to musical or not to musical...?

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 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!!! ;)

Musicals, I believe, are there to provide entertainment. Most plays normally have an underlying theme beneath. Unfortunately, more people come to see musicals than plays.

I also find musicals seem to be biased in their casting - they cast based on singing ability and to an extent, their dancing ability, and not many of them can act that well.

Hello Darian

I think you will find that "a lot" of the theatre community have a viewpoint that musicals are an excuse to have singing and dancing.

I could not say "most of the theatre community" as musical theatre uses a lot of people in a show so these people could perhaps outnumber the non musical theatre people. In community theatre musicals are good because they give more people a chance to appear on stage, work behind the scenes and tend to bring in a larger audience with larger profits for the theatre.

I think that for a lot of musicals it could be a simplistic view as MGM used to roll them out by the dozen to make money and used actors who went on to earn Oscars in drama movies as their musical actors, in very ordinary musical rolls.

The good musicals used actors that excelled in singing, dancing and acting which is where our favourites come from.

But can't the same be said about "theatre", that most shows are churned out to make money and have a very thin story line and ordinary actors. Expecially if you ask the theatre goers that latch onto a very limited range of theatre that never pulls in a large audience so is relegated to the smaller venues to try and cover costs.

Most theatre is run on a commercial footing, even community theatre, so the shows picked for a season will be one or two comedy's, a musical, a one short one act season to introduce new directors, two dramas that are middle of the road and maybe every second season a strong drama that has to be well publicised to alert the audience to its coarse language or adult themes.

To do otherwise requires a good sponsor or supporter and only one or two companies can survive in this niche market of what is probably the closest to true theatre which is cutting edge and often controversial.

I went to see The Blue Room at The Maj to see Sigrid Thorton naked and was rewarded by an excellent production that deserved to be seen by a sell out season but would not have achieved this without the nudity.

Don

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 but as nothing more than a
> few songs and dances pushed together in an effort to try and
> make some kind of storyÂ… 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, do you want the bad news or the worse news.
Many, many people in theatre hold this opinion.
And in many ways it is actually the fault of them what do musicals.

I am a self confessed musicals geek, although my love spreads as far as anything that includes music and theatre at the same time (Opera, Chinese opera, Greek tragedy, Ballet, etc)
To my mind, a musical is in many ways the ultimate theatrical art form, combining more than one of the performing arts in a cohesive whole. With the singing and the dancing elements being used to enhance the actual story.

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.

This school of belief (which reigned in Opera for many many years and has been finally overthrown only in the last couple of decades) has given a lot of people the idea that musicals are nothing more than fluff.
So, yes, a lot of musicals (either in the writing or the production) do have no real characters, no emotional depth etc, etc.

BUT there are many that rival, and even surpass their “legitimate” counterparts.

That said, a well produced, well written musical is often more effective than “straight” drama.

Some examples: (and yes I am including opera hereÂ…)

La Boheme is one of the most effective operas ever written. I am a hardened and cynical old theatre type, and yet the sheer beauty of the last act, especially the way in which Mimi dies in silence as the rest of the cast are oblivious to what is happening. Then the orchestraÂ’s underscoring gives us total understanding of the overwhelming grief of Rodolfo and Musetta, that if it were a play would come across as melodramatic. I used to cry through the entire last half of this act. I now normally start crying at the top of the third act and continue blubbering right through because I know that last five minutes is coming up. In the same way that after I had seen Breakfast at TiffanyÂ’s once, I find myself crying during the opening credits because I understand where she is and what she is feeling, not because of Audrey HepburnÂ’s acting, but because of Henry ManciniÂ’s music!

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 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.
Even the Pajama Game and How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying convey their political (well, industrial) messages better than almost any other left-wing unionist diatribe.

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…

To look at different versions of the same story:
People are more familiar with West Side Story than Romeo & Juliet (yes, more people know the BASIC story of R&J, but youÂ’d probably be able to get a much better detailed synopsis of WSS)
My Fair Lady is better known and more often performed than Pygmalion.
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.
Oscar WildeÂ’s Salome is really only a curiosity, and yet Richard StraussÂ’ verbatim setting of the play is an A-list opera!
Even a great play like The Marriage of Figaro has been improved by being set to music by Mozart.
Many “straight” plays have even been rescued from oblivion by being turned into musicals or operas. Tosca; Madam Butterfly; Kismet; Chicago…

Sorry, I know I have been preaching to the converted here.
But yes, a lot of people look down on musicals, but they shouldnÂ’t.
And a lot of people who do musicals, totally underestimate their power to move an audience, if done well!!!

