The Future Of Musical Theatre

For as long as we are presenting new musical theatre writing within the traditional proscenium arch, American book musical theatre format, we are perpetuating the accepted form of aspiration for musical theatre creators.

The problem with that is the disparity between the necessary requirements for the fulfillment of those aspirations, and the way in which the audience's expectations have been shaped by the path of the high profile end of musical theatre.

That journey has been a relatively long one, and involves the merging of several other paths of popular music entertainment.

British music hall dominated popular theatre from the mid-nineteenth century right up to the sixties, bringing variety acts containing popular music songs amongst other tricks and turns. To begin with, you could have a beer and a laugh (and even a meal), singing along with the songs you knew, and not having to focus on narrative for more than three minutes at a time.

With greater popularity, and greater need for seats, came what we now know as the traditional proscenium arch seating arrangement. No drinking, but still singing along. Then the world wars came, and once they were over, the patriotic flavour of the performances had to compete with the new sound of rock and roll.

Being in the audience for a band was a different kind of interaction, and those audiences didn't want to sit through the tricks and turns of old variety. Music Hall faded away, and storytelling through song morphed into what we now know as contemporary musical theatre.

Operetta is more often recognised as the dominant path to the modern musical, and many point to the integration of scene and song as a very important factor in that journey. Which, of course, it is, but by changing the way that lyrics are received by the audience, the music is simultaneously being made more accessible, and to a wider social group. More popular.

Once again, the style of music is credited with the changing face of musical theatre, as it always has been: from whole-narrative music hall numbers, through to the wider popularity of rock and roll, and from opera to operetta, to the more accessible and therefore popular book-musical song structures and lyric styles. Those two paths eventually merge at the jazz/blues influenced work of the Gershwins, into Hammerstein, Sondheim, Lloyd-Webber, followed by the current spate of jukebox musicals that don't just use the style of popular music culture, they use the actual popular songs.

Looking at this journey, it's very easy to see why contemporary musical creators who use 'pop' music are said to be creating the future of musical theatre. When the creators of musical theatre look to the future, they look at the genre itself, considering the form from the inside, out. Look at the music style of the show, then look at what people are listening to, and alter accordingly.

This would appear to be a focus on the creative choices made at the heart of the writing, but in fact, it is limiting writers and composers to the narrow field of vision in which we now find ourselves. The musical theatre highway has tapered to a path whose width is determined, albeit indirectly, by record companies, the fashion industry, advertising agencies… everything that edges us towards Celebrity.

To make a successful career of being a musical theatre creator - which is simultaneously an ultimate goal and the impossible dream - one must have a hope of commercial success in order to make a living wage.

Today, the new musicals that enjoy some element of commercial success have at their foundation some manner of Celebrity: featuring music by ABBA, lyrics by Elton John, book by Ben Elton, adapted from a very popular movie.

Even our own and very beloved Stiles & Drewe, who have gained two spoonfuls of Celebrity by deed of their involvement in Mary Poppins with Cameron Mackintosh, found only limited commercial success with their lovely show Betty Blue Eyes. There was not enough Celebrity involved, either in people or in property, to glue it to the public's idea of what musical theatre ought to be. (Which has very little to do with their skills in telling a story in that traditional book musical form.)

Go back before that, and find Cameron Mackintosh creating Celebrity for his shows by making them popular worldwide, and using the spectacle of big scenery as another Celebrity magnet.

Not that there's anything wrong with Celebrity. Well, that's another argument, at any rate. Of course Celebrity is popular: always has been, always will be. It's in the name. The point is not that Celebrity makes bad musical theatre. On the contrary, shows like Matilda receive high praise because they are genuinely great book musicals in the traditional proscenium arch form.

Long may they continue. Long may we see the Royal Variety Show on TV. Long live operetta.

The problem lies in new musical theatre creators who struggle to learn and develop their craft within an industry that ultimately cannot take a chance on something with no inherent Celebrity.

There's a lot of support for new musicals around at the moment, through Mercury Musical Developments, Perfect Pitch, and many others who are talking about, and doing something about, presenting new material. That material, and those creators, frequently have aspirations to continue down the ever-narrowing path towards traditional proscenium arch commercial presentation.

By offering those creators the opportunity of a reading, a showcase, a workshop, a festival presentation to the industry, those very focused aspirations are being shaped and encouraged and perpetuated.

Of course, any and all support is valuable and useful to a writer, composer, director, producer. And of course, traditional book musicals are an awesome thing: if people want to create them, they should do so. But that form of the genre is not where musical theatre began, and it is certainly not where it should end.

