Can someone explain why Michael John LaChuisa is Important?

He's an extraordianry composer * goes to listen to Cofee*

Updated On: 8/7/06 at 08:38 PM

Ah... not exactly the scholarly answer I was hoping for, but thanks.

---

Updated On: 8/7/06 at 08:43 PM

Ok, I'll take a crack at answering your question but please note that I have yet to see one of his works onstage But I think my Ipod is constantly playing something Michael John LaChiusa. I was introduced to Michael John's work through Marie Christine and I instantly was hooked because of it's dramatic tension and anger and the very strong emotion that is put forth on the CD. I wouldn't say that I was instantly hooked to the entire peice and I had yet to discover Sondheim (I was 11 going on 12 and just sort of figuring shows with composers) But the songs of the second half particularly grabbed a hold of me and just really got me to see musical theater in a whole new light. I was just was mezmorized at how massive and operatic it seemed. As I grew older I got The Wild Party and respectivley fell for that as well. I had not heard the Lippa version yet and was just so intrigued by the story and music. I think he unlike any other composer can really just scare the hell out of you with his music (Tell Me and I Will Give from Marie Christine, Finale from The Wild Party, No More from See What I Wanna See are good examples) They just really gripped me with their anger and passion. I later on discovered First Lady Suite and Hello Again and got to see that he had a really playful and comic side. Then there was this past season where I really was reminded why I love this man's work so much.


I find it sort of tricky to put into words what it is about his work that I find so moving and beautiful. But that's exactly what it is to me about his peices...they're beautiful. They really strike me as wonderfully crafted works of art and are so intricate and complex in design. I love that every time I listen to his scores I hear something new or have a difference in opinion of something that I had already heard. I don't always have an instant taking to his music but what I love so much about his work is that there is something in the songs that keeps me coming back, even if I didn't like the first listen...there was something in that song. Something I couldn't put my finger on and then I listen more and more and then I'll get it or it'll reach out and speak to me and it's incredible when that happens. I know taht that seems crazy but it's really fascinating to me. I listen to Marie Christine and Wild Party now and find that I'm really drawn to the songs that I had skipped when I was younger. (Paradise is Burning Down, After Midnight Dies) I think what is so incredible about his scores is how different each one is and yet at the same time he'll put in something that will strike a memory of another show. I love that he does not spoonfeed anything to the audience and demands your attention. It has a power and voice of it's own and it's not something that you can just play in the background and drone out. I think to understand his material you have to really sit and listen and I love that! I hate getting a cast recording listening to it once and realizing that there isn't any more to be discovered or explored and that it's all handed out to you and you don't have to do any thinking. I love how so much of the orchestrations really REALLY express desires of the characters (Bernarda Alba has MANY examples of this) I love how he doesn't pound things into your head and that his shows are full of many ideas and sometimes they go unanswered.I think that all of his shows have a very clear "voice" if that makes sense?


And on the lighter side too I love how fun his songs can be and despite what many say I think that many parts of his songs are catchy (Angustias anyone?) I think he really tells compelling stories. I also love how he gets the most talented people to work for him and he really brings out the best in them. I think Audra McDoanld just soars on Marie Christine and Toni in Wild Party just shocked me that she had that in her. I also would have never guessed that Idina could pull off such an incredible performance as she did in SWIWS. I love her songs in that show and I think she just shines. I love Michael Johns lyrics and I think that they are very poetic and yet there is a very intense honesty in them. I think in general his music is just so honest and that it's very true to the characters even to the point where it may alienate you as an audience member.
I love the orchestrations in all of his shows. I think that he has had some of the best people work with him and help him really make his shows beautiful. The orchestrations in SWIWS are just amazing as are Marie Christines. Wild Partys just perfectly capture the era of the 1920's and Bernada Alba's are just awe inspiring to listen to and really transport you to Spain. I don't think I've heard a musical as transporting as some of his. That they can just sweep you way, corny as that may sound. Just his diversity in music just really makes my jaw drop. I think that his music is SO important to the theater because we need provocative new writers who keep us thinking. I want to be challenged as an audience member. I think that he has such a strong voice and that he keeps getting better with each show at focusing that voice. I think we need more voices like his because we can't just have fluffy shows if we want the art form to evolve. Don't ge me wrong I love light shows too but I also love going the theater and trying to work out a puzzle and have my eyes opened. I think you need both and we need more like Michael John to give us both.


Ok, so I don't know if that entirely answered your question and I apologize if any of it was confusing...I know I can be kind of scattered with my thoughts. I would love for you to expand on your thoughts of Michael John and his peices because lord knows I could talk about his music for days.

---

Updated On: 8/7/06 at 09:44 PM

I agree with completely with gust. It seems to me, when I listen to a LaChiusa piece, that every other line in a song has a message or idea that I have time to digest for about two seconds before I'm distracted with another point that he brings up.

For instance, here's a few lines from "People Like Us" from Wild Party:

People like us, we slip by through the cracks,
We'll never be famous so who's gonna care?
Nobody needs us and everyone's had his way
Here, but not here,
We'll be there but not there and
Where, where do we belong?
We only have ourselves
Where, where do we belong?

In about 8 lines, he's revealed at least six different perspectives about the characters. He's not repeating the same thought over and over. He's building on each thought and each emotion.

I also find, in pieces like First Lady Suite and Hello, Again, that he builds his music around the way people think. Just like Joyce did in his novel, Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, LaChiusa's music builds and develops in a way that may seem random and unorganized, but in reality it reflects the way most people feel on a daily basis. We're content one minute, and frustrated the next. A minute later we've thought about something else and are giddy and excited... His music grows and changes in tone, volume and tempo in a way that reflects the same frame of mind.

