DAN:
Standing in this room,
Well I wonder what comes now.
I know I have to help her --
But hell if I know how.
And all the times that I've been told
The way her illness goes --
The truth of it is no one really knows.
And every day this act we act gets more and more absurd...
And all my fears just sit inside me, screaming to be heard...
I know they won't, though-- not a single word.
I was here,
At her side,
When she called,
When she cried...
How could she leave me on my own?
Will it work?
This cure?
There's no way
To be sure...
But I'm weary to the bone.
And whenever she goes flying
I keep my feet right on the ground --
Oh, now I need a lift and there's no one around.
Hey
GABE:
Hey
DAN AND GABE:
Ohhh
(Together)
DAN:
Ahhh oooh
No
GABE:
Ahh oooh
No
DAN:
And I've never had to face the world without her at my side...
Now I'm strolling right beside her as the black hole opens wide...
Mine is just a slower suicide.
I've been here
For the show,
Every high,
Every low...
But it's the worst we've ever known.
She's been hurt,
And how,
But I can't
Give up now.
'Cause I've never been alone...
I could never be alone.
29 February 2012
Song of the day: "I've Been" by Tom Kitt and Brian Yorkey
A haunting song from the musical next to normal. Dan expresses his frustration, despair, and loneliness in the midst of his wife's crisis.
28 February 2012
Thought of the day: Should challenging dramatic musical theatre be attempted?
I've always wondered why some people don't like musicals. My speculation is that they don't believe music can be used to tell stories. Maybe they don't really like singing at all. Maybe they only listen to music in the background or in short bursts on the radio. If you're used to two minute pop songs, a two hour musical is a long thing to sit through.
There have been many articles written about the decline of Broadway. Between 1957 and 1967, 8 of the best-selling albums in the US were cast albums for musicals like My Fair Lady and West Side Story. Those days are over and that style of music is just not mainstream anymore. Musical theatre is a niche art, and Broadway is a tourist attraction. The reality is that Broadway will support itself with big commercial hits and do some challenging "indie" stuff on the side (like next to normal.)
Writers will need to decide whether their musical to be popular (Hollywood blockbuster) or to be art (independent film) . If you decide to do art, forget about those people who never liked musical theatre in the first place.
In this difficult climate, should people keep trying to write the next The Light in the Piazza or next to normal?
It's extremely difficult to write dramatic musical theatre. It's much easier to do a comedy or write an ironic musical. If you do a sincere drama, you're fighting against the fact that music is a broad, heavy brush to paint with. For whatever reason, society is not very music literate. Mainstream people don't sit around debating Mahler. Maybe you can tell interesting stories with Wagnerian motifs and complicated harmonies. The number of people who would get that (people who study classical music) are even smaller than the number of theatre fans. So you're stuck with traditional Broadway style and rough genres of music like jazz, gospel, rock, pop, folk, etc. These styles of music are associated with a particular mood (think of Wong Kar-wai films) as opposed to specific statements. We don't have a musical equivalent of dialogue (or maybe there is, but it's beyond my poor, poor musical knowledge?).
Traditionally, music is used in theatre only when the characters experience extreme emotions such that they can no longer speak and have to burst into song. Traditionally, the audience expects the actors to sing on the beat and in tune. These things are limiting, compared to dialogue which can be said with any kind of pitch, emphasis, or timing as long as the words get across. There's no reason why people can't write more musicals where music is played continuously. I liked the film-like underscoring in next to normal. Operas and many British musicals (e.g. Les Miserables) are sung-through. Singing off-beat and out-of-tune would be much harder. People mostly expect beautiful singing in musical theatre and that's a tough expectation to break.
The key to writing dramatic musical theatre is to find or write a story where you can figure out a way to add music in a way that enhances the work rather than being an adornment. It's hard enough to write a good drama in a 300 page novel where you have space and thousands of words. How many stories feel like they're crying out for a musical treatment? My guess is not many. I think the odds are really stacked against the writers. Musical theatre tends to be most successful when the music is trying to be funny, cute, or beautiful.
Still, there's no reason why people shouldn't try. If enough people like it and are affected by it, the work was worthwhile. Everyone should be able to find a piece of art that speaks to them, that helps them understand the world or themselves better, that is cathartic and helps them express their feelings. If your cup of tea is musical theater (like me), why not? If someone wants to paint the equivalent of Hamlet, why not?
I never thought of musical theatre as serious art, but then I studied Sondheim and encountered next to normal, which inspired my appreciation and understanding of theatre, acting, and music. I'm truly grateful to the people who push the boundaries of musical theatre and I'm hoping for more. Finding inspirational art is a rare and special experience, not unlike falling in love. Everyone should "fall in love" with art at least once.
(I am not an expert on musical theatre or music. I'm just writing my random thought for the day.)
There have been many articles written about the decline of Broadway. Between 1957 and 1967, 8 of the best-selling albums in the US were cast albums for musicals like My Fair Lady and West Side Story. Those days are over and that style of music is just not mainstream anymore. Musical theatre is a niche art, and Broadway is a tourist attraction. The reality is that Broadway will support itself with big commercial hits and do some challenging "indie" stuff on the side (like next to normal.)
Writers will need to decide whether their musical to be popular (Hollywood blockbuster) or to be art (independent film) . If you decide to do art, forget about those people who never liked musical theatre in the first place.
In this difficult climate, should people keep trying to write the next The Light in the Piazza or next to normal?
It's extremely difficult to write dramatic musical theatre. It's much easier to do a comedy or write an ironic musical. If you do a sincere drama, you're fighting against the fact that music is a broad, heavy brush to paint with. For whatever reason, society is not very music literate. Mainstream people don't sit around debating Mahler. Maybe you can tell interesting stories with Wagnerian motifs and complicated harmonies. The number of people who would get that (people who study classical music) are even smaller than the number of theatre fans. So you're stuck with traditional Broadway style and rough genres of music like jazz, gospel, rock, pop, folk, etc. These styles of music are associated with a particular mood (think of Wong Kar-wai films) as opposed to specific statements. We don't have a musical equivalent of dialogue (or maybe there is, but it's beyond my poor, poor musical knowledge?).
Traditionally, music is used in theatre only when the characters experience extreme emotions such that they can no longer speak and have to burst into song. Traditionally, the audience expects the actors to sing on the beat and in tune. These things are limiting, compared to dialogue which can be said with any kind of pitch, emphasis, or timing as long as the words get across. There's no reason why people can't write more musicals where music is played continuously. I liked the film-like underscoring in next to normal. Operas and many British musicals (e.g. Les Miserables) are sung-through. Singing off-beat and out-of-tune would be much harder. People mostly expect beautiful singing in musical theatre and that's a tough expectation to break.
The key to writing dramatic musical theatre is to find or write a story where you can figure out a way to add music in a way that enhances the work rather than being an adornment. It's hard enough to write a good drama in a 300 page novel where you have space and thousands of words. How many stories feel like they're crying out for a musical treatment? My guess is not many. I think the odds are really stacked against the writers. Musical theatre tends to be most successful when the music is trying to be funny, cute, or beautiful.
Still, there's no reason why people shouldn't try. If enough people like it and are affected by it, the work was worthwhile. Everyone should be able to find a piece of art that speaks to them, that helps them understand the world or themselves better, that is cathartic and helps them express their feelings. If your cup of tea is musical theater (like me), why not? If someone wants to paint the equivalent of Hamlet, why not?
I never thought of musical theatre as serious art, but then I studied Sondheim and encountered next to normal, which inspired my appreciation and understanding of theatre, acting, and music. I'm truly grateful to the people who push the boundaries of musical theatre and I'm hoping for more. Finding inspirational art is a rare and special experience, not unlike falling in love. Everyone should "fall in love" with art at least once.
(I am not an expert on musical theatre or music. I'm just writing my random thought for the day.)
27 February 2012
Thought of the day: Speculation on why the public has no interest in science
I haven't made any progress figuring out ways to convince the public that science is cool or worth learning. So I thought I'd do the opposite and list all the reasons why science is such a tough sell with the public.
- Science is hard and takes a lot of time to learn. It requires sequential knowledge. You need to know math before you can tackle any scientific subject and that alone is a huge hurdle. Most people learn science and math for one of the following reasons: a) their parents said it was important, b) if they don't do well in those subjects, they won't get into Harvard, c) it was a relatively easy subject for them and made them feel smart. Deep ideas in science aren't typically taught until college (maybe even graduate school), so you have to brainwash people until you can get them to the point when they know enough to appreciate the beauty of science. How many kids have you met who sincerely want to grow up and be a scientist? There are only a few sexy scientific endeavors. The ones I could think of are inventing cures for diseases and going to space. Sports and performing arts look cool, even to a five year old kid. Watching a scientist pipette or sit at a computer does not look cool.
