Musical Theatre Deserves a Deeper Conversation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 เม.ย. 2024
- The persistent perception of musical theater as inferior to non-musical plays, despite its depth and complexity, is wrong. We need to a shift perspective to recognize musicals as significant works of art deserving of serious analysis and intellectual engagement. I urge both critics and fans to delve deeper into the thematic depth and underlying messages of musical theater, moving beyond surface-level enjoyment towards a richer understanding of the art form as a whole.
Contact Me about producing audioplays: julianrmunds.com/new-page
Check out my acting school at: julianrmunds.com/acting-classes
I offer musical theatre voice lessons and acting training.
#musicaltheatre
#lesmiserables
#rent
#lionking
#hamilton
#sondheim - บันเทิง
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 4 // 100T vs GEN | G2 vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UkTGSxdCUQw/mqdefault.jpg)
I have said for several years that Musical Theatre ought to be viewed as a medium and not a genre. Said in another way, there is as much room in musical theatre for light comedic works as there is for deeply engrossing and thematic ones. Too many people simply view musicals through the first context without engaging much with the second. Thank you for so well synthesizing this point with your succinct and masterful video
Thank you so much for your insightful comment! I completely agree with your perspective that Musical Theatre should be seen as a medium rather than just a genre. It's a diverse and rich form of expression that encompasses everything from light comedy to profound, thematic works. Light comedic musicals, while seemingly straightforward, often carry layers of depth and can be quite heavy in their own right. Your support and kind words mean a lot, and I'm glad the video resonated with you. Let's continue to broaden the conversation about the incredible range within Musical Theatre!
I’ve been trying to write this exact idea regarding theatrical magic for ages! It’s maddening how our artists and critics fixate on form and disregard our medium’s capacity for expression; even the most radical artists either assigning spiritual importance to expressing nothing of consequence, or copying the poetics of other arts and judging ours as valid only in so far as it can abandon itself to emulate others. I can’t express how much I appreciate this essay. I feel reinvigorated. Thank you so much.
Thank you immensely for your thoughtful comment! It's incredibly heartening to know that this essay resonated with you and sparked a sense of reinvigoration. Your words beautifully capture the frustration many of us feel with the current discourse surrounding musical theatre. Perhaps it's time for us to collectively explore and develop a poetics that honors the unique expressive potential of our medium. Let's continue to champion the power of theatrical magic and pave the way for a richer, more nuanced understanding of musical theatre as an art form. Once again, thank you for sharing your perspective!
Hi! I make videos about theatrical magic from this exact perspective.
BRAVO!!!THANK YOU!!! I've been saying that musicals like "South Pacific", "Gypsy", "Cabaret", "My Fair Lady", to name a few, are important because they all contain strong, solid, dramatic substance and strong character arcs, in addition to advancing musical styles, content, functions, and forms. The behemoth shows by a certain Sir ALW, by contrast, do nothing for me because they are stage spectacles, with very little dramatic or human substance. And no one understands a word I have said-- and I've been saying it for years.
Absolutely agree with you! It's refreshing to see someone appreciate the depth and substance in classic musicals like "South Pacific," "Gypsy," and "Cabaret." While Andrew Lloyd Webber's productions often dazzle with their grandeur, they sometimes lack the depth and emotional resonance found in those older works. If you're interested in exploring a different perspective on Webber's contributions to musical theater, I'd recommend checking out my video on Jesus Christ Superstar. It might shed some light on the complexities and nuances of his storytelling approach. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@julianrmunds : Someone, at theatre, once asked me what my favorite musicals were. I replied, very straightforward, "South Pacific", "My Fair Lady", "West Side Story", "Gypsy" & "Cabaret." She replied, "My God! You ARE Old School!". I felt so judged by her. I don't know what answers she was expecting, but my answer was honest and sincere. As you probably guessed, I don't care for Sir ALW at all, but I will watch your video on "JCS". I just subscribed, and have watched three of your videos already. Thank You for your work, perspective, and insights.
I've seen a slight shift in this direction of taking musicals seriously as pieces of drama recently! One of my biggest examples is when I was looking at textbooks for introductory college literature classes, some of the textbooks included sections on musical theatre in the drama chapters. One textbook even included the text of the musical Fun Home as a work that the class could study!
