ALLEGRO at Classic Stage Company — Page 2

"I have never seen a production, outside of Mr. Doyle's, where the actors are also the orchestra. Where the actors play the score. Can someone give me other examples?"

Pump Boys and Dinettes
Oil City Symphony
Cowgirls
Song of Singapore
Smoke On The Mountain

So many more. And I've seen productions across the country of various shows in which the actors were the orchestra/band (where the show wasn't originally written to be performed as such), including The Threepenny Opera, Silbersee, and many lesser known straight plays like Ghetto, which were dressed up with music from the cast.

There's absolutely nothing new, different, ground-breaking, or unusually revelatory about this approach, and Doyle didn't invent it or transform it.

I'd just love to know it came about. Was it Doyle's idea? CSC's? It's already a rather bizarre story and whatnot, so it seems to overcomplicate it.

One of the major upsides of such a technique, and indeed the reason why Sweeney was staged this was, is that it drastically reduces costs, allowing shows that would otherwise be too costly to produce to get done.

---

Well, you should have been more specific with your question, then.

But you've been provided with other examples as well (i.e. Threepenny Opera, Ghetto, etc.).

I've also seen productions of Tintypes and I'd Rather Be Right, among others, during which actors took up musical instruments to join the band at times.

There was also Sam Mendes' rather well-known revival of a musical called Cabaret (you may have heard of it), in which the band was primarily made up of cast members.

I meant to mention the Mendes Cabaret in my previous post. But again, it doesn't seem to qualify with what's (actually) being asked here, since it's integrated into the storytelling differently. I think the issue is how realistic it is in a show where the characters are musicians as opposed to something that's imposed on the piece and woven into the way the story is being told: music therapy in Sweeney, if that's what you saw, and the big "join the band" metaphor that ran through Company. So, yes, he does it differently than most other people have. I'd argue that it's more of a global "concept" for him than a bell-and-whistle.

---

Updated On: 11/7/14 at 02:16 PM

Ah, okay. Now we are getting to the meat of things.

---

LuvtheEmcee...I greatly appreciate the thought you have put behind what you say. And you back it up with some thoughful ideas. Company has a GREAT book. Ive never heard any complaints about it.

It still is a gimmick. And if he had done it once, I would have respected his artistic idea. He felt it might have been right for THAT particular show. I still would not have liked it, but I would have respected it as a choice. The fact that he keeps doing it is just absurd. It too random. This is just an example: It's like placing a show like Sweeney Todd in the 1930's pre Hitler Germany. You think that is a great choice and you can back it up. But then you do Oliver and your put it in the 1930's Pre Hitler Germany and then you do show after show using the same interpretation. I hope that makes sense.

Thank you. I should hope so. I spent a long time studying John's work and I know that production inside out. Company is really solid in many ways, but it's also problematic in others. I see where the complaints about it come from. I don't share them, but I understand.

I'm sensing that you don't know the background of the actor-musicians on the commercial American stage, so, briefly: John first directed Sweeney at the Watermill, a small theatre in the UK. They didn't have the budget for a live orchestra, leaving the options: canned music or get inventive. That's how the actors ended up playing instruments. Sweeney transferred to the West End, and we eventually got our Broadway production. Company was commissioned by the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park shortly thereafter. There were New York producers on my flight out to see it.

I flat-out disagree that it's "random" but that's a viewpoint that comes down to whether you see the ways in which it's been woven into the story. And it's absolutely not the same as setting Sweeney Todd in pre-Holocaust Germany, IMO, which, I agree with you, would be random. There's justification in each story for what he did. I can't think of any way you would locate justification in the story for staging Sweeney in 30s Berlin. He's never, to my knowledge, outright said what the metaphor is in Sweeney, but I and many others think that it's Toby, later in life, in an asylum, and he's re-living the story through some kind of music therapy with other patients. It carries a lot of similarities to a very famous production of Marat/Sade that you can probably find on YouTube, although I believe John has said this wasn't intentional. So, your "random and stupid" is my "look at this new way of telling the story."

I also think your specific example of how a concept can be repeated isn't super solid because you're comparing the use of instruments, which has proven itself highly malleable, to a very specific place and period setting, which isn't. The Main Idea of it? Sure, that was the same. But the way it actually worked in the story? Not the same at all. Your example, translated, would be "ok, he did the music therapy thing for Company." And that was not there at all. Like I said before, it's much, much more nuanced than shoving instruments into actors' hands and having it be meaningless. But again, I find that if the focal point for your feelings on his work is, "BUT THE INSTRUMENTS!!!" that takes over everything else. I can explain it for another eight years (and I probably will), but I cannot force anyone to see.

For the record, calling what others love "stupid" is not really respecting their opinions.

Also, my goodness, it's 2014 and we are still doing this. I sleepily sigh at my computer screen.

---

Updated On: 11/7/14 at 02:59 PM

Well, yeah, the financial constraints created the need for some kind of solution. Granted, that solution could have literally been exactly what you perceive it to have been: actors standing around with instruments for no reason. Instead, he found a way to turn it into something with meaning, although you think he didn't. And we'll never know if, maybe, someone would have tried it anyway without the financial impetus. It isn't that crazy of an idea.

I'm not personally insulted. i just didn't find the word choice as respectful as you seem to think you're being. The purists are always the ones who think we should get a thicker skin. *shrug* My skin is plenty thick after nine years of hearing every permutation. Everybody's gotta love something, Louis.

---

Aww, thank you.

---

I think it's a cool concept because it was grown out of necessity. However, it was weird to see Company considering it was always planned to really go to Broadway. So it had a Broadway budget. It wasn't born out of a necessity.

Responding to a much earlier post: for both SWEENEY and COMPANY, the actors were required to become members of the musicians union in addition to Equity, so there was a union budget for the "orchestra" in those productions, too. It was a smaller expense for each of those shows than a full orchestra but, surprisingly, not that much smaller. (Anticipating your next question, I was an investor in both shows so I know about the "nut" for each.)