James Goldman's book to Follies- Page 4

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 1:17pm

maybe this is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music Note that there is a link to pop rock aka pop/rock.

[newintown]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 1:17pm

When Joan Collins and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra can cover “Imagine” and make it sound like concert music, when The Doors can cover “Alabama Song” and make it sound like “rock,” when the Kronos Quartet can cover “Purple Haze” and make it sound “classical,” when Panic! At The Disco covers “Skid Row," Michael Jackson covers “Corner of the Sky,” Gwen Stefani covers “If I Were A Rich Man,” when Postmodern Jukebox covers everything current and makes it sound like mid-20th century lounge – then you realize that these silly distinctions matter only to people who care more about being “contemporary” or hip than with actually understanding music. Think of Shelly Winters in the film “Wild In The Streets,” screaming “I’m young!! YOUNG!!!!!"

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 01:17 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 1:18pm

Wikipedia? Yes, I knew that you couldn't.

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 1:24pm

This is a fascinating thread amid the drops of intellectual mudslinging.

I want to put in my two cents...when I first saw Follies, I was about 18, and I loved it. I loved the haunting and beautiful score, of course, but the themes also moved me even then. It wasn't, as Sondheim thought, because I was too young to think it applied to me. It was because I'd seen a lot in those 18 years of life and knew that what happened to Phyllis/Sally/Buddy/Ben is a real possibility in this life...

It was an absolutely heartbreaking reminder then. And now, six years later, I've had even more experiences, some of which have rendered it nearly impossible for me to think of that final scene (the quiet reprise of "Waiting for the Girls Upstairs" without sobbing.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:20pm

I have no interest in attempting to definitively define large overarching questions such as "what is theatre music?" as my opinions and thoughts are bound to be different from other's interpretation of the question. That said, consider the following as simply a record of my own person thoughts on the subject on the off-chance it interests someone.

Theatre music exists on a similar plane in public conscious as opera and operetta. It is more commonly accepted that the main difference between opera and music theatre is the importance of the music vs the importance of the lyrics. In opera, where the work is often presented in languages the audience s not familiar with and (for the past century, at least) regularly produced with subtitles, the music takes precedent. Composers regularly experiment with themes, motifs, and tonic scales to create a unified and cohesive work musically as well as plot-wise. The lyrics come in second place, as shown by the major liberties taken with the pronunciations of words and the amount of different notes a single syllable is sung on (even when operas are performed in English, I feel the need to follow along with subtitles to understand what is being sung). In other words, the audience is supposed to allow the music to tell the story in greater detail than the lyrics (I'm speaking generally, of course). In music theatre, at least for the majority of the first half of the twentieth century and before (with Gershwin being the one of the major exceptions), the scores were generally a collection of unrelated numbers that were held together cohesively by orchestrations, which made them sound like they were cut from the same cloth. Since before Rogers and Hammerstein became popular there was no need to write for any specific characters, one of the major things both the audiences and songwriters looked forward to in musicals was how witty lyricists could be. Cole Porter, Lorenz Hart, Ira Gershwin, and Noel Coward all attempted to out-wit each other through lyrics, with varied results depending on your personal opinions of them. However, as been discussed at length in threads on the uses of perfect rhymes, lyrics are incredibly important for audiences to hear correctly on first listen in music theatre, so audiences understand if any important plot information has been disclosed or comedic or witty lyrics "hit" them at the right time and they either laugh or smile appreciatively. I'm not going to discuss operetta as my own knowledge with them is very limited since I consider "On the Twentieth Century" a musical comedy written in the style of operetta and Candide (which is labeled a "comic operetta" seems to me a musical comedy using the style of opera comique.

While many composers of musicals started to play with themes and motifs in scores to make the shows more cohesive musically, they always kept the lyrics at least equally as important of the music. With a writer such as Sondheim, the shows expect the audiences to follow every word of the score to follow along with the plot and motivations (and colorings) of the characters. Sondheim states in his books that when Sweeney Todd was produced on Broadway, it was a musical, and when it was at the Met, it was an opera. That strikes me as disingenuous, because if I produced Oklahoma! at the Met with trained opera singers, it doesn't make the work an opera. It was written as a "musical play" and one need only compare "People Will Say We're In Love" with "Bimba dagli occhi" / "Vogliatemi bene" (from Madame Butterfly) to see the lyrical and musical differences between the two genres (sorry to anyone upset by the word). Even the fabled "Soliloquy" from Carousel does not really compare to Brunnhilde's Immolation.

