Defining the genre of musicals

[dvarg]

I am just curious.

I mainly see musicals as a sub genre of drama. This implies that I first and foremost judge musicals by how well their different elements serve the overall dramaturgical purpose.

I also knoe that some people are more focused on melodic elements, hit songs and catchyness, so I take it that they are more concerned about the solely musical aspects of a show.

Maybe it is also possible to see musicals as an equal combination of music and drama.

[jpme]

considering a musical as being principally a work of music does not necessarily mean you're only interested in hit songs and catchyness :-P all music tells a story in some way - putting a piece of music on a stage with costumes and lights is simply one way of developing that story.

[Mary Lane]

That's the reason why I enjoy shows like Cabaret so much. The music and the story work together wonderfully. Also, the story has been around since the 1930's when Christopher Isherwood wrote about his experiences in Berlin... so there's a lot of history and back-story to the musical.

Songs need to improve the scene, and not drag it down. The worst thing, in my opinion, is a musical with a fascinating story but a terrible score, or vice versa.

[fontinau]

I have all kinds of problems with this question.


First, you're talking as if "drama" automatically means "literary drama".

Second, you're ignoring dance, and ignoring visual spectacle (costumes, scenery, directorial touches, and so on). Both of which are more important than anything else to some musicals.


This particularly bothers me because I think there's an unspoken assumption by lots of Serious Musical Theater Appreciators (and authors) today: That the only part of a musical that actually matters is the words and the actors, and that everything else (music, dance, so on, so forth) is just there to make the show go down easier.

(I know you don't really believe that, of course. Probably nobody completely believes it. But on the other hand, I know a lot of people don't completely disbelieve it either.)

And I think that's a really bad assumption.


Anyway, to answer the question, I think "musicals" is a convenient label for drama that uses some combination of words, music, dance, and spectacle. Which one of those (if any) is the "main" element varies from show to show.




....................

[fontinau]

Copied from here: musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57070

For example, shows like A Funny Thing Happened To The Forum, Follies and A Little Night Music have entire catalogues of trunk songs. Most people would agree that the majority of these songs are excellent. If those musicals were primary sub genres of music, it wouldn't hurt to include those songs in the actual shows. Musically, they'd actually improve the shows by giving them more good music to listen to.

That doesn't work.

Because musicians likewise often have huge back catalogues of great songs that weren't included on their albums. Not necessarily because the songs weren't good enough - rather, because they didn't fit the structure or atmosphere or whatever of that particular album. (If you want, I can bore you with endless specific examples of this.)

My impression is that today, many people expect musicals to me more like pop concerts than dramaturgical unities. Because many people seem to think musicals is more about displaying hit tunes than being integrated dramaturgic unities, shows with ridiculous book parts can now be highly successful

In the way Rodgers and Hammerstein developed the musical, it is primarily a theatre genre. More recent shows have put emphasis on other, more exclusively musical aspects, which is why many people expect musical to be something else than theatre, and also don't mind when musicals display bad dramaturgy.

I agree with all that, but consider this: The Rodgers & Hammerstein model is only one of many models of musical theater.

And if you're looking for a definitive model, then I'd say there's at least as good a case to be made for the 20s/30s Gershwin/Rodgers & Hart/Cole Porter/P. G. Wodehouse/etc model as for the Rodgers & Hammerstein model. (After all, the former came first.)

And the 20s/30s model was certainly more about "displaying hit tunes" (and stars, and comic routines, and so on) than about good dramaturgy.

I prefer the theatre point of view, because I'm very concerned about coherence and text.

I think you're getting at the heart of your question here.

You prefer musicals where text and coherent dramaturgy is important. And you're wondering whether the kind of musicals you prefer can "define the genre of musicals".


Honestly, I think this whole question is pointless, except as source for interesting side discussions.

Genre labels are only useful as long as they make things less confusing. (I must have said this a thousand times around here by now.) "Musical theater" is just a convenient label for 20th and 21st century productions where people talk, sing, and dance, and hope to book a theater in the vicinity of 42nd street. Trying to make the label more specific than that makes things more confusing, not less. And then you've defeated the point of having genre labels in the first place.