- People can get away with not knowing any science in their daily lives. They don't need to navigate ships at sea, write computer programs, or farm their own food. There's a mass-produced machine or product to do anything they desire or need. At worst, they can hire a repairman. Yes, science is taken for granted... until the next celebrity comes down with a life-threatening illness.
- Let's face it, people want fun, fame, and money. Fun has been eliminated in item #1. Scientists are not famous unless they build atomic bombs, cure caner, or invent a limitless energy source. I guess there is some money to be made in science (even if we don't consider technology companies like Google). For some reason, the idea of scientist as the money-making profession only seems to resonate with Asians.
- The practical uses of science consist of either a) modeling the world and using the models to make predictions or b) testing designs by experimentation. Modeling is abstract and not people friendly. You need to know math (it rear its ugly head again!) Experiments? Yes, you can build cool stuff and write nifty code. But it's hard to get into that stuff when the chemicals they used to have in educational kits are banned; schools don't have the budget for equipment or don't want to be liable; there are more interesting distractions like TV, video games, internet, Facebook.
26 February 2012
All about next to normal
I've become obsessed with the musical next to normal. The composer is Tom Kitt and the lyricist/book writer is Brian Yorkey.
History of the work
Kitt and Yorkey met as undergraduates at Columbia University. In 1998, they presented a 10-minute workshop piece called Feeling Electric. After a couple readings (2002), many workshops (2005, 2006, 2007), and the steadfast backing of producer David Stone, the title of the show was changed to next to normal and was produced off-Broadway at Second Stage Theatre during early 2008. The reviews were mixed, so the producers took the show to Arena Stage in DC, where Kitt, Yorkey, and the creative team tinkered with it until it was deemed ready. Then it premiered on Broadway in April 2009. That only took 10 years (!).
What it's about
The plot of next to normal has some clever twists, so without giving anything away, I would say that it's the story of a generic suburban American family trying to cope with loss and crisis. In the center of it all is the mother, Diana, who can't take care of herself much less her husband Dan, 17-year old son Gabe, and 16-year old daughter Natalie. It turns out that Diana has recurrent manic episodes and delusions, which the doctors think might be bipolar disorder, but they're not sure.
It's easy to call next to normal the musical about the bipolar mother, but that's a huge injustice. There are deeper issues like Diana and Dan's past, and Dan's habit of suppressing bad feelings and hoping that doctors will fix everything. Natalie is frustrated about having a "crazy" mother who monopolizes the attention of the family (namely Dan) and makes Natalie feel "invisible." The fact that Diana "might" be bipolar is very flashy and provocative, allowing for some interesting scenes. But it just happens to be that Diana is mentally ill. She could have had some other illness or be a very difficult person, and many of the same family issues would have come up.
I missed the Broadway production (yeah, stupid me). I've always been a very conservative theatre goer. I tend to see the "classics" like Gypsy and Sunday in the Park with George. I'm pretty sure I heard about next to normal in the New York Times but paid no attention. I didn't think that anyone could do a musical about mental illness. Not that it's really about mental illness, but many people say that. To remind you again, that's wrong!!!
Discussion of the work
With the help of the libretto, cast album, videos, clips, reviews and interviews, I've pieced together a sense of what the stage production must have been like. I understand why people love next to normal. It's (1) an original musical with original music and original story, (2) the book [1] is well-written, challenging, and addresses controversial, relevant issues, (3) the staging is very clever, (4) the music and lyrics are excellent, and (5) the story is personal.
Originality
The way people talk about it, there hasn't been any revolutionary work in musical theatre since Sondheim, his last real success being Into the Woods in 1987. There have been some baby steps moving musical theatre in a more modern direction. Rent (1996) showed that you could use "rock-style" music in a contemporary setting. Spring Awakening (2006) had beautiful alternative rock score that integrated well with a story about teenagers coming of age. As wonderful as Rent and Spring Awakening are, their success derives from celebrating teenage angst and might I say, self-absorption. (Avenue Q has similar themes.) This is clear when you look at the fanbase, which is all pretty much between 12 and 30.
I guess this is better than the "sentimental" and "light-weight" reputation of the Golden Age musicals [2]. All the musicals I've mentioned [3] have barely kept Broadway semi-relevant in an age dominated by Hollywood and internet. Mostly the other musicals are filler -- jukebox musicals like Jersey Boys, productions based on film/TV like Spamalot and Shrek, and revivals. It's wonderful that most of Sondheim's best work has been revived in the last decade, but isn't that a sign that nothing has come along to replace this guy?
What makes next to normal special is that it has both original music and an original story. It is not based on a TV show, movie, play, or book. The story was written from scratch. Moreover, its main theme is not teenage angst (though there is a little bit of that) but timeless, universal issues like grief, spouses who have difficulty communicating, or a daughter who feels ignored and terrified that she'll turn into her mother. Truly a musical you can bring the whole family to!
Themes and book
The discussion of mental illness gives the work a timely relevance and contemporary setting. The musical brings up questions like how should mental illness be treated and how do people deal with their mental illness when modern medicine fails or is unsatisfying? The title of the show provokes some interesting thoughts. What does it mean to be normal? Maybe we can find the bright side of people who are a little "different." Many bipolar people are extraordinarily creative. Is it important to be normal or to reach some ideal? Maybe "next to normal" is good enough. Perhaps we can appreciate what we have and the people who love us even if they aren't quite "normal."
next to normal is well-characterized as an intense dramatic play set to music. If you read the book (libretto) without listening to the music, you'll see that the material is on-par with any straight play. The musical is mostly sung-through which makes the music like a tidal wave pushing you relentlessly through the action. The few non-musical scenes are underscored. The pacing is great -- fast but not too fast. I'm amazed that there are no dull moments in the show. Every scene is interesting. The one exception is the "Song of Forgetting" in Act 2, which as you can tell by the title, was unimaginative. Brian and Tom, what were you thinking? Why would any character sing "sing a song of forgetting" and not just once but multiple times? It seems like a meta-reference, which is not what you want in a realistic musical play.
Back to praise... kudos to Yorkey for the well-done humor in next to normal. The funny things are actually funny and they emerge organically from the characters and their personal situations. For example, some humorous moments arise from Diana's adventures in psychiatric drugs and Natalie's interactions with her boyfriend Henry.
Problems with the book
I am disappointed that the musical feels somewhat anti-medication/anti-ECT and portrays psychiatrists slightly negatively. The writers definitely did their research and attempted to make the portrayal of psychiatry more balanced, but the fact is that there are far more instances where psychiatry is mocked or criticized than advocated. In the ending, it is suggested that Diana stops all medical treatment permanently (she might be continuing talk therapy, it's not clear). There is a point where pain ceases to be educational and is merely pain that prevents you from living your life. Chris Caggiano has similar complaints (though he sounds much more unhappy than me) in his blog review.
Most of my specific complaints are about Act 2. "Light," the show finale, rubs me the wrong way. The constant metaphors of "light" and the cast belting "shine" four times feels borderline religious. The events of Act 2 are dark and ambiguous and not something to celebrate. Broadway musicals suffer from the expectation that the audience must not leave depressed or that there must be a comic scene somewhere, even in the darkest of works [4]. Why not end on some low-key ambiguous dialogue like in Gypsy? Or use a finale song that is not so in-your-face and bright and doesn't sound like a choir at Christmas mass? I think the message of the show is that survival and the acting of moving forward are huge accomplishments in themselves and are not things to be taken lightly. I should say that apparently the writers revised the off-Broadway version of this song to address complaints like mine. I guess it wasn't enough for my satisfaction.
I'm also not entirely happy about using a dramatic conceit (the same thing was done in the Season 1 finale of Homeland). But the payoff was some revealing scenes, most notably about Dan, so it was marginally okay in my book.
This is more minor, but I wasn't a fan of the opening number for Act 2 "Wish I Were Here". It seems like the remnants of the off-Broadway Act 1 finale "Feeling Electric." I felt like Natalie's foray into illicit activities was forced and the act of mother and daughter running around the stage in a trippy haze while lights flash didn't fit the serious tone of the show [5], especially Act 2 which is musically more low-key overall than Act 1.
