What's the difference? "Brief Encounter" has a good bit of music, and "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson" has less than 30mins of actual musical (according to the cast album). Is it just what the producers want to bill it as? I wish BBAJ had more "meat" to it as far as music. For a musical it is pretty slim. None of its songs exceeds 3mins, and none really "go anywhere" musically or story wise. "Brief Encounter" has some excellent music, but it is not plot based, but more character based, or used as underscoring, but I think it probably has more actual music than BBAJ.
I have seen many more musicals than plays with music, but I would say that the function of the music would be the key difference. Is it there for the ambience, as I would say that it is in Brief Encounter, or does it actually contribute to plot/character development, as it does in most post-Oklahoma! musicals. Other thoughts?
^ I agree. A traditional musical has a round at least fifteen to twenty songs. Some have more or less depending on the story and some are even sung all the way through and have as many as thirty. A play with music on the other hand usually has fewer songs and only segments of a song may be played.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
My personal definition: Is there a reason for the characters to be singing ("they're performing in a band" being the most common one)? If so, it's a play with music.
Although that said, I'm still not sure how to class the National's recent productions of Mother Courage and Her Children and Earthquakes in London. Both felt like and seemed to be plays with music, but the music seemed much more ingrained...
AUGH! There's actually a word that applies specifically to music that is playing *in* a scene rather than *over* the scene, and if I could remember it, this entire post would make FAR more sense, but there's just a hole in my memory where this word should be (ironically, the word I thought it might have been for about half a second is "eidetic" XD). D:
EDIT: yesss! Twitter has come up trumps! Let's redefine:
If the songs are diegetic, it's a play with music. If not, it's a musical. (Although do bear in mind this is my personal definition and by no means gospel.)
Brecht wrote songs for some of his plays including Mother Courage and Caucasian Chalk Circle - although the NT used original music for its production of the former. In any case the music is integral to the plays but these are plays with music, not musicals.
And of course there are songs in many Shakespeare plays. In Twelfth Night, for example, Feste's songs are among the highights of the piece.
Some people (e.g. Patti LuPone referring to GYPSY) also use the term "play with music" to emphasise a libretto comparatively stronger than other musicals.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
I just thought of a perfect example of this. I know I'm mad behind on this, but as an actor who sings - the term 'play with music' over musicals has been a topic of debate between some of my closer musical theatre friends.
So my example is this: Blood Brothers. I would not consider Blood Brothers to be a 'musical' because the musical numbers are so spread out and basically reiterate the plot, primarily because the show was originally written without music (which, does anyone have a copy of Blood Brothers before they wrote music into it?). Additionally, there's only really about five songs, but a LOT of reprises.
Although it was stated that plays with music typically have music that moves along the plot, I would be more inclined to disagree with that. I think the entire point of a musical is that the songs more often than not tell the story, and are in a continual pattern. A play with music just has music which CAN tell the story, but more often that not just are there to reiterate a point as a mean of further extending and enhancing the dialogue. That's my opinion, though.
Recent Broadway and Off-Broadway:: Carrie, Merrily, Ionescopade
Next On The List :: Clybourne Park, Once, Streetcar, BOM
I totally left BRIEF ENCOUNTER thinking "That was a musical!" Totally a musical! The songs all tell of the inner feelings of the characters even if the main characters aren't the ones singing them. I think the Tony committee is going to have a difficult time deciding on that one.... although I don't really think it'll get any Tony love so I don't think they really need to worry. lol.
GREAT discussion topic! I asked the same questions after seeing both shows.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle