Jukebox Jury

Interesting discussion over on MusicalTalk (episode 759) between Nick Hutson and Stagey Rebecca over the topic of jukebox musicals: love 'em or loathe 'em? The greatest thing since Ethel Merman on toast or the end of Western civilization?

Well, it's tricky. And, as ever, it's useful to define terms.

As far as I can tell, jukebox musicals fall into three broad categories:

1. BIO TUNERS, where the story is essentially the story of a famous band/pop singer with their big hits covered along the way (e.g. The Buddy Holly Story, Jersey Boys)

2. BACK CATALOGUES, where a story is fitted around the back catalogue of a famous band/pop singer (e.g. Mamma Mia, We Will Rock You)

3. COMPILATION SHOWS, where a story is fitted around a pot pourri of old pop songs from any number of famous bands/pop singers (e.g. Moulin Rouge)

What is most definitely NOT a jukebox musical, as suggested on the podcast, is Oh! What a Lovely War. That was a devised piece of bleakly satirical theatre about the First World War using theatre songs from that period. For my money, a proper jukebox musical, as the name suggests, should use songs pop songs, not theatre songs.

This, I think, is an important distinction. I would guess that part of the appeal of shows like Mamma Mia or We Will Rock You is the opportunity to hear songs performed live that are much more familiar as a recording. (I say "guess" as I'm not really a consumer of jukebox shows. Nothing against them, just not my cup of Early Grey.)

One other interesting point made during the conversation is that jukebox musicals seem to be more of a British than a Broadway invention. Why should that be the case? Well, my best guess is that, following the Brit hit mega-shows of the 80s and 90s, there was a large audience for musicals. So there was a big demand, plus a burgeoning pool of musical theatre talent, but not enough supply. Britain has never had quite the same tradition as Broadway of nurturing new musical theatre writing. So, jukebox musicals filled the gap. 

What's also interesting is how the former may be affecting the latter. When it comes to jukebox vs. new writing, the usual complaint is that jukebox shows are crowding out original work, sucking up all the space and all the funding. I have some sympathy with this. There's no obvious way to get over the inherent commercial bias of a show with an established songbook. But I also wonder, are jukebox musicals are beginning to shape the kind of new work being produced?

Take Six. 

Although it's an entirely original show, doesn't it have the feel of a jukebox musical? It uses pop songs, written in the style of particular pop bands/singers. The story is framed as the creation of a pop band, almost like a bio-tuner. Now, I confess I've never actually seen Six on stage. So I may be talking a load of old gammon [wouldn't be the first time - ed.]. But from what I've read, it would seem like a good show for audiences who have been primed by jukebox musicals. It would certainly feel more familiar to a jukebox audience than, say, a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical or a Sondheim musical.

Still, my own feeling is that, when it comes down to it, jukebox musicals can never really be the future of musical theatre. At some point, I imagine the jukebox shows will simply run out back catalogues to plunder (although it doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon). They are essentially franchises of those back catalogues. Nothing wrong with a franchise or inherently uncreative. You could get The Empire Strikes Back or wind up with Jar Jar Binks. But franchises are about the familiar.

Jukebox musicals offer audiences the opportunity to hear old songs that they already know and love. That's great, but it's not enough. Musicals need new songs. Songs that surprise. Songs that startle. Songs that we don't know and are yet to love.

For me, the jukebox jury's still out.

The Wisdom of Jarvis: minding the gaps

 

Should I ever happen to end up running a highly-lucrative online songwriting course, I would probably start with this video. In fact, it would make the perfect introductory exercise:

Objective #1 - write a hit song using two fingers and your nan's miniature Casio keyboard (10 points).

Jarvis Cocker is best known as the lead singer/songwriter of the band Pulp who, in turn, are best known for the hit song "Common People". And, although he's written many more great songs, it's probably the one song for which he'll be remembered. Still, as he himself noted, Black Lace had "Agadoo", so it could be worse.

By his own admission, he is not a sophisticated musician and this video, where he explains how he first picked out the basics of "Common People" on a miniature keyboard, is a good reminder that songwriting is a remarkably democratic thing. You don't need an alphabet of qualifications after your name to have a go or, even, to do it well.

This is also true of musicals. 

