How Are Musicals Made?

From the same website as the last post there is an article on how Broadway shows were inspired and created. This is actually really interesting because, well, I was wondering how people come up with those stories, yeah? For some people it just comes to them (J.K. Rowling and her train) but apparently in the musical industry nothing actually gets written until a contract is signed and a commitment is made, which financially makes sense, I suppose. But either a producer gets an idea for a show and gets a creative team to expand on it, or a creative team will come up with an idea and find a producer to support it. Jon Kenrick then here gives examples of musicals that came into being and how so. Some producers came up with an idea and brought it to Broadway, sometimes performers had ideas that they pitched to producers. And then there's the traditional ideas that come from writers, composers, and directors.

But then, once you have the story, how do you get it onto the stage? No producer ever gambles millions backing new projects by unproven talents, but even well established names have trouble getting their creations staged. It takes years nowadays for a project to be finished to the point where it will be produced into something profitable, and then the odds are stacked very high against new projects coming to fruition.  John Kenrick pulls from his own experience as assistant to several Broadway producers, writing 'gently worded' rejection letters and seeing the vast majority get nowhere, although apparently it is fair, since the majority were terrible.

So what then does one do to get a musical in the works to work? Put it in a workshop, which can vary from a fully equipped theatre for full scale productions to a dusty rehearsal hall produced by the writers themselves. Workshops are used to build the creative team; directors might have colleagues to work with them on a regular basis that they'd like to use, but as the musical develops, so does the staff. That oft heard excuse of 'artistic differences' for cause of leaving is in fact often true, because if the team cannot get along the friction will hinder the process. They can also cast known actors or unknowns, known actors preventing them from having to train and deal with uncertain actors. Then Mr. Kenrick goes on and explains more ways that workshops get staged and how they benefit the production, so on and on.

Well it's interesting to see how these things are made. A musical might be the brain child of one person, but it takes a whole team to bring it about into something workable, because it seems that when just one person comes up with a potential musical, and submits it to a producer, chances are it's just not doable yet (or just really bad) because one person can only contribute so much. I don't think I really understood just how much effort and work and resources go into a musical. Seems to be a lot.
1) Do you think having so many ideas rejected by producers hurts a lot of potential chances for good, even great musicals?



Kenrick, J. (2000). Making a broadway musical. Retrieved from http://www.musicals101.com/make2.htm

A Rose by Any Other Name

-does not smell as sweet when you're busy scowling and being grumpy. It seems I find articles with information, only to later find pages that summarize it in simpler words that make more sense. It seems life is conspiring to keep my inference skills up to date, or whatever. Thank you, life, and kindly go take you care elsewhere.
Though I'm pretty sure I've covered most of what is in this page by John Kenrick, some things are worded differently, giving them a new spin, and others are new altogether.

He starts with the definition of musical theatre, which refers to a production using pop-style songs, dialogue optional (I thought dialogue was required...), to tell a story (book musicals) or showcase the talent in the cast or writers. They go by many names, too, too many to list here again, but enough to demonstrate how wide the variety reaches and how far their history extends.

So whereas I've been reliably informed previously that a musical consists of three things, being the book, music, and lyrics, Mr. Kenrick instead says a musical has three things, being brains, heart and courage.

Excuse me, Mr. Kenrick. Were you talking about a knight, or something else, perhaps?

He further elaborates that brains means 'intelligence and style', heart is 'genuine and believable emotion', and courage is the 'guts to do something creative'. It does indeed sound like the makings of a musical. Never mind.

Now apparently the ancient Greeks performed musicals as well. I knew they performed plays, but musicals? They incorporated song and dance, apparently, as early as 5th Century B.C. Some playwrights like Aeschylus and Sophocles made their own, but others might have used existing songs. They incorporated anything, really, to 'entertain the masses'. Jugglers, acrobats? Political and social satire and not unlike today, sexual humour.
The Romans of course copied them, like they did with many things, and then expanded further upon it. Whatever points they lost for copying the Greeks they made up by coming up with the first tap shoes, little metal chips called 'sabilla' that attacked to their footwear. The 3rd Century B.C. comedies by Plautus had orchestral accompaniments to their song and dance. And though they lacked the open air amphitheaters of the Greeks, instead performing in enclosed wooden structures, they 'stressed spectacle and special effects', which modern theatre echoes.

