https://playbill.com/arti...-its-stars

.

See my post below for an update, including two videos.

.

[Edited 10/18/25 9:04am]

interesting

They sound good together. I'm cautiously optimistic.

luv2tha99s said:

Have been listening to Kris Kollins' music for a few years. It's very good, and Prince-inspired, and he's clearly talented. On that basis, he's a good pick.

Video: See 'I Would Die 4 U' and 'Take Me With U' From Prince Musical Purple Rain

.

https://playbill.com/arti...urple-rain

.

Click the link to watch the videos and read more about the production.

How this has anything to do with Prince or Prince's music is beyond me.

But hey, enjoy your usual American Idol larynx show offs.

leecaldon said:

Have been listening to Kris Kollins' music for a few years. It's very good, and Prince-inspired, and he's clearly talented. On that basis, he's a good pick.

He is.

More proof-of-talent for the Purple Rain Musical.


https://youtu.be/uIHL8IZX_v8?si=6LGrKXnwhi6JBolx


These two sound incredible together. Talent doesn't seem like it'll be an issue. I'm talking to you production, adaptation, and staging. Do your thing and make this show Broadway-bound!

BonnieC said:

How this has anything to do with Prince or Prince's music is beyond me.

But hey, enjoy your usual American Idol larynx show offs.

The "stars" are signing songs written and performed by Prince based on a movie starring Prince.

If it's your position that musicals [or their actors] lack real singing or acting ability, you're greatly mistaken.

pdiddy2011 said:

More proof-of-talent for the Purple Rain Musical.

https://youtu.be/uIHL8IZX_v8?si=6LGrKXnwhi6JBolx

These two sound incredible together. Talent doesn't seem like it'll be an issue. I'm talking to you production, adaptation, and staging. Do your thing and make this show Broadway-bound!

Another (light-gospel-ish) cover of a song that originally had a completely different sound, feel and meaning.

When Prince does a version of his own songs on a piano... that's something totally different. That's a big plus to the original!

Now it's just a (degenerated,) lukewarm, corny piano ballad, very instagramable and TikTokable; short and spineless.

Remember that old style 'operetta'?, but now poored into an X-factor bucket, by and for the young that have some talent to sing (only).

Fine by me for those who like it. Each his own for sure.

It remains an Estate decision just to gain money. Next!

Vannormal said:

pdiddy2011 said:

More proof-of-talent for the Purple Rain Musical.

https://youtu.be/uIHL8IZX_v8?si=6LGrKXnwhi6JBolx

These two sound incredible together. Talent doesn't seem like it'll be an issue. I'm talking to you production, adaptation, and staging. Do your thing and make this show Broadway-bound!

Another (light-gospel-ish) cover of a song that originally had a completely different sound, feel and meaning.

When Prince does a version of his own songs on a piano... that's something totally different. That's a big plus to the original!

Now it's just a (degenerated,) lukewarm, corny piano ballad, very instagramable and TikTokable; short and spineless.

Remember that old style 'operetta'?, but now poored into an X-factor bucket, by and for the young that have some talent to sing (only).

Fine by me for those who like it. Each his own for sure.

It remains an Estate decision just to gain money. Next!

The greatest entertainers the world over cover songs ALL THE TIME, and have for as long as there has been music. Some are almost identical to the original, while some are arranged/sang differently, but it's still a cover.

Do you consider every one of them lukewarm and corny?

Were Prince's remakes corny, lukewarm, and spineless? Whitney Houston's? The Fugees? Weren't they AOL'able and MySpace'able at the time? Luke Combs? Michael Buble? What about the 50 Christmas albums (mostly made up of covers) released EVERY year? Operas? Classicals? All lukewarm, degenerated, and tepid?

Or do you just have such a big problem with a Prince musical specifically? So big of a problem that you're OK with insulting the production having no actual knowledge of whether it's good or not?

I hope they do well, and are enjoyed by the people who give them a chance.

pdiddy2011 said:

Vannormal said:

Another (light-gospel-ish) cover of a song that originally had a completely different sound, feel and meaning.

When Prince does a version of his own songs on a piano... that's something totally different. That's a big plus to the original!

Now it's just a (degenerated,) lukewarm, corny piano ballad, very instagramable and TikTokable; short and spineless.

Remember that old style 'operetta'?, but now poored into an X-factor bucket, by and for the young that have some talent to sing (only).

Fine by me for those who like it. Each his own for sure.