Here endeth the lesson.

Paul Treasure
Movie Queen & Musicals Uber-geek

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.

> > 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)~


Although at least the fictional ones have the potential to be audience favourites if played effectively. I don't think I've ever seen people cheer a real-life Pooh-Bah ;-)

~Julia

OK, we have had the afficionados of musical theatre speak, now it's time for the counterpoint; I intensly dislike musicals. I have been to what seems like millions of them because I have a lot of good friends that sing and dance.

Why don't I like them? They make me uncomfortable, partly because they are hardly ever done well and partly because I find them boring. This may be because I don't have a proper appreciation for the nuances (although just reading Pauls post has gone a long way to remedy that).

I was thinking about just this as I watched Faust last night. The whole first act I was thinking "Y'know, if this was a play it would either be ten minuets long or it would have to say a great deal more than this thing is saying." By about the third act I was so caught up in the pretty frocks and the swirling music and Bruce Martin's amazing voice that all was forgiven (til my arse fell asleep half way through Act Four). I have to say also that the setting up for the crazy house Act was worth the ticket price by it's self (thanks Simon), it was one of the most disturbing and effective pieces of theatre I was ever seen.

But there was no singing and dancing in that bit. And when there finally was singing and dancing, it was basically "Come with me Marguritte" "No, I won't Faust. Angels forgive me" "We've got to get going, Faust, time is up" over and over and over again with slightly different notes each time. The whole scene, if it was "straight" theatre, would have taken two minuets instead of twenty or a lot more would have to have gone into it.

BUT, when I saw Assasins onstage at Playlovers years ago (first time I ever saw the Great DM perform) I was completely entranced, loved it, because it was SAYING something, cleverly and subversively. I loved the film Chicago, it was so cool, so much specticle, I loved Moulin Rouge for the same reason. When I saw Oklahoma though, I almost stoped loving Our Hugh because I was so bored. Yes, the landscape in Oklahoma is pretty, we get it.

I think that musicals need to be appreciated in a completely different way to straight theatre. I look for certain things in a piece of theatre, I want it to teach me something or make me think about something in a different way, or I want it to make me laugh. I want to be involved, I want to care about the characters. I can't apply the same requirements I have of straight theatre to musicals, but those are the only requirements I know.

In other words, I don't know what I am supposed to be looking for. My comment above about musicals not being done well, might be the fact that I don't know what "well" actually is.

Leah M

Leah M wrote:
>
> I was thinking about just this as I watched Faust last night.
> The whole first act I was thinking "Y'know, if this was a
> play it would either be ten minuets long or it would have to
> say a great deal more than this thing is saying."

It was saying it. Musically. That's the key difference.

Joseph Kerman described it beautifully, and defined as clearly as anyone exactly what "opera" is: an artform where the music is the primary articulating element. Plays are more about text, and I would venture that musicals are predominantly about songs (I base this on the fact that the earliest musicals were more or less what the modern crop of musicals are: a collection of popular, well-known songs strung together on a pretty flimsy storyline. With time, they grew into more-or-less operatically inspired beasts. But it's interesting to note that the wheel has now come full circle... back to the revue-sical).

> By about
> the third act I was so caught up in the pretty frocks and the
> swirling music and Bruce Martin's amazing voice that all was
> forgiven

Bruce is amazing. I had the pleasure of standing beside him onstage during Batavia, and he's a force to be reckoned with. He's in pretty good physical shape too, for a man in his sixties.

> I have to say also that the setting up for the crazy house
> Act was worth the ticket price by it's self (thanks Simon),
> it was one of the most disturbing and effective pieces of
> theatre I was ever seen.

How much of that was to do with the music? :o)

> "We've got to get going, Faust, time is up" over and over and
> over again with slightly different notes each time. The whole
> scene, if it was "straight" theatre, would have taken two
> minutes instead of twenty or a lot more would have to have
> gone into it.

