James Goldman's book to Follies — Page 4

maybe this is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music Note that there is a link to pop rock aka pop/rock.

Wikipedia? Yes, I knew that you couldn't.

I have no interest in attempting to definitively define large overarching questions such as "what is theatre music?" as my opinions and thoughts are bound to be different from other's interpretation of the question. That said, consider the following as simply a record of my own person thoughts on the subject on the off-chance it interests someone.

Theatre music exists on a similar plane in public conscious as opera and operetta. It is more commonly accepted that the main difference between opera and music theatre is the importance of the music vs the importance of the lyrics. In opera, where the work is often presented in languages the audience s not familiar with and (for the past century, at least) regularly produced with subtitles, the music takes precedent. Composers regularly experiment with themes, motifs, and tonic scales to create a unified and cohesive work musically as well as plot-wise. The lyrics come in second place, as shown by the major liberties taken with the pronunciations of words and the amount of different notes a single syllable is sung on (even when operas are performed in English, I feel the need to follow along with subtitles to understand what is being sung). In other words, the audience is supposed to allow the music to tell the story in greater detail than the lyrics (I'm speaking generally, of course). In music theatre, at least for the majority of the first half of the twentieth century and before (with Gershwin being the one of the major exceptions), the scores were generally a collection of unrelated numbers that were held together cohesively by orchestrations, which made them sound like they were cut from the same cloth. Since before Rogers and Hammerstein became popular there was no need to write for any specific characters, one of the major things both the audiences and songwriters looked forward to in musicals was how witty lyricists could be. Cole Porter, Lorenz Hart, Ira Gershwin, and Noel Coward all attempted to out-wit each other through lyrics, with varied results depending on your personal opinions of them. However, as been discussed at length in threads on the uses of perfect rhymes, lyrics are incredibly important for audiences to hear correctly on first listen in music theatre, so audiences understand if any important plot information has been disclosed or comedic or witty lyrics "hit" them at the right time and they either laugh or smile appreciatively. I'm not going to discuss operetta as my own knowledge with them is very limited since I consider "On the Twentieth Century" a musical comedy written in the style of operetta and Candide (which is labeled a "comic operetta" seems to me a musical comedy using the style of opera comique.

While many composers of musicals started to play with themes and motifs in scores to make the shows more cohesive musically, they always kept the lyrics at least equally as important of the music. With a writer such as Sondheim, the shows expect the audiences to follow every word of the score to follow along with the plot and motivations (and colorings) of the characters. Sondheim states in his books that when Sweeney Todd was produced on Broadway, it was a musical, and when it was at the Met, it was an opera. That strikes me as disingenuous, because if I produced Oklahoma! at the Met with trained opera singers, it doesn't make the work an opera. It was written as a "musical play" and one need only compare "People Will Say We're In Love" with "Bimba dagli occhi" / "Vogliatemi bene" (from Madame Butterfly) to see the lyrical and musical differences between the two genres (sorry to anyone upset by the word). Even the fabled "Soliloquy" from Carousel does not really compare to Brunnhilde's Immolation.

I remember shortly after Marie Christine opened on Broadway, an op-ed ran in The New York Times that blamed the show's failure on LaChiusa's refusal to call the piece an opera, going on to state that the amount of music, the dark nature of the show, and the motifs used took it away from musical theatre. That article seems to me beyond insipid and annoying, as if dark themes make a show an opera. The show was, and is, a musical and not because it opened on Broadway. The lyrics expect to be heard and understood by the audience. This may seem a simple and arbitrary thing to separate musicals from opera, but to me it makes a world of difference. Compare Marie Christine to Previn's A Streetcar Named Desire to make the difference even clearer.

In the world of concept albums, such as Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita, they may seem to be drawn from the popular sentiments of the day, but they are, above all, about story telling. Regardless how well you think they define characters, it is clear they are about people in specific situations. Sure, Julie Covington sang with a rock tone as opposed to Paige or LuPone, but the score was always meant to be a stage show, not merely a collection popular singles (I have no doubt the authors wanted songs popular in public context, but I don't believe that was the primary reason for the album's creation).

I won't get into the discussion of "Alabama Song", since the number involved is a pastiche song in an opera score (notice my use of the word "song" and "score". But any arranger could do anything with existing music (let's leave questions of legality behind). I could take "What's the Use of Wond'rin'?", shove an electro beat behind it, speed it up, and add a bunch of back up "oohs" and "aahs". That doesn't make Rodger and Hammerstein's song an electro number. Disney added words to "Sleeping Beauty" and edited the score. That doesn't mean what Tchaikovsky wrote is no longer a ballet. The intention of the writer matters, at least to me. If you're arbitrarily arguing that music can't be defined because the same order of notes can be reinterpreted in a number of different ways, then you're unlikely to find this post of much interest. However, since a composer like Wagner wanted to control everything about his music - from the orchestrations to the scenery - it seems to me intent counts for something.