You could also look at it in terms of- ahem- the difference between the male and female sexual experience. (This is how it was explained to me and I thought I would share lol) "Normal" songs on the radio have a structure that goes something like "Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Key change, Climax, quick Conclusion"- like most male sexual experiences hehe.

Whereas LaChiusa's music reflects the female sexual experience, which grows and changes unexpectedly. It's unpredictable and has ups and downs several times along the way. It may even have more than one climax. =)

Anyways, those are my thoughts. Rather unusual way of looking at it, but its a good way to remember. lol

---

I think the "making it up as he goes along" is just your ear not being able to wrap around his stuff. Adam Geuttel is the same way. HOwever, both he AND Geuttel's music is VERY mythodical. If you look at those scores you can see EXACTLY where it's going. It does take some odd turns and it's surprising (which I think makes music interesting) but very specific.

Wow Buddy Kiss what a really cool/interesting thought on the sexual experience format thing. That's really cool and see it's things like that, that are just brilliant about the man.


BSoBW2- I don't know how comfortable you are sharing you're writing but holy crap would I love to read your essays on his work!! Your insights on his shows have helped me see things in his work that I don't know I would have seen at all!



Chrysanthemum- I agree with your statement 100% I love how he refuses to lower standards and his music represents that! I love MJL! I could listen to him for days and still be just as entranced!

---

Oh it makes a lot of sense! I also have noticed how sexually charged his shows are...it's great! :) That quote is hilarious too. I love how much his shows make you think and question. And yeah the second act of SWIWS's music is amazing!

---

wow that was really interesting! thanks for sharing

can you imagine what it would be like to be in his class?? I don't write but I would love to hear him lecture! Ahh just the thought!

---

gustof - thanks!

The works aren't the best because I waited until the deadline to write them, but I would be more than happy to send them to you. :)

I really like his scores. They're the type that you can really just sit down and listen to. I can't wait to get my Bernarda album. How is First Lady Suite? I wish they had recorded the version with Julia Murney. Murny and LaChiusa - there's an eargasm.

Wow! What atn incredible thread.

I'm afraid I'm redundant, because you've all proven why MJC is briliant and important.

Nevertheless, let me offer this up:

"I don't remember my husband's face,
I don't remember my lover's face,
But I do remember a stranger's face,
His name is Tom."

Now, explain to me why that is the most brilliant musical theatre lyric ever written, and then we can talk.

Go for it.

I love the MJC talk. Here's my anysis of First Lady Suite:

LaChiusa’s masterstroke was in conception: Jackie Kennedy’s story, but not told from the icon’s viewpoint. For decades, the classic “where were you” question always involved the Kennedy assassination. Here, LaChiusa submits the ultimate “where were you” answer: Mary Galagher, Mrs. Kennedy’s secretary, was actually in attendance. Not in the car, during the shooting, but rather, on the plane to Dallas.

While the other first ladies of the First Lady Suite are illuminated, Mrs. Kennedy is conspicuously absent. The Kennedy story is presented from the viewpoint of an outsider (which the majority of the country was), yet an insider (which everyone dreamed of being). For millions of Americans, the Kennedy assassination was a touchstone. For Mary Galagher, it was a bit more than that.

When we meet Mary Galagher, she is introduced with a quick, insistent, and rather flighty musical motif. Before the character even utters a word, we know a lot a bout her. She’s nervous, and unfocused. As she speaks her first words, we learn a lot more:

How nice!
This is nice.
Tea on Air Force One…
Can you imagine?
Of course you can.

In a brief, introductory passage, we’ve learned an exceptional amount about this character. There’s exposition: She’s on Air Force One. But more important than the exposition, there’s illumination. Mary is struck with celebrity. She is a secretary who hit the big time. She’s also a bit bitter about it, as we learn from her next line:

The president takes you everywhere,
I don’t go anywhere, with her.

While it’s an obvious lie (she’s on a plane headed for Dallas), it speaks volumes. We infer that she is jealous, and wishes more than anything that instead of working for the first lady, she was the first lady.

Suddenly, LaChiusa drops the bombshell:

She won’t even let me ride in the motorcade. I have to go on ahead and unpack.

While the majority of First Lady Suite is through-sung, that line is spoken. LaChiusa intentionally singles that one line out, and in doing so, hits the triple crown. It’s expositional. The choice of the word “motorcade” immediately clues the audience in on exactly where we are and what is about to happen. It’s character illuminating. Mary is upset about missing what she perceives to be a moment in the limelight. And it’s funny. As an audience, we laugh, in recognition, as well as in horror.

Then the chorus kicks in:

Four more years
Picking out her hats
Picking up her gloves

Another example of a master lyricist at work. “Picking out her hats”? LaChiusa is insinuating that the iconic Jackie O pillbox hat was not even her own idea. “Picking up her gloves?” Apparently, she’s helpless as well. It gets worse:

Making sure her daquiris are made,
“Not to sweet”
Making sure her creditors are paid
“Don’t tell Jack”

LaChiusa has smashed our illusions. While it’s clear that these are the ramblings of a jealous secretary, he insinuates by association that Jackie was a drunk, a liar, and not even responsible for her trademark hats.

The song is purposefully written in three-quarter time. Waltz time is repetitive, and LaChiusa uses the lyric “Four more years” repetitively. It’s also intentionally ironic. We know that there aren’t “four more years,” and Kennedy is about to meet his doom.

Updated On: 8/8/06 at 02:49 AM