to musical or not to musical...?
Sat, 21 Aug 2004, 08:16 amWalter Plinge10 posts in thread
to musical or not to musical...?
Sat, 21 Aug 2004, 08:16 amrecently i had a discussion about the musical vs "legitimate" theatre, with some friends of mine, they expressed the veiwpoint that musical theatre cannot be construed as anything close to "real" theatre but as nothing more than a few songs and dances pushed together in an effort to try and make some kind of story... being a student of musical theatre myself i was horrified that anyone so closely involved with the artistic world (one being an actor the other a director of short films) could have such a strong conviction against the musical, i was forced to listen to argument after argument about how there were no real characters, no emotional depth etc etc. i would just like to know if this is a veiwpoint many of the theatre community have adopted or just a minority???
darian
(i did try to post a poll suggestion but either my computer literacy skills are even worse than i thought or it wasnt working!!! ;)
darian
(i did try to post a poll suggestion but either my computer literacy skills are even worse than i thought or it wasnt working!!! ;)
Re: to musical or not to musical...?
Wed, 25 Aug 2004, 02:19 pmWalter Plinge
Paul Treasure wrote:
>
> darian wrote:
> >
> > recently i had a discussion about the musical vs "legitimate"
> > theatre, with some friends of mine, they expressed the
> > veiwpoint that musical theatre cannot be construed as
> > anything close to "real" theatre
Depends what you define as "real theatre". I personally think operas and musicals (however we define the distinction between the two) are purer theatre than the average play is.
A lot of people consider theatre as "television done live", which is - if you'll pardon the editorialising - a pile of horseshit.
Theatre's gleeful artificiality is its essence - it's what defines it and sets it apart. The artificiality decried by your friend as detrimental to musicals and operas is, in my opinion, precisely what makes them so important: they are _pure_ theatre... wilfully and defiantly _not_ television!
> Unfortunately many of our cohorts think that all you need for
> a good musical is some nice voices and pretty costumes. Too
> often I have been involved in shows where any thought to
> theme, subtext, character has gone completely ignored. And
> these are people who profess to LOVE the art form.
Amen. Some of the most ardent supporters of musicals/operas are, paradoxically, doing more harm than good.
Present company excepted, of course.
> Political satire is more effective in well done musicals as
> well. In many ways Assassins is able to convey more about the
> state of the USA than any Michael Moore film, and many people
> see Sondheim as just as un-American for having written it.
The irony being, of course, that free speech in a democracy is (so they say) as American as apple pie and silicon porn.
> The satire inherent in all the G&Ss is just as potent if
> brought out by a good production. We still are surrounded by
> Sir Joseph Porters and Pooh-Bahs.
And the real versions are just as boring as the fictional ones.
:o)~
> What is the greatest anti-war play EVER written? Aristophanes
> Lysistrata! Hate to tell the purists, but all the Greek Old
> Comedies and Tragedies are MUSICALS!!!
> The new comedies maybe notÂ…
Frogs?
> I may get crucified for this one, but I think VerdiÂ’s
> librettist Arrigo Boito actually improved on Shakespeare with
> his libretti for Otello and Falstaff.
I agree completely.
But if you want to talk crucified.... I personally think Boito was way ahead of Verdi with Otello. His truncation of the story is a work of art on its own. I think Verdi was a bit lost in setting it.
BUT, I think he had more than caught when he got to Falstaff. In the former, I think Boito's libretto is actually better than Verdi's music. I think the latter reverses the rankings.
(I have my own cross, nails are BYO).
> Oscar WildeÂ’s Salome is really only a curiosity, and yet
> Richard StraussÂ’ verbatim setting of the play is an A-list
> opera!
What I wouldn't have given to see Karita Mattila at the Met recently. I can only pray for a video.
> Even a great play like The Marriage of Figaro has been
> improved by being set to music by Mozart.
I think the word is "salvaged".
> Many “straight” plays have even been rescued from oblivion by
> being turned into musicals or operas. Tosca; Madam Butterfly;
> Kismet; ChicagoÂ…
Esoteric short stories: "Fiddler on the Roof".
> But yes, a lot of people look down on musicals, but they
> shouldnÂ’t.
Amen.
> Here endeth the lesson.
Thank you, Padre.
dm.
>
> darian wrote:
> >
> > recently i had a discussion about the musical vs "legitimate"
> > theatre, with some friends of mine, they expressed the
> > veiwpoint that musical theatre cannot be construed as
> > anything close to "real" theatre
Depends what you define as "real theatre". I personally think operas and musicals (however we define the distinction between the two) are purer theatre than the average play is.
A lot of people consider theatre as "television done live", which is - if you'll pardon the editorialising - a pile of horseshit.
Theatre's gleeful artificiality is its essence - it's what defines it and sets it apart. The artificiality decried by your friend as detrimental to musicals and operas is, in my opinion, precisely what makes them so important: they are _pure_ theatre... wilfully and defiantly _not_ television!
> Unfortunately many of our cohorts think that all you need for
> a good musical is some nice voices and pretty costumes. Too
> often I have been involved in shows where any thought to
> theme, subtext, character has gone completely ignored. And
> these are people who profess to LOVE the art form.
Amen. Some of the most ardent supporters of musicals/operas are, paradoxically, doing more harm than good.
Present company excepted, of course.
> Political satire is more effective in well done musicals as
> well. In many ways Assassins is able to convey more about the
> state of the USA than any Michael Moore film, and many people
> see Sondheim as just as un-American for having written it.
The irony being, of course, that free speech in a democracy is (so they say) as American as apple pie and silicon porn.
> The satire inherent in all the G&Ss is just as potent if
> brought out by a good production. We still are surrounded by
> Sir Joseph Porters and Pooh-Bahs.
And the real versions are just as boring as the fictional ones.
:o)~
> What is the greatest anti-war play EVER written? Aristophanes
> Lysistrata! Hate to tell the purists, but all the Greek Old
> Comedies and Tragedies are MUSICALS!!!
> The new comedies maybe notÂ…
Frogs?
> I may get crucified for this one, but I think VerdiÂ’s
> librettist Arrigo Boito actually improved on Shakespeare with
> his libretti for Otello and Falstaff.
I agree completely.
But if you want to talk crucified.... I personally think Boito was way ahead of Verdi with Otello. His truncation of the story is a work of art on its own. I think Verdi was a bit lost in setting it.
BUT, I think he had more than caught when he got to Falstaff. In the former, I think Boito's libretto is actually better than Verdi's music. I think the latter reverses the rankings.
(I have my own cross, nails are BYO).
> Oscar WildeÂ’s Salome is really only a curiosity, and yet
> Richard StraussÂ’ verbatim setting of the play is an A-list
> opera!
What I wouldn't have given to see Karita Mattila at the Met recently. I can only pray for a video.
> Even a great play like The Marriage of Figaro has been
> improved by being set to music by Mozart.
I think the word is "salvaged".
> Many “straight” plays have even been rescued from oblivion by
> being turned into musicals or operas. Tosca; Madam Butterfly;
> Kismet; ChicagoÂ…
Esoteric short stories: "Fiddler on the Roof".
> But yes, a lot of people look down on musicals, but they
> shouldnÂ’t.
Amen.
> Here endeth the lesson.
Thank you, Padre.
dm.
- ···
- ···