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 03:20 PM

@newintown. I am more than happy to engage in a definitional discussion, as, it seems, is SDP. That link provides a reasonable jumping off point. But you obviously don't want to engage; you want to make yourself feel sophisticated and knowledgeable (in contradistinction, I gather, to hip) without any intellect. No thanks. Not going on that ride with you. Feel free to gaze at your navel.

I think a discussion about music with someone who responds to a query about definitions with a wikipedia link (to an article that's factually quite questionable) would have very little to offer. I would, however, happily converse with Sally, who clearly has not only a wider knowledge of music than you, but also a much more pleasant method of expression.

I add that I am skeptical of the musical analytical abilities of anyone who thinks that they can define what is and is not valid "contemporary pop" or "contemporary rock," particularly in this very diverse age of popular entertainment. To lump the work of artists like Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran, Kendrick Lamar, DJ Khaled, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Drake, Taylor Swift, Eminem (to take from a current Billboard Top 100 list) under one umbrella definition is only ridiculous. And then to add under this umbrella "classic rock" artists of various genres like Metallica, Billy Joel, Madonna, Missy Elliott, ABBA, etc. - well, to whom does that make sense?

Even if there were any validity in claims that one can differentiate a "rock" score from a "pop/rock score" from a "Broadway" score, or say something like American Idiot has a rock score, but Hairspray does not - look at this info:

ibdb.com identifies 29 Broadway musicals that have run more than 2,000 performances. Of that 29, four are jukebox/catalog shows (Jersey Boys, Rock of Ages, Mamma Mia, Smokey Joe's Café), two have pastiche period "pop/rock" scores (Grease, Hairspray), leaving only one other that some might consider "rock" or "pop/rock" (Rent). Of course, there are many who feel that Rent's musical language is as "rock" as The Banana Splits, but let it pass for now.

Of the 29 longest running Broadway musicals, then, 22 (or a good 76%) have what most would call a "Broadway" score.

That is, 28 of 29 (97%) of the most successful Broadway musicals do not have an original score that would be defined as "contemporary pop" or "contemporary rock."

This goes far in negating the Clive Barnesian claims that Broadway musicals, if they want to succeed with audiences, need to reflect the sounds of something randomly called (but not clearly defined) "contemporary popular music."

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 04:06 PM

Edited to clarify: I define "scores based in popular/pop music" as those like "Evita" and "Next to Normal", but stand by my claim earlier in the thread that they are theatre music, not true "pop". Consider this post to be about two very large groups of theatre music.

As music theatre songs began to fall out with popular listening, it seems to me a divide happened in the community. Some songwriters began to take cues from popular music to influence their scores (with emphasis placed on character) and others eschewed it altogether. Sondheim is the major player surrounding the 70s and 80s who resisted the urge to do so, along with Kander and Ebb and others. Compare "A Chorus Line" (a pop score, if you'll excuse the terminology, written for specific characters, but with the general and vague qualities made for radio), "Chicago" (a more "traditional" musical score that pulls on 20s jazz and vaudeville), and "Pacific Overtures" (a score completely different from the popular music landscape of 1976 and culled from the forms of another culture combined with Sondheim's own style). Of course, writers like Hamlisch and Webber and Rice, were more familiar with the popular stylings of the 70s and 80s by virtue of being born later than Sondheim and his contemporaries. Because of his relationship with Hal Prince, Sondheim continued to be a massive figure in the landscape of musical theatre, and later was able to cull other relationships with newer playwrights (Lapine) after his professional relationship with Prince dissolved. The Sondheim/Prince collaborations were huge giants in the 70s and allowed Sondheim's work to be seen by a wide number of audiences.

This brings me to the interesting situation facing the artists creating scores without pop influnces in the 90s. I'm going to use LaChiusa as an example, just for situational purposes. I know newintown and I have differing views on the (artistic) success his work (though I tend to agree with much of your criticisms), but let's put aside opinions of the quality of his work. LaChiusa was produced twice on Broadway and both productions were commercial flops that received (at best) mixed critically reviews. Compare that to Sondheim, who had numerous commercial failures and was able to keep producing work on Broadway. LaChiusa has essentially been banished to off-broadway venues, which, at the very least, limit audience members.

Today, the vast majority of Broadway shows are based on popular music. There are exceptions, of course, such as "Fun Home", "Grey Gardens", and the current "War Paint", but a lot more of the non-pop related scores are produced off-broadway (and off-off broadway, and off-off-off broadway). This is due to the fact that shows are now much more technically advanced, more expensive to run, need to run longer to recoup, and can't change things during previews because of aforementioned technical advancements. I can't predict the future, but I suspect Broadway will grow smaller and smaller, with more pop influenced scores taking it over as the surrounding less "big" theatre community with grow as will the shows with scores separate from popular music will. That's my theory. Of course, off-Broadway is now much more commercial than ever originally intended, so what do I know?