These musicals didn't really affect how modern musicals came into being, but rather just prove how long they've been around.

Fast forward, oh look, you're in the Middle Ages now, where some troupes travel to perform their light hearted comedy. 12th and 13th centuries there were religious dramas. In the Renaissance clowns were introduced to theatre, becoming stock characters, personas that were used in Western stage for centuries.

And them something I have heard about, the question of whether musicals are descended from operas. Seems strange, almost, considering one evokes majestic halls of grandeur and vibrating voices powerful enough to shatter glass, and the other bright flirty dances set to upbeat pop music. According to Mr. Kenrick, "contemporary musical theatre and film are not direct descendants of grand opera." Opera does come from classical theatre, though. Due to being part of the musical movement that occurred in the 1800s and 1900s, it did leave an impression in the musicals that would follow. Operas themselves were created when the Renaissance Italians tried to copy the Greeks, mistakenly thinking they were 'sung through', which would make operas the descendants of musicals, then!




And so, in analysis, I'm not really sure what there is to analyze. It's... pretty self explanatory... Although it seems people tend to repeat themselves throughout history... nice to know even back then they enjoyed sexual humour. That was sarcasm. But it's interesting to hear another's take on what constitutes a musical, and how it came to be (a nice abridged version). Considering they didn't have the technology modern day society has, they seemed to be pretty good at working their way around these handicaps. Of course, that was to lead into what has become modern forms of dance and theatre, but. So perhaps...


1) If possible, what kinds of workarounds could be created for things taken for granted, or necessary, even! Maybe having things so readily to us has made our minds lazy, so why not try to come up with ways to do things simply?
2) I had another question, but it's not coming to me. I'll come back to this later.
3) Do you think the author is right when he says what he says about operas and musicals and the like and what descends from what? I wouldn't know, and should probably look it up (is it even relevant?), but it sounded kinda... nevermind.
4) Greeks or Romans.


Kenrick, J. (Between, 1996 and 2003 sometime). A history of the musical: What is a musical?. Retrieved from http://www.musicals101.com/musical.htm

Web Resource - Peter and the Starcatchers

In my efforts to find something about what makes musicals musicals that hasn't been rehashed probably at least twice by me, I defaulted to the NYTimes paper. Little bit sad, yes, but there's interesting stuff on there. Here I happened across of a review of Peter and the Starcatchers, based on a book which I read many, many moons ago, and so I was intrigued. (Let me note, I have a horrible memory and pretty much forget everything in my life if it was not some huge event, so I do not really recall the plot, just vague elements of the story.)

Based on the book by Ridley Pearson and Dave Barry, adapted by Ricke Elice, it is the story of how one angst-riddled Boy (which is what he was called since he had no name) became the Peter Pan of J.M. Barrie's legend, as well as 'an enchanted anatomy of the primal human urge to defy gravity'. 

The review first comments on the airborne aspect of the musical, and while having someone suspended in midair is not a new thing, the crew of Peter and the Starcatchers do it without all the modern mechanics, and look even more confortable doing it. In fact, they have about the span of equipment that you might find in a theatre 150 years ago.

There are some anachronisms where 21st century locutions (read: speech style, phrases or idioms) are used but it holds the effect of a steampunk theatre, the Brooks Atkinson proscenium decked up to resemble something Victorian. It brings the simplistic 'and perhaps fuller magic wrought by its artistic ancestors. This does not make the story telling distant or weak, though, for all it is a 'cozy bedtime story', with ocean voyages and shipwrecks, mermaids and orphans. And yes, being about adolescent boys means there is the puns and flatulence jokes that are eye rolling and groan inducing. 'But there's infectious art in how these cast members convey the primal joy we take in such idiocy.' 