Looking away from the Celebrity, the temptation is to look to the genre of music, assuming that the presentation of songs with a popular music style will encourage more commercial success - which is akin to saying that costumes designed after the latest fashions, or a set painted in the most popular interior design colours, will do the same.

It is not the style of ABBA's music that attracted those who like that style of music, it is the Celebrity of ABBA that brought in new and broad audiences. It's not the style of Queen's music, but the Celebrity of Queen that brings people to We Will Rock You. And yes, the Celebrity is about the music, but the show is about the Celebrity.

Instead of looking at the audience's experience of the music genre throughout musical theatre history, perhaps it would be more useful to look at the audience's experience of watching a musical, as a whole.

In the old days of music hall and variety, the audience very much participated. Not just by breaking the fourth wall and shouting, but also by eating meals and drinking beer, which crucially broke the barrier that exists between one audience member and another.

Pop concerts offer a very immersive, interactive, collaborative style of being an audience member, too. You're not only aware of the people around you, you're dancing with them, crying with them, experiencing with them.

It is commonly accepted that when an actor speaks out to the audience, in clear acknowledgment of their presence, they are breaking the fourth wall, but there's so much more to explore than that. Even in pantomime, where the audience must join in to make the show feel complete, if someone's mobile phone rings, the rest of the fourth wall is broken. Maybe it should be called the fifth…

It is, after all, as named by Aristotle, the Fifth Element of the theatre experience, the aether that fills all space in the auditorium, the air through which the electric charge of narrative arcs and thrills us.

Traditional proscenium arch theatre cannot accommodate freedom for this Fifth Element. There are stringent rules on what is, and is not, acceptable. Theatre makers created those rules, but it is not we who maintain them, but the audience. They obey them, and in obedience, perpetuate the necessity for them, influencing us to continue to make theatre that obeys them, and so on.

When people were used to going to the theatre and having a meal, they experienced being an audience member in a totally different way to the modern experience of fourth wall theatre. You weren't just in a room with other people, or collectively experiencing emotions at the same time as other people, you were experiencing emotions with other people. Not just collectively, but collaboratively. Catching someone's eye and seeing them cry as you are crying, or sharing an in-joke with a friend that is prompted by the show, or verbally expressing how you feel about a character's actions.

This was also true in Shakespeare's day, and is true today of many contemporary music concerts.

The journey of the experience of musical theatre audiences is one that has slowly headed down this tapered path to a point where nothing is acceptable for a good night out but still silence, with a good view of the whole stage area for all, and everyone having an equal experience of the sound and lighting of the show, at equal levels, and if your experience is less than the best, you pay less for it because it is given less value.

By us.

By them.

Mercury Musical Developments have posted a short survey to find out how their members are finding the experience of the showcases they've run, and whether they should continue down that path or not.

Here is one possible answer: it is the same narrow path towards Celebrity, encouraging the same set of very specific rules for proscenium arch book musical theatre, formed from many different theatre traditions and popularised in America as one way to stage a story using song.

One of many.

There's no question that musicals are staged in other ways, but they still perpetuate the fourth wall experience. In promenade theatre, audiences are moved from one location with a fourth wall to another, stewarded to ensure that they stand a certain way to view a scene. It is the same still, silent experience, where walking does the job of scene change.

Even musical film perpetuates the same experience. Point at YouTube, social media and the like as evidence of new ways to present story using song, but the audience member's experience is the same.

There are many immersive theatre presentations. Punchdrunk and others have spent years encouraging the audience to get involved in the story, to play a particular part informed by the action and interaction with the characters, or wander freely through story installations, where one may or may not stumble upon some narrative.

If story told using song relies on narrative structure (which is surely one aspect that creates the foundation of musical theatre, song being the other), then story installation may not serve the purpose of broadening the genre to a wider path that is more accessible for new un-Celebrity material, but there is certainly a huge amount of unexplored potential in the audience member's experience.

Audience member, singular. Not the group as a whole, because that collaborative experience must be informed by the nature of individual experiences which can be opened up to willing collaboration.

Immersive theatre doesn't have to demand that the audience member plays any role other than themselves as audience. They don't have to be Jeering Onlookers, or Eavesdropping Spies, or Clubbing Ravers. There should be space for everyone to interact in any way they please, from the silent and still, to the jeering and dancing.

There is no name for this, because there are too many possibilities, and it is all open to exploration. Which means there is a whole field of open space into which creators of new musical theatre can take their work out and let it play.

Are the traditional showcases useful? Sure, in learning the craft, yes. Will they help musical theatre creators develop their own voices? Not so much. Either they're stuck at the craft development stage because they're not getting enough of that kind of exposure to their own work, or they've moved beyond the initial craft stages, but are still trying to fit into the narrow aspirations of Celebrity musicals.

