1969 Tony Award for Score???

[theaterfan862]

Posted: 7/17/17 at 3:03pm

My husband and I recently were discussing who won the Tony Award for best score Hair or 1776, but to our surprise we found out that neither of them won. Actually there were no nominees that year or the next year for that matter! The new shows nominated for best musical in '69 were "1776", "Hair", "Promises, Promises", and Zorba! All great show with wonderful scores! Does anyone know what happened that year??

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 7/17/17 at 3:05pm

I believe the authors of 1776 (Peter Stone & Sherman Edwards) were also given the Tony for Best Musical that year.

Updated On: 7/17/17 at 03:05 PM

[theaterfan862]

Posted: 7/17/17 at 3:09pm

Is that something new that they were trying that year? Just seems odd because the other categories had nominees.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/17/17 at 3:12pm

There was no score award in either 1969 or 1970. Never have heard a reason why.

[theaterfan862]

Posted: 7/17/17 at 3:25pm

I just did a bit more research and it seems that there were no awards for Best Book given from 1966-70. I'm guessing during that time period the book category was removed because there is no award for the "book" of a play so it was combined. And in 1969 and 1970 that mentality might have been the same regarding the score. Just odd all around.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/17/17 at 7:48pm

The writers were included in the award for Best Musical.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 7/17/17 at 8:02pm

all pretty good scores! i personally would have given Best Score to Hair, its a little busy but there are some really great songs in that one.

[theaterfan862]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 11:45am

I agree Gypsy. I really like all the scores, but Hair is my favorite. The awards should be separate. I also think there should be a different for the writing of a play as opposed to all lumped in with Best play.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 12:11pm

I think 1776 deserved score.  It was a damned history lesson that worked beautifully, and an awful lot of that had to do with the score.  I have always loved the Hair score, but I would not have voted for it for two reasons: (1) Hair was essentially a revue and the authors didn't have the challenges associated with making the score work in a more traditional framework, which I think would have been very hard...1776 would have gotten major points from me on that; (2) there are an awful lot of songs that are not much more than did bits, entertaining but not substantial.  

While Hair clearly has a number of songs that have become popular classics and 1776 has none that I can recall, the weaving into a story dimension scored points for me.

Interestingly, I saw the movie of BOTH within the last 6 weeks (they must have both been on TCM, although I can't remember where I saw Hair).  While I thought there were still too many tidbits that could have been eliminated, I thought that Milos Forman and crew did a remarkable job of inserting a narrative around the formless show.  A little was corny, but not a lot.  I have always thought that the Hair movie, along with Fiddler on the Rook, was probably the best translation of a Broadway musical to film in the past 50 years.  Once upon a time, I thought that Oliver belonged in that category, but I can't sit through Oliver any more.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 12:22pm

theaterfan862 said: "The awards should be separate. I also think there should be a different for the writing of a play as opposed to all lumped in with Best play."

I'm not so sure about that. The reason why there are separate categories for writing musicals is usually because a lot more work goes into them. Plays on the other hand, they're usually only written by one person.

[green waver]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 3:47pm

I'm with you, jarethan. 1776 is an extremely underrated score-alternately stirring, hilarious, and melodic, as dictated by the individual scenes. It's also brilliantly orchestrated by Eddie Sauter in faux 18th century style. Hair is a wonderful score as well, maybe just a hair(!) below it. I have always been underwhelmed by the score of Promises, Promises. I'm obviously not alone, as the producers of the recent revival felt a need to interpolate other Bachrach-David songs of the era.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 4:36pm

Personally, I think Hair and 1776 are a well-deserved tie for score.  Whether or not you believe Hair is a "revue" (which had significant changes and edits on its way to Broadway), the score not only serves the show perfectly, it provides 75% of the show's structure and the material that is there is freaking GENIUS, musically, politically and artistically speaking.  Whereas Hair may not have had as much challenge in setting up a traditional book/score framework, it faced other challenges 1776 did not, such as finding the right combination to create a cohesive and comprehensible musical that is totally current and non-traditional in a forum for very traditional discerning audiences.  It was a massive risk and one that never paid off as well for MacDermott afterward.  Hair was a lightning bolt that forever changed the landscape of Broadway and that is primarily due to its score.  I love 1776 and its rather witty and brilliant score, but to me, it's no contest.  Hair is a landmark show with a landmark score.  

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 6:50pm

Mister Matt said: "Personally, I think Hair and 1776 are a well-deserved tie for score.  Whether or not you believe Hair is a "revue" (which had significant changes and edits on its way to Broadway), the score not only serves the show perfectly, it provides 75% of the show's structure and the material that is there is freaking GENIUS, musically, politically and artistically speaking.  Whereas Hair may not have had as much challenge in setting up a traditional book/score framework, it faced other challenges 1776 did not, such as finding the right combination to create a cohesive and comprehensible musical that is totally current and non-traditional in a forum for very traditional discerning audiences.  It was a massive risk and one that never paid off as well for MacDermott afterward.  Hair was a lightning bolt that forever changed the landscape of Broadway and that is primarily due to its score.  I love 1776 and its rather witty and brilliant score, but to me, it's no contest.  Hair is a landmark show with a landmark score.  

 

Are you a Trump supporter.  Your opinion changed from your first sentence to your last.  But I did get your point, unlike most of white I hear from the embarrassment-in-chief.  If Trump had been a character in 1776, he would have been...No, on second thought, even the 'bad guys' had integrity.

 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/19/17 at 1:29am

Oh, Jarethan, just when I have forgiven your Oklahoma hatred (because of your great love for FOLLIES and Angela Lansbury in the Sondheim thread), you start in on the film of HAIR!

About the latter, I am even more enthusiastic than you. I don't even think of it as a movie adaptation of the stage play. To me, Forman took the score and recreated an old-fashioned MGM film, a great old MGM film, one that holds its own with Singing in the Rain and the like.

But the HAIR lyrics are still mostly ****e. (Alas, the film omits the best lyric in "Frank Mills".) I'd have given the Tony to 1776 for book and lyrics, too. And perhaps have given music to MacDermott.

[The Other One]

Posted: 7/19/17 at 7:25am

Jarethan said: "I think 1776 deserved score.  It was a damned history lesson that worked beautifully, and an awful lot of that had to do with the score.  I have always loved the Hair score, but I would not have voted for it for two reasons: (1) Hair was essentially a revue and the authors didn't have the challenges associated with making the score work in a more traditional framework, which I think would have been very hard...1776 would have gotten major points from me on that; (2) there are an awful lot of songs that are not much more than did bits, entertaining but not substantial.  

While Hair clearly has a number of songs that have become popular classics and 1776 has none that I can recall, the weaving into a story dimension scored points for me."

 

I can see your second point, but not your first.  Hair's songs build the show towards a still-overwhelming climax.  Its simplicity is deceptive; it actually tells a timeless story.  What you say about it could more accurately be said about Company, though I don't think that show itself ever has the impact of its individual songs.

I would have a very, very hard time choosing between 1776 and Hair, and the score for Zorba trails theirs only slightly.  Promises Promises is a fun show, but most of its score is a bore.