Conceptions

Recently caught a show performed by the Guildford School of Acting. The show was Baby with a book by Sybille Pearson and songs by David Shire and Richard Maltby Jnr. It was first performed on Broadway in the 1980s. As the strory of three couples and their reactions to pregnancy, it was a small-scale, intimate show in an era of megamusicals. Lovely performances, sweet songs.

But one the most notable aspects of the show was coming out at the interval and not knowing what the ending would be. This doesn't happen often in musical theatre. Most succesful musicals are based on something else - a book, a play, a film, Argnetinian dictators' wives. There are exceptions (The Music Man, Company, A Chorus Line) but they are in the minority. Even the great Rodgers and Hammerstein only managed two musicals based on original ideas and they were two of their least succesful (Allegro and Me and Juliet).

Why should this be the case? Well, in commercial terms, having an already-established element may help with the advance sales. It's easier to sell Mathilda, the new Roald Dahl musical, than an entirely original musical. In practical terms, I'm sure it helps to have a focal point. Musicals are such a curious mix of competing elements and personalities, having an unchanging source material might help give a certain coherence.

But perhaps there's more to it. Perhaps there is something inherently difficult in conceiving ideas for musicals. Ideas often start small - a character sketch, a scene outline - and then get fleshed out. But musical ideas tend to require a certain size, of character, of emotion. In short, there needs to be a reason to sing. Maybe there is a discontinuity between the "smallness" of how ideas begin and the "bigness" required.

I admit this is all very vague. But along with the obvious commercial and practical considerations, it may explain why original idea musicals tend to come from smaller-scale shows. Shows like Baby are simply easier to conceive.