I remember shortly after Marie Christine opened on Broadway, an op-ed ran in The New York Times that blamed the show's failure on LaChiusa's refusal to call the piece an opera, going on to state that the amount of music, the dark nature of the show, and the motifs used took it away from musical theatre. That article seems to me beyond insipid and annoying, as if dark themes make a show an opera. The show was, and is, a musical and not because it opened on Broadway. The lyrics expect to be heard and understood by the audience. This may seem a simple and arbitrary thing to separate musicals from opera, but to me it makes a world of difference. Compare Marie Christine to Previn's A Streetcar Named Desire to make the difference even clearer.

In the world of concept albums, such as Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita, they may seem to be drawn from the popular sentiments of the day, but they are, above all, about story telling. Regardless how well you think they define characters, it is clear they are about people in specific situations. Sure, Julie Covington sang with a rock tone as opposed to Paige or LuPone, but the score was always meant to be a stage show, not merely a collection popular singles (I have no doubt the authors wanted songs popular in public context, but I don't believe that was the primary reason for the album's creation).

I won't get into the discussion of "Alabama Song", since the number involved is a pastiche song in an opera score (notice my use of the word "song" and "score". But any arranger could do anything with existing music (let's leave questions of legality behind). I could take "What's the Use of Wond'rin'?", shove an electro beat behind it, speed it up, and add a bunch of back up "oohs" and "aahs". That doesn't make Rodger and Hammerstein's song an electro number. Disney added words to "Sleeping Beauty" and edited the score. That doesn't mean what Tchaikovsky wrote is no longer a ballet. The intention of the writer matters, at least to me. If you're arbitrarily arguing that music can't be defined because the same order of notes can be reinterpreted in a number of different ways, then you're unlikely to find this post of much interest. However, since a composer like Wagner wanted to control everything about his music - from the orchestrations to the scenery - it seems to me intent counts for something.

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 03:20 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:39pm

Another good post.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:53pm

@newintown. I am more than happy to engage in a definitional discussion, as, it seems, is SDP. That link provides a reasonable jumping off point. But you obviously don't want to engage; you want to make yourself feel sophisticated and knowledgeable (in contradistinction, I gather, to hip) without any intellect. No thanks. Not going on that ride with you. Feel free to gaze at your navel.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:56pm

Gaveston, If I recall correctly, Barnes stated that Company deserved to win all major awards in a "lean season" and stated that he thought other people would like it more than him. He loved the lyrics and stated the music is "academically very interesting", but concluded that the characters are people that you try to avoid at all costs. I think he enjoyed Price's direction and the set.

[newintown]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:06pm

I think a discussion about music with someone who responds to a query about definitions with a wikipedia link (to an article that's factually quite questionable) would have very little to offer. I would, however, happily converse with Sally, who clearly has not only a wider knowledge of music than you, but also a much more pleasant method of expression.

I add that I am skeptical of the musical analytical abilities of anyone who thinks that they can define what is and is not valid "contemporary pop" or "contemporary rock," particularly in this very diverse age of popular entertainment. To lump the work of artists like Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran, Kendrick Lamar, DJ Khaled, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Drake, Taylor Swift, Eminem (to take from a current Billboard Top 100 list) under one umbrella definition is only ridiculous. And then to add under this umbrella "classic rock" artists of various genres like Metallica, Billy Joel, Madonna, Missy Elliott, ABBA, etc. - well, to whom does that make sense?

Even if there were any validity in claims that one can differentiate a "rock" score from a "pop/rock score" from a "Broadway" score, or say something like American Idiot has a rock score, but Hairspray does not - look at this info:

ibdb.com identifies 29 Broadway musicals that have run more than 2,000 performances. Of that 29, four are jukebox/catalog shows (Jersey Boys, Rock of Ages, Mamma Mia, Smokey Joe's Café), two have pastiche period "pop/rock" scores (Grease, Hairspray), leaving only one other that some might consider "rock" or "pop/rock" (Rent). Of course, there are many who feel that Rent's musical language is as "rock" as The Banana Splits, but let it pass for now.

Of the 29 longest running Broadway musicals, then, 22 (or a good 76%) have what most would call a "Broadway" score.

That is, 28 of 29 (97%) of the most successful Broadway musicals do not have an original score that would be defined as "contemporary pop" or "contemporary rock."

This goes far in negating the Clive Barnesian claims that Broadway musicals, if they want to succeed with audiences, need to reflect the sounds of something randomly called (but not clearly defined) "contemporary popular music."

