What makes a play a play and a musical a musical?

[taylorPHENOMENON2]

Posted: 4/25/12 at 9:11pm

I'm certain this has been discussed on here before, but some of this Broadway season has puzzled me in particular. With shows like End of the Rainbow which has an entire cast album and is listed as both a musical and play at TKTS, it seems like the line is being further blurred with this production amongst others as of recent.

Does anyone have further thoughts on this topic?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/25/12 at 9:18pm

It's so so grey, but for me it if the songs advance the story it's a musical. Otherwise it's a play with music. But then you get to things like Jersey Boys...

[broadwaybabytn]

Posted: 4/25/12 at 9:23pm

End of The Rainbow, One Man Two Guvnors, and even Peter and the Starcatcher blur the lines, but are all straight plays.

[dreaming]

Posted: 4/25/12 at 9:24pm

First of all, End of the Rainbow was originally described as a 'play with music'. The producers probably would have been better off to promote it as a 'musical'. That said, it's a very fine line between a play and musical (at least in this instance). The precedent towards this type of piece at the Tonys is rather interesting.

Marlene, about Marlene Dietrich, was considered a musical and its star, Sian Phillips, was nominated for the Tony for Best Actress in a Musical.

The same goes for "James Joyce's The Dead" which was again billed as a 'play with music' and deemed to be a musical. It was nominated for best musical.

I was surprised they were pushing this more into the play category (it's a lot more competitive).

[Matt2]

Posted: 4/25/12 at 9:26pm

Do you think End of the Rainbow would have a better shot at picking up awards (particularly Best Actress) in the musical category? Or are its chances of winning anything pretty much the same in either category?

EDIT: Just realized that Dreaming partially answered my question. Since the play category is often more competitive, why didn't the producers petition the show as a musical? You'd think they'd do anything they could to better their chances of picking up more award wins/nominations. Updated On: 4/25/12 at 09:26 PM

[dreaming]

Posted: 4/25/12 at 9:27pm

I think it would be much better off in musical, personally. (The actress is a no-win situation because there is a glut of worthy nominees.)

[Kad]

Posted: 4/26/12 at 12:05am

Peter and the Starcatcher has .. what? Three/four songs? And really only one is used to move the story along. It is decidedly a play, even with its use of music.

[degrassifan]

Posted: 4/26/12 at 1:30am

Some Rodgers and Hammerstein pieces were written or performed as a play with music even though the songs advance the story. Why is this? The recent Broadway revival of South Pacific was approached and directed as a play with music by Sher, and I read that Lindsay and Crouse wrote Sound of Music as a play with music. It's all so confusing!

[degrassifan]

Posted: 4/26/12 at 1:30am

Some Rodgers and Hammerstein pieces were written or performed as a play with music even though the songs advance the story. Why is this? The recent Broadway revival of South Pacific was approached and directed as a play with music by Sher, and I read that Lindsay and Crouse wrote Sound of Music as a play with music. It's all so confusing!

[taylorPHENOMENON2]

Posted: 4/26/12 at 7:13am

I certainly can see where Peter and the Starcatcher is a play with music with only a couple of songs.

But End of the Rainbow has 8 full length songs which are in concert format as well as sung in regular moments during the show. Almost a third of the show is sung.

What's the difference between this and Jersey Boys and Fela? They also utilized the concert format in a biopic and are considered musicals.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/26/12 at 3:26pm

With some shows, the lines are so blurred that there really isn't much rhyme or reason to it, and it probably has more to do with a marketing choice than anything else. Although the issue could be reduced - imperfectly - down to how closely interrelated the book is with the music; still this is a judgment call for the producers to make with an eye to how to market the work.

There are also plays where musical numbers only exist as performances within the work (Marlene, Piaf) which contrast - however imperfectly - with plays in which there are performances within the play as well as other musical numbers (Cabaret, and arguably Fela as well - Lilias White appeared and sang not as a meta-performer but as Fela's mother). I think Stritch said that she and Lahr thought of At Liberty as a play with music (rather than a special theatrical event); albeit a play with music about Stritch. Curiously, if another actress ever attempts it in the future (a bit of a stretch but I can see it being done), I wouldn't be surprised if it were produced as "a play with music."

There are also plays with limited albeit more than incidental musical numbers; these are often referred to as plays with music (e.g. Marat/Sade).

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 4/26/12 at 7:25pm

Some Rodgers and Hammerstein pieces were written or performed as a play with music even though the songs advance the story. Why is this? The recent Broadway revival of South Pacific was approached and directed as a play with music by Sher, and I read that Lindsay and Crouse wrote Sound of Music as a play with music. It's all so confusing!

Degrassifan, I think you're confusing your terms. SOUTH PACIFIC always was and always will be a musical (unless somebody tries to take the songs out), regardless of how they stage it. Just because a musical has the dramatic intensity of a dramatic play doesn't make it a non-musical.

The term "musical play" was coined for Rodgers and Hammerstein's shows because they often dealt with serious subject matters, characters sometimes died, etc. So they were neither "musical comedies" nor "operettas". Hence, "musical play."

THE SOUND OF MUSIC was originally conceived as a "play with music." It was intended to be a play about the von Trapp family with the family singing a few songs, as they did in real life. But it became a full-fledged musical when Rodgers and Hammerstein got involved.

The term "play with music" has traditionally meant a play with a limited number of songs, none of which is really essential to the plot. In other words, could you remove the songs and still have a workable play? If not, then what you have is a musical.

[degrassifan]

Posted: 4/26/12 at 11:10pm

Hey Gaveston2, thanks for your reply!

I specifically remember reading various articles and interviews by Bartlett Sher where he says he appraoched and directed the revival of South Pacific as a play with music. Apparently, he spent a week with the cast going over the book without touching any music at all.

As for Sound of Music, in the book "The Sound of Their Music", it states on the Notes on Scenic Production: "Since this musical does not have a dancing chorus or, in fact, a chorus as such (with the exception of the nuns who will sing) this comes closer to being a "play with music" than a musical play."

Note on scenic production.

[Owen22]

Posted: 4/27/12 at 12:56am

One Man Two Guvnors to me is a musical. It even has a cast album.

[hermajesty]

Posted: 4/27/12 at 7:29am

I should think it's the playwright's decision as to whether his/her work is considered a play with music or a musical.
I'd class EOTR as a play with music, because only one member of the cast sings.

Updated On: 4/27/12 at 07:29 AM