The actors have a level of synchronicity 'associated with master ballet troupes' as they take turns 'delivering the narrative'. It requires some selflessness but they do get their chances to swing into the spotlight. Each cast member gets a turn to bring the humour from low to high, keeping it silly as a story about flying boys should. 

So in analysis, it brought to life a children's story for everyone, it seems, while keeping it simplistic and childishly enjoyable. In a world that's growing up very fast (depending on your version of growing up), I happen to feel that's something everybody needs. A musical provides entertainment and escape into different worlds for the audience, and allows them to be someone else, somewhere else for a moment. It doesn't just have to be a form of escape, though, often times they do address serious issues.

1) How do musicals affect people? Emotionally, with compelling stories, probably, right? No?

Brantley, B. (2012, April 16). Effortless flights of fancy.The New York Times. Retrieved from http://theater.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/theater/reviews/peter-and-the-starcatcher-with-christian-borle.html

Podcast (audio broadcast) - Idina Menzel Interview

So for video or audio resource I found some podcasts, or The UK's Independant Musical Theatre Podcast, to be specific.  I quite frankly didn't have the attention span required to sit through forty-ish minutes of interviews and specific musical talks from people I had no clue about anbout stuff, but one certain interview caught my attention, as it was something I actually knew a shred about: an interview with Idina Menzel, who performed in the musical Wicked, the movie Rent, and the television show Glee. As a bonus, it was half the time of the forty minute podcasts I was seeing.

She was asked about and talked about a variety of things, one being her famous role in the popular musical Wicked, and another being the movie Rent. In Rent she said she juggled with the naivete and first time feelings of the character, later having better technique but still trying to keep the freshness. When asked about whether or not she disliked singing the same songs over and over again she said she liked to find new nuances in them as a vocalist and interpreter, and so they never really got old. Professionalism came into play during an incident she recalled where she had to sing Defying Gravity...on the ground, because the machine that was supposed to lift her into the air wasn't working.  Glee is mentioned, also, and her role in it as well.

In addition to her career though, she discussed a summer camp for girls she helped create. In her own childhood she attended a sleep away camp that was a wonderful, beneficial experience. After realizing that not many girls were afforded the opportunity to attend summer camps, she provided about thirty city girls, aged eleven-ish the chance to hang out in the country for eight weeks with her and other professionals, who helped them put together their own musical, based on their experiences.

In analysis, theatre has provided Ms. Menzel with lots of opportunities, and the opportunity to give others opportunities. Her love for her craft is evident, and she does not seem an overly pretentious person even with all her talent, instead choosing to give back in a way she can. It provided a way to connect with a group of young girls whom she says probably didn't really know who she was, and help foster the growth of confidence that will lead to well balanced young adults.

So, how else can musical theatre provide ways to give back to the community? Are there opportunities it can provide that only theatre can provide? How else can engaging in theatre activities encourage the growth of individuals?

Hutson, N. (Performer) (n.d.). Idina menzel interview.Musical Talk. [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.musicaltalk.co.uk/

Magazine - Book Review

Apparently the majority of theatre related academic journals you have to subscribe to or pay for, and it seemed all the magazine I looked at have such a wide variety (by wide variety of topics I mean there were articles on all this random everything that I think only someone who has been in theatre a while or is very knowledgeable, such as a scholar in the subject, would know about) of topics abound that it was very difficult to find the sort of thing I was looking for.

The article is a review of the book The American Musical, by Raymond Knapp, the article by Alan Gomberg. He explains the book is written in three parts, in which Knapp discusses "a limited number of musicals in moderate but not exhaustive detail, exploring the aspects that relate to his theme," which is how the American musicals have helped to create the image of America as a nation of people separate from the rest of the world by their differences. Knapp covers the history and creation of musicals such as The Black Crook and H.M.S. Pinafore, the opinions of what they might or might not and did represent. There is a part about the "'wide variety of staged entertainments... of costumed singing, dancing, instrumental music, humour, and drama' that were popular in the late 19th century", which is what I thought musicals had always been popular for, but then apparently there are sections on "minstrelsy, extravanganza, pantomime, burlesque, and vaudeville" which I have not heard of but sound interesting. The rest of the book goes on to define exactly what defined musicals in America, with "Knapp proposing that these musicals suggested a definition of America "that departed substantially from European concepts of nationhood and nationalism". The article writer then goes on to detail that the writing can be mostly followed with ease, as it was originally written for a class the author was teaching at UCLA. It intends to pander to a rather large audience, since his students had varying degrees of prior knowledge, which is perhaps why the writing is a bit bland, though Gomberg feels the slog was worth the information gained. There are also a fair number of errors, though there is "a higher standard than can be found in many recent books on musical theatre". There is also no side taken on anything really, just a lot of political correctness. Except when he's wrong.