Now where is this happening. Certainly not around me.
@@julianrmunds Los Angeles! It's not even at a school particularly known for academics
I don't know why you seem to be under the impression that fans don't discuss or appreciate themes. This is absolutely not the case. You might be hanging around in the wrong platforms. I've been part of musical theatre fan meta since 2005, I can tell you that it exists. Perhaps you're thinking about fans with reach, which... that's the trick in the first place. You have to have reach and musical theater doesn't get reach without clicks. Clicks often come from focusing on the stars. Or you're just looking in the wrong places. Livejournal was a great place for this, and I'm sure some of it is still available. Tumblr is its successor and you can find it there too. Even AO3 hosts meta. It seems disingenuous to promote something "better" when you don't even recognise the communities that do exist and have for a long time.
Thank you for sharing your perspective and for engaging in this discussion. I appreciate your passion for musical theatre and the insights you've provided based on your experience since 2005.
I see where you're coming from, however I see things in a different way. I want to point out a few areas that might be worth reconsidering. When we rely heavily on personal experience to support our claims, it can sometimes fall into what’s called the anecdotal fallacy. While your experience is valuable, it may not represent the broader picture of fan behavior across all platforms.
Additionally, it’s possible that there might be a bit of a misunderstanding here. The original point might not be that fans don't discuss themes at all, but perhaps that these discussions aren't as visible or prevalent in mainstream platforms. This subtle difference is important, as it shapes our understanding of the argument.
Your mention of people needing to look in the right places is valid, but it can also come across as shifting the burden of proof, implying that it's the responsibility of the other person to find these discussions rather than providing more concrete examples yourself.
That said, I absolutely agree that there are passionate communities discussing themes in musical theatre, and platforms like LiveJournal, Tumblr, and AO3 are fantastic examples of this. Maybe we can find common ground in recognizing that while these discussions do exist, increasing their visibility might help more people appreciate the depth and richness of musical theatre fandom.
Thanks again for the thoughtful dialogue. It's conversations like these that help us all see different perspectives and grow in our understanding.
@@julianrmunds Hi Julian, thanks for replying. Ironically, the logical fallacy you're talking about is present immediately in your discussion of fan behaviour quote: "often I've observed a tendency among those immersed in musicals to focus solely on surface level aspects like the entertainment value or the quirks of performers" which in your context is providing a premise for a conclusion that is fallacious, like you say. If you're going to argue that more of something is needed, and your preceding premise is that it doesn't exist based only on your experience, then you're falling into that trap entirely. That was my point.
I agree with your point about visibility. I believe this is algorithm centred since most of the platforms that currently exist are framed by these. You might need to look outside what is, by no means your fault, an echochamber, regardless of how careful you might be with the algorithm. That is why I listed platforms that are/easily can be non-algorithmic.
This is not shifting of proof, I believe you are using this term incorrectly. When you make a claim, particularly one leading to a conclusion, you need to back it up. If I query that premise, you have the onus of proof to demonstrate the sources that underlie that claim. For example, if I were to say there's a lion in the next room, you do not have to prove that there is no lion. I have to prove that there is.
I agree that increasing their visibility would be great. This is unfortunately not on the fans though, it's on the incidentals who promote that visibility, such as critics and the larger community. I think you are right in commenting about critics because they have a platform that is already visible. They can raise the exposure for fans, but "often I've observed a tendency" for critics to go after fans just as easily as they dismiss musical theatre. Fans are often seen as invalid voices because they do not always frame their opinions in the form of academic discussion. You might also be surprised how many academic voices are fans. This paper: Meierdirks, Sarah, "Could Musical Theatre Be Worthy of Literary Analysis? (Or, An Attempt at Dismantling the Cultural Hierarchy)" (2023). Honors Theses. 371, which you can find on google, discusses what I'm talking about very well.
I apologise if I come across as hostile, I don't mean for this to be the case. As a trained academic with a PhD in psychology and a double major in philosophy, when logical fallacies are brought to the table I swing for the fences.
My guess is that the problem is how commercial the musical theatre industry is. It’s also a self-perpetuating cycle.