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 04:34 PM

I have never known any musician to be as much of a dick concerning their knowledge of music as you are. The vast majority of pit players, rehearsal pianists, and teachers I've worked with are low-key, pleasant to engage with, generally happy to share or teach, and don't brag about their knowledge (or go out of their way to call themselves a musician as often as you do -- I thought there was nothing more pretentious than referring to oneself as an artist, but then I suppose I have actually learned something from you).

We get it. You went to music school.

@SDP, so I find myself agreeing with a good bit of what you say.

A few comments:

1. I'm not sure what "true pop" is. Pop is pretty amorphous to start with, and I don't buy into the idea that being theatre music and pop music are mutually exclusive (at all). Yes there is pop music that lends itself more to use in the theatre, and there are pragmatic aspects to what a pop songwriter will do when writing for the theatre in an integrated way (as opposed to, for example, in a jukebox musical or something like American Idiot) but I think we can pretty clearly distinguish between what these writers are doing and what Kander & Ebb (or Sondheim, a more complicated example) did, without getting lost in some musicology meltdown.

2. I think LaChiusa is the quintessential example of someone working in what earlier I called the "art" side of the musical theatre. Were there no such thing as commercial Broadway, he would fit like a glove in something akin to where contemporary opera composers find themselves. (John Adams does not fret about commercial success because it is not anywhere on the radar.) And LaChiusa has really only had one show that pretended to be commercial, and that was a huge miscalculation driven by an outsized institutional ego (and in which he was merely along for the ride).

3. I think you are basically on point in your final paragraph except that predicting that Broadway is going to get smaller has a great tradition, but the funny thing is that it is always proven wrong. I think we are in the process of regaining the momentum that has been largely lost for a couple of generations, and that the stigma has finally worn off so we are and will be getting the crème de la crème of songwriters interested in working on shows. I? optimistic.

Thank you for all of your trenchant thinking on this subject, and single-handedly keeping this subthread from coming off the rails.

SDP (I love calling you that!)-

yes I understand. Here's a little more...

1. You seem to think that a pop songwriter stops being a pop songwriter when they start fretting about characters and the other things a musical theater songwriter has to deal with if they are doing a good job. I don't see it that way: from Elton to Lauper to Bareilles etc etc, they never stopped writing pop. And in 2017, I definitely am not radio-centric, because I don't think that's how we digest music nowadays. I think someone is as likely to listen to a song from DEH on Spotify as Alicia Keys so (as you know) everything about the music industry has been turned on its head. (I'm intentionally leaving Hamilton and Sondheim at my margin, because I think both are sui generis and also had charmed lives. )

2. Re LaChiusa, first, there were 3 Broadway shows and none of them stepped as far to the commercial side as a lot of the Sondheim shows. (He also did not enter the scene that way as Sondheim did.) I just don't buy the notion he is a commercial writer, period. (In contrast to, say, JRB, who I have faulted mightily for trying to fit his square "artsy" peg in a round "commercial" hole (and failed every time).) If you can give me someone other than Sondheim to contrast LaChiusa with, I'd be happier, because (to repeat myself) Sondheim's arc is unlike any other before or since.

3. What I am seeing are viable "art" shows that are not being crowded out, and yes of course a pathetic number of film exploitation shows lacking in much art. And for the record, although I didn't love it, I'd distinguish Waitress from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in my analysis. So yes I am an optimist and I think as the pipeline of high quality songwriters gets bigger, we will see less and less cynical film exploitations.

Your last point, I fully concur in. And I'd throw in another important name-Ashman-who somehow made Menken better than he has ever been since. Reverse engineer those terrible losses, and many others, and I think we would have seen a more robust evolution than we got. But as I say I also think that's changing.

@SDP, on #1, I don't think we have a difference of opinion so much as a difference of labeling. I'm happy to refer to it as "theatre music written in pop style" where the distinction is simply that the songs are written in the service of a play rather than abstractly or to be successful. (I think there are zillions of songs that are clearly not written for dramatic purposes that are also not written to be successful.) I obviously recognize that a lot of pop music is painting a picture rather than telling a story. (We could also segue into discussing program music but I don't think we need to.) Coming full circle, I think Barnes was talking about a style of song, rather than its intention. (No idea if I am making myself clear LOL.)

Re #2, I think we do have a difference of opinion, not so much in the details as in analogy, and for me it gets back to two things I've said before: (1) I think LaChiusa is far more art and less commerce than Sondheim (who very often wanted both) and (2) I think Sondheim's arc is sui generis. (Can you identify another writer of the 60s and 70s that would frame your analogy? Maybe that would help convince me of something.)

In any event I appreciate the dialogue.