That said, I've never encountered an (overly?) ambitious musical that didn't have problems. That must be why many musical theatre aficionados consider Gypsy to be the best musical of all-time. It had ambition, but not too much. Writing dramatic musical theatre is incredibly hard, especially in a modern world where people prefer either realism or irony over metaphor in art. Some people might say that it shouldn't be attempted. Obviously, I don't share that opinion, given my life-long love of singing.
Staging
I love the Broadway staging (much of the credit goes to director Michael Greif). The set is sparse -- a few shelves, chairs, a table, a medicine cabinet, and a mock piano. The elaborate part is the three level design with poles. It allows some separation when there are scene with Diana overlapping a scene with another character. I'm not sure about the poles, but they do give the actors some extra options in blocking. It's particularly effective for the character of Gabe who is dancing with the poles and making trouble. There's a fantastic scene during "I'm Alive" where Gabe is on the third level and Diana is at the bottom reaching out towards him.
There are only six characters in the cast and they are on stage almost all the time, except to change clothes. I like how you'll see characters out of the action doing things like Gabe reading a book or Dan cleaning up the house. The blocking is fantastic. The characters move around the stage and go up and down the levels constantly. It feels dynamic and every movement sets up the next one. In general, next to normal is as minimalistic as possible without losing anything -- no fat and all muscle. The work invites intimacy -- the six-person cast, six-person band, and minimalistic staging. It would be fantastic for a small 100-200 seat theatre.
Music
Rent and Spring Awakening showed me how much fun contemporary music can be [6]. I think Spring Awakening might have a better and more creative score than next to normal, but next to normal has the most effective score. Yes, there are some pastiches of folk, rock, Gilbert & Sullivan, and waltzes, but among innovative composers, there is only one Sondheim [7] and the wannabes (Adam Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, etc) haven't come up with any musicals that integrate the music and book well. Plus, Sondheim wrote pastiche scores (Follies, Assassins), too!
I like how Tom Kitt chooses the right style of music for each moment and each character. It's eclectic but it works. Diana is frequently manic and has lots of energy so she has most of the heavy rock numbers [8]. In their key "this is who I am and what I want" songs, Gabe and Natalie sing in a bright rock style which suits their youthful ages. Dan is reserved guy, so he mostly sings moody, lonely ballads.
The two waltzes are wonderfully written and yet completely different aside from the style. The first is a satire and the second is a pivotal emotional scene. The conversations between Natalie and her boyfriend Henry ("Hey #1", "Hey #2", "Hey #3") are low-key, alternative or modern musical theatre [9] style. I took me a while to appreciate these songs, but it's cool to hear songs that are conversational and not "big" or "I want" songs.
My favorite song is "You Don't Know/I Am the One." It's intense, thrilling, and has the most sophisticated and interesting blocking. Diana's tirade really scares me (boy, I'm glad I've never been that depressed), while Dan's angry response makes complete sense to me. I think my personality is probably closest to Dan; I am not Diana jumping on the hospital bed and belting rock songs at the doctor.
Also on my karaoke list, the Gabe and Natalie rock songs "I'm Alive" and "Superboy and the Invisible Girl" (very very fun and showy) as well as Dan's emotionally heavy [10] and touching ballads "I've Been" and "A Light in the Dark." (very very dark and emotional)
Besides "Song of Forgetting", there are two songs I'm lukewarm about. I'm not a huge fan of "I Miss the Mountains," mostly because I don't really like folk music. But I think that's my personal taste. It's a well-done song and there's a nice belt in it, which always makes me happy.
Original Broadway Cast
I should make some remarks about the original Broadway cast (OBC). I didn't see them perform, so I can't really comment on their acting except to say that for the most part, critics and audiences thought they were outstanding. Alice Ripley (Diana) convinced me that singing doesn't always have to be "pretty" (I tend to like the legit, classical style of singing.) and raw, imperfect singing [11] can be beautiful, too, and arguably more interesting than legit singing sometimes. Before I studied (yes, that's the word) next to normal, I had never heard of Ripley (guess I need to brush up on my Broadway knowledge) but she has a reputation for the most gigantic and enthusiastic belt on Broadway [12]. J. Robert Spencer (Dan) has a nice rock voice, but I prefer Brian d'Arcy James' (off-Broadway original and Broadway replacement Dan) strong, expressive baritone for the ballads. Jennifer Damiano (Natalie) and Aaron Tveit (Gabe) sound fantastic. This guy Tveit, how can he be so good looking and have such an amazing voice? What planet does he come from? Adam Chanler-Berat (Henry, Natalie's boyfriend) is absolutely charming, and Louis Hobson (Doctor Fine/Doctor Madden) has a gorgeous, angelic tone to his voice. Despite the small cast, the choral numbers sound much bigger than one would think. Is this some clever sound engineering?
Personal comments
My favorite thing about next to normal is how personal it is. I've been Natalie, Dan, and Diana at various points in time. I understand how they feel and Brian Yorkey's lyrics are spot-on. I feel connected to the story and the characters most of the time (there are a few parts in Act 2 that lose me, but it's minor).
I think Sondheim is fantastic (like everyone else), but I tend to like specific songs. I'm never completely satisfied with his musicals as a whole. next to normal isn't without its flaws, but to me, it's the best musical overall. In the end, that's why we have diversity in art. Hopefully, there is something out there, that speaks to you and resonates for a long time.
Because of next to normal, I've reached a new level in my understanding of theatre. It's inspired me to think about how to play characters in different ways (for example, Marin Mazzie, Ripley's replacement, played Diana very differently) and the importance of making good acting decisions so that the work hangs together as a whole (acting choices for Dan affects how Diana is played; playing one scene one way might be exciting for that scene individually, but not be consistent with other scenes). I understand why English professors love deep plays like Hamlet. I don't think next to normal is Hamlet, but I find that I learn new things on repeated viewings. I understand why theatre nuts get excited about understudies going on a Broadway show -- it's fun to see how a different actor will interpret the role. There are many interesting ways to play Diana, Dan, and Natalie and that separates next to normal from most musicals.
After this ridiculously long post, the only thing left to say is that if there's a production of Next to Normal playing near you, go see it!
[1] The book of a musical is like the equivalent of a movie script or the dialogue and stage directions for a play. Many musicals fail due to a badly written book.
[2] There are some fantastic musicals that are amazing and definitely not "light," for example, Gypsy, West Side Story, South Pacific, and most of Sondheim's work.
[3] I might also add The Lion King, Wicked, and the various British pop operas written by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Claude-Michel Schönberg.
[4] In particular, I think of "The Song of Purple Summer" from Spring Awakening (two main characters died, but we need to make the audience feel okay!) and a very awkward joke about dumb Texans in Sunday in the Park with George.
[5] Jesse Green of New York Magazine has similar comments in an interesting lament about "bombast" on Broadway.
[6] I grew up with one parent who liked oldies and another parent who thought anything but classical music is trash, so my taste through high school was only musicals and classical. I didn't start listening to "contemporary" music until I was 21.
[7] Not that my musical theater knowledge is particularly extensive, but I can think of one more example: Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story.
[8] I feel concerned for whoever plays Diana. Those heavy rock numbers, constant singing, heavy intense scenes, 2 hours on stage -- I wonder if the actress will either shred her voice or collapse.
[9] What I mean by modern musical theatre style is Sondheim and the young guys who look up to him, the before-mentioned Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, etc.
[10] HUGE SPOILER
These songs are sooo heavy. In "I've Been," we see Dan cleaning up the blood from his wife's suicide attempt and squeezing blood out of the towel. In "A Light in the Dark," Dan is trying to persuade his wife to go through with the ECT treatment, believing that it will save her life.
END OF HUGE SPOILER
[11] Though I'm confused sometimes whether Ripley is singing in character voice or if her voice is strained. Supposedly, she told some students at a master class that she bruised a vocal cord back when the show was doing its off-Broadway run and I don't know if she ever fully recovered from that injury.
[12] Someone said she should get an award for "belting your face off." In Side Show, she belts for 45 seconds. Insanity. Also, check out Alice Ripley and Anthony Rapp singing "Take me or leave me" from Rent. More insane singing.
History of the work
Kitt and Yorkey met as undergraduates at Columbia University. In 1998, they presented a 10-minute workshop piece called Feeling Electric. After a couple readings (2002), many workshops (2005, 2006, 2007), and the steadfast backing of producer David Stone, the title of the show was changed to next to normal and was produced off-Broadway at Second Stage Theatre during early 2008. The reviews were mixed, so the producers took the show to Arena Stage in DC, where Kitt, Yorkey, and the creative team tinkered with it until it was deemed ready. Then it premiered on Broadway in April 2009. That only took 10 years (!).