Broadway musicals are extremely hard to turn a consistent profit on, based on their scale. So for people to get their moneys worth it feels like they have to turn on the spectacle, because if there is no spectacle why justify paying exorbitant prices? And if you don’t pay exorbitant prices, there’s no way to sustain a Broadway musical financially. And what happens on Broadway largely sets the tone for the general public’s view of musical theatre because it’s the most visible (because it has the most money and is presently the most socially significant). The meaningful content takes a backseat because producers are more concerned with what sells tickets regardless of quality, and having poor quality Broadway shows encourages the idea that musical theatre is all fluff and no substance. And this impression will stop people from looking deeper into the medium and assume the most visible presence is the most representative presence. (Not to mention certain movie musicals, but I could go on about those forever)
It’s also more difficult to have more in depth conversations on certain aspects of musical theater because it’s more difficult to access. We can talk about staging, design, and directing, but it will never be as predominant because not everyone can see every show. At that point, it would be up to the critics to make more in-depth analyses, but there’s nothing any of us can do about that except for support journalists who write pieces we want to see more of.
These are all good thoughts. I have not much to add but thank you for your comments and thank you for taking the time to watch the video.
I was expecting this channel to have at least a few thousand subscribers from the quality of the video. Great job, you’ve earned a new sub!
Thanks for the sub!
Totally agree! I’ve been looking for a video that does exactly this for so long, and it’s written so well! Thank you!
I think the sad thing is that musical theater is just considered a lesser form of art compared to your average Blockbuster.
I especially saw this with Hamilton back when it released a few years ago on Disney Plus.
There was so much discourse about how good the songs are or the racial undertones of its release in 2020 that I saw almost nobody discussing the greater themes.
God bless LMM, but because he's composing a lot of things for Hollywood it's sort of further dampens this exploration.
I've seen many people for example using of using rap a lot, but get annoyed high point out he's actually using patter
I think one issue is that any story that has depth *and* spectacle will always have people pointing out the spectacle first. It is true in musical theater - people will talk about Idina Menzel's singing or the loud musical numbers in Wicked over the discussions of politics and "popularity" that are nearly omnipresent, and people will talk about the laughter and jokes in Matilda without mentioning the way it portrays Miss Honey's broken life after surviving abuse as a child and how this contrasts with Matilda's refusal to break (although Matilda certainly has her low points where she nears giving up) - and it is true in any other medium. People will latch onto their favorite songs and things they can easily compare to other musicals.
I watched the movie Furiosa last week. Most people are mentioning how it can't match up to Fury Road and how the action scenes just aren't as propulsive and the more epic, less streamlined narrative is necessarily more baggy. What many people fail to mention is that the movie's purpose as a prequel is to develop Furiosa's character: she has a full arc that I won't get into here as the movie is still new, but it complements the original movie, detailing how a woman who starts the prequel as a "survivor" ends in Fury Road as someone who willingly risks everything for the freedom of others (inspiring Max to do the same, even though he starts Fury Road as a "survivor" only out for himself). The trouble is that this is an extension of a (rightfully) beloved story and people can't help but compare the surface level, even though it is attempting to enrich the original story and make it better instead of copying it.
This is true in video games as well. Dark Souls has a truly unique method of delivering its narrative - a method that is only possible in an interactive experience - but everything I heard about the game before playing it was that it was "difficult." Which is true in *comparison* to most games, but the main discourse was not about how the brutality of the world is illustrated by the difficulty of the game's combat, but the difficulty itself. (This almost scared me off from playing what is now arguably my favorite VG, as I've never been into difficulty for the sake of making the player miserable.)
All of these examples do have deeper conversations in "the fandoms" of each. Dark Souls in particular has many TH-cam channels and redditors that have examined the histories of nations and the various major players in Lordran, how this illustrates the game's philosophies, etc. Many people have spoken of how Matilda portrays child abuse and the scars it leaves. But these deeper discussions are not on the top layer of discourse, because subtext requires people to actually sit and mull over what the stories are trying to say.