We rightly eulogise the sophisticated and highly-educated musicians like Cole Porter and Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Bernstein. All were accomplished musicians with an unusual capacity for ingesting and employing an array of musical influences and styles. As talents, they were exceptional. But what about the common people?

Well, musicals are also the domain of Irving Berlin, who could only play the piano on the black notes; Bob Merrill, who composed his songs on a toy xylophone; and Lionel Bart, who couldn't read or write music, and would instead hum his tunes to a pianist to get them transcribed. 

So, you can be a sophisticated, world-renowned symphonic conductor-composer or you can play a toy xylophone and, whichever you are, it seems that you can end up writing a classic musical. That's astonishing, when you think about.

But why should this be the case? I think Jarvis has the answer:

"I prefer simple songs to complicated songs. The simpler a song is, the better. You can have a couple of notes and that will suffice. Because, in a way, the less notes you use, it leaves more of a gap which you can imply other notes and stuff like that."

He's right.

In the case of music, harmonics are literally that, where the sound waves of a single note produces faint echoes of (or "implies") other notes which, in turn, provides us with the basis of Western harmony. 

In the case of songs, the "gap" is being filled by the lyric.

And, more broadly, in the case of musical theatre, the "gap" is not only being filled by the lyric but all the other theatrical/dramatic considerations. 

I wonder if this is a different way of thinking about musical theatre writing; that it is as much to do with what you leave out as what you put in. To put it another way, perhaps musical theatre writers are more sketchers than painters. That is, they draw the outlines but leave gaps for the colour to be added. An inherent part of the job is to allow space and room for others.

And, perhaps, that's why even the non-credentialed composer and the simple songwriter can, from time to time, make a real go of it.

As Jarvis says:

"Sing along with the Common People

And it might just get you through"

TATAR #16 Venus in Blue Jeans

by Howard Greenfield and Jack Keller (1962)

I feel that the universe is telling me to write about this.

Having not heard this song for what must be decades, it popped into my head recently. Next thing I know I'm reading about how the singer Mark Wynter apparently went on to have a great career in musicals and is back on tour. Should he ever appear in a production of Kismet, I'll have to get a ticket. I mean, I really will have to. That's just how it works.

Anyways, I remember hearing this song as a child and, like all music you listen to a child, it stays with you. So, naturally, when I listened again decades later, I could remember every single word.

And what fine words they are:

"La da da di da da da di di dum"

OK, not the very first line. I mean the next bit:

"She's Venus in blue jeans"

Now that is how to write a song title. The second line is even better:

"Mona Lisa with a pony tale"

This kind of thing is straight out of the Ira Gershwin playbook: juxtaposing the classical with the contemporary ("Of Thee I Sing, Baby"). And I love those two little interval drops in the melody on "Venus" and "blue jeans", like the sentimental sighs of an oh-so-earnest teenager in love.

This characterisation carries on in the middle section which switches perspective from "she" to "they":

"They say there's seven wonders in this world

But what they say is out of date

There's more than seven wonders in this world

I just met number eight!"

I do believe that is an early draft of a poem by Adrian Mole, aged 13 and 3/4. Add in the melodramatic heartbeat of the snare drum, a swooning choir and an obligatory modulation and you have the perfect love song for a smitten teen. 

But, most of all, I'm amazed by the brevity. The video says two minutes. In fact, if you exclude the intro and repeated verse, it's more like one. In just over sixty seconds, the songwriters have managed to capture this boy's character: the dreaminess, the naivety, the purple prose, the hopelessly pedestal-placing attitude to the opposite sex. 

It's a little glimpse inside somebody else's world. 

And that really is a wonder.

Having a Larry: Musicals and the Olivier Awards

Now, I'm not one for award shows. 

That is, whenever I watch one, I can't help wondering what it would be like if all that congratulatory self-importance were to be directed at an industry that is actually essential - plumbing, say. Perhaps one day we'll see a bloke called Dave, clutching a golden u-bend and tearily thanking his parents for showing him the beautiful possibilities of a central heating system.

I'd definitely watch that.

But I only managed around twenty minutes of the Oliviers. Maybe I should have stuck it out for longer, given that I am a musical theatre fan. To be honest, I rather suspect that the reason I switched off was because I'm a musical theatre fan.