It remains an Estate decision just to gain money. Next!

The greatest entertainers the world over cover songs ALL THE TIME, and have for as long as there has been music. Some are almost identical to the original, while some are arranged/sang differently, but it's still a cover.

Do you consider every one of them lukewarm and corny?

Were Prince's remakes corny, lukewarm, and spineless? Whitney Houston's? The Fugees? Weren't they AOL'able and MySpace'able at the time? Luke Combs? Michael Buble? What about the 50 Christmas albums (mostly made up of covers) released EVERY year? Operas? Classicals? All lukewarm, degenerated, and tepid?

Or do you just have such a big problem with a Prince musical specifically? So big of a problem that you're OK with insulting the production having no actual knowledge of whether it's good or not?

I hope they do well, and are enjoyed by the people who give them a chance.

Not all, but mostly, yes.

I actually prefer to stick with the originals. Although I have to admit that there are some great covers out there. Better not compare opera and classics here. That's totally different. Rehashed Christmas classics are usually terribly bad, yes.

-
No. I'm not a fan of Michael Buble, Fugees, nor Whitney Houston's dragging notes. Sorry for that. ... Or, I'd have to be drunk at a boring wedding to shriekingly scream along karaoke style.

I'm aware of my silly shortcomings, weaknesses, and bad qualities.

-

Yes. I have a big problem with a Prince musical specifically. Because, for me, it's not coming from Prince himself, first and formost. Otherwise he would've done his own musical in his lifetime... He did every style known, but somehow left this one a bit aside. Though we all know he worked some time for the ''I'll Do Anything'' project. Anyways... you get my point.

The musical being made now is NOT coming from a heartfelt warm legacy preserving idea.

That's what I feel and still think of it.

And again, I'm probably wrong for those who will really like it. To each their own.

[Edited 10/9/25 20:04pm]

Vannormal said:

pdiddy2011 said:

The greatest entertainers the world over cover songs ALL THE TIME, and have for as long as there has been music. Some are almost identical to the original, while some are arranged/sang differently, but it's still a cover.

Do you consider every one of them lukewarm and corny?

Were Prince's remakes corny, lukewarm, and spineless? Whitney Houston's? The Fugees? Weren't they AOL'able and MySpace'able at the time? Luke Combs? Michael Buble? What about the 50 Christmas albums (mostly made up of covers) released EVERY year? Operas? Classicals? All lukewarm, degenerated, and tepid?

Or do you just have such a big problem with a Prince musical specifically? So big of a problem that you're OK with insulting the production having no actual knowledge of whether it's good or not?

I hope they do well, and are enjoyed by the people who give them a chance.

Not all, but mostly, yes.

I actually prefer to stick with the originals. Although I have to admit that there are some great covers out there. Better not compare opera and classics here. That's totally different. Rehashed Christmas classics are usually terribly bad, yes.

-
No. I'm not a fan of Michael Buble, Fugees, nor Whitney Houston's dragging notes. Sorry for that. ... Or, I'd have to be drunk at a boring wedding to shriekingly scream along karaoke style.

I'm aware of my silly shortcomings, weaknesses, and bad qualities.

-

Yes. I have a big problem with a Prince musical specifically. Because, for me, it's not coming from Prince himself, first and formost. Otherwise he would've done his own musical in his lifetime... He did every style known, but somehow left this one a bit aside. Though we all know he worked some time for the ''I'll Do Anything'' project. Anyways... you get my point.

The musical being made now is NOT coming from a heartfelt warm legacy preserving idea.

That's what I feel and still think of it.

And again, I'm probably wrong for those who will really like it. To each their own.

[Edited 10/9/25 20:04pm]

Agreed, to each their own!

However, I don't think Prince was against musicals -- how could he be? Sign O The Times was basically a musical. Some of our most celebrated entertainers come from theater/musical theater backgrounds.

It's hard to argue MJ the Musical is NOT a legacy preserving vehicle. It has made $250M (in less than 4 years) and is touring or prepping to tour in multiple cities/countries around the globe. The show has been praised (and awarded) for its choreography, music, and energy; and when all is said and done, in it's simplest form points people to the fact that MJ was a great entertainer -- plain and simple. That is LEGACY. Purple Rain the musical has the potential to do the exact same thing for Prince. (Even if it's in spite of the Estate's many misfires.)

So we are going to get a Glee episode

good grief

pdiddy2011 said:

Vannormal said

Agreed, to each their own!