A better question might be: "Are Rodgers & Hammerstein musicals (and by extension, Lerner & Loewe musicals and Kander & Ebb musicals and Sondheim musicals and so on) mainly a sub genre of literary drama, or musical drama, or a combination of the two, or something else?"

Of course, that question would also be much harder to answer.



....................

[Mizzie]

The reason that I love musicals is because every song tells a story and (in a good show!) moves the plot along, making it almost more like a scene. This leads me to believe at first that it's more a sub-genre of drama, until I remind myself that the tune/melody also has to reflect upon the dramatic parts of the song.

It's a perfect marriage.

[fontinau]

fontinau said:

Of course, that question would also be much harder to answer.

But naturally, Mizzie came up with a perfect answer anyway.


....................

[dvarg]

fontinau said:

Copied from here: musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57070

Yes, your style is very recogniseable. MdN is much more fun with you there.

fontinau said:

You prefer musicals where text and coherent dramaturgy is important. And you're wondering whether the kind of musicals you prefer can define the genre of musicals

I also like how you look through my thoughts.

I'll ponder on the wisdom.

Edit: this is what I wrote at MdN

"Musical theater" is just a convenient label for 20th and 21st century productions where people talk, sing, and dance, and hope to book a theater in the vicinity of 42nd street. Trying to make the label more specific than that makes things more confusing, not less.

I agree that can be one definition of "musical theatre", if you think of musicals as one sort of musical theatre. People expressing themselves through book songs is something that sets musicals apart from general musical theatre which can mean any sort of theatre with music in it, regardless of the form and function of the music.

That's why movies like The Corpse Bride, episodes of The Simpsons etc can be considered to have elements of the musical in them when charachers burst out in "book songs" as an integrated part of their communication, while movies like the adaption of Cabaret are confusing because they have only diegetic songs that the caracters are aware of being songs.

You may say that "musical" is a wrong or too vague label to put on this effect or technique, but it is an effect or techique that sets some sorts of musical theatre apart from other sorts of musical theatre.

[dvarg]

fontinau said:

That doesn't work.

Because musicians likewise often have huge back catalogues of great songs that weren't included on their albums. Not necessarily because the songs weren't good enough - rather, because they didn't fit the structure or atmosphere or whatever of that particular album.

One more thing: I wrote this because I have a feeling a lot of musicals nowadays, in the ALW branch of the business for example, actually are filled with music and songs that people appreciate in an of themselves even though they do not contribute to the overall dramaturgic purpose. Heck, shows like StEx are basically almost only stand alone songs that don't contribute to any overlying dramaturgical purpose.

[fontinau]

dvarg said:

I agree that can be one definition of "musical theatre", if you think of musicals as one sort of musical theatre. People expressing themselves through book songs is something that sets musicals apart from general musical theatre which can mean any sort of theatre with music in it, regardless of the form and function of the music.

Well, since "musical" is simply an abbreviation of "musical comedy" or "musical theater", I use the terms "musical" and "musical theater" interchangeably.

But maybe that's just me. Perhaps we can agree that what you call "musicals", I call "book musicals" or "R&Hamm musicals"?


....................

[dvarg]

fontinau said:

Well, since musical is simply an abbreviation of musical comedy or musical theater, I use the terms musical and musical theater interchangeably.

I know it was originally an abbreviation, but I thought the word "musical" had developped into meaning one particular form of musical theatre. At least when I briefly went to a theatre school "musical theate" was all sorts of theatre that involve music, while "musical" was the sort of musical theatre that (mainly) use book songs. Maybe it's a language thing (which is strange since English usually is more nuanced than Norwegian)?

fontinau said:

But maybe that's just me. Perhaps we can agree that what you call musicals, I call book musicals or R&Hamm musicals?

Maybe, but what defines a book musical? Is it the opposite of a through sung musical? And do you still mean "integrated musical" as opposed to the "disintegrated megamusical" when you say R&H musical? Because through sung musicals and mega musicals use the book song technique..?

Perhaps I should rephrase the original question to "is the book song technique a musical or literary technique?"