The Book (or Lack there of) in a Sung Through Musical

Not to mention setting descriptions, character descriptions, stage directions, etc - things which the audience won't hear spoken or sung, but that influence what they see.

TheGingerBreadMan said: "Not to mention setting descriptions, character descriptions, stage directions, etc - things which the audience won't hear spoken or sung, but that influence what they see."

A lot of the story in American Idiot is told through the stage directions. That's why most productions end up really muddled. They can't effectively tell the story through performance and subtext, as they're conditioned to use dialogue like other musicals.

I suppose Hamilton is a little different because it was all written by the same person, but reading Sondheim's book it does seem obvious to me that the bookwriters sadly can be underappreciated. I was a bit shocked to find that some of my favourite lines and ideas from the title song of "Sunday in the Park With George" were at least inspired by or in some cases almost completely lifted and shifted from Lapine's writing. I can only imagine it being even more common in sung-through musicals.

nasty_khakis said: "Sondheim almost always asks his collaborator to write a scene or monologue with no intention of it going into the actual show, but he'll lift lines, character. and mood from it. He's always said if you say "write a torch song here" he's terrible but if you wrote him a little paragraph about a woman in a bar wearing a red dress and drinkinga grasshopper he could write something.

Another famous example is when Harvey Weinstein wrote Albin this beautiful but quite long monologuein La Cage Jerry Herman asked his permission to steal 5 words from it and per him wrote a song that took the place of a fewpagesof dialogue.

Book writers are the last to get credit for a good musical, but the first to get the blame for a bad one and I've always foundthisunfair."

That's common with musical theatre collaborators. It's kind of the idea that you have to rob Peter to pay Paul; you have to take your most evocative monologues and spoken scenes and turn them into songs.

Fierstein said this about Kinky Boots too, that Lauper would often get inspired by his writing and completely replace a scene with a new song and then he'd have to restructure the book so a small throwaway dialogue can now become a central plot point (because the song was too good to let go).

I sometimes wonder if the lack of appreciation for book writers keeps a lot of talented playwrights away from musicals. Why bother if your contribution can go completely unrecognised?

As others have said, the specific dialogue is only one part of a book (or indeed a play). Even beyond the storyline, it needs to propel the drama in every scene. Boublil and Schönberg are both credited as the book writers in all their musicals. Schönberg has said it means structuring the show so that he knows what every character is singing about as he writes each line for them, even before Boublil writes the lyrics.

JBroadway said: "nasty_khakis said: "Harvey Weinstein"



Given the circumstances, I feel compelled to make sure everyone knows you meant Harvey FIERSTEIN, not Harvey Weinstein.

Harvey Fierstein has said before that people confuse him with Harvey Weinstein, and given Weinstein's crimes, that must really suckfor Fierstein."

Thank you. I nearly did a double-take! Kept thinking,"This CANNOT be right!"

pathman2 said: "qolbinau said: "I suppose Hamilton is a little different because it was all written by the same person..."

Someone, who should be in the know but who I won’t throw under the bus,once told me that Hamilton hada different book writer who was let go. I have no way of confirming this (and I’ve always treated it as gossip), but wonderedif anyone had heard the same. These tidbits about La Cage and Kinky Boots are so interesting. Book writersdefinitely seemto get the short end of the stick in many ways."

I mean, Thomas Kail probably had a ton to do with the development of the show, and Lin probably wouldn’t deny that, but it started as a concept album. The structure was there before it was ever on a stage.

I imagine that part of the reason many playwrights stay away from writing MT books is also because it can easily force them to sacrifice their own creative voice in a major way. Especially if it's a commissioned work, and especially if they aren't writing the lyrics.

One of the biggest examples of this that comes to mind is Dominique Morisseau with Ain't Too Proud. I love her plays, and I know that The Temptations and the city of Detroit hold a special place her heart and her work. So she was a really intuitive choice to write the book for Ain't Too Proud. But the end result is just a paint-by-numbers regurgitation of all the other bio-Jukebox musical books. Presumably because that's what the producers commissioned her to write. So they hired this brilliant mind with a personal connection to the material, and didn't let her do ANYTHING with it.

Another one that comes to mind is Enda Walsh: his books for Sing Street and Once? Absolutely nothing like his own plays. And I actually like both of those show's books. His book for Lazarus was a little bit closer to the kind of thing he usually writes.

Obviously there are plenty of counter examples out there; musicals where the book writer's distinct style and voice WAS represented in the final product. But I feel like in many of those cases the book writer also wrote the lyrics (like Hamilton, Great Comet, Caroline or Change, etc) and/or it was more of a passion project than a big commercial project for which they were hired. And these commissioned projects are the most common type of musical we see on Broadway, I think.

And I'm sure there are even exceptions to that pattern too. I'm just pointing out a trend, not a rule.