Company and music question

Saw Company yesterday at the matinee. I've always loved the score and have seen a college production of the show a few years back. I enjoyed this production, but I have to ask, was "Doyle-izing" the show really needed (re: actors playing instruments)? I mean, I saw how it worked for Sweeney, and though I wasn't 100% on board with it, I got it. With the exception of a few of the numbers where it was more obvious (What Would We Do Without You, Being Alive, and You Could Drive a Person Crazy come to mind), I didn't see the POINT to having the actors playing the instruments. Yeah, it worked for a couple of songs, but on the whole, it seemed like an unnecessary conceit that put a full orchestra out of work...

---

With "Sweeney Todd," it was an interesting way to tie certain characters together. With "Company," it gives a new meaning to the show's title. Bobby is watching all of his married friends make this beautiful music, and he can't join them (he tries to, but it doesn't work). His girlfriends play because they are all able to express themselves and what they feel; Bobby isn't able to do that. He's always trying to, but he never quite gets there. When he finally sits at the piano and expresses himself, it's a step forward, but it's still not what he wants. He's playing alone, and when the rest of the accompaniment comes in, Bobby has stopped playing to move downstage. He never does fit in with the rest of them.

So, yes, I think it works wonderfully with "Company." I loved the new "Sweeney Todd," but I actually have to agree with those who say it works even better here.

---

That is a good point, but it really was not necessary. There seemed like there were a LOT of times that it seemed like it was completely pointless.

I think it works even better for COMPANY than it did for SWEENEY TODD...

What was the instrumentation like?

Have to add, I only really 'discovered' 'Getting Married today' two days ago, and instantly loved it. I never realy got into Company, but the other day i listened to it and loved it. Just thought I'd add.

---

What was the instrumentation like?

I don't really feel qualified to answer as an instrumentalist, but the arrangements are obviously more sparse than in traditional productions, less brassy and with more of a modern feel. It's almost become more of a chamber musical with this production's instrumentation.

What about musical theatre IS necessary? "Why are they singing? Why are they dancing? No one does that in real life!"

And SEARCH. This same question has been posted about 300 times since Company opened in Ohio. If it doesn't add to and doesn't detract and you claim to be neutral on the subject, then why does it matter if they play instruments?

---

Updated On: 4/5/07 at 04:23 PM

My big problem with it was that everyone was onstage, and not playing a part (other than Bobby, Raul was fantastic with being in character and every single movement he did had a purpose).

Every second of Sweeney EVERYONE was like that. Why have them onstage if they aren't acting in character?

And no need to pull the SEARCH card on Jason, he does it most of the time. It's not like there are 1000 threads on the first (or even about first 10 pages). Chill out

orangeskittles - look, we've all been through the "it's been posted" before nonsense enough. I know it has been - but rather than spend a bunch of time seaching for a thread I don't know the title of, I started a new one. Big deal. You don't like it, don't look at the thread. And your comment about "what's necessary about musical theater" comes off as EXTREMELY ignorant. Musical theater is an accepted art form. The singing and dancing is as needed in musical theater as clay would be in sculpture or music in ballet. The music and dancing is a given - a director's job is to make a show work as a whole - so the "necessaries" are those things which serve that greater purpose of a complete work of theater.

Luvtheemcee - thank you for actually reading what I wrote and responding intelligently - something I don't feel happens on here often enough. I feel I try to put out there an intellectual question (note, I was NOT bashing the production anywhere - I LIKED it) and people rise to either defend or criticize without considering for a moment that the issue may not be so black and white as "is it good or is it not"? As I said before, the conceit worked for me in Sweeney because it was a new way to look at the show. I didn't entirely LIKE it, but it worked. In Company, while I enjoyed the show for what it was, the actors playing the instruments only semi-worked - let me rephrase that - when it was USED it worked, but through about half the numbers it was JUST the actors playing instruments on stage - they weren't in character, and they weren't adding anything to what was happening. I tried to find a thread connecting all the couples or the girlfriends in the instruments they played - like did each couple have something conecting them - and if it was there I didn't see it (most notably with Joanne - Barbara Walsh was great, but did she do much more than hit a triangle?). I didn't see anything in the play that even indicates the other couples KNOW each other outside of their friendship with Bobby, let alone any connection made with the instruments. Maybe that could have been another layer - make the couples a REAL orchestra - show them somehow connecting through the instruments as a commentary on Bobby - I know that's what many are saying is already being done, but I think more could have been done to carry that metaphor through the numbers where the instruments aren't SPECIFCICALLY being used to show something.

That being said - I LOVED the metaphor with the light in the front of the stage. I thought THAT was a stroke of brilliance.

---

Look, I love this show and I believe in it and I think it works, but I've been putting in the effort not to let that stop me from engaging with people who don't see eye-to-eye with me about it... and doing so without being defensive or aggressive, because I hadn't been able to do that earlier on, and I'm sorry for it. So you're welcome.

Caitie, Raúl was constantly "on," (I don't want to use "in character" because the actors on the cubes aren't quite not in character) because he was constantly in the playing space. He's in every scene. You can't truly call the periphery "off-stage," because it's visible, but he's never there. I think that having the actors on the cubes react to everything and be in character the way they are when they're involved in a scene would be distracting from what's going on in the center, but that's just me. I think the idea is more about their presence than what they're doing there, but I will admit that I never really thought about the non-action that way.

Jason, I don't know if you're looking for answers (or those from my perception, I guess) to the questions and confusions you posed, but if you are:

In Company, while I enjoyed the show for what it was, the actors playing the instruments only semi-worked - let me rephrase that - when it was USED it worked, but through about half the numbers it was JUST the actors playing instruments on stage - they weren't in character, and they weren't adding anything to what was happening.

I think the reason it worked for you in Sweeney is exactly the reason it didn't work for you here. In Sweeney, the symbolism was very moment to moment; there wasn't that feeling of them just playing instruments. Company looks at it differently, and asks the audience to do the same thing. If the entire metaphor is that these instruments stand for the commitment Bobby can't engage in, then people surrounding him playing the instruments is exactly what it's all about. I think the simplest way to look at it is that Company uses it in a much grander scale, as opposed to one of specificity, and in order to see it, you have to look at the bigger picture. Sweeney did it on a more detailed level, perhaps. I see what you're saying, about not every scene "saying" something instrument-wise. I think it just depends on which way you want the metahpor to behave.

I tried to find a thread connecting all the couples or the girlfriends in the instruments they played - like did each couple have something conecting them - and if it was there I didn't see it (most notably with Joanne - Barbara Walsh was great, but did she do much more than hit a triangle?).

Personally, I love the way she works with the triangle or the glass -- it's so ambivalent and detached. That's Joanne. There are a few threads: as for ALL of the couples, look at the full company scenes, like the title song and Side by Side. They're the orchestra, and Bobby is just there. On a smaller scale, the obvious one, I guess, is the three girls all on sax. But there are a lot of little moments, too. To be fair, I didn't pick up on them until about the third time I saw the show. My favorite is during Sorry Grateful -- say, when David is singing, Jenny walks around the diamond, and she's accompanying him, and it's done that way for each husband who sings.

For whatever it's worth.

---

Updated On: 4/5/07 at 05:10 PM

"...they weren't quite sure what happened once the killing frenzy started. They thought Johanna was killed, they thought Anthony was killed etc..."

Sorry to get off-topic, but how? Did they not catch on to the use of the bloody lab coats, red lights, and blood-bucket pouring? Never happened to Anthony or Johanna.

---