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 04:06 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:28pm

I'm not sure longevity is the correct metric (esp since that yields a lot of garbage) and I found your labeling puzzling at best, but since you have no way of knowing the first thing about my musical knowledge vis-a-vis SDP, yourself, or anyone else, I'm just going to assume you don't know any more about these things than you do about me. All you seem to know much about is how to make yourself feel better about yourself against imaginary demons. Sorry but I'd rather chat with people who want to engage substantively. 

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:34pm

Edited to clarify: I define "scores based in popular/pop music" as those like "Evita" and "Next to Normal", but stand by my claim earlier in the thread that they are theatre music, not true "pop". Consider this post to be about two very large groups of theatre music. 

As music theatre songs began to fall out with popular listening, it seems to me a divide happened in the community. Some songwriters began to take cues from popular music to influence their scores (with emphasis placed on character) and others eschewed it altogether. Sondheim is the major player surrounding the 70s and 80s who resisted the urge to do so, along with Kander and Ebb and others. Compare "A Chorus Line" (a pop score, if you'll excuse the terminology, written for specific characters, but with the general and vague qualities made for radio), "Chicago" (a more "traditional" musical score that pulls on 20s jazz and vaudeville), and "Pacific Overtures" (a score completely different from the popular music landscape of 1976 and culled from the forms of another culture combined with Sondheim's own style). Of course, writers like Hamlisch and Webber and Rice, were more familiar with the popular stylings of the 70s and 80s by virtue of being born later than Sondheim and his contemporaries. Because of his relationship with Hal Prince, Sondheim continued to be a massive figure in the landscape of musical theatre, and later was able to cull other relationships with newer playwrights (Lapine) after his professional relationship with Prince dissolved. The Sondheim/Prince collaborations were huge giants in the 70s and allowed Sondheim's work to be seen by a wide number of audiences.

This brings me to the interesting situation facing the artists creating scores without pop influnces in the 90s. I'm going to use LaChiusa as an example, just for situational purposes. I know newintown and I have differing views on the (artistic) success his work (though I tend to agree with much of your criticisms), but let's put aside opinions of the quality of his work. LaChiusa was produced twice on Broadway and both productions were commercial flops that received (at best) mixed critically reviews. Compare that to Sondheim, who had numerous commercial failures and was able to keep producing work on Broadway. LaChiusa has essentially been banished to off-broadway venues, which, at the very least, limit audience members.

Today, the vast majority of Broadway shows are based on popular music. There are exceptions, of course, such as "Fun Home", "Grey Gardens", and the current "War Paint", but a lot more of the non-pop related scores are produced off-broadway (and off-off broadway, and off-off-off broadway). This is due to the fact that shows are now much more technically advanced, more expensive to run, need to run longer to recoup, and can't change things during previews because of aforementioned technical advancements. I can't predict the future, but I suspect Broadway will grow smaller and smaller, with more pop influenced scores taking it over as the surrounding less "big" theatre community with grow as will the shows with scores separate from popular music will. That's my theory. Of course, off-Broadway is now much more commercial than ever originally intended, so what do I know?

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 04:34 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:52pm

SDP. very good stuff! I'll respond later, when I have time. I don't want to just answer your exceptional efforts haphazardly.

[JBC3]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:58pm

All I know is that the book is not so bad that it prevents me from seeing this show every single chance I get.

[newintown]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 5:36pm

Actually, hoggie, I can easily determine your musical knowledge (or rather, dearth thereof) from your words. A musician always knows when a non-musician is spewing hot air. And, as has been pointed out many times before by many others, rather obnoxious hot air.

You clearly know a little bit about a lot of things, and a little bit more about a few others, but music is not one of those things. And remember what Pope said about a little learning.

And as far as cracks about "demons" - well, you might want to consider your own possession before going down dark streets like that.

Now, we all know your mania about having the last word. Have at it, and have fun. Make it juicy!

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 05:36 PM

[roseaddams]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 7:12pm

I have never known any musician to be as much of a dick concerning their knowledge of music as you are. The vast majority of pit players, rehearsal pianists, and teachers I've worked with are low-key, pleasant to engage with, generally happy to share or teach, and don't brag about their knowledge (or go out of their way to call themselves a musician as often as you do -- I thought there was nothing more pretentious than referring to oneself as an artist, but then I suppose I have actually learned something from you). 

We get it. You went to music school. 

[newintown]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 7:27pm

That's some sweet vitriol, rose. Feel better?

i generally find be the true "dick" is the one who resorts to juvenile name calling first.

However, I look forward to any future posts of yours that have something intelligent or interesting to offer, like Sally's do, above.

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 07:27 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 7:59pm

@SDP, so I find myself agreeing with a good bit of what you say. 

