The Three E's

In any art form, I'd say artists can be divided into 3 main types. These are: the Eccentrics, the Energetics and the Egotisticals. Every artistic group has them, and yes, some of us are a mixture of all three.

They make up the dynamic of most groups on earth, for every artistic and sporting discipline.

These types can be defined as follows:

1) The Eccentrics

  They are either eccentric because they are clever, or vice versa. They many be zany, weird and wonderful, odd, or just shy. Some may seem like hippes, (and probably are); others look like professors (and also probably are). But all are either very quirky, and/or very clever. Wit is their nature. I've known many softly spoken characters who are as quiet as mice before the performance. But come curtain up, they are electrifying.

2) The Energetics

Why would someone want to perform in public? Well, usually because they've got lots of ENERGY! Yes, another big group of artists I know are the most outgoing, full of life people you could imagine. They don't say hello, they say HI THERE!, and they don't just walk to a space - they jump at it! This boundless energy pretty much translates into the performance, as the Energetics usually have a very loud voice, and you are forced to be heard over them. But they usually have a heart of gold, and make good friends: even if they do give very strong handshakes.

3) The Egotisticals

Speaks for itself really. Those who think they are Gods gift to the people; they who think they are the greatest dancers, and are not. They who think they can sing brilliantly, and for the sake of people's ringing ears, need reminding otherwise. And they who think they only have to leap on stage for the audience to erupt with praise...keep dreaming. Yes, many of us have been on this trip. (Me in a few musicals to be sure.) In fact, when there are ten of us in a show, who all think we are brilliant, we should record our backstage antics, and keep them as a memento: for the entertainment of others later in life.


These are The Three E's. They can be found in all performance groups worldwide. If you're in one now, talk amongt yourselves and find out which one you are...

GMTG Rendezvous

To all members and Alumni of Guild Musical Theatre Group (or GMTG Birmingham,) who are reading this. A rendezvous of sorts will take place this Dect 1st, as GMTG present their showcase. All Alumni are welcome to meet, and after we see the showcase, we can discuss plans for the main event (a reunion next year)! Reach me on Skype if you can't come in person.

Spread the word!

Rocky - The Musical!

Now there's a good idea. I've not yet heard this one done. The's even been a musical version of The Evil Dead (complete with foul language and all)! In fact there seems to be a musical version of everything. Well, how about Rocky?

The only downside would be, of course, that every song would begin and end with one word: ADRIENNE!, ADRIEEEENNNNEEE!! ADRIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEE!!! On the plus side, at least the dance routines would be intersting (dancers pounding meat, and running up and down the steps of somewhere very famous...)

Anyway, it's food for thought. I wonder if anyone'll come up with it?

And of course, there's one song that'll definitely be in the repertoire. Cue the inspirational music...

Both Sides of the Story

Sometimes even one of the greatest musicals of all time can have its flaws. And in West Side Story's case, the flaw comes at the end of Act 1. For some strange reason, the creative team seemed to want to end Act 1 after the Rumble, when both Riff and Bernado are dead.

Clearly, this is an anti-climax. Were it not for the brilliant dance sequences and music, the audience would be thoughougly turned off by such an ending. Surely common sense says, that Act 1 should end with the iconic emsemble number Tonight, in which the Jets, Sharks, Tony and Maria are all invovled. It is the perfect cliff hanger to suspend audiences' disbelief. Who will win the rumble? Will Tony stop the fight? Will he and Maria find happiness? The audience is left to wonder.

Then Act II can begin with the Rumble. It adds perfect suspense to the situation, and when this has been done in some versions of West Side I know of, it has worked very well indeed.

I still can't figure out why Bernstein, Sondheim, and Laurents could allow Act I to end where it did. As someone did say, who wants to see a show where the audience are left with two dead bodies on stage at the end of the act? I forget who said that, but the point is well made.

Innovation

The Way to Stay Ahead

Something I'd like to comment on. Ok, so this is more about the entertainment industry, than a musical theatre one, but I'd like to put it out there ayway. I've been listening to quite a few tracks from the UK's chart, and you know what? There's one reason why our music industry seems to do so well.

It isn't just that we're aggressive in marketing it to the world - which we are. Nor is it the fact that our producers have many good deals with foreign distributors to guarantee a steady flow of hits. No. The reason our industry's got staying power is a simple fact: because the music is different from anything heard elsewhere.