What it's about
The plot of next to normal has some clever twists, so without giving anything away, I would say that it's the story of a generic suburban American family trying to cope with loss and crisis. In the center of it all is the mother, Diana, who can't take care of herself much less her husband Dan, 17-year old son Gabe, and 16-year old daughter Natalie. It turns out that Diana has recurrent manic episodes and delusions, which the doctors think might be bipolar disorder, but they're not sure.
It's easy to call next to normal the musical about the bipolar mother, but that's a huge injustice. There are deeper issues like Diana and Dan's past, and Dan's habit of suppressing bad feelings and hoping that doctors will fix everything. Natalie is frustrated about having a "crazy" mother who monopolizes the attention of the family (namely Dan) and makes Natalie feel "invisible." The fact that Diana "might" be bipolar is very flashy and provocative, allowing for some interesting scenes. But it just happens to be that Diana is mentally ill. She could have had some other illness or be a very difficult person, and many of the same family issues would have come up.
I missed the Broadway production (yeah, stupid me). I've always been a very conservative theatre goer. I tend to see the "classics" like Gypsy and Sunday in the Park with George. I'm pretty sure I heard about next to normal in the New York Times but paid no attention. I didn't think that anyone could do a musical about mental illness. Not that it's really about mental illness, but many people say that. To remind you again, that's wrong!!!
Discussion of the work
With the help of the libretto, cast album, videos, clips, reviews and interviews, I've pieced together a sense of what the stage production must have been like. I understand why people love next to normal. It's (1) an original musical with original music and original story, (2) the book [1] is well-written, challenging, and addresses controversial, relevant issues, (3) the staging is very clever, (4) the music and lyrics are excellent, and (5) the story is personal.
Originality
The way people talk about it, there hasn't been any revolutionary work in musical theatre since Sondheim, his last real success being Into the Woods in 1987. There have been some baby steps moving musical theatre in a more modern direction. Rent (1996) showed that you could use "rock-style" music in a contemporary setting. Spring Awakening (2006) had beautiful alternative rock score that integrated well with a story about teenagers coming of age. As wonderful as Rent and Spring Awakening are, their success derives from celebrating teenage angst and might I say, self-absorption. (Avenue Q has similar themes.) This is clear when you look at the fanbase, which is all pretty much between 12 and 30.
I guess this is better than the "sentimental" and "light-weight" reputation of the Golden Age musicals [2]. All the musicals I've mentioned [3] have barely kept Broadway semi-relevant in an age dominated by Hollywood and internet. Mostly the other musicals are filler -- jukebox musicals like Jersey Boys, productions based on film/TV like Spamalot and Shrek, and revivals. It's wonderful that most of Sondheim's best work has been revived in the last decade, but isn't that a sign that nothing has come along to replace this guy?
What makes next to normal special is that it has both original music and an original story. It is not based on a TV show, movie, play, or book. The story was written from scratch. Moreover, its main theme is not teenage angst (though there is a little bit of that) but timeless, universal issues like grief, spouses who have difficulty communicating, or a daughter who feels ignored and terrified that she'll turn into her mother. Truly a musical you can bring the whole family to!
Themes and book
The discussion of mental illness gives the work a timely relevance and contemporary setting. The musical brings up questions like how should mental illness be treated and how do people deal with their mental illness when modern medicine fails or is unsatisfying? The title of the show provokes some interesting thoughts. What does it mean to be normal? Maybe we can find the bright side of people who are a little "different." Many bipolar people are extraordinarily creative. Is it important to be normal or to reach some ideal? Maybe "next to normal" is good enough. Perhaps we can appreciate what we have and the people who love us even if they aren't quite "normal."
next to normal is well-characterized as an intense dramatic play set to music. If you read the book (libretto) without listening to the music, you'll see that the material is on-par with any straight play. The musical is mostly sung-through which makes the music like a tidal wave pushing you relentlessly through the action. The few non-musical scenes are underscored. The pacing is great -- fast but not too fast. I'm amazed that there are no dull moments in the show. Every scene is interesting. The one exception is the "Song of Forgetting" in Act 2, which as you can tell by the title, was unimaginative. Brian and Tom, what were you thinking? Why would any character sing "sing a song of forgetting" and not just once but multiple times? It seems like a meta-reference, which is not what you want in a realistic musical play.
Back to praise... kudos to Yorkey for the well-done humor in next to normal. The funny things are actually funny and they emerge organically from the characters and their personal situations. For example, some humorous moments arise from Diana's adventures in psychiatric drugs and Natalie's interactions with her boyfriend Henry.
Problems with the book
I am disappointed that the musical feels somewhat anti-medication/anti-ECT and portrays psychiatrists slightly negatively. The writers definitely did their research and attempted to make the portrayal of psychiatry more balanced, but the fact is that there are far more instances where psychiatry is mocked or criticized than advocated. In the ending, it is suggested that Diana stops all medical treatment permanently (she might be continuing talk therapy, it's not clear). There is a point where pain ceases to be educational and is merely pain that prevents you from living your life. Chris Caggiano has similar complaints (though he sounds much more unhappy than me) in his blog review.
Most of my specific complaints are about Act 2. "Light," the show finale, rubs me the wrong way. The constant metaphors of "light" and the cast belting "shine" four times feels borderline religious. The events of Act 2 are dark and ambiguous and not something to celebrate. Broadway musicals suffer from the expectation that the audience must not leave depressed or that there must be a comic scene somewhere, even in the darkest of works [4]. Why not end on some low-key ambiguous dialogue like in Gypsy? Or use a finale song that is not so in-your-face and bright and doesn't sound like a choir at Christmas mass? I think the message of the show is that survival and the acting of moving forward are huge accomplishments in themselves and are not things to be taken lightly. I should say that apparently the writers revised the off-Broadway version of this song to address complaints like mine. I guess it wasn't enough for my satisfaction.
I'm also not entirely happy about using a dramatic conceit (the same thing was done in the Season 1 finale of Homeland). But the payoff was some revealing scenes, most notably about Dan, so it was marginally okay in my book.
This is more minor, but I wasn't a fan of the opening number for Act 2 "Wish I Were Here". It seems like the remnants of the off-Broadway Act 1 finale "Feeling Electric." I felt like Natalie's foray into illicit activities was forced and the act of mother and daughter running around the stage in a trippy haze while lights flash didn't fit the serious tone of the show [5], especially Act 2 which is musically more low-key overall than Act 1.
That said, I've never encountered an (overly?) ambitious musical that didn't have problems. That must be why many musical theatre aficionados consider Gypsy to be the best musical of all-time. It had ambition, but not too much. Writing dramatic musical theatre is incredibly hard, especially in a modern world where people prefer either realism or irony over metaphor in art. Some people might say that it shouldn't be attempted. Obviously, I don't share that opinion, given my life-long love of singing.
Staging
I love the Broadway staging (much of the credit goes to director Michael Greif). The set is sparse -- a few shelves, chairs, a table, a medicine cabinet, and a mock piano. The elaborate part is the three level design with poles. It allows some separation when there are scene with Diana overlapping a scene with another character. I'm not sure about the poles, but they do give the actors some extra options in blocking. It's particularly effective for the character of Gabe who is dancing with the poles and making trouble. There's a fantastic scene during "I'm Alive" where Gabe is on the third level and Diana is at the bottom reaching out towards him.
There are only six characters in the cast and they are on stage almost all the time, except to change clothes. I like how you'll see characters out of the action doing things like Gabe reading a book or Dan cleaning up the house. The blocking is fantastic. The characters move around the stage and go up and down the levels constantly. It feels dynamic and every movement sets up the next one. In general, next to normal is as minimalistic as possible without losing anything -- no fat and all muscle. The work invites intimacy -- the six-person cast, six-person band, and minimalistic staging. It would be fantastic for a small 100-200 seat theatre.
Music
Rent and Spring Awakening showed me how much fun contemporary music can be [6]. I think Spring Awakening might have a better and more creative score than next to normal, but next to normal has the most effective score. Yes, there are some pastiches of folk, rock, Gilbert & Sullivan, and waltzes, but among innovative composers, there is only one Sondheim [7] and the wannabes (Adam Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, etc) haven't come up with any musicals that integrate the music and book well. Plus, Sondheim wrote pastiche scores (Follies, Assassins), too!