However, I don't think Prince was against musicals -- how could he be? Sign O The Times was basically a musical. Some of our most celebrated entertainers come from theater/musical theater backgrounds.

It's hard to argue MJ the Musical is NOT a legacy preserving vehicle. It has made $250M (in less than 4 years) and is touring or prepping to tour in multiple cities/countries around the globe. The show has been praised (and awarded) for its choreography, music, and energy; and when all is said and done, in it's simplest form points people to the fact that MJ was a great entertainer -- plain and simple. That is LEGACY. Purple Rain the musical has the potential to do the exact same thing for Prince. (Even if it's in spite of the Estate's many misfires.)

I think the SOTT movie just has few scenes that have very little musical ambitions, but are far from it. (One can say the same about both Grafitti Bridge and UTCM for that matter, but they're not musicals either.)

If Prince really wanted to do a musical, he already made one, if not more. He did every genre possible.

The post-commercialisation often is far from the original spirit of any dead artist.

To me, musicals about deceased artists are primarily created to generate revenue. Nothing else.

It is often a straight commercial decision by heirs (administrators) to bring in cash.

Is that preserving (the quality of) a legacy? Not in my opinion. (But the cash propably helps for many other reasons.)

These kind of praised and/or award-winning musicals tell me nothing about the real value or preservation of a legacy either.

-

A legacy is what fans have created together with the artist during thier lifetime. Something that defines an important part of their lives and identity. And if it continues, great.

But more than often it all will dissapear into oblivion with it's generation of lovers. So be it.

When something is strong enough in quality to survive generations, it will do so.

-

I don't care much for musicals. Although, orignal written musicals (not copying excisting music or artists lives) are an artform I do love and appreciate. Probably because of it's originality and resutled quality, if so.

pdiddy2011 said:

It's hard to argue MJ the Musical is NOT a legacy preserving vehicle. It has made $250M (in less than 4 years) and is touring or prepping to tour in multiple cities/countries around the globe. The show has been praised (and awarded) for its choreography, music, and energy; and when all is said and done, in it's simplest form points people to the fact that MJ was a great entertainer -- plain and simple. That is LEGACY. Purple Rain the musical has the potential to do the exact same thing for Prince. (Even if it's in spite of the Estate's many misfires.)

Yup, you just showed your true colors.
Dude, you mistake "legacy" and money-making.
I take it your were born in the U.S.A.?

To think awards and praises still mean something in a society where everything and everyone is up for sale is either naive or worse, and to call them to the rescue to sustain your point make them even weakier arguments.

Some grown-ups kids have a very different opinion of the kind of legacy MJ left them with.
But let's wash it all up with shows and glitters, who cares about raping children anyway?


Leaving Wacko aside, you're probably the kind that excuses the atrocities that are holographic live concerts of dead artists in the name of their "legacies".

Again, a larynx show-off is not singing, and never will be. Anybody, given the proper, years-long intensive training, can sing (or rather in this case, imitate that atrocious Carey/Houston style that has been going for decades now). To find an original way to sing and a style of your own is something else entirely.

These two don't have it, they are your basic Julliard/Berklee drop-outs, with the photogenics as the only criteria that won them the casting process.

They yodel very well, affected whispers and all, but again, neither the music or their vocals have anything to do with Prince. Unless you're refering to latter years Prince, a time when he turned full bourgeois, doing live hits playlists high as a kite just to amass money. Thank God for his late awakening and rejection of it all.

[Edited 10/13/25 10:09am]

BonnieC said:

pdiddy2011 said:

It's hard to argue MJ the Musical is NOT a legacy preserving vehicle. It has made $250M (in less than 4 years) and is touring or prepping to tour in multiple cities/countries around the globe. The show has been praised (and awarded) for its choreography, music, and energy; and when all is said and done, in it's simplest form points people to the fact that MJ was a great entertainer -- plain and simple. That is LEGACY. Purple Rain the musical has the potential to do the exact same thing for Prince. (Even if it's in spite of the Estate's many misfires.)

Yup, you just showed your true colors.
Dude, you mistake "legacy" and money-making.
I take it your were born in the U.S.A.?

To think awards and praises still mean something in a society where everything and everyone is up for sale is either naive or worse, and to call them to the rescue to sustain your point make them even weakier arguments.

Some grown-ups kids have a very different opinion of the kind of legacy MJ left them with.
But let's wash it all up with shows and glitters, who cares about raping children anyway?


