Lets Conceptualise

As I'm stuck in the Shire, I've been indulging in some recordings of old musicals. Today's offering was Pippin, the music Stephen Schwartz made before he went mainstream to make Wicked. Which reminds me, what did Stephen Schwartz do during the 80s and 90s? Answers on a postcard. This got me thinking about conceptual musicals and whether, in these times of wanting mindless fun at the theatre, they can survive today?


Firstly, what is a concept musical? A concept musical typically removes a story from its perceived setting, often using a "concept" or certain idea to do this An early, not wholly conceptual idea would be Jesus Christ Superstar. Although the Jesus character was kept true to the perceived image, the setting of the title song thrusts the show in to the realms of concept. The show was brought bang up to date, using the fashion for disco, flares and the funky chicken to bring the message of the bible to the theatre going masses.


The seventies saw a string of conceptual hits, and misses, and started a trend that can still be seen today. I'm going to have a look at some of the best (and worst) concept musicals to hit the stage.

The curse of the cute leading man strikes again, mmm....William Katt...

Pippin perfectly represents a conceptual musical- both in it's book and musical, and it's staging. It tells the story of the son of Charlemagne through a travelling troupe of performers led by the eponymous Leading Player (originally played by Ben Vereen). As they tell the tale, the lines between fiction and real life start to blur as Pippin truly becomes the son of Charlemagne and the troupe turn against him. The play shows that we can change history and make love, not war, in a not so blatant as Hair way. I love the layers of concept in this show and also the fact that it can be enjoyed on so many levels, depending on how much you want to think about it. I also love that Pippin was successful and is still performed a lot regionally today.


Ragni and Rado may have taken conceptual musicals a bit too far with Dude! It was a confusing mix of Shakespeare, biblical mythology and rock music. While I appreciate their creativity, I just don't think audiences could work out what the concept was. And here lies the issue with concept musicals, if you don't give the audience enough hints or make your concept too confusing or complicated, the audience won't care about the characters or your show.

Yeah yeah, I know, sexy ladies, Fosse hands, enough already.

Although the concept musical never really went away, the movement definitely received a revival in 1996 with Chicago. Although I personally refuse to see the stage production because of its cheap stunt casting and recycling of cast members, at the time it was pretty radical, and is one of the few situations where a revival has been more financially successful than the original. the production was completely pared down to skimpy black costumes, a non-existent set and the diminutive band onstage. To the casual onlooker, there is no way a conceptual show like this would still be running but through clever marketing and an emphasis on sex, it has. Whilst I would have been interested in seeing the production when it opened in 1996, it has been cheapened by the Weisslers' incessant need to put untalented celebrities into the roles- more of an issue in the Broadway production.


But one thing I am proud of is the legacy of Chicago to allow other concept shows to believe they can succeed in the current climate. Which brings me on to American Idiot. Yes, I have already dedicated a whole blog post to it, but I feel it is relevant in the journey of the concept musical. Similarly to Jesus Christ Superstar, Idiot originated as a concept album, but this time the concept is almost supplementary to the music, just there to elevate it to another level. The only character to speak is our protagonist Johnny, and he speaks in monologue correspondence to his familiars. this was a brave thing for Michael Mayer to do as he could have easily alienated Greenday fans by intellectualising the show too much. Instead he allows the audience to piece together the story how they want, interesting both Greenday fans and theatre fanatics.

Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson. I wish the real Andrew Jackson had looked like that.

I hope this trend will continue with the arrival of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, the emo musical about a not so famous president. I have to admit I know little about the show, apart from that it did very well off-Broadway, but I'm glad that something truly original is coming to the Great White Way. If anyone sees it, let me know how it was!

Dude! (I Got Tu Go Disco)

Yes, please do note the intentional [title of show] pun.

So, where were we? Oh yes, the works of Galt Macdermot and his fellow Hair alumni Gerome Ragni and James Rado. So that'll be Dude, the Highway Life- the second work by these collaborators and the last to appear on Broadway.

Dude again took its inspiration from those great texts of the past; in this case Shakespeare and the Bible. According to wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) the plot goes a little like this:

"Reba and Harold, actors who believe they have been cast in Richard III, instead find themselves portraying Adam and Eve in a Garden of Eden-like setting, where they are tempted by Zero (the devil) and give birth to son Dude. The forces of Good (#33, Bread, Susie Moon, Mother Earth, and the Shubert Angels) and Evil (Zero, Nero, Esso, Extra, and Sissy) try to gain control of Dude's soul. Dude grows up and succumbs to the temptations of bizarre sexual practices and illicit drugs, leaving his parents guilt-ridden, until Guide #33 (God) assures them that life is merely show business and everything has a happy ending."