And one of the major challenges in staging opera is to make the above work effectively as theatre as well as music. That this occurs so infrequently says less about the form itself than it does about the people paid to produce it.

> BUT, when I saw Assasins onstage at Playlovers years ago
> (first time I ever saw the Great DM perform) I was completely
> entranced, loved it, because it was SAYING something,

And you heard what it had to say for a number of important reasons. Firstly, it was the product of an artistic era (and mindset) that demanded more of its artists than that of Gounod's era. Not just nice tunes and fetching frocks... but substance and intellect.

Secondly, Sondheim - for all that's he's an irresistible tune-smith - is just as concerned with text as he is with melody, and consequently gives each equal weight.

Thirdly, Assassins was sung in contemporary American English, and consequently gave an immediacy to us as English-speakers than Gounod's antiquated French ever could.

> I think that musicals need to be appreciated in a completely
> different way to straight theatre. I look for certain things
> in a piece of theatre, I want it to teach me something or
> make me think about something in a different way, or I want
> it to make me laugh. I want to be involved, I want to care
> about the characters. I can't apply the same requirements I
> have of straight theatre to musicals, but those are the only
> requirements I know.

Maybe you're not seeing the right ones. Maybe Sondheim is more your bag than R&H. Maybe as an opera-goer you'd be better off sticking to modern opera, or to quasi-fringe repertoire like Britten and Janacek.

(Although it'd be a long time between drinks... especially in Perth).

> In other words, I don't know what I am supposed to be looking
> for. My comment above about musicals not being done well,
> might be the fact that I don't know what "well" actually is.

I personally think the biggest problem is that many of the people being paid good money to produce the stuff don't know what "well" is either.



dm.

Leah M wrote:
> Why don't I like them? They make me uncomfortable, partly
> because they are hardly ever done well and partly because I
> find them boring. This may be because I don't have a proper
> appreciation for the nuances (although just reading Pauls
> post has gone a long way to remedy that).

As far as IÂ’m concerned, Leah, a lot of people who actually do musicals have no appreciation for the proper nuances either!

Leah M wrote:
> I was thinking about just this as I watched Faust last night.

Damn you all! Kim Martin (brother of Bruce) told me at rehearsals last night that it was quite possibly the best production that WA Opera have ever done.

Leah M wrote:
> "We've got to get going, Faust, time is up" over and over and
> over again with slightly different notes each time. The whole
> scene, if it was "straight" theatre, would have taken two
> minutes instead of twenty or a lot more would have to have
> gone into it.

Can anyone remember the wonderful sketch show Who Dares Wins?
They did a great dialogue between an opera lover and a non-opera lover, explaining why opera repeats itself so much. The answer went something like this.

In the middle of the third act the chorus comes on and starts singing:
“The King is dead. The King is dead. The King is dead. The. King. Is. Dead. Dead. Dead. The King. The King. Is dead. The King is dead dead dead dead dead dead. The King is dead. The King Is Dead. The King, the King, the King. He is Dead. Dead. Dead. Yes. Dead. Yes. He. Is. Dead.”
And in the middle of the front row two American tourists will turn around to each other and say:
“Wilbur, what happened?”
“I think someone died, Ethel!”

:-)

Leah M wrote:
> BUT, when I saw Assasins onstage at Playlovers years ago
> (first time I ever saw the Great DM perform) I was completely
> entranced, loved it, because it was SAYING something,

the meddoes wrote:
> Secondly, Sondheim - for all that's he's an irresistible
> tune-smith - is just as concerned with text as he is with
> melody, and consequently gives each equal weight.

Hence my theory that he is actually a lyricist who writes his own music, and not a composer who writes his own lyrics.

Leah M wrote:
> I think that musicals need to be appreciated in a completely
> different way to straight theatre. I look for certain things
> in a piece of theatre, I want it to teach me something or
> make me think about something in a different way, or I want
> it to make me laugh. I want to be involved, I want to care
> about the characters. I can't apply the same requirements I
> have of straight theatre to musicals, but those are the only
> requirements I know.

the meddoes wrote:
> Maybe you're not seeing the right ones. Maybe Sondheim is
> more your bag than R&H. Maybe as an opera-goer you'd be
> better off sticking to modern opera, or to quasi-fringe
> repertoire like Britten and Janacek.

