Best book writer for bio-musicals

[Theatrefanboy1]

Posted: 5/9/23 at 10:04am

Often times it seems the weak point in bio musicals is the book.  I wonder what people think is the best book for a bio-musical or best book writer.  

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 5/9/23 at 10:44am

Do GYPSY and SUNDAY IN THE PARK count as bio-musicals in this context???

jokes aside...

Rick Elice & Marshall Brickman's work on JERSEY BOYS is kind of the modern gold-standard (whether that should be or not).

Lynn Nottage's book for MJ is probably the weakest thing she's written, yet one of the stronger books for a bio-musical, especially considering the challenges she faced in writing it (breezing over the allegations, etc). She makes the conceit of the show work and justifies the narrow lens through with Michael is viewed on stage.

For both of the above shows, the directors (Des McAnuff and Christopher Wheeldon) probably deserve as much credit for structuring the show and making it all flow.

Updated On: 5/9/23 at 10:44 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 5/9/23 at 10:57am

I don’t know that any bio musical’s book thus far would enter even the top 20 of my list of best books of a musical. I think the best we’ve seen have been serviceable and know to largely stay out of the way of why people are there: the well-known and beloved music. I think Beautiful and Jersey Boys do that more or less successfully, but both pale when compared to shows like Fun Home, A Little Night Music, Gypsy, or Little Shop. 

Bio-musical books are tough. They’re dealing with a set of preexisting songs, so the music doesn’t evolve out of the book- the book exists to provide a framework for the songs. And the songs usually have little to nothing to do with the events of the artist’s life being depicted, so you get major emotional moments with vague or general lyrics or you get diegetic performance (ie- characters in concert or in a studio).

And of course, the artist’s estate or the artist themselves have a heavy say in how exactly they want their life presented- and often want something that is ultimately flattering and inspiring. 

Updated On: 5/9/23 at 10:57 AM

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 5/9/23 at 11:24am

Jersey Boys does seem to be a good standard for bioshows. As mentioned, something is to be said for the directors of the piece. While McAnuff did Summer, which I don't think was that great, Ain't Too Proud seemed to me to go back and use elements that were successful from Jersey Boys, to make it one of the better bio-shows of late, in my opinion. 

One thing I which biomusicals would stay away from is exposition as dialogue. I know Gilbert Gottfried used to mention this on his podcast. Lines like "Come on, Patti! You've won 3 Tony's, introducted Evita to American audiences, had a hit tv show, and had your pool paid by Andrew Llyod Webber after your falling out from Sunset Boulevard in London as Norma Desmond. Why give up your Equity card now?"

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 5/9/23 at 11:38am

Agree with the above posters about Jersey Boys.  I think what a lot of bio musicals are missing is a strong structure or framework to tell the story in, which makes it feel less like a Wikipedia list of facts.  The fact that Jersey Boys was about 4 different members of the band who often disagreed about events I think helped it, as we got to see what each perspective was like (and the seasons helped chart the general trajectory of the band too).  Meanwhile, I thought Ain't Too Proud just had too many characters and the constant revolving door of band members made it hard to keep track of who to care about.

Rick Elice who co-wrote the book for Jersey Boys later went on to write The Cher Show which I thought was a decent effort, but seemed a little messy.  Also, for me personally, whenever there's a jukebox about a female musician, one act inevitably seems to deal more with her marital/relationship struggles, and that act always ends up being far weaker to me, like act 1 in The Cher Show, act 2 in Beautiful, act 1 in Tina, etc.  I get that it's an important part of their lives, but what I'm interested is more of their artistry and how they got to where they are that they're big enough to warrant a musical about them.

I thought MJ was actually one of the better attempts (if you discount the omission of any Michael Jackson controversy).  It structured the show around a specific period of time and an interesting moment in his career, and the flashbacks seemed to make sense for creating a picture of who he was and how he got to be there.  We got to see his artistry in action with how he ran rehearsals, as well as his foibles with his demands and spur of the moment ideas.  The main part that didn't work for me was just the ending, where it seemed like it didn't know how to wrap up the show, but I thought the journey to get there was quite well done.

I didn't think A Beautiful Noise was that bad, just a little boring as a lot of people had mentioned.  There were no real stakes to anything, and I wish more of the therapy conversation had come in sooner since there was no real context for why he was in therapy or what he was trying to work on until the end (maybe others who are familiar with Neil Diamond would've known, but I did not).  I had really loved Bohemian Rhapsody (also felt like it had a stronger structure with its bookends), so I had a bit higher expectations for A Beautiful Noise, but I can't say it was terrible.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 5/9/23 at 11:38am

There has to be a suspension of disbelief in any bio-work. Aaron Sorkin's STEVE JOBS (a brilliant movie) has 3 acts for 3 different product launches, and every important person in Steve's life is showing up to talk to him for 5 minutes before those launches. But Sorkin & Danny Boyle make it work, even if that would never happen irl.