I like how Tom Kitt chooses the right style of music for each moment and each character. It's eclectic but it works. Diana is frequently manic and has lots of energy so she has most of the heavy rock numbers [8]. In their key "this is who I am and what I want" songs, Gabe and Natalie sing in a bright rock style which suits their youthful ages. Dan is reserved guy, so he mostly sings moody, lonely ballads.
The two waltzes are wonderfully written and yet completely different aside from the style. The first is a satire and the second is a pivotal emotional scene. The conversations between Natalie and her boyfriend Henry ("Hey #1", "Hey #2", "Hey #3") are low-key, alternative or modern musical theatre [9] style. I took me a while to appreciate these songs, but it's cool to hear songs that are conversational and not "big" or "I want" songs.
My favorite song is "You Don't Know/I Am the One." It's intense, thrilling, and has the most sophisticated and interesting blocking. Diana's tirade really scares me (boy, I'm glad I've never been that depressed), while Dan's angry response makes complete sense to me. I think my personality is probably closest to Dan; I am not Diana jumping on the hospital bed and belting rock songs at the doctor.
Also on my karaoke list, the Gabe and Natalie rock songs "I'm Alive" and "Superboy and the Invisible Girl" (very very fun and showy) as well as Dan's emotionally heavy [10] and touching ballads "I've Been" and "A Light in the Dark." (very very dark and emotional)
Besides "Song of Forgetting", there are two songs I'm lukewarm about. I'm not a huge fan of "I Miss the Mountains," mostly because I don't really like folk music. But I think that's my personal taste. It's a well-done song and there's a nice belt in it, which always makes me happy.
Original Broadway Cast
I should make some remarks about the original Broadway cast (OBC). I didn't see them perform, so I can't really comment on their acting except to say that for the most part, critics and audiences thought they were outstanding. Alice Ripley (Diana) convinced me that singing doesn't always have to be "pretty" (I tend to like the legit, classical style of singing.) and raw, imperfect singing [11] can be beautiful, too, and arguably more interesting than legit singing sometimes. Before I studied (yes, that's the word) next to normal, I had never heard of Ripley (guess I need to brush up on my Broadway knowledge) but she has a reputation for the most gigantic and enthusiastic belt on Broadway [12]. J. Robert Spencer (Dan) has a nice rock voice, but I prefer Brian d'Arcy James' (off-Broadway original and Broadway replacement Dan) strong, expressive baritone for the ballads. Jennifer Damiano (Natalie) and Aaron Tveit (Gabe) sound fantastic. This guy Tveit, how can he be so good looking and have such an amazing voice? What planet does he come from? Adam Chanler-Berat (Henry, Natalie's boyfriend) is absolutely charming, and Louis Hobson (Doctor Fine/Doctor Madden) has a gorgeous, angelic tone to his voice. Despite the small cast, the choral numbers sound much bigger than one would think. Is this some clever sound engineering?
Personal comments
My favorite thing about next to normal is how personal it is. I've been Natalie, Dan, and Diana at various points in time. I understand how they feel and Brian Yorkey's lyrics are spot-on. I feel connected to the story and the characters most of the time (there are a few parts in Act 2 that lose me, but it's minor).
I think Sondheim is fantastic (like everyone else), but I tend to like specific songs. I'm never completely satisfied with his musicals as a whole. next to normal isn't without its flaws, but to me, it's the best musical overall. In the end, that's why we have diversity in art. Hopefully, there is something out there, that speaks to you and resonates for a long time.
Because of next to normal, I've reached a new level in my understanding of theatre. It's inspired me to think about how to play characters in different ways (for example, Marin Mazzie, Ripley's replacement, played Diana very differently) and the importance of making good acting decisions so that the work hangs together as a whole (acting choices for Dan affects how Diana is played; playing one scene one way might be exciting for that scene individually, but not be consistent with other scenes). I understand why English professors love deep plays like Hamlet. I don't think next to normal is Hamlet, but I find that I learn new things on repeated viewings. I understand why theatre nuts get excited about understudies going on a Broadway show -- it's fun to see how a different actor will interpret the role. There are many interesting ways to play Diana, Dan, and Natalie and that separates next to normal from most musicals.
After this ridiculously long post, the only thing left to say is that if there's a production of Next to Normal playing near you, go see it!
[1] The book of a musical is like the equivalent of a movie script or the dialogue and stage directions for a play. Many musicals fail due to a badly written book.
[2] There are some fantastic musicals that are amazing and definitely not "light," for example, Gypsy, West Side Story, South Pacific, and most of Sondheim's work.
[3] I might also add The Lion King, Wicked, and the various British pop operas written by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Claude-Michel Schönberg.
[4] In particular, I think of "The Song of Purple Summer" from Spring Awakening (two main characters died, but we need to make the audience feel okay!) and a very awkward joke about dumb Texans in Sunday in the Park with George.
[5] Jesse Green of New York Magazine has similar comments in an interesting lament about "bombast" on Broadway.
[6] I grew up with one parent who liked oldies and another parent who thought anything but classical music is trash, so my taste through high school was only musicals and classical. I didn't start listening to "contemporary" music until I was 21.
[7] Not that my musical theater knowledge is particularly extensive, but I can think of one more example: Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story.
[8] I feel concerned for whoever plays Diana. Those heavy rock numbers, constant singing, heavy intense scenes, 2 hours on stage -- I wonder if the actress will either shred her voice or collapse.
[9] What I mean by modern musical theatre style is Sondheim and the young guys who look up to him, the before-mentioned Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, etc.
[10] HUGE SPOILER
These songs are sooo heavy. In "I've Been," we see Dan cleaning up the blood from his wife's suicide attempt and squeezing blood out of the towel. In "A Light in the Dark," Dan is trying to persuade his wife to go through with the ECT treatment, believing that it will save her life.
END OF HUGE SPOILER
[11] Though I'm confused sometimes whether Ripley is singing in character voice or if her voice is strained. Supposedly, she told some students at a master class that she bruised a vocal cord back when the show was doing its off-Broadway run and I don't know if she ever fully recovered from that injury.
[12] Someone said she should get an award for "belting your face off." In Side Show, she belts for 45 seconds. Insanity. Also, check out Alice Ripley and Anthony Rapp singing "Take me or leave me" from Rent. More insane singing.
25 February 2012
Memorizing literature (musical theater songs) as a hobby
I like to learn musical theater songs, practice them while I'm walking on the street, and commit them to memory, just like people who memorize poetry. It's like my own mp3 player, I can call stuff up on demand ("today I should sing this song"). If it's a particularly thoughtful song, it reminds me of the entire musical work, like quoting a section of a Shakespearean drama.
Do people still do this kind of thing? I think of the Chinese schoolchildren who are told to memorize Tang Dynasty poetry.
(Some people might not think of musical theater as literature or art, but I do. If you don't agree, go look at some Sondheim musicals.)
24 February 2012
Quote of the day: "Amateurs copy, professionals steal"
Amateurs copy, professionals steal. I've heard this idea before, but I was reminded of it when I watched the American Theatre Wing: Working in the Theatre video podcast, where they did a panel discussion with four Tony Award winning actresses from musical theater -- Laura Benanti, Beth Leavel, Bebe Neuwirth and Alice Ripley.
At 8:12, Alice Ripley brings up this idea:
At 8:12, Alice Ripley brings up this idea:
And then, if you're going to play Evita. You would just have to steal everything from Patti LuPone or from Elaine Page. ... Because if you don't do that, you're a fool. You know, and then once you look at it that way, when you do it then, if you're recreating something, then it's still different because it's you and you're so different from everybody else. But like it's like you have to copy as much as you can. Actually, what is it, "amateurs copy and pros steal?" ... So steal it...At 18:00, Bebe Neuwirth responds to Ripley's earlier comment:
I did an understudy with [director] once. After rehearsal, he said "do it if they're doing it and it works, do it." And I think the distinction that you have to make is, as you [Ripley] said before, is interesting when you said "amateurs copy, professionals steal." ... To copy something means ... there's something on the surface. But if you steal it, you're actually making it your own, and you are investing in that. Then there's something within it that ... becomes you.The new thing I learned is that not only do you want to "steal" without shame, but you also want to make it your own. It's a good plan to copy people you admire until you can do things by yourself, but you don't want to get stuck doing a pale imitation of them. You want to make it part of you, with the full weight of your confidence and personality behind it.
Song of the day: "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman
A charming, old-fashioned song performed by Will Chase and Megan Hilty in the TV series Smash.
MARILYN:
Call the justice of the peace,
But don't tell him our names.