Having some idea of your tastes, Leah, I would most definitely support DavidÂ’s assertion.
A friend of mine went to see HandelÂ’s Alcina a couple of years ago because she knew the lead soprano, when asked what she thought she replied that it would have been great if the singers had just shut up and let her listen to the musicÂ…
I think you would definitely like most of the Sondheim repertoire, and you probably would enjoy Britten more than the average opera-goer does. And I dare say you would probably adore something like Nixon in China.
HereÂ’s a test for you: Have you seen Lars Von TrierÂ’s Dancer in the Dark (Starring Bjork)? This is the film that won the Palme DÂ’Or a couple of years back and was booed when it was announced. And on the Movie Show David Stratton called it the worst film heÂ’d ever seen and gave it 0 while Margaret Pomeranz called it the film of the year and gave it a 5.
If you like this ugly little film (I love it!) then its not that you donÂ’t like musicals, you just donÂ’t like the way they are normally done.


Leah M wrote:
> In other words, I don't know what I am supposed to be looking
> for. My comment above about musicals not being done well,
> might be the fact that I don't know what "well" actually is.

the meddoes wrote:
> I personally think the biggest problem is that many of the
> people being paid good money to produce the stuff don't know
> what "well" is either.

Amen!
There is an old, old argument in opera: “Prima la musica? Prima la parole?” [Is that right, David?] First the music or first the words.
Despite the fact that many of the greatest composers in music theatre history believed that the words are more important (Monteverdi, Mozart, Wagner) many afficianados believe that the music should come first.
It all depends what you want: do you want MUSICAL theatre or do you want musical THEATRE.
Give me the latter every time!

Paul Treasure

PS Leah, come up and see Fiddler at the end of the year. It may be an old war horse, but it ainÂ’t tired yet and IÂ’m going to see if I canÂ’t breathe some more life into it.

Paul Treasure wrote:
>
> In the middle of the third act the chorus comes on and starts
> singing:
> “The King is dead. The King is dead. The King is dead. The.
> King. Is. Dead. Dead. Dead. The King. The King. Is dead. The
> King is dead dead dead dead dead dead. The King is dead. The
> King Is Dead. The King, the King, the King. He is Dead.
> Dead. Dead. Yes. Dead. Yes. He. Is. Dead.”
> And in the middle of the front row two American tourists will
> turn around to each other and say:
> “Wilbur, what happened?”
> “I think someone died, Ethel!”
>
> :-)

I was performing in Batavia at the same time as I was rehearsing for Othello, and I remember telling Stephen Lee about the slowly-becoming-legendary ritual murder scene at the tail of the second act. When the name is drawn of the poor unfortunates who are to be executed in order to preserve food stocks, the principals and chorus join forces in a (musically quite terrifying) unravelling of pent-up tension, over a single line of dialogue - the name of the victims: "Franz Jansz of Horn, ship's barber, his wife and son."

This horrifying ensemble escalates and then escalates and then escalates some more, until the poor bastards are dragged onstage by (in this production) yours truly.

Unfortunately, for a confirmed operaphobe like Stephen, it only confirmed his worst prejudices, and as the whole stage ranted on for several minutes over a single line of text, he and my good lady girlfriend (go and see Blood Brothers at Grads!) sat in the gallery sniggering.

Bloody heathens.

> A friend of mine went to see HandelÂ’s Alcina a couple of
> years ago because she knew the lead soprano, when asked what
> she thought she replied that it would have been great if the
> singers had just shut up and let her listen to the musicÂ…

Wasn't it Sir Thomas Beecham who said that opera would terrific if it weren't for the singers?

> There is an old, old argument in opera: “Prima la musica?
> Prima la parole?” [Is that right, David?] First the music or
> first the words.

Antonio Salieri wrote a one-act opera (in a good-natured contest with Mozart, which also resulted in the latter's "The Impresario") called "Prima la Musica, poi le Parole", which literally means, "First the Music, then the Words."

The argument is not new.

> It all depends what you want: do you want MUSICAL theatre or
> do you want musical THEATRE.

Well put. Thanks Paul... I think I'm going to pinch that. :o)



dm.
(who's also not going to be able to see "Faust")


Thou infectious rump-fed bladder!