You see, musicals and the Oliviers have had a rocky relationship. Generally, the Oliviers like their musicals old and American. So, back in da heights of the Boubil/Schoenberg megamix era, the Oliviers plumped for the half-century-old Me and My Girl over Les Miz. A few years later, not to be outdone by their own nutty decisions, they made sure that Miss Saigon lost out to, er, nostalgia jukebox show Return to the Forbidden Planet.

Well, plus ca change, as Javert would say:

"Back to the Future was named was named best musical - one of the night's most competitive categories."

To be fair, at least that show has some original songs, unlike the majority of the nominees. Nothing against jukebox musicals but I wouldn't place them in the Best New Musical category any more than I would award Best New Band to a tribute act, no matter how good they were.

And, note, not a British show amongst the nominees.

"There were live performances throughout the night from the casts of shows including Moulin Rouge, Back to the Future, Drifters Girl, Frozen, Life of Pi, Anything Goes and Get Up, Stand Up"

So, to sum up. The premier awards for current British theatre chose to showcase mostly decades-old American songs written by dead people. Say what you like about Lord Andy's Cinderella but, had that show been nominated, at least the composer could have collected his award in person, on account of the fact that he still has a pulse. 

Whatever the future of British musical theatre is, one thing's for sure: it'll have little to do with the Oliviers.

Context is Everything: "Never Enough" from The Greatest Showman

As Blackadder once explained to Baldrick when he was presented with a particularly tiddly and undernourished Christmas tree: "Well, it 'ain't what you got, it's where you stick it!"

And so it is with songs in a musical. 

To demonstrate the point, let's take a look at The Greatest Showman. Now I only caught up with this film musical a few weeks ago and, to be honest, I have no idea what to make of it, other than the vague thought that, should I ever watch it again, it'll probably be with a stiff drink to hand.

The songs, however, require a bit of sober reflection.

For what it's worth (clue: very little), my own feeling is that the songs, although beautifully written, don't always work in the context of the film. And, to be honest, I can't put it any better than Stagey Rebecca does in her excellent review:

"My problem was that every damn one of them songs was trying to be The Showstopping Number of the film. I was like 'THIS is the one I'll remember' then ten minutes later 'no THIS is the one''. It's as if they were all trying to outdo each other that in the end, I couldn't hum a single one while exiting the cinema."

I think there's a lot of wisdom in this. Although, I suspect that it may be the bombastic arrangements and super-charged studio production that gives every song that feeling of being The Showstopping Number rather than the songs themselves. But the point remains: if every number feels like a showstopper, then the show is going to be a bit, well, stop-start. And, that way, none of the songs really land. 

However, I'd say there's one exception.

"Never Enough" is a showstopper in the sense that it is a big, belt-y ballad requiring a more-than-healthy pair of lungs. But it's not an obviously theatrical song in the sense that it doesn't have much intrinsic dramatic interest. Nothing in the song itself suggests a specific character or situation. Really, it's more of a pop ballad. 

Musicals, however, are extraordinary things where even an apparently non-dramatic song can serve a dramatic purpose, if you just stick it in the right place. In the film, the song is sung by the character of Jenny Lind, a Swedish opera singer who has is being hyped by the legendary impresario PT Barnum. So, we have the world's greatest showman proclaiming the world's greatest opera singer in her American debut performance. A bit of a showstopper feels apt.

Moreover, at this point there are a few other things going on. Jenny Lind is trying to win fame in America, whilst Barnum is trying to win over respectable society with his new operatic signing. Only, it's becoming clear that his infatuation with her is going beyond a mere business transaction and that is also becoming clear to Barnum's wife, Charity. 

So, we have a bit of drama built around the song. But what is the song itself adding to the moment?

 Well, this is really clever bit. You see, it should be a song of triumph. It should be the moment when a star is born. It should be the moment when the low-born Barnum is finally accepted by high society.

Instead, we get a song of deep despair:

"All the shine of a thousand spotlights

All the stars we could steal from the night sky

Will never be enough, never be enough"

I love the way the rhythm and rhyme breaks down on that second line. If you wanted to follow the pattern of the first line more strictly, you would need something like:

"All the shine of a thousand spotlights

All the cars we could steal on hot nights" 

(And yes, that's why I'm not an Oscar-winning lyricist.)