From what is inferable from the article, musicals seem to have been a tool in defining what Americans saw themselves to be. They were not British, not Arabic, Italian, Asian, and so they developed their own style that clearly said what they thought of themselves. It was also a place to make record of important social issues that were occurring at the time through song and dance, as when a black chorus hired for the recording of the score for John McGlinn's 1988 recording of Show Boat refused to sing the first word "Niggers."


With that being said:
1) How else could musicals have been used to make statements about the ongoings of the times when they were created?
2) Though it could have been used to make statements about issues that were current at the time, were they necessarily very effective? 


Gomberg, A. (2006, December 27). The american musical and the formation of national identity.What's New on the Rialto?, Retrieved from http://www.talkinbroadway.com/rialto/past/2005/04_15_05.html

Opera and Musical Differences

  The NYTimes has provided me with an interesting article about the divisions of opera and musicals. Now opera isn't something I've ever really though about much, apart from that classic image of a woman singing such a shrill note that all the glass in a five kilometre vicinity shatters that pops into my brain, so there's not a lot I know about opera. At all. And I should probably go look up what it is to better understand the article, but I am only human and a rather lazy and preoccupied one at that, so I present you with my slightly confused take on the article.

  According to the article opera and musicals are very similar already, which can be the source of the problem when attempting to combine the two. Neither of them can be considered 'above' the other though, both are pleasing in their own right and can be spectacular. Operas, though, tell their story entirely through music, whereas musicals rely heavily on spoken dialogue, so it may seem a simple, natural thing to throw the two genres together. In practice, though, only the most ridiculously inflated, melodramatic elements are incorporated, ignoring the fact that opera is a "richly varied and narrative genre of musical drama". The differences between the two, though slight, are very crucial and disastrous when ignored.

  Here a link is provided to another article which clarifies some what the differences precisely are. It explains that while musicals do indeed weigh with lots of song that is an intrinsic part of the story, they do require spoken dialogue to further it, which is what separates it from opera, if I'm reading this correctly. Words, in musicals, "hold the upper edge."  It can be argued, though, that the words are just as important as in musicals and many translations of famous operas were performed. Operatic songs can be and are enjoyed by people who do not understand the language, though, as opera is more about the beauty of the sung language, and can be just enjoyed rather than becoming invested in the plot. In opera, the singer can be poor at putting the words across so long as your voice is magnificent and no one will mind much, whereas in musicals those with merely mediocre voices can excel with great diction and emotion and what have you.

  There's a lot more in the articles that goes on about specific musical-opera hybrids that have failed and precisely why and how and what the creators and directors and song writer's should have done to rectify their disastrous attempts, but it's a bit much to get into and having no basis for understanding these random hybrids, having not seen them, I don't really understand what... is being said, kind of.

  My analysis is that I really know nothing about opera, and while this seemed like a good idea at the time there was a lot of talk about different opera-musical crosses and their creators that confused me, so I tried to just pick out the manageable parts that didn't make my eyes cross. Please pardon my naivety and fallacy, but I am completely out of my depth. It didn't really occur to me to think about opera during this entire venture, though, so it was unexpected, entirely.

