Posted: 12/14/19 at 9:01am
Have there ever been any two-part musicals, the way there are two-part plays (Cursed Child, The Inheritance, Angels in America, etc)? What kind of musicals, if any, do you guys think would make good two-parters?
Posted: 12/14/19 at 11:51am
Posted: 12/14/19 at 2:40pm
Posted: 12/14/19 at 2:58pm
dramamama611 said: "why would you want a 2 parter? (Musical or otherwise) Im not against them, per se, but I dont think people SET OUT to create them."
I think the benefit of 2-parters (or 3-parters, as I've occasionally seen), is that it makes for an epic theatrical experience. You can really immerse yourself in another world, in others' stories for virtually a full day.
As for musicals:
I think part of the benefit of musical theatre as an art form is that it taps into deeper emotions, and a heightened sense of reality. So to see that done as an epic, all-day experience, has the potential to compound the effects of musical theatre; it could be all the more epic, all the more impactful, and all the more deep in emotion. I imagine the reason it hasn't been done is that it would just be so incredibly, monumentally difficult to achieve in the first place, and all the more difficult to actually do it well.
The closest thing we probably have to this in the MT canon would be the Falsettos trilogy, though I'm not sure if all 3 of them were ever performed together. Aside from that, the longest musical I've ever heard of was the first production of "Giant" at signature, which was supposedly about 4 hours long, before it was trimmed significantly to a more traditional length for its NYC run.
Posted: 12/14/19 at 3:08pm
Commercially it would be a suicide mission. Two-part plays aren't even sustainable on Bway. Musicals must draw in tourist audiences to succeed.
Maybe at an off-Bway non-profit with a loyal subscriber base and money to burn. It would be better to have a one-part four-hour musical.
I think a music-based journey for 5-6 hours could become much more grating than a play (speaking) for 5-6 hours. It would have to be an extraordinary piece with a lot of variety and a story that demands such a lengthy narrative.
Posted: 12/14/19 at 3:23pm
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Commercially it would be a suicide mission. Two-part plays aren't even sustainable on Bway. Musicals must draw in tourist audiences to succeed.
Maybe at an off-Bway non-profit with aloyalsubscriber base and money to burn.It would be better to have a one-part four-hour musical."
That's true, but nobody else in the thread has mentioned anything about Broadway or commercial theatre. As you said, it would almost certainly have to be at a non-profit.
Although, having said that, an argument could be made that a two-part musical has a better chance at succeeding commercially than a two-part play, because many tourists only consider seeing musicals. But still, in general I agree with you.
Posted: 12/14/19 at 4:00pm
dramamama611 said: "Well, it was originally done without cuts.
My question to the op would be: why would you want a 2 parter? (Musical or otherwise) Im not against them, per se, but I dont think people SET OUT to create them."
Thanks for asking! I was just curious to see if there were any, or if there were any types of stories that worked well as a two-part. I had only seen it with plays, and was wondering if anyone had created a musical that happened to be a two-parter.
Posted: 12/14/19 at 4:22pm
If you want to include Opera, which is a sung through musical - Wagners Ring Cycle is a four parter Das Rheingold, Die Walküre, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung. Considering it's been produced continually since 1876, I think it's been pretty successful.
Updated On: 12/14/19 at 04:22 PM
Posted: 12/14/19 at 9:15pm
dramamama611 said: "Well, it was originally done without cuts.
Right; what I’m saying is that the original length would work well as a two parter- if it played 3:20 including an intermission, that’s three hours of material, so each “part” would be a little under two hours factoring in a late start and intermission.
Posted: 12/14/19 at 10:47pm
Most opera companies tackling the Ring Cycle do it over four seasons, premiering each part on an annual basis before going for all four in a single year.
There have been examples of multi-plays going in rotating repertory in the same theatre, like Ackbourn's Norman Conquests. If it's well done and has a small cast with minimal production requirements, I dont know why a two-parter wouldnt work. But it would be very tricky to pull off.
Posted: 12/15/19 at 12:03am
MARCH OF THE FALSETTOS and its sequel FALSETTOLAND were eventually merged into FALSETTOS. OF THEE I SING and LET 'EM EAT CAKE were done together at BAM as one evening, with both parts abbreviated. My musicals, LUDLOW LADD and its sequel CHARLOTTE SWEET, were done in repertory at the New American Theatre (Rockford, IL).
Posted: 12/15/19 at 1:53am
Although it wasn't performed as a two-part musical, the original production of the "Lord Of The Rings" musical in Toronto was a three-and-a-half-hour-long three-act production that might as well have been split into two parts. The London production was shortened but still three hours long.
I personally think a two-parter is not necessary, except if the author really can't tell the whole story in a "normal" run time. I often prefer a tightly told story over a drawn-out one.