Most stage bio-musicals tend to be structured with either a Q-and-A device (a therapy session, an interview, etc) OR with direct-address talking to the audience "and then I did this, and then I did that." They are afraid to leave too much out and allow our brains to fill in the rest. TAR is obviously not a biography, but what it does so brilliantly is beyond the initial Adam Gopnik interview, which is all exposition, everything else is fragmented and we need to pick up info about her life from context clues and throwaway lines. But a musical can't be that subtle.

So many of the problems in a bio-work come from focusing on too much of the story. MJ takes the LINCOLN approach where it focuses on a couple of weeks (plus some creative flashbacks). MILLION DOLLAR QUARTET does that too.

LADY DAY is barely a play, but there's something to be said for a vehicle for a great performance & some songs.

Updated On: 5/9/23 at 11:38 AM

[LillianGregory]

Posted: 6/24/23 at 7:32pm

I like Lynn Nottage. She is an example for me. And in general, the genre of bio-musicals and biographies is fascinating. I know this well because I work for the site https://penfellow.com/biography-writing/ and write various biographies and memoirs for those without writing skills or who cannot structure ideas. I am glad that my biography writing helps beginners in this genre, where you can find incredible success stories that motivate you.

Updated On: 6/25/23 at 07:32 PM

[Mr. Wormwood]

Posted: 6/25/23 at 1:08am

One of my controversial musical theatre opinions is that Beautiful is superior to Jersey Boys - better book, better structure, better use of songs, better orchestrations.

But all the shows (including Beautiful) are clearly using Jersey Boys as a template. The most recent one I saw was Ain't Too Proud and boy did that feel like we just plopped The Temptations down into the biomusical template. All the story beats are the same in all of these so I feel like it mostly comes down to how much you like the artist being portrayed and how good the performances are.

[broadfan327]

Posted: 6/25/23 at 3:54am

Jersey Boys and Beautiful are the gold standard for me too.  MJ reminded me too much of a documentary I saw about one of his tours. 

[The Other One]

Posted: 6/25/23 at 8:16am

No argument with the books for Jersey Boys or Beautiful (though the latter was clearly simplified), but Dominique Morisseau's book for Ain't Too Proud is very strong. Tough, in that she had to tell the story of so many different members of The Temptations, but the songs used for story-telling purposes were far less awkward than they are in most jukebox musicals.

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 6/25/23 at 10:02am

"Bio-musical books are tough. They’re dealing with a set of preexisting songs, so the music doesn’t evolve out of the book- the book exists to provide a framework for the songs. And the songs usually have little to nothing to do with the events of the artist’s life being depicted, so you get major emotional moments with vague or general lyrics or you get diegetic performance (ie- characters in concert or in a studio)."

I thought "Jersey Boys" did a good job using the songs to depict their life by having different narrators during the show. The narrators told the audience about particular event and then there were "Four Season" song that related to that event. 

"And of course, the artist’s estate or the artist themselves have a heavy say in how exactly they want their life presented- and often want something that is ultimately flattering and inspiring. "

These shows usually follow the same formula. The artist overcomes the odds (being poor, drugs, bad relationships etc.) and rises above it to become a star. Most of the "bad" things in their life are public knowledge so the estate will agree to have it be part of the show, provides balance to the happy ending in most cases.

"I don’t know that any bio musical’s book thus far would enter even the top 20 of my list of best books of a musical. I think the best we’ve seen have been serviceable and know to largely stay out of the way of why people are there: the well-known and beloved music. I think Beautiful and Jersey Boys do that more or less successfully, but both pale when compared to shows like Fun Home, A Little Night Music, Gypsy, or Little Shop. "

I agree 100%. The music is what the audience is there for and as you said the book is there to stay out of the way and provide framework for the beloved music.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/25/23 at 4:31pm

I would go with Peter Stone.

Although neither "Titanic", nor "1776" are really bio-musicals (more like historical drama), "The Will Rogers Follies" would apply. That show didn't have to struggle with the burden of also being a jukebox musical.

I think a few of the shows in this thread fall more into the category of "jukebox" than "bio-", as the "bio-" element is usually just a catalyst for moving from one production number to the next. In those cases, I feel like the book could have been written by a staffer from Tiger Beat. 

[darquegk]

Posted: 6/25/23 at 4:45pm

The great success of Jersey Boys’ libretto is the element of pastiche: the relatively rote bio musical story… delivered in the style of a Martin Scorsese film. It works because the Four Seasons are not only minor gangland figures in Scorsese’s NJ/NY/Vegas era, they’re crossing paths with real world figures associated with Scorsese.

[djjd007]

Posted: 6/25/23 at 6:24pm

Rick Elice did a solid job on The Cher Show in Chicago - it actually had bite and the closing moments were quite solid. Sadly, it was gutted to resemble Mamma Mia when it arrived in NYC. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/25/23 at 7:18pm

Everyone seems to have treated "bio-musical " as referring only to jukebox bio-musicals. My first thought when I read the heading was Hamilton/Miranda.

On the narrower topic, I agree with what seems a consensus.