  It's interesting, since I normally think of opera as being a very serious sort of entertainment form, with its grandiose voices and performance halls type of thing, and musicals more of a wide ranging sort, with slapstick humour to darker types. In the beginning of the article, though, it talks about how there has been folk opera, jazz opera, all these kinds I've certainly never heard about, and I doubt anyone I know either has, whereas musicals are a more approachable type of theatre. The writers of these two articles were pretty quick to dismiss the combination of the two, but I think a successful combination would be interesting in that it could bring opera to a larger audience, so the everyday man wouldn't mind it like musicals.
  And ahhh that's off topic, I believe.

  Reading this article was excellent in that it helped to identify what a musical is and how it is different from other styles of theatre entertainment. (Note to self: next time just ask younger sister. She just accurately explained the difference between operas and musicals in four seconds.) It is a borderline between operas and regular(?) theatre. And while I could surely delve into that further, I believe that about it. Summarized right there. Welp.



Tommassini, A. (2011, July 07). Opera? musical? please respect the difference. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/theater/musical-or-opera-the-fine-line-that-divides-them.html?pagewanted=all
Tommasini, A. (2000, January 24). Critic's notebook; 'once in love with carmen'? nope. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/24/theater/critic-s-notebook-once-in-love-with-carmen-nope.html

Overview of Wiki?

I am a little confused... is the wiki the website we made using the information from these research blogs?

Oh well, assuming it is and I am very much pained if it is not:
It can be found here in all of it's glory (glory what glory, pfft). It is basically a terribly disorganized (the editor-thing would not cooperate with me) summarization of my musings thus far on musical theatre (and apparently normal theatre too). It does have additions of things not expounded upon in this blog because they were found on Wikipedia, and pictures.
And that's kinda it.
Oh, and the information was organized and rearranged. Ish.

A summary of initial findings through research? I am easily distracted. No, just kidding, in actuality I have found that a musical differs from a play in that it is driven by song, rather than spoken dialogue, which helps to add to the emotional appeal and fun. It can be silly or serious, be there for the pure joy of getting swept up in a life that is not your own, or hold the underlying tones reminding the audience of serious issues. Each musical is a different piece of art with only the same underlying components, and like any art form, it would take more than a bit of research to understand everything that goes on in it. To truly understand the dedication that goes into a musical, I would probably have to participate in some form, which admittedly, is most likely not going to happen, but I have achieved a respect and understanding, I think, for this.

Lookin' at vids...

After searching for some videos about the behind-the-scenes work in theatre, I realized I was overlooking the largest drawing feature when I found a series of dull, dry videos featuring a man with enough gel in his hair to light a campfire, and terrible handwriting. Theatre draws people because it's entertaining, flashy and at times even awe inspiring. I'd read previously that it focuses less on the plot aspect than a play, due to the focus being on the musical aspect. And watching the video, which seems to be a montage to multiple prosperous Broadway and West End productions, it is indeed very eyebrow raising with its elaborate props and costumes. The word that comes to mind is eccentric, really. And eccentric is not a bad thing. It's a testament to creativity, which draws people.

The characters themselves are clearly exaggerated, larger-than-life figures. On a stage in front of possibly hundreds it no doubt helps to get a point or gesture across, but also serves to emphasize a character's personality and stage presence. My guess is that it's difficult to slip smaller things into a production, so everything must be noticeable. And if it's not meant to be noticeable, what then? Make everything else more noticeable! Like playing everything really loudly so when suddenly the quiet parts come in, they contrast makes them stick out more. Dynamics!

Also, costumes, costumes are a quick way to identify a character. Who they are, what they are, and what will happen to them can be clued in by looking at their outfits. Obviously no one's going to go all Sherlock on them and zero in on mustard on the sleeve, coffee stains on the collar, dog hair on the trousers and the faint waft of laundry detergent signaling this is that, and that is this, etc. but a woman wearing a pink frilled dress is going to register as a flippant, feminine sort who will probably trill at you and constantly be fixing her hair. A tall brooding sort with dark eyes, hair, coat, and shoes will either set off the serialkiller! bell or the other tropes surrounding those types. Yes, it is stereotyping, and no, it's most often not a good thing when regarding real people, but it is the basic thought process that goes on in ones mind. So it would seem that exaggerated costumes help this!