Don't put out a press release,
Or mention baseball games.
DIMAGGIO:
Book the nearest bridal suite,
One room will suit us fine.
For the desk clerk that we meet,
The only autograph we'll sign is...
BOTH:
Mr. and Mrs. Smith,
Simply the folks next door.
DIMAGGIO:
People without a single clue what
An agent or grip is for.
MARILYN:
Yes
BOTH:
Nothing can beat the view,
When as far as the eye can see,
There's...
DIMAGGIO:
No one but Mrs. ...
MARILYN:
No one but Mr. ...
BOTH:
Smith and me.
DIMAGGIO:
For a home the man provides,
That cottage built for two.
We'll check the small town classifieds,
Variety won't do.
MARILYN:
Then we'll move to Main Street, U.S.A.,
And sign the deed of trust.
The mailbox at our hideaway,
Will tell the whole wide world that we're just
BOTH:
Mr. and Mrs. Smith,
Merely the folks next door.
DIMAGGIO:
People who use their kitchen each night
MARILYN:
Who've never been in Toots Shor
BOTH:
Nothing can beat the view,
For as far as the eye can see,
There's ....
DIMAGGIO:
No one but Mrs. ...
MARILYN:
No one but Mr. ...
BOTH:
Smith and me
BOTH:
No early calls,
No big premieres,
No lush romantic theme.
We'll spend the nights,
Making our own
Little League baseball team.
(brief interlude)
BOTH:
We're no one you've ever seen
MARILYN:
Movie stars don't live anywhere here,
Except on the local drive-in screen.
BOTH:
Yes, I'd gladly disappear,
If it might guarantee a view of
DIMAGGIO:
No one but Mr. ...
MARILYN:
No one but Mrs. ...
BOTH:
Smith and you.
20 February 2012
Why shoot film?
I was thinking the other day that I could really improve my photography skills if I tried shooting film. It's a well-known technique in creativity to try doing things different ways to sharpen your mind.
There are some strong technical reasons to shoot film. Film is "high resolution". It has a distinctive look that will make you standout when 99% of the other people are shooting digital. It has a huge dynamic range, though that requires that you have the dark room skills to manipulate your prints. (You don't have to worry about blowing highlights or overexposed skies when you shoot film.)
Another good reason to shoot film is that you're viewed as a hobbyist and not a pro. This is especially helpful if you're doing street photography, you're shooting strangers, and you don't want people to freak out about you being some kind of creep.
I'm more interested in how shooting film makes you a better photographer. So I looked around the web to see what other people thought. One woman mentions that since you only have a roll of 24-36 exposures, you have to make every shot count. You work slowly and patiently and really think about your composition and exposure settings. The fact that each exposure is precious and risky is more like real life, living moment to moment.
Eric Kim says that most of his film shots look great without any processing. Imagine all the perfectionist angst you'll avoid if you have to wait for your film to be developed and have no control over the development (assuming that you send your film to a lab and don't develop prints yourself.) You don't sit in front of the computer all day long. Eric says that the wait helps him look at his photos for objectively rather than get caught up in the emotions of the moment (which happens when you are chimping off the back of your digital SLR). You also appreciate your mistakes more. You find the beauty in incorrectly exposed shots.
Some more reasons: If you get a manual exposure, manual focus camera, you'll learn a lot more about photography. Learning how to focus manually is very handy, even for digital shooting. My friend, who used to be a pro photographer, told me that when he shoots sports, he always uses manual focus because he can get better results than the AF. Digital photos have this perfectionist, sterile look to them, whereas film has an inherent feeling of chaos, which is unique.
There are some strong technical reasons to shoot film. Film is "high resolution". It has a distinctive look that will make you standout when 99% of the other people are shooting digital. It has a huge dynamic range, though that requires that you have the dark room skills to manipulate your prints. (You don't have to worry about blowing highlights or overexposed skies when you shoot film.)
Another good reason to shoot film is that you're viewed as a hobbyist and not a pro. This is especially helpful if you're doing street photography, you're shooting strangers, and you don't want people to freak out about you being some kind of creep.
I'm more interested in how shooting film makes you a better photographer. So I looked around the web to see what other people thought. One woman mentions that since you only have a roll of 24-36 exposures, you have to make every shot count. You work slowly and patiently and really think about your composition and exposure settings. The fact that each exposure is precious and risky is more like real life, living moment to moment.
Eric Kim says that most of his film shots look great without any processing. Imagine all the perfectionist angst you'll avoid if you have to wait for your film to be developed and have no control over the development (assuming that you send your film to a lab and don't develop prints yourself.) You don't sit in front of the computer all day long. Eric says that the wait helps him look at his photos for objectively rather than get caught up in the emotions of the moment (which happens when you are chimping off the back of your digital SLR). You also appreciate your mistakes more. You find the beauty in incorrectly exposed shots.
Some more reasons: If you get a manual exposure, manual focus camera, you'll learn a lot more about photography. Learning how to focus manually is very handy, even for digital shooting. My friend, who used to be a pro photographer, told me that when he shoots sports, he always uses manual focus because he can get better results than the AF. Digital photos have this perfectionist, sterile look to them, whereas film has an inherent feeling of chaos, which is unique.
09 February 2012
Song of the day: "Brotherhood of Man" by Frank Loesser
I was introduced to this song by the recent NBC Super Bowl commercial. It's super-charming, fun, and smart, plus it stars the actors and cast of many NBC shows, including 30 Rock, The Office, Parks and Recreation, Community, Smash, Up All Night, Saturday Night Live, and others. Nice choreography for people who are not dancers. The commercial is almost four minutes long!
The song is "Brotherhood of Man" from the musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, which coincidentally starred Daniel Radcliffe and is playing on Broadway right now. Below are the lyrics from the original show (not the altered lyrics in the NBC ad):
The song is "Brotherhood of Man" from the musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, which coincidentally starred Daniel Radcliffe and is playing on Broadway right now. Below are the lyrics from the original show (not the altered lyrics in the NBC ad):
FINCH:
Now you may joint the Oak's, my friend,
And may joint the Shriner's.
And other men may carry cards,
As members of the Diner's.
Still others wear a Golden Key,
Or small Greek letter pin.
But I have learn that's one great club,
That all of us are in.
There is a brotherhood of man,
A benevolent brotherhood of man,
A noble tie that binds
All human hearts and minds
Into one brotherhood of man.
Your life long membership is free,
Keep a-giving each brother all you can.
Oh, aren't you proud to be in that fraternity,
The great big brotherhood of man?
So, Wally, before consider firing everybody, remember this:
One man may seem incompetent.
Another not make sense.
Well, others look like quite waste
Of company expense.
They need a brother's leadership.
So, please, don't do them in
Remember mediocrity
Is not a murder sin.
FINCH:
There
MALE ENSEMBLE:
Where?
FINCH:
In
MALE ENSEMBLE:
In
FINCH:
the
MALE ENSEMBLE:
the
COMPANY:
Brotherhood of man.
Dedicated to giving all we can
FINCH:
Oh, aren't you proud to be
In that fraternity.
COMPANY:
The great big brotherhood of man.
WOMPER:
No kidding!
Is there really a brotherhood
MALE ENSEMBLE:
Yes, you're a brother.
WOMPER:
of man.
MALE ENSEMBLE:
You are a brother.
WOMPER:
On the level of brotherhood of man.
MALE ENSEMBLE:
Oh, yes! Oh, yes!
A noble tie that binds
All human hearts and minds
WOMPER:
Into one brotherhood of man.
COMPANY:
Oh, yes! Your life long membership is free,
Keep a-giving each brother all you can.
MALE ENSEMBLE:
Oh, aren't you proud to be,
In that fraternity,
The great big brotherhood
Of man?
MISS JONES:
You, you got me
Me, I got Yooooooooo - yooou
MISS JONES:
Oh, that noble feeling
Feels like bells are pealing
Dong with double jingling
Oh, brother!
You, you got me
Me, I got Yooooooooo - yooou
COMPANY:
Oh, that noble feeling
Feels like bells are pealing
Dong with double jingling
Oh, brother!
You, you got me
Me, I got Yoooooou
MALE ENSEMBLE:
Oh, that noble feeling
Feels like bells are pealing
Dong with double jingling
Oh, brother!
MISS JONES:
Oooooooooooooooooo
Oooooooooooooooooo
COMPANY:
You, you got me
Me, I got Yoooooou
Your life long membership is free,
Keep a-giving each brother all you can.