This story doesn't sound to implausible; Jerry Springer addressed the fight between good and evil in a much more controversial manner, Tommy and Taboo both address a young man growing up and dabbling in bizarre sexual practices and illicit drugs. Plus every good old Broadway show ends with a happy everything. To me the plot sounds like a message to Broadway about the development of contemporary theatre and that in the end it is only theatre.

But you don't expect Rado and Ragni to approach the plot in a conventional manner do you? Of course not. With Eugene Lee on board as designer, the entire Broadway Theatre was gutted and replaced with a theatre in the round, placing the various parts of the orchestra at different sides of the theatre. Did no one ever think about acoustics in those days? This probably explains why I can't think of any success musicals that have been performed in the round- even the Donmar Warehouse has a vague front to it. In addition to this reconfigured stage, attempts were made to transform it into a primeval forest using real dirt. Way to go Eugene, dry dirt caused dusty faced audiences and attempts to control it with water led to mucky faced audiences. Eventually a fake dirt compromise was reached after also cutting the real chickens that were intended to wander the stage. Lee basically threw everything at this show- walkways, ramps, seated areas, trapdoors, even trapezes.

The actors weren't the only people to find themselves going through a strange, radical experience; the audience were also left slightly bemused. Instead of orchestra, mezzanine and balcony we had valleys and foothills, mountains and mountain tops and tree tops and trees respectively. I quite like this as the hoity toity would enjoy the novelty- "Oh look darling tonight we sitting in the foothills, guffaw" and those who could not afford the good seats had no way of showing it- instead of last row in the balcony, you'll be sitting in the tree tops. Much more romantic.

And here is where the problems start. By splitting up the orchestra, acoustics were a real problem especially if you happened to find yourself right by brass section! Another issue with in the round theatre is that a large portion of the action, especially in dialogue scenes will only visible and audible to certain areas of the audience.

It wasn't just the sound designer who was having a nightmare of a time, during previews the director and choreographer both resigned, being replaced by Rado and Ragnis' old friend Tom O'Horgan (director of Hair) at short notice. After complaints from both the cast and creative team Ragni finally addressed the mammoth task of rewriting much of the show including replacing a 23 year old Dude with an 11 year old Dude. Just a few minor tweaks then.

So one would think that despite these chaotic scenes backstage surely Rado, Ragni and Macdermot can pull it out of the bag again? Nope, the critics hated and audiences just didn't want all the fuss of getting confused about where they'd be sitting or the risk of getting a bit grubby.

So now we address why? I get the feeling that Ragni and Rado were on a bit of an ego trip following Hair. Dude sounds like the sort of show that would fit in with off-Broadway today not the stuffy Broadway of the early seventies but because of their stature within the community, they could straight to the Great White Way. The creative pair had carte blanche because producers were desperate to make the next Hair. I'm all for creativity on the stage but Ragni took this a step too far by not thinking about the practicalities. Real dirt, whilst a romantic idea, is a logistics nightmare as are livestock- what if someones allergic?

I get the feeling that Ragni insisted that he was running the show despite having no experience as a director, choreographer, musical director, etc. I can imagine this would really rub some people up the wrong way.

Yet I don't feel like I want to lay all the blame on Gerome Ragni; musicals are a collaborative effort with many different factors that must be woven into each other to get it right. Whereas my examination of Via Galactica took the post modernist approach of finding the piece that was missing from the jigsaw, the fate of Dude! is less clear cut. Even though I love his work, I think Eugene Lee went a bit too far in creating an all round environment in a theatre that was never made for anything but traditional proscenium arch based shows. The producers were pretty much out of their depth- should you really go trusting lots of your money on some guys that spend most of their days stoned?

And so finally I address a huge contributing factor that has nothing to do with anyone involved in the show. Timing. Although I know no one is ever going to want to revise Dude! I feel it may have had a more successful life if it had arrived thirty years later. In the early seventies, Broadway was nearing the end of a prosperous time that had seen so much progress in the world of the musical. Soon the great British super musical would arrive and metaphorically piss over creativity. If scaled back slightly and set in a more suitable theatre, it could have made a nice little earning off-Broadway and would have a been a good stepping-stone for young actors. Although we still see a lot of the same old film based musicals on Broadway, off Broadway has become much more creative (strangely) in the years since 9/11. Instead Dude! went up to that great show graveyard in the sky (or possibly in that church that used to be a theatre on Broadway)