A few comments:

1. I'm not sure what "true pop" is. Pop is pretty amorphous to start with, and I don't buy into the idea that being theatre music and pop music are mutually exclusive (at all). Yes there is pop music that lends itself more to use in the theatre, and there are pragmatic aspects to what a pop songwriter will do when writing for the theatre in an integrated way (as opposed to, for example, in a jukebox musical or something like American Idiot) but I think we can pretty clearly distinguish between what these writers are doing and what Kander & Ebb (or Sondheim, a more complicated example) did, without getting lost in some musicology meltdown.

2. I think LaChiusa is the quintessential example of someone working in what earlier I called the "art" side of the musical theatre. Were there no such thing as commercial Broadway, he would fit like a glove in something akin to where contemporary opera composers find themselves. (John Adams does not fret about commercial success because it is not anywhere on the radar.) And LaChiusa has really only had one show that pretended to be commercial, and that was a huge miscalculation driven by an outsized institutional ego (and in which he was merely along for the ride).

3. I think you are basically on point in your final paragraph except that predicting that Broadway is going to get smaller has a great tradition, but the funny thing is that it is always proven wrong. I think we are in the process of regaining the momentum that has been largely lost for a couple of generations, and that the stigma has finally worn off so we are and will be getting the crème de la crème of songwriters interested in working on shows. I? optimistic.

Thank you for all of your trenchant thinking on this subject, and single-handedly keeping this subthread from coming off the rails.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 9:57pm

Hogan, here are some elaborations on my initial thoughts in response to your comments, made only for my own personal penchant for clarity, not because I think you misunderstood anything.

1. I was using "true pop" as an umbrella term for songs that play on the radio (or spotify station, or whatever) that is unrelated to theatre and geared towards music and artists that are commecially successful at around that time. For example, a Beetles song from 1964 was considered "pop" back then (and perhaps now), but the song "You'll Be Back" (Hamilton) is not a pop reference to 2014/2015, but a pastiche, much the way "Beautiful Girls" is used in Follies. The placement of the pastiche in the sense of Hamilton (and many references are made throughout the score) serves to separate the identities of the characters in the show through musical terms. Further, as I stated earlier in the thread, pop songs are not rooted in specifics of character or experience beyond the vague and generic because (ideally) the more people that relate to the lyric, the more buy the song. IE, although much of the score to "Dear Even Hansen" sounds like it could be on a pop radio station, the lyrics keep it from truly being a radio success. There are exceptions I'm sure, and of course lines are blurred in the case of "American Idiot" or "What's Inside": two albums of music composed for the theatre released through pop artists on mainstream labels. And once again, this is my own personal ideas on classifying the two genres and I'm sure you have your own thoughts on it.

2. While I agree with you regarding LaChiusa's interest in the theatre, my larger point was that a composer like Sondheim was offered commercial opportunities because of the environment of Broadway at his height then LaChiusa is now. Sondheim had the honor of having opulent productions of all of his major shows until 1994 (with the exceptions of Assassins and The Frogs - I'm discounting Saturday Night as a major work much as Sondheim himself does in Finishing the Hat). And with shows like "Follies", "Pacific Overtures", and "Sunday In the Park With George", it's hard to draw the line between interest in art and commerce. Sondheim states that "Do I Hear a Waltz?" was the last time he wrote just for commercial success, though there's no doubt he would have been thrilled if "Pacific Overtures" had turned out to be the record-breaking phenomenon that year instead of "A Chorus Line". I would state the same for LaChiusa, who has not had the advantages Sondheim was given. Aside from his two Broadway works, he has written only chamber musicals (with the exception of "Giant", which was conceived as a sprawling, "Show Boat"-like epic, though performed regionally and off-Broadway). And that must challenge him to write smaller pieces: look at the difference between "Marie Christine" and "First Daughter Suite" in terms of size and resources (I personally love both scores, but "Marie" has a full orchestra and a chorus, while "Daughter" has a small band and 9 characters playing multiple roles). Think of it this way: if Sondheim was born in the 70s and wrote "Pacific Overtures" in his 20s or 30s, then he would most likely have to open it off-Broadway with a small band and a small cast. And no doubt the product would be much different. It would be a completely different show because of the smaller resources given him. So I would argue that, generally, the gap between art and commerce has widened immensely since the 60s and 70s. Which brings me to:

3. My thought process here is simply that with how incredibly difficult it is for shows to make money on Broadway, eventually it will be reserved for the "Phantoms" and "Lion Kings" that are more blatantly about commerce than art (not to speak down about those shows, in fact, I've never seen "Lion King" while the so-called "art" shows will be housed off or off-off Broadway. And maybe a "Hamilton" will transfer from there and join those successes. Make of that as you will. I hope you're correct in your prediction, it would make me so happy.

