art as the dvd, it makes me think they haven't invested many resources to the project.

[bluballer]

I haven't heard this Broadway CD yet. If Ted Neeley can't match somebody's vocal range I gotta hear who this is.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by retablo

Take that with a grain of salt, because you're posting an add for a 70mm presentation for a film that wasn't shot in 70mm. It was a blow-up from 35. The original 35mm optical prints were released in mono and 35mm magnetic prints had 4 track stereo. The 70mm bumped that up to 6-track stereo.

So its the same as taking a stereo film now and releasing it in 7.1... the 7.1 really isn't real, or correct. The 2.0 version IS the original audio. My DVD is also presented with that same audio.

oh I know that it wasn't filmed in 70mm, but regardless, the sound designers would have created at least four different mixes: mono, 2-channel, 4-channel, 6-channel - depending on the theater audio systems.

I just got the DVD with the 4-track recording, listed as (on the DVD) and decoded in 5.1 through my receiver. The audio is pretty good, but the (non-anamorphic) image and audio aren't synched - it's a major distraction - (thankfully the trailer's audio is in synch). The print used for this 1999 DVD release looks pretty battered, at least this edition has a fun trailer of the movie

[iamnoone]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I just got the DVD with the 4-track recording, listed as (on the DVD) and decoded in 5.1 through my receiver. The audio is pretty good, but the (non-anamorphic) image and audio aren't synched - it's a major distraction - (thankfully the trailer's audio is in synch). The print used for this 1999 DVD release looks pretty battered, at least this edition has a fun trailer of the movie

Ya, I held onto the earlier edition DVD simply because it included the trailer which they didn't include on the later "Special Edition" DVD. The Blu will be my third disc of the film, and hopefully last if they get it right!

[Lordy]

Originally Posted by bluballer

I haven't heard this Broadway CD yet. If Ted Neeley can't match somebody's vocal range I gotta hear who this is.

Ian Gillan from Deep Purple. You may of heard of him.

Listen to Gillan sing "Gethsemane (I Only Want to Say)" and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Ian Gillan - Gethsemane (I Only Want To Say) - YouTube

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by Lordy

Ian Gillan from Deep Purple. You may of heard of him.

Listen to Gillan sing "Gethsemane (I Only Want to Say)" and you'll understand what I'm talking about.


Ian Gillan - Gethsemane (I Only Want To Say) - YouTube

Both Neeley and Gillian are great vocalists!, could you imagine how awesome a duet with the two could be!

[Dubstar]

^ Michael Crawford did a fantastic version of "Gethsemane (I Only Want to Say)"

Michael Crawford - Gethseman (YouTube)

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Lordy

Ian Gillan from Deep Purple. You may of heard of him.

Listen to Gillan sing "Gethsemane (I Only Want to Say)" and you'll understand what I'm talking about.


Ian Gillan - Gethsemane (I Only Want To Say) - YouTube

That was FANTASTIC!

Thanks for posting that.

.

[Lordy]

Here's why Ted Neeley got the role of Jesus in the movie:

In 1970, Gillan received a call from Tim Rice, asking him to perform the part of Jesus on the original 1970 album recording of Jesus Christ Superstar, having been impressed with his performance on "Child in Time". After rehearsing a few times with Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, he recorded his entire vocal contributions in three hours. He was subsequently offered the lead role in the 1973 film adaptation. Ian demanded to be paid not only £250,000 for his role in the movie but insisted, without the consent of his manager, that the entire band [Deep Purple] be paid because filming would conflict with a scheduled tour. The producers declined and Ian continued on in the band.

[Crimson King]

Ted Neeley himself just responded to one of my comments on his offcial facebook page!

He gave it a "LIKE"!

[Petra_Kalbrain]

I still prefer Ted Neeley's voice over Gillian. However, I must say that it probably would not have made much difference in my love of the production(s) either way. Their voices are both that good!

In a way, it was a lucky break for Neeley to have Gillian back out. As it turns out both men were able to have solid careers instead of Gillian getting all the glory from both ventures.

[Paulo Elias]

Jesus Christ Superstar was released on a double Lp album during my first year in college and it was very successful. I grabbed a copy, brought it home and listened to it several time with my college mates. One of the novelties to me back then was that it was recorded with a brand new 16-track analogue studio gear, presumably a Studer machine.

Rock operas were in vogue on those days and so were 70 mm screenings. And that's how JCS was presented on these shores, in a brand new venue of a refurbished and designed to perfection local theater.

At that point, however, the film was a huge disappointment. Perhaps because a lot of my life had already changed. Gone were the heydays of my adolescence, the easy life of a non-working individual, I regret to say.

Many years later I was living in Britain and found a copy on CD of the original album, and it still sounded great. But after a while I couldn't bear listening to it in its entirety.

I am also sorry to say that once one's vision has changed to that extent it is difficult to turn it back to what it once was, and this is exactly what happened to me in regard to the JCS opera.

During my days as an art house frequenter I saw and read a number of interpretations about Jesus life and tribulations, the most famous of all, the one which had a distinctive political view was Pasolini's The Gospel According to Matthew (Il Vangelo Secondo Mateo).