This may sound obvious, but there's a special element to UK chart hits that I don't hear in other music industries. It's amazing how diverse our pop tunes are. Sample the top 20 tunes, and you'll find urban, reggae, disco and hip-hop, blended with funk, soul jazz funk and even blues. Granted most other industries are just as eclectic - after all, artists like Usher and Beyonce Knowles were born to make hits, and they certainly come out with some groundbreaking new tunes, but there's a magical 'it' factor in our industry at the moment, that sets it apart from the rest.

I may be biased, but play the top 20 chart hits right now, and I think you'll see there's something to this argument. After all, I notice that all over Europe, it is British and American tunes that always seem to be on the ariplay, no matter what the country or the language.

My point is this. It takes a lot of courage to be different, but if you come out with something genuinely original, you can lead the way. Jamiroquai did it in the 1990's. At first, no one really understood a group who played jazz, funk and soul as dance music, in the middle of all the techno, rave and other styles at the time. But as disco came back in fashion, they took off with a vengeance, and the whole music scene became laced with funky grooves, many artists mixing the old school with the new.

So it pays to be different, and in art, you have to innovate. It's not just about taking risks. You have to come out with something in a new way. That's how to stay ahead.

For inspiration, just check out this little number...

NOT Martin Guerre

The Pitfalls of a Rewrite

Something I've been meaning to say for a while. To quote a speech from Hey Mr Producer, great musicals "are not written: they are rewritten." The show in question was Martin Guerre and, no, I disagree. Great shows should sometimes be left as they are, with minor adjustments.

They should not be torn apart and reassembled, to leave a show that's nothing like the original. I say this, because I had the misfortune to perform one of the revamped versions of Martin Guerre for National Operatics' Summer School, and I think the original release was still the best.

In 2005, there was yet another version of the show coming out, and not only had lyrics and themes been changed, but even the plot had been altered. Among the various overhauls the musical has had over the years, Guillaume (the villain) and a gang were put in at the end, which just seemed an anti-climax to the original three hander between the leading characters. Then the most crucial change: the iconic, (and very important) number, Live With Somebody You Love was changed to a duet between Martin and his wife Bertrande. But in the original version, it was depicted on the battlefield as a duet between Martin and best friend Arnaud, who will steal his name. The signifigance of the song was lost in a way, we agreed.

Don't get me wrong. Martin Guerre is a brilliant musical, and the revised version still made for a powerful workshop, that tested us all to the limit. But my issue is with rewrites. The Land of the Fathers, for example, was one of the best choral pieces my choir has performed, and it really does justice to the story, as an understated final number. But it was not included in revised versions of the show, which is a real shame.
If it ain't broke, as the saying goes, don't fix it. Yes, the original Martin Guerre was a flop, but this was because of 2 basic flaws.

Number one: it was too serious. As my Summer School instructor pointed out, all other Boublil-Schonberg and Mackintosh' musical collaborations till then had worked, because the musical always had some humour or entertainment in it, to lighten the intense drama. In Les Miserables, the character of Thenardier, and raucous numbers like Master of the House provided great comic relief: allbeit with serious undertones to the events. Likewise, in Miss Saigon, the character of the Engineer, provided the audience with some great one liners, and funny culture clashes, that lighten the mood of what is otherwise a very serious story. But Martin Guerre, as I remember, did not have enough comedy to lighten the drama, and I'm not the first one to say this.

There was a wonderful comedy number, that was called Sleeping on Our Own, I think, in which the village's women folk vent their sexual frustration, in a hilarious, deadpan style, that puts a smile on audience members' faces. This too, keeps being taken out and put back in various versions of the show.

The second reason for the Martin Guerre's flop (no pun intended) was, I think, a much simpler one.
It was the end of an era. By the mid 1990's, we'd had our share of large scale musicals, and perhaps Martin Guerre was one too many. While I agree strongly, that musical theatre should focus on serious drama, as part of its DNA, I still concede, that audiences need to be entertained. They need comedy, and a few lighthearted moments, to lift the drama, and relieve the onlooker. Remember Jesus Christ Superstar? Herod's Song lightened the mood perfectly. And who could forget [Gee] Officer Krupke, a tongue in cheek send up, right in the middle of West Side Story's darkest moments. There's a lesson to be learned here.