Leaving Wacko aside, you're probably the kind that excuses the atrocities that are holographic live concerts of dead artists in the name of their "legacies".

Again, a larynx show-off is not singing, and never will be. Anybody, given the proper, years-long intensive training, can sing (or rather in this case, imitate that atrocious Carey/Houston style that has been going for decades now). To find an original way to sing and a style of your own is something else entirely.

These two don't have it, they are your basic Julliard/Berklee drop-outs, with the photogenics as the only criteria that won them the casting process.

They yodel very well, affected whispers and all, but again, neither the music or their vocals have anything to do with Prince. Unless you're refering to latter years Prince, a time when he turned full bourgeois, doing live hits playlists high as a kite just to amass money. Thank God for his late awakening and rejection of it all.

[Edited 10/13/25 10:09am]

Just because you know a lot of words doesn't mean you have to try to use them all in one post.

I believe the mistake is your definition of the word legacy... I clearly stated that MJ being a great entertainer is the legacy showcased by MJ the Musical. Which is further confirmed by the legion of people putting up their hard earned money to continue to see the show - again - that has been getting really good reviews. The show is largely ONLY about his legacy as a world-renowned entertainer. The musical doesn't claim to be a life introspective.

The rest of your tirade is opinion and conjecture -- not worth me debating.

By the way, you have a very condescending manner of speaking. If you think it makes you sound intellectual or witty, you'd be incorrect... again.

pdiddy2011 said:

BonnieC said:

Yup, you just showed your true colors.
Dude, you mistake "legacy" and money-making.
I take it your were born in the U.S.A.?

To think awards and praises still mean something in a society where everything and everyone is up for sale is either naive or worse, and to call them to the rescue to sustain your point make them even weakier arguments.

Some grown-ups kids have a very different opinion of the kind of legacy MJ left them with.
But let's wash it all up with shows and glitters, who cares about raping children anyway?


Leaving Wacko aside, you're probably the kind that excuses the atrocities that are holographic live concerts of dead artists in the name of their "legacies".

Again, a larynx show-off is not singing, and never will be. Anybody, given the proper, years-long intensive training, can sing (or rather in this case, imitate that atrocious Carey/Houston style that has been going for decades now). To find an original way to sing and a style of your own is something else entirely.

These two don't have it, they are your basic Julliard/Berklee drop-outs, with the photogenics as the only criteria that won them the casting process.

They yodel very well, affected whispers and all, but again, neither the music or their vocals have anything to do with Prince. Unless you're refering to latter years Prince, a time when he turned full bourgeois, doing live hits playlists high as a kite just to amass money. Thank God for his late awakening and rejection of it all.

[Edited 10/13/25 10:09am]

I believe the mistake is your definition of the word legacy... I clearly stated that MJ being a great entertainer is the legacy showcased by MJ the Musical. Which is further confirmed by the legion of people putting up their hard earned money to continue to see the show - again - that has been getting really good reviews.

But we clearly can't debate, because again, you measure artistic value in terms of money, and I don't. You could defend the show by expressing what is great about it, yet your arguments are the cash it brings and the spotlight it grabs.

"Hard earned", that's a fantaisy of yours: anyone who truly works hard for their money doesn't have any left for this kind of superfluous. We're all spoiled western dudes. So I don't know why you're playing this kind of Charles Dickens or Nebraska's Springsteen card ("these poor people savings!") to give some cred or sanctity to the MJ show.

And again, you think reviews and awards are not bought, you think they're genuine journalism.
You clearly don't know squat about the industry. Or maybe you fantasize about one that existed eons ago.

We can't have a debate without a single base of discussion, let's leave it at that.
Enjoy your broadway shows by all means.

This is a forum, and it's meant for expression.
You don't like mine? Differents strokes.
Take it easy, there's nothing in it ad hominem,
despite the 8 Mile provocations.

[Edited 10/15/25 20:33pm]

BonnieC said:

Go look for Donny English's review on Twitter: he lists a bunch of problems with the show and they are not minor. The whole thing seems to be terrible. Other fan reviews say similar things. A recurring critique is that the stage is too big for this musical -- and this is supposed to go to Bropadway???

.

This is supposed to have its premiere in three weeks. It has already been delayed six months yet this first performance was only the second time they did the whole show???

bizzie said:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Edited 10/18/25 9:04am]

I was afraid this was gonna be terrible.

Just as a reminder: people have invested $25+ million in this trainwreck.