Maltby and Shire's Baby!
Maltby and Shire's Baby!
Maltby and Shire's Baby!#0
Posted: 4/8/05 at 11:47am
This would have to be one of the most under-appreciated and easily overlooked Musicals ever written.
It boasts one of the best scores I've heard: catchy, witty and appealling. And yet, it is so easily forgotten.
I always forget to include it in my lists of favourite musicals, and yet it is right up there.
To quote John Kenrick:
"Yes, Baby is a masterpiece. David Shire's music soars, Richard Maltby, Jr.'s lyrics are superbly crafted, and Sybille Pearson's book is one of the strongest original libretti ever written for Broadway. The central concept is simple. At an American college, three couples face pregnancies -- unmarried juniors, married 20-something athletics coaches, and a 40-something couple that has just sent their kids off to college. We follow them through nine months that lead to lots of laughs, some truthful tears, and the birth of just one child. This is solid gold entertaiment from start ot finish, filled with wit, melody, and heart.
So why is Baby underrated? The original Broadway staging bears part of the blame. A glorious cast was hampered by poorly blocked ensemble scenes and noisy electrified curtains in lieu of sets. Worse yet, Baby suffered from an accident of timing. Debuting in the same season as Sunday in the Park With George, The Rink and La Cage Aux Folles, it was never able to win the attention -- or the Tonys -- it deserved. There were some fine regional and amateur productions, but then Baby pretty much faded from view. All that was left was a delicious cast recording, and the memories Baby's devoted fans (including yours truly) have held on to."
How unfortunate that it had such bad timing. Had it arrived a few seasons later it would have cleaned up!
Updated On: 4/8/05 at 11:47 AM
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#1
Posted: 4/8/05 at 11:51am
I think "What could be better?" is one of my alltime favorite showtunes.:) If only to hear Liz Callway refer to her "Crazy rhyming."
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#2
Posted: 4/8/05 at 12:03pm
I have a love/hate relationship with the show.
The score is great, with some amazing numbers, especially "I Want it All", "The Story Goes On", and the cut, then restored "Patterns". But the book is extremely troubled. Even in the recent Papermill Revisal of the show, the problems were still there.
The main problem I have with Baby is that the only characters that get to have the baby , are the most self absorbed of the lot. I always want to like Lizzie/Danny but they always come off as self-important, which is fine in life, but hard to deal with in a musical where you are supposed to empathise with these characters. The other 2 couples are so likeable, that Lizzie/Danny often come off as the villians of the piece, which I am almost positive was not intentional. In the Papermill production, this was even mor obvious, especially since they have the older couple losing the baby and the middle couple left where they started.
I have seen 3 productions of this show, 2 amateur and 1 professional, and the piece intrigues me but still leaves me cold. Maltby (as is his case in a lot of his work) never really writes lyrics that progress the action effectivelly. The actors talk about their feelings, then sing about them, rather than hinting at their feelings and then fully explaining them in song. The same basic feeling is echoed several times in several different times, and variety is often lacking. Baby works well on it's great cast recording, with an appealing cast, and even with a top notch cast (THe Papermill cast boasted as weak Lizzie and Danny; but strong outings from Carolee Carmello (whose Patterns was difinitive), Michael Rupert, Norm Lewis, and La Chanze) the books and lyric problems are impossible to escape.
But Shire's music is often soaring and beautiful, and like most of their shows, the songs can have a life outside of the show itself. I think the cast recording is somewhat misleading as to the quality of the material.
I think Baby will continue to be explored, but unfortunatly I think some of it's problems are too large to fix, without completely re-doing the show. The ideas are good ones, but the execution never fully comes together.
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#3
Posted: 4/8/05 at 12:06pmI never saw they show, but enjoy the music. What happens to the older couple's baby in the show?
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#4
Posted: 4/8/05 at 12:13pm
Crap I can't remember what happens in the original, but I know in the revisal she has a miscarriage.
I am not 100 percent sure, but I believe in the original, they decide to have the baby after much debate over what to do.
Updated On: 4/8/05 at 12:13 PM
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#5
Posted: 4/8/05 at 12:18pm
If I remember right, we never see the older couple's baby. But, I could be wrong.