Which brings us to critics. I think the major issue with critical analysis is that this is their job. They have to get through a certain number of plays/movies/games/books and write a certain number of words, and it can be really hard to have much to say at times. So everyone gets a formula of writing about things that are easily comparable: Is the action in this movie as good as this other movie? Are the songs as showstopping and jawdropping as in this other play? Are the fights in this game as thrilling and difficult and fast as in this other game? Even if they are not making *direct* comparisons, they are inferring them. It is less work to do so. Sure, if a critic is passionate with either love or hatred for a work, they may get into the weeds and talk about whether or not deeper aspects are effective... but most of the time, their purpose is to be tastemakers: Tell the audience whether or not they should experience this.
Does all that make sense?
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and comprehensive comment. You’ve articulated something really important about the nature of fandom and critical analysis. It's true that spectacle often overshadows deeper themes, and your examples from musical theater, movies, and video games illustrate this beautifully.
I appreciate the point about how surface-level elements often dominate discussions, leaving the rich subtext unexplored by many. It’s a reminder that while initial impressions can focus on the most apparent aspects, taking the time to delve deeper can uncover a much richer experience. Your mention of the challenges faced by critics is also enlightening, shedding light on the pressures and constraints they operate under.
Thank you for sharing these insights. It’s a humbling reminder to look beyond the obvious and appreciate the nuanced layers in all forms of storytelling.
Hi! Might I suggest Deconstructing Harold Hill by Scott Miller as an excellent text that expounds upon many of your thoughts. Check it out if you are not familiar.
I'll check it out!
For an example of the knock-on effect this disrespect for the artform can have, take a look at "Subspace Rhapsody", the musical episode _Star Trek_ finally produced last year after nearly 60 years of casting musical theatre talent in its shows but not letting them do their thing. While none of the songs are particularly objectionable in and of themselves(or, for that matter, memorable), only one or two of them do anything to move the plot along - in almost all cases, the songs are light fluff that describes how someone is feeling or makes a general observation on what’s going on, and all narrative momentum screeches to a halt until they’re over. Conversely, the second anything important happens, the music stops. There is a discussion between doomed lovers about their love which can never be, despite their feelings for each other - and it’s delivered in straight dialogue. This obvious opportunity for a heartrending romantic duet was passed up, and the only reason I can think of for why they would do that is that someone in charge thought the topic mattered too much for musical theatre to handle it.
It felt like the whole thing had been written so that someone could skip all the songs and not miss anything important, which in turn reinforces the notion that musicals are lightweight irrelevant fluff that can’t be trusted with the heavy stuff.
It’s intensely frustrating.
It sounds like 'Subspace Rhapsody' missed a golden opportunity to integrate music seamlessly into its storytelling. As a 90s Trekker, I have hesitation towards modern Trek. It's disheartening when a beloved franchise doesn't fully utilize its potential, especially when it comes to something as expressive as musical theater. Thanks for sharing your perspective; it helps me temper my expectations.
@@julianrmunds I'm very glad that they did it, but it wasn't as good as it should have been.
I grew up with 90s Trek too, TNG was a significant part of my childhood. I lost interest around _Enterprise_ with its apparent attitude of "We've done a Black captain, we've done a female captain, now that those boxes are ticked we can get back to putting cishet white men in the centre of everything.", but _Discovery_ got me back. It’s got plenty of ups and downs of its own, of course, but it’s sad that just as it’s really finding its feet and starting to run, it’s being cancelled.
that was awesome! you went into so much depth with it, and made me want to rethink how i watch the musicals i love so dearly- thank you for making this!!!
Wow, thank you!
Yooo, this was such a good video with some really great points!
Glad you think so!
Setting aside the "white washing" of the historical P.T. Barnum, consider _The Greatest Showman_ as a piece of Musical Theater and Cinematic Art. The songwriting, musical arrangements, set design, cinematography, choreography, and costume design are all absolutely top notch. Moreover, it offers excellent commentary on the "American Dream". Barnum is a workaholic who never takes time to enjoy his accomplishments before immediately seeking MORE, eventually aliening his wife and the very friends who helped to make him rich and famous, before _finally_ realizing where his priorities lie...after losing nearly everything. I only wish, as he sat at his daughter's recital, he had recapitulated the line, _"This_ is the greatest show."