The point is that the pattern is deliberately broken. "Steal from the" has one too many syllables and "spotlights" doesn't rhyme with "night sky". But the effect, I think, is that we hear the despair. We're literally listening to a mini breakdown in song form.

Then the next lines:

"Towers of gold are still too little

These hand could hold the world and it'll

Never be enough, never be enough for me"

I love that sudden switch in perspective from vast images of plenty - spotlights, night skies, towers of gold - to the singer's hands. And, if ever there was a line written to convey melodramatic despair, then it surely is: "These hands could hold the world and it'll/Never be enough...".

Turns out that despair isn't failing to get what you want. True despair is getting everything that you want - money, fame, reputation - and not being satisfied with it; living in the terrible knowledge that nothing can fill the aching void and your inner spirit will forever be left a cold and empty husk.

(If only there were an Oscar for melodrama, I'd be a shoe-in.)

So, what the songwriters are doing are using the conventions of a pop song - the pure emotion, the broadbrush lyrics, the repetitive chorus - and putting them to good dramatic use; undercutting a moment of triumph with the realisation of a terrible despair. To me, this song feels like the one showstopper in the film that doesn't actually stop the show. Instead, it enlarges the drama going on around it. It's the right song for the right moment.

They have stuck it well.

Context is everything.

Why Oh Why Oh Why, Ed Sheeran?

Never thought I'd say it but I'm beginning to feel a bit sorry for this multi-millionaire songwriter:

"Sheeran has serenaded London's High Court in an attempt to prove he did not copy portions of his 2017 hit Shape of You from another artist."

Taking every opportunity to increase his audience demographic, I see. 

The star is accused of lifting his song's "Oh I, oh I, oh I" hook from Sami Chokri's 2015 single Oh Why.

Asked whether his final melody bore a similarity to Chokri's song, he added: "Fundamentally, yes. They are based around the minor pentatonic scale [and] they both have vowels in them."

Love the sarcasm. Not sure if the judge will appreciate it.

The singer was also accused of being an "obsessive music squirrel"

Nuts to that. That's just rude.

Sheeran was repeatedly asked who had come up with the "oh I" phrase, but explained it had been a collaborative effort with his co-writers Steve Mac and Johnny McDaid.

"It was all of us three bouncing back and forth in a circle," he said. "That was how it originated."

"Three people could not create the germ of the melody," suggested Mr Sutcliffe [QC representing Mr. Chokri].

"Why can't three people create a melody?" Sheeran replied.

Good reply. I can easily imagine three people creating a melody. I'm not sure why you'd need three people but I can easily imagine it.

"Your approach is take it, change it and make lots of money, isn't it?" Mr Sutcliffe asked the star.

That's called the artistic process. Except for the money part, obviously.

"No," he replied, later adding that a "musicologist went over the song [Shape of You] and found similarities and we changed the similarities".

That's interesting. Do record companies regularly employ musicologists to check for copyright?

What I find curious about these cases is that, when it comes down to it, they are basically having a philosophical argument about what a song is.

It's a bit like golf.

I remember reading about a legal case in America concerning a professional golfer who had some kind of ailment which made it difficult for him to walk between the holes. So he wanted to be transported on a golf cart. However, some of the other players complained that this would be unfair and it eventually wound up in court. In order to reach its conclusion, the court had to decide whether walking between the holes is an essential part of golf. Basically, they had to decide what golf actually is.

I think the High Court is doing the same here. It boils down to definitions. My understanding is that a song is legally defined as the combination of a particular melody and a particular lyric (which seems a bit harsh on the rhythm and the harmony but there we go). 

And what's disputed in this case is basically a two-bar, eight-note melodic phrase, lasting around three seconds. In one song, the lyric goes "why oh why oh why oh why" and, in the other song, the lyric goes "I oh I oh I oh I". On the surface, it's an absurd argument. How could such a fleeting phrase be considered the essence of a song? On the other hand, that fleeting phrase is very hooky. In both songs, it gets repeated and sticks in your mind. It's not such a stretch to argue that, without those two bars, each song would be very different.