Eccentric and exaggerated, that is the face of a musical, it would seem.

So does that mean if a musical were a person, the plot would be the spine, the songs the muscle, the FWOOSH that makes up the props and costumes and fance the face? Then what's the rest?

I do believe we have a third essential question.

Essential Questions:

1) Are characters relatable when they are stretched and exaggerated?

2) What if it's got a more serious tone? Must things be kept exaggerated or can you normalise your characters?  

3) If a musical were a person, what would make up the different parts of it?

Research from a Book

I think....I just realized how strangely off topic last week's post was. I'll try to rectify this by writing a new one in the future. But bloody hell, did I get off topic or what?
But steering back to the topic of today, I found a book called How Does the Show Go On: An Introduction to the Theater.

Appropriate, I think, for my goal of developing a basic understanding of what theatre is.
I think to try to look into the entire book would lead to a very lengthy, ridiculously so post, as is evidenced by the walls of text I churned out from a section of a magazine article and a very short NYTimes piece. And looking at my fellow peers' work, perhaps I'm overdoing it some.

Anyway, what I learned from this book was an overview of different kinds of shows. The most notable of which are the Broadway ones, of course, so they can be divided into Broadway and Off-Broadway (Broadway is located in New York). Off-Broadway means a smaller theatre in New York. The London version of Broadway shows are called West End shows (this explains so much, I had no idea what that meant). Quite often, successful shows will be traveled and shipped to different places around the country (domestic tours) or around the world (international tours). Regional theatres (or resident theatres) are professional theatre companies located throughout the states that put on plays. Summer stock theatres are seasonal plays put on for locals and tourists in the summer by all levels of actors.

There are different styles of theatres too. Most relate to where the audience sits in relation to the stage. The Proscenium is the most common, where the audience faces the stage at the front of a room and a curtain separates the two. A Thrust stage is nearly the same, but has a piece that, as the name suggests, 'thrusts' into the audience, which surround it on three sides. The amphitheater is the old, classic times from the Ancient Greeks and Romans. They were built outdoors, with the audience seating built in a semi circle bowl facing the stage, which held sound very well.

Good Lord, what is there to analyze? I learned what I learned. But it seems the book put Broadway shows on a completely other level, with West End following close behind. While yes, they are much more notable, why exactly? And it would seem there are many different types of theatre for all levels of the profession, not to mention, as the book did and I did not, there are many other jobs in theatre besides acting. The different levels of theatre provide opportunities for them to break into the business and gain experience.

Also, unrelated, something I thought very interesting was that the Ancient Greeks and Romans found the bowl shaped amphitheater amplified sound, as they did not have microphones back then (another thing that fascinates me, the Greeks. And Romans too, I suppose).
Honestly, reading this had made me have twice as many questions as answers. Back to the library, I suppose!

Questions for pondering (almost spelled that as pomegranate, for some reason):
1) What differentiates levels of quality of the professions involved in theatre? What makes a make-up artist good, or an actor excellent, or a director fantastic? (Actually, this is close to what I intended for my essential question.)
2)  What are different benefits of different types of theatres? What type of plays would work best in what types of theatre?
3) As the example of the amphitheater was built to emphasize sound, how else would different types of theatres affect technical aspects of plays?

Schumacher, T. (2007). How does the show go on: An introduction to the theater. (1 ed., pp. 12-15). New York: Disney Enterprises.

Research Gleaned from a Newspaper

Finding an interesting magazine article last week was a ridiculously difficult task compared to this week. Theatre in newspapers? Psh, I've just found a dozen. And not only that, but I can find newspapers reviews of musicals I've been curious about. (Reviews are allowed, right? Right?)
This makes me giddily happy.
To explain, I can't really recall a musical I've seen (or at least enjoyed and remembered) and I don't count High School Musical, which still makes me cringe to this day. So upon discovering that there are musicals that aren't injected with steroids of sap and fluff, I... well, not much really.
So I'm doing something about it now!
Okay, starting with perhaps the first musical I'd heard of that seemed intriguing (note, I've yet to actually see it, any incarnation of it). Which, being Phantom of  the Opera, perhaps refutes some of what I'd just said, but I'd not really known what it was about. I did assume it was similar to The Hunchback of Notre Dame, though. Unfortunately, the article's not particularly lengthy, so in an effort to wring it for every drop of possible speculation, this will branch from  the actual musical itself.

