Posted: 5/24/19 at 11:01am
I've been thinking lately about what made the Golden Age musicals sound the way they did, both vocally, compositionally and orchestrationally. Part of it is the unapologetic lushness of the orchestrations, so often twenty-something pieces with strings, horns and a banjo doubling a non-distorted electric jazz guitar. Another part has to be the voices: hoarse, coarse and full, with limited training, too many cigarettes and too much hard liquor, and mouths shaping vowels the way their parents, who often spoke English with an accent, taught them to.
Yet another part is the current vitality of the now-outdated dance rhythms that make up so many numbers: when someone in 1957 or 1963 wrote a song with a polka beat or a foxtrot feel, it's not the same as today, when people doing that are reaching backwards, committing pastiche whether they want to or not. Back in those days, it may not have been the majority, but people still danced- and even LISTENED to- these things.
Admittedly, I'm not nearly as much of an expert or devotee- or even fan- of the Golden Age musicals as much as some people here; I'm a late-twenties writer and sometimes composer, while to some here, based on age or even sexual orientation, these shows and sounds may have a cultural, almost religious, significance. So I turn to the experts and ask: to you, what makes the Golden Age sound so golden?