Perhaps a load of comparative background over the years and possibly the reach of a more, shall we say, "mature" age, has led me to disregard JCS as a genuine art work of music.

I know for a fact that the interpretation of film makers of another person's work may be distinct to the original, but I have no problem with that. The problem is, I suspect, is when that "interpretation" distorts the material to a point that it is no longer recognised as such. The danger of a new "interpretation", film wise or not, is ruining the intended written art.

Maybe JCS wasn't that great as an opera, after all. And perhaps it was reasonably good but didn't survive its filmic incarnation. Granted, I don't know what make of it as a piece of film.

Sometimes adaptations work for the better. But "Hair", also presented in 70 mm in theaters, was different from the stage play and it was another disappointment, to me at least.

The thing is, my friends, 70 mm screenings made a number of films look and sound quite good. That's the reason, by the way, that many 35 mm features were blown-up to 70 mm prints and their sound remixed to 6-track analogue stereo.

Looking at the original picture and sound now they do not necessarily look and sound great. Our current home theaters are able to expose every shortcoming in earlier film making.

In addition, I hope that you guys will agree that we have been spoiled by aggressive surround mixings in the later years, whereas in those days surround sound was used quite conservatively, if ever.

A 4-track mixing deriving a 5.1 DVD or Blu-Ray does not necessarily contribute to make the original mixing better to listen, and in fact I understand that studios should issue the original mixings as such, 1:1 transfers, in the absence of source material suitable to a true, non-fake remixing.

I am sorry to have posted these comments but I felt compelled to do it. I sincerely hope that JCS film fans will enjoy this release. But I also hope that studios will take into consideration that it is not just a matter of releasing another vintage title, but to do it in a fashion on a par with current technical standards and users.

[gulo]

my favorite musical - already pre-ordered.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Paulo Elias

Jesus Christ Superstar was released on a double Lp album during my first year in college and it was very successful. I grabbed a copy, brought it home and listened to it several time with my college mates. One of the novelties to me back then was that it was recorded with a brand new 16-track analogue studio gear, presumably a Studer machine.

Rock operas were in vogue on those days and so were 70 mm screenings. And that's how JCS was presented on these shores, in a brand new venue of a refurbished and designed to perfection local theater.

At that point, however, the film was a huge disappointment. Perhaps because a lot of my life had already changed. Gone were the heydays of my adolescence, the easy life of a non-working individual, I regret to say.

Many years later I was living in Britain and found a copy on CD of the original album, and it still sounded great. But after a while I couldn't bear listening to it in its entirety.

I am also sorry to say that once one's vision has changed to that extent it is difficult to turn it back to what it once was, and this is exactly what happened to me in regard to the JCS opera.

During my days as an art house frequenter I saw and read a number of interpretations about Jesus life and tribulations, the most famous of all, the one which had a distinctive political view was Pasolini's The Gospel According to Matthew (Il Vangelo Secondo Mateo).

Perhaps a load of comparative background over the years and possibly the reach of a more, shall we say, "mature" age, has led me to disregard JCS as a genuine art work of music.

I know for a fact that the interpretation of film makers of another person's work may be distinct to the original, but I have no problem with that. The problem is, I suspect, is when that "interpretation" distorts the material to a point that it is no longer recognised as such. The danger of a new "interpretation", film wise or not, is ruining the intended written art.

Maybe JCS wasn't that great as an opera, after all. And perhaps it was reasonably good but didn't survive its filmic incarnation. Granted, I don't know what make of it as a piece of film.

Sometimes adaptations work for the better. But "Hair", also presented in 70 mm in theaters, was different from the stage play and it was another disappointment, to me at least.

The thing is, my friends, 70 mm screenings made a number of films look and sound quite good. That's the reason, by the way, that many 35 mm features were blown-up to 70 mm prints and their sound remixed to 6-track analogue stereo.

Looking at the original picture and sound now they do not necessarily look and sound great. Our current home theaters are able to expose every shortcoming in earlier film making.

In addition, I hope that you guys will agree that we have been spoiled by aggressive surround mixings in the later years, whereas in those days surround sound was used quite conservatively, if ever.

A 4-track mixing deriving a 5.1 DVD or Blu-Ray does not necessarily contribute to make the original mixing better to listen, and in fact I understand that studios should issue the original mixings as such, 1:1 transfers, in the absence of source material suitable to a true, non-fake remixing.

I am sorry to have posted these comments but I felt compelled to do it. I sincerely hope that JCS film fans will enjoy this release. But I also hope that studios will take into consideration that it is not just a matter of releasing another vintage title, but to do it in a fashion on a par with current technical standards and users.

so why can't Universal find a 70mm print of the film and use the 6-track sound stems? they'd used them for the 5.0 first DVD release, 2.0 stereo sound on the bluray seems like a cheap move on their part.

hell, MGM/UA Home video remixed the (70mm) 6-track sound elements of Jewison's 'Fiddler on the Roof' to create a new 7.1 soundmix to excellent effect.

[MarkW2]

JCS has never had an amazing home video transfer. I hope the 2.0 listing will change, and this film will finally be treated as it deserves to be. Blu-ray has the ability, and Universal will make a ton from this title.