Your interpretation of The Greatest Showman's themes and artistic elements is intriguing! It sounds like the film offers a compelling exploration of the 'American Dream' and the consequences of relentless ambition. Even without having seen it myself, your insights shed light on its depth. Thanks for sharing!
@@julianrmunds I can't recommend it strongly enough. As a songwriter, I tend to be a bit of a snob when it comes to lyrics, but the other side of that coin is that a well written line, matched with a melody that moves with the meaning of the words, will bring me to tears. Well, I cried eight times when I first saw _The Greatest Showman_ because the songs are that good!
Wow… just, thank you- haha
I think about this shit way too much, and I was starting to feel a little crazy, haha
Ditto.
2:52 what musical is this
This is a production of Mozart's Die Zauberflote or The Magic Flute.
I should warn you that looking down your nose at tiktok doesn't help your argument, it kind of made it lose its power. Talking about what influences have made musicals deemed superficial in the past and then continuing your argument by making tiktok as a platform sound like a superficial community is kind of counterproductive. It negates the role tiktok and similar apps have in society. There are whole fan communities on tiktok discussing their favourite musicals and diving into its depths and taking inspiration and being passionate about musicals in general. Yes there are plenty of memes but it's not all there is to it. Also, why is having fun with the medium of musicals somehow detrimental to the entire medium? The people within the musical community already have an affinity with musical theatre and know how much depth there is, the people not in the community can either be encouraged to check it out via a jokey tiktok, or they were the type of people who weren't going to take musicals seriously anyways. I don't know it just feels odd to make tiktok sound like some inferior platform while talking about how musicals are always seen as the inferior medium. It's a weird choice.
I'm curious, though, what are your thoughts on the depth in Starkid musicals and similar productions like Spies Are Forever? Because those have young and active communities that do engage in media discussion, but from your video I get the feeling maybe you'd call them too silly to be taken seriously. Happy to be proven wrong on my assumption, though!
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your feedback and would like to clarify my points. My observations about musical theatre fandom on TikTok are not meant to criticize the app itself, but rather to discuss the nature of the discourse within it. My focus is on how this discourse appears to those outside the musical theatre community.
I fully support fans enjoying musicals in their own way. However, as I mentioned in my video, my concern lies in how the 'preach to the choir' attitude can come across to those who are already skeptical of the medium. Musical theatre often struggles for legitimacy on a global scale, and it’s important that creators treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
Regarding your question about StarKid, I’ve only seen their show Firebringer. I was also once called back for a touring production of A Very Potter Musical as Voldemort, but I didn’t get the role. I consider these productions to be as valid as any other musical, including Pacific Overtures. There is much to explore and appreciate in their work.
Perhaps you haven’t seen my video where I ask if Mamma Mia is as worthy as Mother Courage. In that video, I discuss theatrical elitism and how it can be used to dismiss challenging theatre, while still acknowledging the quality of shows like Mamma Mia.
Thank you again for your comment. I value the opportunity to engage in this discussion and appreciate your insights.
@@julianrmunds Alright, fair enough. Thanks for the response, I'll check out the video you mentioned.
Funny you mentioned starkid. I was definitely about to bring up Twisted!
I'm no expert, but the most basic point from the video that musicals are so much more than spectacle is something i talk about often. I showed one of my friends Starkid's Trail To Oregon to get him into musicals. He genuinely thought 'musical' was only limited to your average Disney animated classic.
I wouldn't say Trail To Oregon is brimming with depth lol (I'm willing to have my mind changed!), but it opened the door to show my friend that musicals are absolutely not all the same. It definitely sparked his curiosity and now he's a budding fan.
I think even the most silly and frivolous of content can be a way in. But we also need people to have the discussions had here to bring balance. It's not fair for someone to think it's all fluff anymore than it would be fair to assume it's all boring and serious.
"Musical Theatre Deserves a Deeper Conversation" Musical Theatre deserves a special place in hell.
Which circle of hell particularly?
@@julianrmunds I commented in irritation. Third circle should do it; nothing too extreme.
No, it doesn't.
What’s your reasoning behind this?
@@julianrmunds Sometimes I like to click on random videos in my recommended and comment something purely based on the title without watching it at all :)
@@gurkenhamster ha!