So, although Martin Guerre's time as a hit musical has passed, I still think that it can be saved as a performance piece by two very simple changes:

• Take the show back to its original 1990's form. Lyrics, plot, characters, dialogue, the works.
• The ONLY rewriting needed is to add comedy. All comic numbers and characters tried in the various rewrites should be kept. The music and the drama are perfectly moving as they were: they just need comedy to add spice, and give the audience an all round musical experience.

That's the kind of rewrite I'd recommend.

James Mcgarry

aka The Secretary

Modern Musicals: The case for Something New

Modern Musicals

The Case For Something New

James McGarry

(aka The Secretary)

Not long ago, a friend of mine told me how hard it is to perform new songs with his rock band. Covers of all the hits play to sell out audiences, but a night featuring new songs seems to leave a fairly sparse pub or bar.

It’s funny because in many ways, musical theatre is the same. Time and again, audiences only seem to want the classic song and dance routine, with well known hits, and a happy ending. From The Sound of Music, to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, these musicals seem destined to dominate the market, both here in the West Midlands, and in the West End of London. Even supposedly new shows like Dirty Dancing and Mamma Mia are based on classic films or classic hits.

Now maybe I’m biased here, but the wonderful genre of musical theatre is not just entertainment, but an art form. It has covered every subject and topic imaginable; from the story of Jesus (Jesus Christ Superstar), to the British mineworkers strike (Billy Elliot); from a social commentary issues of race and class (Ragtime), to the issues of modern relationships (Company). The list goes on, but suffice to say, that musical theatre has explored virtually every type of drama: after all, many plays have been adapted into musicals. The potential of the musical is limitless, and we should be willing to take it in new directions with new developments.

Yet far too often, people seem afraid to put on modern musicals. Time and again, if you look at the fixtures list for amateur shows in the region, the same classic 10-15 well known musicals are well in the lead. Of course, budget constraints’ have to be considered. It costs a lot of money to put on a show, and I can understand producers’ desire to see that money is returned through ‘bums on seats’ shows, that are proven to get a big audience.

But we need to remember, that like any art form, musical theatre must not be defined by ticket sales alone. At the festivals I have volunteered at so far, the companies involved have all put on very avante garde shows that are unlike anything on the conventional stage.

With this in mind, most people would point me in the direction of the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, which is certainly the epicentre of new developments. New musicals and shows can be tried and tested before a festival audience, and the money spinners let loose on the mainstream theatre goers at the National and/or the West End (remember Jerry Springer the Opera?) But I still say that the UK as a whole needs to be more open minded to new kinds of shows. How receptive might a mainstream audience be to something new?

The most obvious issue here is the entertainment factor: the average person on the street goes to the theatre to be entertained, not so much informed or challenged. I know this from many years of performance, and from working behind the scenes. It is true that audiences don’t always take to a new idea. Musicals with dark, adult themes can certainly discourage people. A performance of Jeckyll and Hyde I went to see was attended by only a select crowd of locals, despite the talent and energy of its performers. Also, serious dramatists, students, and collectors of art may wish for something deeper, but that doesn’t appeal to the masses. Or does it?

I have to wonder, because the most iconic musicals of all time include some of the most thought provoking. West Side Story, and Showboat, for example, deal with many complex issues of race, and rivalry, that are far beyond Broadway’s classic formula of frivolous entertainment. Likewise, some of the most famous musicals actually broke the mould at the time they came out. Guys and Dolls defied convention, by beginning with the instrumental Runyonland, whose movement sequence was a departure from the traditional opening chorus number. Oklahoma also traded a chorus opening in favour of a three handed first scene; and used dance to tell the story during Laurie’s dream sequence.

These classics were the modern musicals of their day, and the development of new ideas must continue if we are to have classics for the future. It can be done. Consider the groundbreaking success of Wicked. Not only has this musical taken the West End and Broadway by storm, but it has inspired a whole new generation of performers. I remember the songbooks for Wicked and Avenue Q lining the shelves of my music teacher’s room. Young students couldn’t get enough of this new musical.

Yet I worry that too many producers, companies and societies (both paid and unpaid) are playing it safe. The next Andrew Lloyd Webber, and Stephen Sondheim, and Steven Schwartz need to step forward. We need more groundbreaking, cutting edge modern musicals, that will take the industry in new directions. And above all, we should not be afraid to try new ideas. Production of any musical always involves taking a risk. And a brilliantly original idea; that could make a future classic, is a risk worth the taking.