Is there a Way to Identify a "Broadway Sound"?

I was listening to the Broadway channel on Sirius XM radio last week. I noticed that, especially for upbeat music, there are frequently similarities among Broadway numbers from different eras, by different composers. For example, "I Can't Say No," "I Hate Men," "Master of the House," and "Miracle of Miracles" all sound as if they fit into the same genre.

I'm definitely no musicologist, so I might very well be way off on this hypothesis. Furthermore, I'm not sure my hypothesis applies to ballads, although I can see similarities in those, as well, e.g., "If Ever I Would Leave You," "The Music of the Night," and "You'll Never Walk Alone."

There are a typical blues sound, rap sound, rock sound, and jazz sound. Are there typical Broadway sounds as well? If so, what constitutes a Broadway sound?

Music experts, have at it!

Audrey Liebross

Updated On: 12/27/15 at 11:20 PM

I think the Broadway sound is definitely recognizable. Sure Broadway uses a bunch of different genres to tell the stories of their shows but you can definitely tell. It's that theatrical quality. That heightened emotion in the music, lyrics, etc.

Vocal wise: More vibrato is usually used. Also there's an emphasis on diction and dynamics as well. Sure there are other vocal styles that go with the other genres used but most performers try to put an emphasis on clarity and good singing technique to serve what they are singing. Also certain lines switching back and forth from singing and talking is common too. The goal is to act the song in the best way.

Music wise: there's more of an emphasis on orchestrations - those lush strings and soaring melodies. The music is never really louder than the singer. Plus there are strains of classical music as well as jazz and other genres, used to tell the story. The music serves to tell the story and syncs with the singing and the choreography. It's really unique.

Those are just my 2 cents lol

I think "Broadway" contains all styles of music, from rock to pop to classical depending on the type of show.

I think the main difference is in the singing style.

Singing always need to feel truthful to me. Which is a right balance between natural singing and acting.

Like Sephyr said, the goal is to act and sing the song in the best possible way. If it sounds like a trick/technique/vibrato, it takes away from that. Also when it's not sung well enough and too much spoken, the singing sounds silly and it also takes away from that.

Good, truthful singing therefore always results in truthful acting. I think a young Whitney Houston was a fantastic actress through song.

That is what went so horribly wrong with Hugh Jackman in the Les mis film. He speaks one word, and the next word he uses a forced vibrato of 20 seconds, which feels like a "Broadway parody". Nothing truthful.

While many theatre performers who have played the role sound much more filmic/real/truthful, as they keep other notes longer and those notes short. They are just better natural singers so the performance feels more real.

Also, sometimes 1 performer (Lea Salonga for example) can do it right at one time (most of the time, Miss Saigon London, Les mis 10th anniversary) but goes overboard another time (Miss Saigon Manila), where it also tends to sound like a Broadway trick/parody.

Which is what people (unfounded) might see as "Broadway sound".

This video shows what I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcS1uIarnME

Updated On: 12/29/15 at 07:18 AM

More often than not, hearts are worn on the sleeve. Characters in musical theater sing feelings not expressed in dialog (Judy Kuhn has said it's the entire focus of "Fun Home's" score). That surely changes intention, focus, and a level of earnestness. Even cynical songs, "Ladies Who Lunch" or angry songs "Epiphany" or funny-earnest songs "I Believe" (BOM) are about that burst of revealed feeling. Not a hard fast rule, but I'd argue that that an immediate need to get something off the chest defines musical theater "sounds" and thus B'way.

Updated On: 12/29/15 at 11:33 AM

Auggie27 said: "More often than not, hearts are worn on the sleeve. Characters in musical theater sing feelings not expressed in dialog (Judy Kuhn has said it's the entire focus of "Fun Home's" score). That surely changes intention, focus, and a level of earnestness. Even cynical songs, "Ladies Who Lunch" or angry songs "Epiphany" or funny-earnest songs "I Believe" (BOM) are about that burst of revealed feeling. Not a hard fast rule, but I'd argue that that an immediate need to get something off the chest defines musical theater "sounds" and thus B'way.

"

This is an interesting discussion. What you say about the hearts worn on the sleeve and sung dialogue is true. Therefore I think this material (on both stage and screen) should per definition not be too literal. Not trying to take it into realism/speak singing etc. But embrace the unrealistic artform and go all the way. Only then the notes have meaning.

To me it's that (generally) there's a lot more exposition, story telling and narrative in the Broadway "sound". Lyrics really do matter in a way they don't in other genres. The music sets up the lyrics, which is why so many shows have a seamless segue/transition between the spoken word and the first verses of a song. It's almost a continuation , as in say Company's " Being Alive" when Robert first starts singing. Why is why hearing a stand alone BW song can sometimes seem jarring if you don't know the context.

Updated On: 12/29/15 at 01:25 PM