Opera or Musical?

This Opera vs. Musical Theatre debate has been the bane of my existence for many a year. As a stage director and former performer (singer-actor) who has worked and continues to work extensively in both mediums, I have found a tremendous amount of high-minded judgment emanating from each side toward the other. We can certainly look back and chronicle the history of each art form and debate the true intentions of the original creators and jump through hoops and what have you ad nauseam. We can talk of forms and functions of various pieces, mentioning the through-composed recitative/aria structure of Les Miz and the habit of the Restoration theatre to call upon Mr. Purcell for song and dance to create the then popular “semi-opera” and the philosophical choice for microphones now used in some modern opera compositions (yes indeed, composers have actually stipulated in their scores the use of mics in some of their works). But at base, this distinction, this bright red dividing line between the forms, will eventually cease to exist and soon enough not matter in the slightest. Good riddance.

There is no hard and fast rule in this debate that cannot be argued in it’s opposite. There is no official agreed-upon yardstick by which a piece measures up or falls short and thereby gains its generic title. We instinctively know an opera to be so and a musical to be such because of our collective cultural knowledge based on certain explicit and implicit signs and signals. We know it somehow, even if we don’t know exactly why. It’s pure academia to try to parse out the strays. What matters most is the needs on the ground, the actuality of the situation and not the theoretical conundrums (however interesting and enjoyable the resulting ruminations may be).

In New York, both the Broadway theatres and the opera houses at Lincoln Center are thirsting for distinction and relevance, not to mention off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway and the myriad of independent chamber operatic endeavors. But how is this accomplished? How is this thirst quenched? Strangely enough, by drinking from each other’s water coolers. One finds traditional “musical theatre” fare being offered at the opera house, and playing to sold-out crowds no less. One finds shows of musical complexity and artistic seriousness being tread on the boards of traditional theatres, and these shows are highly acclaimed and are being called “operas” by the critics. It seems both mediums are trading in on the other’s core commodities. And in truth, this is exactly what must be done for either art form to continue and survive.

Musical Theatre must raise the bar on its musical integrity and further its artistic reaching beyond mere entertainment, and Opera must find itself in a more straightforward directness in its physical production and a more accessible melodic orientation in its composition. We must cease to use the terms “opera” and “musical theatre” as words of derision and separation, but rather must find a fusion of intent that allows for a synergetic growth into our collective musico-dramatic future. We must fund, develop, and support the idea of Lyric Theatre.

That is indeed what this all is at base. What we’re talking about is theatre that has as its very core a singular method of communication: the lyric, meaning simply “sung word”. All pieces under discussion are covered by this term. Chicago. Arabella. Alceste. Company. Aida (both the Verdi and the Elton John). The main mode of communication in each is musicalized speech. The focuses of these works are essentially the words that are sung and the people that sing them.

Let’s stop splitting hairs to find the differences and instead use all elements at our disposal to create the best possible whole. That’s been my mission and continues to drive me artistically forward. No difference between the one and the other, except the uniqueness that happens piece by piece by lovely lyrical piece.

"That's Entertainment"

Ah yes, but what of entertainment? Entertainment is essential in all performance art, as is also Art reflexively essential in all performance entertainment. These somewhat conflicting but more than occasionally consonant goals are aspects both "operas" and "musicals" must claim in varying degrees for their perspective futures to be made sure. Variety is the spice of life and the spice of art and entertainment as well. We definately need for all things to be themselves and allow for each thing a place, but I simply try to promote the idea of an accepting non-scornful perspective that accounts for all things and shuns any idea of exclusivity.

Certainly, origins also account for an awful lot. In fact, without them, most everything simply wouldn't exist. Not much material stuff is as Athena springing fully formed from the great Zeus. As a former Professor of Musical Theatre (I’ve had a very varied past - don't ask), I taught many a class on the development and origins of the Broadway Musical and have studied reams and reams of historical material. Really in fact, it did all come from “opera” (pace theatre-centric-ologists) but it just filtered a bit differently once it hit the New World. Minstrel shows most especially furthered the cause when the idea of the English Ballad opera failed to gain a popular public here in America. But this is all beside the point.

Lyric Theatre - where everything is something and nothing is laughed to scorn or dismissed out of hand as being without meaning. All things should have a communal place, a big tent if you will, and from there can be as uniquely unique as there are shades of grey or snowflakes. Unfortunately, along the way, Opera forgot that it was once entertainment, and the Musical Theatre forgot that it was once, or rather could be, art.

The entire 10 tome treatise will be published and distributed at a later date for all those around the world who care. I know you all can't wait. All four of you.