One last thought, related to the upping costs of Broadway shows. Donna McKechnie said something about how an entire generation of theatre makers were lost due to AIDS, around the time technology started advancing in theatres and show's costs were ballooning. Perhaps the (seemingly) swift adjustment towards commerce and movie musicals was due in part to that lost generation. Michael Bennett continues to create new musicals until his death. In a decade where art and commerce seemed to be increasingly at odds with each other, perhaps that generation could have helped bridge the gap between the two. Of course, correlation has no relationship to causation, but I can't help but wonder.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 11:15pm

SDP (I love calling you that!)-

yes I understand. Here's a little more...

1. You seem to think that a pop songwriter stops being a pop songwriter when they start fretting about characters and the other things a musical theater songwriter has to deal with if they are doing a good job. I don't see it that way: from Elton to Lauper to Bareilles etc etc, they never stopped writing pop. And in 2017, I definitely am not radio-centric, because I don't think that's how we digest music nowadays. I think someone is as likely to listen to a song from DEH on Spotify as Alicia Keys so (as you know) everything about the music industry has been turned on its head. (I'm intentionally leaving Hamilton and Sondheim at my margin, because I think both are sui generis and also had charmed lives. )

2. Re LaChiusa, first, there were 3 Broadway shows and none of them stepped as far to the commercial side as a lot of the Sondheim shows. (He also did not enter the scene that way as Sondheim did.) I just don't buy the notion he is a commercial writer, period. (In contrast to, say, JRB, who I have faulted mightily for trying to fit his square "artsy" peg in a round "commercial" hole (and failed every time).) If you can give me someone other than Sondheim to contrast LaChiusa with, I'd be happier, because (to repeat myself) Sondheim's arc is unlike any other before or since. 

3. What I am seeing are viable "art" shows that are not being crowded out, and yes of course a pathetic number of film exploitation shows lacking in much art. And for the record, although I didn't love it, I'd distinguish Waitress from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in my analysis. So yes I am an optimist and I think as the pipeline of high quality songwriters gets bigger, we will see less and less cynical film exploitations. 

Your last point, I fully concur in. And I'd throw in another important name-Ashman-who somehow made Menken better than he has ever been since. Reverse engineer those terrible losses, and many others, and I think we would have seen a more robust evolution than we got. But as I say I also think that's changing.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 2:27pm

Hogan, I'll concede to much of your points and chalk them up to difference of opinion. A few additional comments:

1. I think my earlier post on author's intent can explain most of my reasoning here, but I also just think that the additional aspect of writing for specific characters brings new range to music written by pop songwriters. Compare the radio hit "Brave" with "She Used to Be Mine". She's writing to tell stories as opposed to be a popular success. You call both pop music, while I call one theatre music written in pop style, just as I consider "I've Got It All" theatre music written in operetta style.

2. Just as I don't count the Hal Prince production of "Candide" a Sondheim show, I don't consider "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" a LaChiusa show - I believe he only wrote 3 songs for the show and is credited only with additional material. I'd rather use "Marie Christine" and "The Wild Party" as examples of his Broadway work - one in which he wrote the entire thing, and the other as a collaborator with a big say in how the show progressed. I'll concede to what you point out, but I stand by my opinion that had LaChiusa been working in a Broadway environment similar to the 60s and 70s, he would have many more Broadway shows produced at this stage of his career.

3. I agree wholeheartedly.

The 80s and 90s were a terrible time for the LGBT community and the losses continue to affect us today. But I agree that things are changing (hopefully) for the better.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 8:07pm

@SDP, on #1, I don't think we have a difference of opinion so much as a difference of labeling. I'm happy to refer to it as "theatre music written in pop style" where the distinction is simply that the songs are written in the service of a play rather than abstractly or to be successful. (I think there are zillions of songs that are clearly not written for dramatic purposes that are also not written to be successful.) I obviously recognize that a lot of pop music is painting a picture rather than telling a story. (We could also segue into discussing program music but I don't think we need to.) Coming full circle, I think Barnes was talking about a style of song, rather than its intention. (No idea if I am making myself clear LOL.) 

Re #2, I think we do have a difference of opinion, not so much in the details as in analogy, and for me it gets back to two things I've said before: (1) I think LaChiusa is far more art and less commerce than Sondheim (who very often wanted both) and (2) I think Sondheim's arc is sui generis. (Can you identify another writer of the 60s and 70s that would frame your analogy? Maybe that would help convince me of something.)

In any event I appreciate the dialogue.