Oh, aren't you proud to be in that fraternity,
The great big brotherhood of man?
07 February 2012
Song of the day: "You don't know/I am the one" by Tom Kitt and Brian Yorkey
I recently saw the Tony Award performance (2009) from next to normal. Wow! That's probably the best Tony performance I've seen, aside from Patti LuPone's bring-down-the-house rendition of "Everything's coming up roses" from Gypsy. I'm not sure what I was doing in 2009, but I did go see West Side Story. As far as I remember, it was a slow year for musicals. I vaguely heard about next to normal, but at the time, I wasn't interested in seeing a musical about mental illness.
next to normal isn't so much about mental illness, but about a dysfunctional family whose primary dysfunction happens to be the mother, Diana, who has bipolar disorder with delusions (though you find out that the father, Dan, has his own, more subtle problems). I'm not a huge fan of rock music, but I think it works pretty well in the big number "You don't know/I am the one" that the cast performed during the Tony Awards. The number isn't a typical beautiful ballad, splashy song, or Sondheimesque cabaret piece. It's really a huge fight between a husband and wife, but set to music. The rock music highlights the extreme emotions bouncing around during the scene.
All the actors are amazing. Diana (played by Alice Ripley) alternates between aggressively fighting off the "cage" erected by her illness and her husband, and looking scared to death and out of her mind. I sympathized with her frustration with well-meaning caretakers and her desire to lash out (most graphically depicted by her violently throwing cutlery). I found it riveting the way Ripley wears emotions on her face. She's menacing while waving knives at her husband, then seems afraid of him when he fights back (her body keeps shaking). She takes a step towards her husband and then bends backwards when he comes at her again. The way she looks terrified and about to crack when she has both her husband and her son singing to her in her ear, competing for her attention.
Dan (played by J. Robert Spencer) seems like the well-meaning, but exasperated and domineering caretaker. When he sings "I am the one who knows you/I am the one who cares/I am the one who's always been there," I couldn't help imagining the emotional blackmail that Diana and Dan are capable of inflicting on each other. I really liked how Spencer moved in time to the music. All the actors do this to some degree (almost like choreography), but Spencer does it really well when he walks behind his wife's back, after singing "And if you think that I just don't give a damn/ Then you just don't know who I am."
I enjoyed the so-called psycho-sexual tension going on between Diana and her son Gabe (played by Aaron Tviet). Actually, it looks like sexual tension, but (SPOILER) it's not because Gabe died when he was 18 months old. So he's really a metaphor for Diana's inner mind. I interpret the tension as Diana wanting to give in to her illness and stop all medical treatment (which she finds stifling and numbing). I think when you are struggling with a mental illness for so long (16 years in Diana's case), at some point you want to give up and embrace the illness. The illness becomes what's "normal" to you. It makes sense to me that the idea of embracing the illness is a kind of seduction. Society looks down on the notion of "giving up" on fighting illness (particularly mental illness, which some think of as a character flaw), so I find the metaphor of a forbidden, incestuous relationship rather apt.
I haven't seen the musical on stage, but I get the feeling that it's a serious, intense, intimate, and contemporary play that happens to be set to music. This makes next to normal novel and ground-breaking, which is probably why it won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. There aren't many original musicals written in contemporary music that tackle hard issues like how mental illness damages a family. I'm extremely impressed with this work.
next to normal isn't so much about mental illness, but about a dysfunctional family whose primary dysfunction happens to be the mother, Diana, who has bipolar disorder with delusions (though you find out that the father, Dan, has his own, more subtle problems). I'm not a huge fan of rock music, but I think it works pretty well in the big number "You don't know/I am the one" that the cast performed during the Tony Awards. The number isn't a typical beautiful ballad, splashy song, or Sondheimesque cabaret piece. It's really a huge fight between a husband and wife, but set to music. The rock music highlights the extreme emotions bouncing around during the scene.
All the actors are amazing. Diana (played by Alice Ripley) alternates between aggressively fighting off the "cage" erected by her illness and her husband, and looking scared to death and out of her mind. I sympathized with her frustration with well-meaning caretakers and her desire to lash out (most graphically depicted by her violently throwing cutlery). I found it riveting the way Ripley wears emotions on her face. She's menacing while waving knives at her husband, then seems afraid of him when he fights back (her body keeps shaking). She takes a step towards her husband and then bends backwards when he comes at her again. The way she looks terrified and about to crack when she has both her husband and her son singing to her in her ear, competing for her attention.
Dan (played by J. Robert Spencer) seems like the well-meaning, but exasperated and domineering caretaker. When he sings "I am the one who knows you/I am the one who cares/I am the one who's always been there," I couldn't help imagining the emotional blackmail that Diana and Dan are capable of inflicting on each other. I really liked how Spencer moved in time to the music. All the actors do this to some degree (almost like choreography), but Spencer does it really well when he walks behind his wife's back, after singing "And if you think that I just don't give a damn/ Then you just don't know who I am."
I enjoyed the so-called psycho-sexual tension going on between Diana and her son Gabe (played by Aaron Tviet). Actually, it looks like sexual tension, but (SPOILER) it's not because Gabe died when he was 18 months old. So he's really a metaphor for Diana's inner mind. I interpret the tension as Diana wanting to give in to her illness and stop all medical treatment (which she finds stifling and numbing). I think when you are struggling with a mental illness for so long (16 years in Diana's case), at some point you want to give up and embrace the illness. The illness becomes what's "normal" to you. It makes sense to me that the idea of embracing the illness is a kind of seduction. Society looks down on the notion of "giving up" on fighting illness (particularly mental illness, which some think of as a character flaw), so I find the metaphor of a forbidden, incestuous relationship rather apt.
I haven't seen the musical on stage, but I get the feeling that it's a serious, intense, intimate, and contemporary play that happens to be set to music. This makes next to normal novel and ground-breaking, which is probably why it won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. There aren't many original musicals written in contemporary music that tackle hard issues like how mental illness damages a family. I'm extremely impressed with this work.
DIANA (spoken)
You know. Really? What, exactly, do you know?
DAN (spoken)
I know you're hurting. I am, too.
DIANA
Do you wake up in the morning
And need help to lift your head?
Do you read obituaries
And feel jealous of the dead?
It's like living on a cliffside
Not knowing when you'll dive...
Do you know
Do you know, what it's like to die alive?
When the world that once had color fades to white and gray and black...
When tomorrow terrifies you, but you'll die if you look back.
You don't know.
I know you don't know.
You say that you're hurting--
It sure doesn't show.
You don't know...
It lays me so low
When you say let go,
And I say
You don't know.
The sensation that you're screaming,
But you never make a sound.
Or the feeling that you're falling,
But you never hit the ground--
It just keeps on rushing at you
Day by day by day by day...
You don't know
You don't know what it's like to live that way.
Like a refugee, a fugitive, forever on the run...
If it gets me, it will kill me-- but I don't know what I've done.
DAN
Can you tell me
What it is you're afraid of?
And can you tell me why I'm afraid it's me?
Can I touch you?
We've been fine for so long now,
How could something go wrong that I can't see?
'Cause I'm holding on,
And I won't let go
I just thought you should know...
I am the one who knows you,
I am the one who cares,
I am the one who's always been there.
I am the one who's helped you
And if you think that I just don't give a damn,
Then you just don't know who I am.
Could you leave me
GABE
Hey, Dad, it's me.
DAN
Could you let me go under?
GABE
Why can't you see?
DAN
Will you watch as I drown
And wonder why
GABE
I wonder why.
DAN
Are you bleeding?
GABE
Are you waiting, are you wishing,
Are you wanting all that she can't give?
DAN
Are you bruised, are you broken?
GABE
Are you hurting, are you healing,
Are you hoping for a life to live?
DAN
Does it help you to know
That so am I
GABE
Well, so am I.
DAN
Tell me what to do
GABE
Look at me.
DAN
Tell me who to be
GABE
Look at me.
DAN
So I can see what you see.
GABE
And you'll see...
DAN
I am the one who'll hold you
GABE
I am...
DAN
I am the one who'll stay
GABE
I am...
DAN
I am the one who won't walk away.
GABE
I won't walk away.
DAN
Yeah, yeah, yeah
I am the one who'll hear you
GABE
I am...
DAN
And now you tell me that I won't give a damn
GABE
You don't give a damn.
DAN
But I know you know who I am.
GABE
Who I am
DAN
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
GABE
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
DAN
That's who I am
GABE
I am
DAN
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
GABE
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
DAN
That's who I am
GABE
Who I am
DAN
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
GABE
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
DAN
That's who I am.