Now, I don't know the ins and outs of this case and have no idea which way the verdict will go. But it's a good reminder that songs are built (and, apparently, litigated) on the tiniest of details. Song is a form where a mere handful of notes and vowel sounds can, and often do, make all the difference.

God is in the detail, as someone once said.

Send in the lawyers.

Is Bigger Always Better? Musicals and Sitcoms and Big Characters

So, I've been listening to a great podcast, Sitcom Geeks, which is all about sitcoms (obvs) and is presented by a couple of, er...highly successful comedy writers, James Cary and Dave Cohen.

One thing that struck me (way back in Episode 2, if I remember) was the way in which they described leading sitcom characters. Sitcom characters, they theorised, should be Big in the sense of larger-than-life. They also need Big Flaws. And not just to stand on. That's because the Big Flaws are the root of the comedy so, the bigger the flaws, then the bigger the comedy. 

This is often true of musical theatre characters too. Although, in musicals, the Bigness is more to do with the fact that the characters sing and that, perhaps, is easier to believe in a larger-than-life character than it would be in a quieter, more inhibited type. (That's probably not really true but we'll park that thought for the moment.)

Now, I suspect that this Bigness can be off-putting for some people. Sometimes it can make characters feel cartoonish. But I'm not sure the reason for this is the Bigness. It's more to do with the other essential aspect of a sitcom character, as pointed out by the Geeks, and that is a lack of self-awareness. It's this lack of self-awareness that can make characters feel less like a real person.

There's an extraordinary example of this in Fleabag (the TV version, at least). There's a character with the improbable name of Bus Rodent, who has very Big Flaws and is, apparently, completely unaware of the fact. He's awkward and clumsy and says inappropriate things and, on top of that, he has these two enormous front teeth. Basically, he's someone to laugh at. 

At one point, however, his character turns on a dime, as our American friends say. Fleabag has just had very ungratifying sex with him and she fakes a climax. Bus picks her up on it: "You don't go through life with teeth like these and not know when somebody's pretending". With that single line and, for the briefest of moments, this ridiculous figure of fun turns into an ever-so-slightly more real and sympathetic character. All because he has shown a smidgen of self-awareness.

Now, the temptation is to conclude that the self-aware characters are the real ones and the big, cartoonish ones are the fakes. But here's the thing. If that's the case, then why do love the cartoon characters so much? And I don't mean, why do they make us laugh? I mean, why do we really, really love them?

In sitcoms, the likes of Captain Mainwaring from Dad's Army, Basil Fawlty from Fawlty Towers and The Office's David Brent are some of the most beloved characters in British popular culture. Yet, a defining feature of all of these characters, is their 'cartoonish' lack of self-awareness. If we met them in real life, they'd be nightmares at best; at worst, monsters (although, worryingly, I always felt that I'd get along with David Brent).

The same is true of musicals. Ado Annie from Oklahoma springs to mind, so completely and innocently unaware of the appropriate way to behave with men ("I'm just a girl who cain't say no"). And Adelaide from Guys and Dolls who wants to be a proper, upright lady but lacks the required sophistication ("Take back your mink/ To from whence it came"). And, perhaps, the ultimate example is Professor Higgins from My Fair Lady, a character so lacking in awareness of his own self-absorption ("Why can't a woman be like me?"), you could easily imagine him in his own sitcom spin-off.

And yet, and yet, despite being over-the-top and unrealistic, as with their sitcom counterparts, they are beloved characters. So what on earth is going on?

I think the reason is this: these characters are not fakes. In some ways, they are more real because they are us without the filters. Of course, they are not like 'real' people, the kind that we meet and know in our everyday lives. That's because in our everyday lives we all have filters. We don't express every thought, we don't act on every impulse. We're constrained by norms, morals, other people's perceptions. In fact, probably the main reason for our filters is the fear of being revealed to be just as moronic, embarrassing and petty as these cartoonish characters that we find in musicals and sitcoms. 

And that's why we love them; they allow us to acknowledge the parts of ourselves that are usually kept hidden. For all their contrived artificiality, these Big Characters can get to a truth that the more 'realistic' ones fail to reach.

It's another one of those Big, beautiful puzzlements.