The article starts by describing how aged the theatre and equipment is, especially the 'signature special effect' which is a chandelier that trundles down in an anticlimactic crash. It explains precisely why, but then offers that for all it's outdated props, it still fares well, and for glass raising reason. For it's talented cast and emotional value, it far outstrips some of the newer, less worthy, shall we say, musicals who more rely on, what do they call them, stunt casting? Where they rely on already popular faces to draw crowds rather than the promise of memorable quality entertainment (How To Succeed in business, anyone? It's been noted for the blandness of the characters.) Phantom of the Opera rings of professionalism with it's 'Maria Bjornson’s flamboyant gothic design and Harold Prince’s fantastical staging'.
It still delivers the audience to a past world of dramatic contrasts and romance for the passionate soul, though despite that it remains fresh as when it first came out, it will not win over what the article says is a large contingency of Andrew Lloyd Webber haters.
This is all fantastic news, considering that years ago, during the Fall of 2003 it had seemed to be staggering around on it's last few breaths. It's peers had already given up and collapsed into demise, yet time traveling to the time the article was penned (or typed) it was still selling out.
(And this is where I checked the date the article was published. July 1, 2005. Bravo, self, bravo. Alas, it's pointless to just delete the entire thing, I feel. On we go!)
The tale was helped by the film version of the musical (by Joel Schumacher), which, while it helped introduce the story to those who otherwise would have never seen it, only was great in that it helped to remind people of how superior the musical is.
Which isn't a bad thing at all.
The overseer in charge, Mr. Prince, of casting has done well in not resorting to the aforementioned stunt casting when sales dropped and panic could have risen. The actors themselves remain disciplined and have not grown lax, giving in to the 'lazy flourishes' that can occur when an actor grows bored of repeated performances.

Alright, analyze. My take on this is that you can't buy quality.
Well, yes you can. You can buy talented actors and fantastic props and technology and the best equipment in this galaxy, but the fact remains that at the very core of it all, if the story is worthless, so is the show.
Basically, what I suppose I'm trying to say is that a truly touching tale, one that really leaves you walking out of the world into reality again and feeling disoriented because you got so involved in the characters' problems can't be replaced. Fancy technology will always be replaced year after year with bigger bang and boom, and eventually the dazzle of a show will be outgrown. But a truly worthy show will leave people wanting to update it and bring it back again and again and again. (I think I'm getting sleepy and reiterating myself. Have I made my point?) For instance, the much raved and reviewed movie Avatar I felt was a brilliant display of how far technology has come and the brilliant things you can do with it (really, the graphics were gorgeous) but I didn't really feel invested in the story and characters.

Alright, digest this and then perhaps ponder, my non-existent audience:
1) What really draws you into a story and makes it worth re-visiting over and over again? Or have you yet to find one like that, and so what do you think would captivate you?
2) Can a story be entertaining and absolutely fine with decent plot but with FANTASTIC glitter and (as the band director Mr. Friedman says, 'whoosh') fireworks? Because, let's be honest, sometimes being BEDAZZLED is just as great, when you're not in the mood to contemplate the politics of a set of fictional character's lives.
3) I'll probably come up with better questions tomorrow.

Zinoman, J. (2005, July 5). Old and ghostly but still a hoot.The New York Times. Retrieved from http://theater.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/theater/reviews/01phan.html

Magazine

While looking at various magazines, I found a rather lengthy article that had a section on Shakespeare, which I thought fascinating. So, why not start with the most iconic playwright of all time? Going back in history should set some foundation of knowledge (hopefully).

According to the article, the company Shakespeare was a part of centered around the economic factor, the shareholders, specifically. These actors, being the ones financially invested, were the core, and infinitely more likely to play a part than a hired man. This also led to stability in the group, as there would be less coming and going of actors performing a part, then leaving, and this meant the performers were capable of developing relationships that are present on stage, that the audience can see and will react to.