Will they get shows produced? Probably. Shows have been produced, presented in the regions, and toured, because of support that came from such organisations. Whether or not something was ever picked up because of a showcase, I'm sure someone can say.

Will immersive theatre change the face of musicals? Unlikely, especially whilst those who are most vocally supporting new musical theatre continue to perpetuate, almost by accident, the notion of traditional proscenium arch book musicals as the main focus of aspiration.

Would it even be possible for audience members to change the way they experience theatre? Yes. Certainly, if they want to. They may have perpetuated the current experience, but much of that has to do with them expecting that it would be rude to the performers to behave other than sitting silently and still.

Performers and creatives may have perpetuated the silent stillness too, but much of that has to do with respecting those who want to sit still and listen.

It's a good way, but it's not the only way.

We need other ways to develop ourselves and our work.

No-one knows exactly how to make narrative-led immersive theatre* work.

Isn't that exciting?

---------------------

Hitler's Canary
Watford Palace Theatre
June 8th & 9th, matinee and evening
www.thecopenhageninterpretation.co.uk

Thursday: traditional proscenium arch presentation, breaking fourth wall

Friday: full building immersive story-world Fifth Element experience of simulated reality that we’re calling HD Theatre

-----------------------

Cinderella
Guildford Town Centre
www.storyunltd.com

Sat Oct 13th from 11am through to midnight and beyond,
and Sun Oct 14th from 11am to mid-afternoon

Multi-location story-world immersive presentation


(*It’s a good way. It’s not the only way. Let’s find others.)

Musical Theatre DNA

The subject of British versus American musicals seems to have come up a lot recently. David Cote thinks the Americans win hands down when it comes to having the right cultural DNA. As a librettist and workshop facilitator myself, I often hear writers bemoan the difference between the two musical theatre worlds.

Although there’s never enough teaching of craft, there are several UK courses on musical theatre writing. There are companies who specifically support new musicals, and two new “British musicals” have recently hit London: Stephen Clark and Howard Goodall’s Love Story and the Cowen, Lipman, Stiles and Drewe show Betty Blue Eyes.

Do they fit the “British musical” tag? The Theatre Royal Stratford East are soon to stage what they’re calling a “British Chinese musical”: Takeaway, a story set in London, written by New York-based writer Robert Lee and Hong Kong-based composer Leon Ko. (This definition would make Evita an Argentinean musical. Argentinean British?)

Director Kerry Michael, a big supporter of musical theatre writers and writing, says the tag is not just about the British experience in the story, but also about the British money that’s financing the project. It is undeniably brilliant that there’s money and support for new writing, but stories don’t emerge from the money. They emerge from the writer.

This will be a story about a British experience, told by American Chinese writers. All of those things will influence the show... and more.

David Cote is correct: American writers have American Musical Theatre written into their cultural DNA. Any creative writer can only tell stories filtered through their own unique make-up. That’s not about American people, but about people who are American amongst other things.

Take me, for example. I was born in America but predominantly raised in England. I am also Danish by descent, and have had a lot of Scandinavian influence in my life.

Anything I write must filter through all of these things in order to get to the page. There is no helping that. I expect if you look closely, you’ll find both panto and Tom Lehrer in my humour. My characters certainly chase the Danish concept of hygge in their lives, but mostly try to do so in a New York Minute. None of those things would be true if it were not for everything that I am, and everything that I am is the only thing that I can be.

So the upcoming “British Chinese musical” is a British American Chinese musical, if you like, but it is so much more than that. Let’s celebrate Robert Lee and Leon Ko as writers, and Kerry Michael as director. The show, and this production of it, will emerge from the complexity of everything they are, including but not limited to their nationalities or cultural identities (which are even more complex than I have mentioned here).

Writers of new musicals need to know that there is no perfect model of ‘British’ or even ‘American’ musical theatre against which to compare our own work. Writing is hard enough as it is, without a fantastical goal of what we should be creating or, frankly, a fantastical idea of what might be inhibiting our creativity.

The most successful writers are true to themselves as people, and therefore true to the writing. It’s not easy. Writing can be terrifying, but if we are the only ones inhibiting ourselves then we have the power to change, and that is the crucial difference.

Other factors certainly open or close doors for writers in terms of productions, but once you’re in the theatre and connecting with an audience, only the truth will do. So I say to writers: ignore any notion of what British musical theatre ought to be, and just write truthfully. It will filter through some ‘Britishness’ anyway, as it emerges from you. Don’t get in its way.