I love Baby, too. The only time I've seen it, Susan Egan played Lizzie. It was in Sacramento, several years before Beauty & the Beast, and I though she was terrific. Baby has always been one of my favorite cast recordings. It's a shame the Papermill production went unrecorded with that amazing cast!
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#6
Posted: 4/8/05 at 12:22pmThanks. I just assumed until reading the post about the younger couple being the only one to get a baby that the older couple decides to have and keep the baby.
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#7
Posted: 4/8/05 at 12:25pm
We never see the older couple's baby, but they do keep it.
And this show is miles ahead of most of the so-called musicals playing on Broadway right now. Book-wise, music-wise and lyric-wise.
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#8
Posted: 4/8/05 at 1:02pm
Paradox error, you're right! We do have SO MANY of the same opinions!! 
I ADORE Baby! The score is perfection, and I always include it among my favorites. I have made all of my theater friends listen to this show. I don't know why it doesn't have more appreciation out there. Fatherhood Blues, I Want it All, The Story Goes On, What Could Be Better, Two People In Love, oh man.... I wish I could be more specific but I'm late for class...
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#10
Posted: 4/8/05 at 2:16pm
InfinateTheaterFrenzy asks: "I don't know why it doesn't have more appreciation out there."
Dear Frenzy,
To be blunt and at the risk of getting everybody mad at me, I must tell you that some of us have extremely limited interest/tolerence in small-scale shows or themed revues pretending to be big-time Broadway fare. Which is why some of us will always be more interested in Sunday in the Park With George, The Rink and La Cage Aux Folles, as opposed to a trifle like Baby.
I saw all of them. Baby deserved to be overshadowed by the real shows.
Updated On: 4/8/05 at 02:16 PM
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#11
Posted: 4/8/05 at 2:52pm
Not to mention "I Chose Right!". I fell in love with these two collaborators work after attending an event, The Music of Maltby and Shire presented by Neil Berg & cast including Brad Little, Ray McLeod, Danny Zolli, BJ Crosby, William Michals, Jody Langel. They thoroughly enjoyed their evening dedicated to them, at the Nyack NY Seaport back in April '02, beaming, applauding and tapping to the tunes and graciously speaking to everyone.
David Shire took to the piano and invited Richard Maltby on stage to join him in singing "One Step" from Starting Here, Starting Now . They popped open two top hats and became the Sunshine Boys. That's when I fell for them! Brimming over with talent and charm are these two gents.
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#12
Posted: 4/8/05 at 5:58pm
I don't care if it has a big cast, small cast, if it's "small-scale shows or themed revues"...
As long as it's creative, original and has a good score I'll appreciate it...
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/24/03
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#13
Posted: 4/8/05 at 6:17pm
plus, IBDB says that THE RINK had a cast of nine (even if it did include names like Jason Alexander, Scott Ellis, and Rob Marshall as a stand-by in addition to above-the-title Minnelli and Rivera)...plus it ran 209 performances, while BABY ran for 249.
So it's all in the perspective about what shows are "small-scale", isn't it?
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#14
Posted: 4/8/05 at 6:29pm
Besides, I don't particularly like The Rink.
It's one of the few Kander and Ebb scores that really doesn't appeal to me...
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/24/03
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#15
Posted: 4/8/05 at 6:33pmi like "Colored Lights"...
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#16
Posted: 4/8/05 at 6:38pm
I think I've listened to the score once the whole way through.
Not even Liza and Chita could make me love it...
re: Maltby and Shire's Baby!#17
Posted: 4/8/05 at 7:15pm
The Rink was/is an extremely troubled show. Kander and Ebb sited Liza Minnelli as the main reason for the show's failure, and while she was very troubled at the time, I would hardly say the show's failure was completely on her shoulder. They say that the audience couldn't accept a non glamourous Liza.
Truth is, The Rink is a depressing story, with a few good songs ("Colored Lights", "Chief, Cook, and Bottle Washer" "Wallflower"). But I find most of the score to be mostly standard, a bit cold, and not very inspired. By all accounts the book was very troubled. On recording, like Baby, The Rink's faults aren't completely exposed. I'm a big Kander and Ebb supporter, but this one will always be to me, one of their most average scores (in terms of their more obscure work, I prefer the score to 70, Girls, 70 far more than that of The Rink).
Videos
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