'Cause I'm holding on...
DIANA
You say you hurt like me...
GABE
And I won't let go...
DIANA
You say that you know...
DAN and GABE
Yeah, I thought you should know.
Oh...
DIANA
Oh...
You don't know.
DAN and GABE
I am the one who knows you,
DIANA
I know you don't know.
DAN and GABE
I am the one who cares,
DIANA
You say that you're hurting,
I know it ain't so.
DAN and GABE
I am the one who's always been there.
DIANA
You don't know...
DAN and GABE
Yeah, yeah, yeah
I am the one who needs you
DIANA
Why don't you just go?
DAN and GABE
And if you think that I just
Don't give a damn
DIANA
'Cause it lays me low
When I say,
DAN
Then you just don't know who I am
DIANA
You don't know...
DAN
Who I am
DIANA
You don't know...
DAN
Who I am
GABE
You just don't know who I am.
03 February 2012
Musical theater/opera singing vs pop singing
Pop music often rankles me. Unimaginative singing always stuck in that tenor-alto range (you would think that basses, baritones, mezzo-sopranos, and sopranos didn't exist). What happened to dynamics? Apparently, crescendo and decrescendo don't exist either. Strip away the instrumentals and you discover that the vocal part is exceedingly dull.
Putting aside my personal distaste, I still don't quite understand the distinction between the singing that's done in musical theater and opera and the singing in contemporary pop music. I looked around a bit on the web for some opinions.
Dave Malloy, a musical theater composer, wrote a very recent essay about the evolution of musical theater. He says that musical theater hasn't succeeded in reaching main stream audiences because it's either trying to be ironic or because when they do rock or pop music on stage, it's the musical theater version of it and not authentic (as in, the composer is trying to write something he/she isn't familiar with). The people who write musical theater scores come from the Broadway tradition and not from rock bands or jazz clubs.
Malloy makes an interesting point that contemporary style singing is about putting the performer first whereas in musical theater, it's about playing a character. I'm not sure I completely understand it. I guess in pop music, the artist is performing to draw attention to themselves, saying "This is me. Listen to me. This is what I want to tell you." Musical theater songs are a moment in a larger narrative and very specific to that moment. Pop music is frequently generic, so people can sing those songs anywhere without context.
New York Times critic, Ben Brantley, in a review of the rock musical Spring Awakening, writes about the difficulty of using pop and rock music in musical theater.
In The Guardian, Orlando Gough wonders if opera singers can perform pop and launches into a discussion of how opera singing is different than other types of singing.
He states that in pop and jazz, singers often "throw notes away" (which I take to mean, they don't try to sing every note perfectly). Also, he makes this interesting remark:
Gough makes a point that I do understand. When you perform "standards" like musical theater pieces, jazz songs, operas that have been done many times, you're doing someone else's work and it's more like acting. Whereas when you sing songs that you've personally written or songs that were written for you or music that comes from your culture, that kind of singing comes from a different place.
He mentions the Malian singer Salif Keita who comes from the Western African tradition of singing praise and storytelling. I can see that this type of folk music would be authentic in a way that professionally composed music (like in musical theater/opera) is not. But I don't see why you can't be both raw and technically trained. Going back to actors, you find that most of the critically acclaimed actors who deliver "authentic" performances also went to drama school, worked in theatre, or had some kind of training.
Finally, I found an article in The Chicago Tribune which summarizes some scientific research on the characteristics of a hit pop song. The software they use to predict hit pop songs is not super accurate but it indicates that a simple rhythm, danceability, and "loudness" are key to making a hit pop song today.
Putting aside my personal distaste, I still don't quite understand the distinction between the singing that's done in musical theater and opera and the singing in contemporary pop music. I looked around a bit on the web for some opinions.
Dave Malloy, a musical theater composer, wrote a very recent essay about the evolution of musical theater. He says that musical theater hasn't succeeded in reaching main stream audiences because it's either trying to be ironic or because when they do rock or pop music on stage, it's the musical theater version of it and not authentic (as in, the composer is trying to write something he/she isn't familiar with). The people who write musical theater scores come from the Broadway tradition and not from rock bands or jazz clubs.
Malloy makes an interesting point that contemporary style singing is about putting the performer first whereas in musical theater, it's about playing a character. I'm not sure I completely understand it. I guess in pop music, the artist is performing to draw attention to themselves, saying "This is me. Listen to me. This is what I want to tell you." Musical theater songs are a moment in a larger narrative and very specific to that moment. Pop music is frequently generic, so people can sing those songs anywhere without context.
New York Times critic, Ben Brantley, in a review of the rock musical Spring Awakening, writes about the difficulty of using pop and rock music in musical theater.
Problems also arise from the challenge of making pop music function as theater music. Pop and rock are best at evoking moods and emotions or announcing attitudes, not heightening a narrative point or defining a specific character. Mr. Sheik's music, orchestrated for a small rock band supported by cello and bass, is often gorgeous in its soaring melodies and gentle rhythms, but its lushness can overwhelm Mr. Sater's moody lyrics, artful and evocative though they often are. And we often seem to be hearing the same notes — yearning, tempestuousness, anger — repeated in song after song; the show becomes saturated in a general plaintiveness that can be enervating.My interpretation of Brantley's comments is this: to move the plot or define character, you need change, which in music is signified by varying the tempo or dynamics, things that aren't really done in pop/rock music, particularly because a lot of pop music nowadays is also dance music. You can't suddenly change the beat in dance music.
In The Guardian, Orlando Gough wonders if opera singers can perform pop and launches into a discussion of how opera singing is different than other types of singing.
He states that in pop and jazz, singers often "throw notes away" (which I take to mean, they don't try to sing every note perfectly). Also, he makes this interesting remark:
Part of becoming an opera singer is about making one's voice cast iron, invulnerable. Of course one learns to do vulnerability on stage, but it's a guise. Underneath, there must be no chink. Folk or pop or jazz is different – the balance between vulnerability and control is always evident in the voice, and the tension is palpable. It's not to do with lack of technique; it's about allowing the vulnerability to show.I don't really understand this either. There are plenty of great actors who are raw and vulnerable and it seems like this style of acting is universally beloved by critics. But we know they are "acting"; they aren't as neurotic or unstable as their character. They're just really good at acting.
Gough makes a point that I do understand. When you perform "standards" like musical theater pieces, jazz songs, operas that have been done many times, you're doing someone else's work and it's more like acting. Whereas when you sing songs that you've personally written or songs that were written for you or music that comes from your culture, that kind of singing comes from a different place.
He mentions the Malian singer Salif Keita who comes from the Western African tradition of singing praise and storytelling. I can see that this type of folk music would be authentic in a way that professionally composed music (like in musical theater/opera) is not. But I don't see why you can't be both raw and technically trained. Going back to actors, you find that most of the critically acclaimed actors who deliver "authentic" performances also went to drama school, worked in theatre, or had some kind of training.
Finally, I found an article in The Chicago Tribune which summarizes some scientific research on the characteristics of a hit pop song. The software they use to predict hit pop songs is not super accurate but it indicates that a simple rhythm, danceability, and "loudness" are key to making a hit pop song today.
02 February 2012
Link of the day: "To know, but not understand"
I liked the essay "To know, but not understand" by David Weinberger in The Atlantic. Weinberger discusses one of the major shifts in science today -- the data deluge. Here's the issue in a nutshell:
In 1963, Bernard K. Forscher of the Mayo Clinic complained in a now famous letter printed in the prestigious journal Science that scientists were generating too many facts. Titled Chaos in the Brickyard, the letter warned that the new generation of scientists was too busy churning out bricks -- facts -- without regard to how they go together. Brickmaking, Forscher feared, had become an end in itself. "And so it happened that the land became flooded with bricks. ... It became difficult to find the proper bricks for a task because one had to hunt among so many. ... It became difficult to complete a useful edifice because, as soon as the foundations were discernible, they were buried under an avalanche of random bricks."And that letter is from 1963! Weinberger points out that thanks to computer power (Moore's Law) and cheap digital storage, we have even more data than we know what to do with. But as much as it seems like computers are the problem, they might also be the solution. He talks about modelling science, which uses computers to perform simulations and software like Eureqa which looks for patterns in data and generates equations to encapsulate those patterns. Of course, this isn't as satisfying as Maxwell's equations and the like, but it looks like this is something we'll have to live with. As Weinberger states,
The world's complexity may simply outrun our brains capacity to understand it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)