Richard Burbage was an excellent madman. Will Kemp the charming clown, was replaced by Robert Armin, a short man with a great singing voice. That William Shakespeare knew who would be performing the roles he wrote enabled him to tailor and tweak them to better showcase his group's talents.

He also was able to observe the apprentices closer. As women were not allowed to perform, boys instead performed the parts, with their more effeminate faces and higher voices. It was common then for a young apprentice to be taken on by a master of the trade, one experienced, whether it be for tailoring, baking, or acting. And because these apprentices were inexperienced, and more liable to make mistakes on stage, their master would generally perform with them onstage. Hence why the women most often had scenes with a particular male character.

To perhaps analyze further what was just summarized, because the troupe (although that might not be the correct term, depending on it they traveled) stayed fairly consistent, the members were able to get to know each other and develop relationships that manifested on stage. It was easier to perform with someone you knew and could perhaps anticipate, than an utter stranger. Shakespeare possibly made roles based around what he knew they were capable of, rather than creating an empty role and trying to stuff an actor into it, to make them fit. As such, because they would have pulled it off better, undoubtedly the performances would have been better, which may have contributed to his success. 

To take a modern example, a friend adores the comedic play A Very Potter Musical, performed the the acting group Starkids. It's rather evident that they are a group of friends performing, rather than performers performing as friends. Their ability, as such, to enjoy themselves more on stage is possibly what encourages them to continue performing with friends and turn the play into an entertaining experience for the audience.

It mentions that women were not allowed to perform, and were rarely written as "effective female characters" but that Shakespeare did. By contrast, his plays brimmed with them. As such, the boys playing them had to perform effectively. Economically, if they couldn't, the crowd wouldn't like it, and they would not get paid. Also, how stage time was managed and how effectively came into play. To help minimize the time a master would require to prepare a boy to perform alone, he could instead perform in scenes with him, as mentioned earlier.

That's actually about all the particular section on Shakespeare mentions, which is a pity, because it is interesting and I do wish I had more to muse on.

So to reflect, what problems could having boys playing the women roles have resulted in? And what further benefits could having someone familiar on stage provide?

Thomas, N. (2011, January). From shakespeare to oklahoma: a history of byways. Scene4, Retrieved from http://www.archives.scene4.com/jan-2011/0111/nathanthomas0111.html

Essential Question

Hm. Not quite sure what to say...

Alright, this blog was created for the purpose of researching musical theatre for English class, in which we have to create a blog and research something for seventeen weeks.
I have, actually, despised theatre most of my life, probably not because I can't dance, sing, nor act, but I feel the urge to strangle people who randomly burst out into song in class, and so when I see people doing the same on stage or screen (High School Musical, anyone?) the, uh, yeah, the same happens. I do enjoy band, reading/writing, and drawing, so one day, I randomly realized, 'oh hang on, when you mix all those up, you get a musical!' (it makes sense in my mind, bear with me) and so I started, uh, writing one. Well, sort of. Naturally, I know little to nothing of theatre, besides what I read in miscellaneous books.
So when my lovely, amusing teacher mentioned we could research a topic of our choice, it presented the perfect oppurtunity. Opportunity. Bugger, I keep spelling it wrong. I digress, because it would force me to actually go and look up things and talk to people (which I ha- dislike, I dislike seeking out and interacting with people I don't know) like my friend suggested.
I've no idea if this will be a fruitful venture or not, but it's something I'm interested in, I've no better ideas, and, hm, yeah.

Oh, yes, I also have recently found the use of gifs. I apologize in advance if these are not allowed, and can take them out, but I find them to be highly amusing and very illustrative where words fail are lacking.

Edited 2/12/12:

Right, well I went and completely forgot the purpose of the the first post, instead rambling pointlessly. I'll leave it up there, though, for posterity.

My essential question is:

What precisely defines musical theatre, and what makes it entertaining and intriguing to people?