Company and music question

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:24pm

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...

[JustABroadwaybaby2]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:30pm

I liked the whole metaphor of Bobby not playing an instrument, therefore not going along with this commitment,and then finally joining in with the piano, i guess it's not "needed" occasionally, but it does look good with the sets, etc.

Updated On: 4/5/07 at 03:30 PM

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:41pm

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.

[ken8631]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:41pm

I thought it worked very well. Seeing it for the third time Friday (tomorrow). It's the only play wife wants to see multiple times now (might have something to do with Raul also - lol)....

Saw Sweeney, liked it better than the original.

Ken

[caitiesus1522]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:41pm

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.

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:48pm

It's never necessary for the actors to also play the instruments. It's just a different way of directing a piece.

Does "Phantom" need a chandelier to swing over the audience and crash to the stage? No. The Hungarian production used a cool projection effect and the audience still loved it.

Besides, you'd hate it even more if the actors only played some songs and a pit played the others. THEN it would be pointless.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:49pm

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

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:50pm

I don't really understand how you can agree that the conceit that Bobby is the only on who never in earnest tries to play an instrument until Being Alive adds to the show, yet consider it pointless otherwise. That is the point. I think that symbolism carries throughout the entire show, and even in the numbers where the reasons the cast are playing instruments aren't as immediately obvious, the overall concept works well enough to justify it. Necessary? Not at all, but in the eyes of a lot of people, supplementary. It's just one way of interpreting the show, though obviously people have very different preferences.

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 3:54pm

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.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 4:05pm

Well, how many interpretive things are really necessary? The fact that theater is something you can interpret in many different ways kind of leads to the idea that many are not. No, you don't need the instruments to tell the story, but let me ask you, jason -- you thought it work in Sweeney Todd, but not here, which is fine, but would you saw that just because you saw the point there, you thought it was "necessary" to telling that story? I'm not going to argue with about the existence of a conceit you didn't see, because people have already explained the "point," but at least think about the weight of the word; asking what the concept does, or evaluating whether it works or not is one thing, but if it's "necessary" doesn't make any sense.

Updated On: 4/5/07 at 04:05 PM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 4:15pm

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.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 4:17pm

Ok, maybe not necessary - but I don't think it ADDED anything either. From the production I saw, and from what I've always known of the show, the idea of Bobby not fitting into the other couples was always there - it's not like it's something that was added for this production. I'm not really AGAINST this idea - I just didn't see it as working throughout the entire production. There were songs where the actors were playing the instruments no different from if they were in a pit -- they weren't in character (as they were with Sweeney - the key difference in why I felt it worked there better)so added nothing to the telling of the story then. As I don't think it really DISTRACTED from the play itself, I'm almost more of in a neutral position about it as it didn't seem to add or detract much from the original source material. I'm just wondering if there was a way to make more use of the actors playing the instruments, of it WAS just "here's another way of showing what's already in the script...."

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 4:23pm

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

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 4:24pm

From the production I saw, and from what I've always known of the show, the idea of Bobby not fitting into the other couples was always there - it's not like it's something that was added for this production.

Hmm. I don't really think the production's intention is to purport that it added the idea... since that's one of the core hinges of the piece. This is just another way of demonstrating it. But, fair enough.

I'm just wondering if there was a way to make more use of the actors playing the instruments, of it WAS just "here's another way of showing what's already in the script...."

That's actually kind of interesting. Do you mean killing the metaphor altogether and doing it similarly to the way it was done in Sweeney? You said you didn't feel they were in character while they were sitting along the side -- would you prefer to see them like, do more from there? I have to wonder if that would be distracting, though, especially given that a lot of people think the instrument thing is a distraction to begin with. I mean, I guess you're looking to figure if there was a way to do it that would make you feel more like it adds something... all contingent upon whether you think it adds anything in the first place.

[caitiesus1522]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 4:37pm

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]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 4:44pm

My point wasn't so much that he search, but that this was hardly a new and unique insight about Company that no one has proposed before. It's the equivalent of starting a thread to ask: "What is Mark doing under the sheet in Contact?"

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 4:44pm

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.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 5:00pm

And your comment about "what's necessary about musical theater" comes off as EXTREMELY ignorant.
So does an English teacher not comprehending sarcasm...

Musical theater is an accepted art form.
Playing a musical instrument is an accepted art form as well. Why is adding that for a metaphorical purpose any different than adding a ballet to Oklahoma, or the act of painting to Sunday in the Park with George?

Updated On: 4/5/07 at 05:00 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 5:10pm

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

[Danielm]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 7:30pm

I also think it works better in Company than it did in Sweeney for the simple fact that in Sweeney the narrative got lost--especially in the second act. I heard from many people who didn't know the show (I've seen so many different productions I can't count them) that they weren't quite sure what happened once the killing frenzy started. They thought Johanna was killed, they thought Anthony was killed etc... I think the metaphor works better here--but I also think it works better because it's a concept musical rather than a narrative. I think the idea of "neccessity" is weird--I mean, was it "neccessary" in Sweeney? Was it "neccessary" for there to be a deaf version of Big River? Is it ever really "neccessary" to revive a show?

I really loved both Sweeney and Company--that said, I hope they are not always done this way. I missed the chorus in Sweeney and the orchestra in both shows.

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 12:32am

"...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.

[jayfpinker]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 10:17am

Personally, I love the way she works with the triangle or the glass -- it's so ambivalent and detached. That's Joanne.

Just an aside here: on Wed night, 4/4, during "The Little Things You Do Together," Joanna struck her highball glass and it cracked! She stayed in character and raised an eyebrow and kept singing. Raul/Bobby stayed in character as well, but let out a little snicker... Very funny!