Empathy, Art, Frivolity and Music Theatre or When Did Music Theatre Become Such A Bastard?

There are many out there that would like to make the argument that Music Theatre is not art. It is merely a form of entertainment, commercialized in recent years by companies such as Disney to make a profit. While it is true that millions are gambled on the Great White Way each year, fortunes made and fortunes lost, Music Theatre has not lost it's artistic sensibility on the whole. And even some of the more commercial, or for lack of a better term, frivolous musicals have artistic ambition ("Footloose" comes to mind. A show that aspires to be something more than a show about teens fighting for their rights.... to dance. Unfortunately, it's not). I suppose to really determine Music Theatre's value as an artform we have to define what art is... and more importantly, what Music Theatre is not.
WHEN DID MUSIC THEATRE BECOME SUCH A BASTARD?
Music Theatre has always been a bastard child. A synthesis of Dance, Theatre and Music. And each have many valid naysayers that would like to maintain that because of the bastardization of Music Theatre, it is not a valid artform. I find many of these arguments stemming from the conclusion that Music Theatre is not enough of a particular artform. So, for further clarification, I would like to point out the seemingly obvious things that Music Theatre is not.
Music Theatre is not a Concert or an Opera, Music Theatre has far too much movement, far too much involvement of the face and body (Which would be detrimental to the Operatic aesthetic and proper alignment) and also the integration of plot and Theatre to be such. Music Theatre songs cannot be songs likened unto a concert (Most of the time). A song in, for example, a rock concert does not use the literary and literal devices needed to further a plot or progress a dramatic through-line.
Music Theatre is not a Dance Concert or a Ballet. Dance, much like music, is a transformation of something generally ambiguous into a physical form. However, literary devices and dramatic devices in Theatre need the dance to help progress a plot or to help showcase music. I would never go as far to say that this does not happen in dance, as I am sure it happens on a frequent basis, but it happens a great deal more in Music Theatre. And as of late, Dance and Movement in Music Theatre have become extremely scarce or frivolous inside Music Theatre, especially in comparison to older musicals which would feature a great deal of movement (IE: Ballet sequences inside of Rogers and Hammerstein musicals).
And perhaps most importantly, Music Theatre is not Straight Theatre. Many Straight Theatre performers, professors and patrons alike look down upon the bastard child Music Theatre as a lesser artform (And sometimes not as an artform at all). Music Theatre has an extreme amount of heightening of energy not found inside most of Straight Theatre.
Music Theatre borrows artistic attributes from the above three artforms. It ebbs and flows. Sometimes it is more Dance, other times it is more Music, and many times it is more Theatre or Drama. The highest point of Music Theatre artform is reached when it is all three at once (Extremely demanding from the performer. But should be equally demanding on the playwright, the choreographer, the composer and the director. It is not always so). When the movement expresses something fully, truthfully and honestly, when the music is clear and portrays the innermost feeling, when it is portrayed honestly and when the stakes are high and the performer is committed, we have in the audience what I know as an "Empathic Experience".
EMPATHS AND ARTISTS
We have all had Empathic Experiences before. They happen when we don't just feel for another human being (or anything living, for that matter. A great deal of us have trouble empathizing with activists because we cannot empathize with how they empathize for other non-human living things. Many of us have problems empathizing with other human beings at all, for example racism or hatred for humans who believe differently than we do. But I digress...) but when we feel as another human being. Empathy occurs when we realize that we are connected with that other human, and as a human species on the whole. It can also be described as a realization of truth. Empathy occurs when we cry in movies. When we are moved by a painting. When we scream at rock concerts. When we hold a friend who is in crisis. All of the above can be described as an Empathic Experience.
So I would like to suggest, art is something that causes an Empathic Experience. And more specifically, something that is created for the purpose of Empathic Experience. When we write a poem, or paint a painting, create a dance or a symphony more often than not we are expressing what we feel as a human being. Our human characterises. But that is not far enough. We must have someone else to read the poem, or to see the painting, to hear our music for the artistic experience to be complete. Certainly, we can appreciate out own works. We can read our own poems and be moved by them. But to what good does it do? If no one at all hears our voices, we are simply participating in an Empathic or Artistic Masturbation. If Emily Dickinson's poems were not discovered, never to be read, what good would they do outside of Dickinson's own life? Little to none.
So Music Theatre employs empathy inside of Music, Dance and Theatre to create a unique Empathic Experience. Which can be Music Theatre's greatest flaw... or greatest strength. Which will be discussed after I would like to say a few words about...
COMMUNION or THE THEATRICAL TEMPLE
The beautiful thing about Performance Art as a whole is that we create moments. We do not sculpt with physical objects, we create them with our voices, our bodies, with instruments. These moments can never be duplicated, can never be replicated, and are often poorly captured by media storage devices (Most of us have felt a live performance of a song or dancer to be completely different and heightened than a recorded one.) I liken it unto Communion. We have Empathic and Artistic moments the entire process of building a show. Not only in the product of the show when we share it with an audience. Music Theatre is a Communal, Empathic and therefore an Artistic process.
It starts with a playwright, a composer and or a librettist. Sometimes all three are one person, who creates the initial piece of work. But it is not enough. The director, the choreographer and theatrical designers then have an Empathic Experience with what is written down on paper in order to interpret and bring in physical moments what is written. These directors, choreographers, etc. then have Empathic Experiences with performers, builders, painters, dancers, orchestra members... in order to create their Artistic vision. All of the above mentioned then use their personal artistic ability to interpret and create. Now many Empathic and therefore Artistic moments have already been created before we even share it with an audience. Lives may have already been changed at this point in the process. But when an audience does come, the Audience may have Empathic experiences (Hopefully they do) with the story. With the dance and the song. With even the set that is built. The lighting that captures a mood. But the Empathy also occurs when the audience is together as an audience. People may come on dates, they come with their families. They come to see friends. When we have a performance, it is a Communion of people coming together for different intents and purposes. It is a beautiful, Empathic and "Artistic" reminder of how we are all connected.
LAZINESS, THE GREAT CONQUEROR OF KINGS AND OF ARTISTIC AMBITION. CREATOR OF FRIVOLITY.
I would like to make a bold proposition.
Many of the people who would claim that Music Theatre is nothing more than frivolous entertainment have a great deal of solid ground to stand on. As I will discuss in a moment, it is not necessarily because there are happy songs or charming dances. Such moments in Music Theatre abound, and also create Empathic and Artistic experiences. It is because of laziness within the process.
Music Theatre has become formulated. Any playwright/composer/librettist can easily follow a formula and create a piece of Music Theatre. Little thought or originality has to apply. This trend started a tad earlier within movies (We can see a different Genre of film and know exactly what to expect. We can predict endings to films, because we have seen the same endings in different manners since the 80's.) but has definitely moved on to Music Theatre. Many Musicals are "bad" not because of their musical nature, but because of the laziness (or the commercialization) of their creators.
Directors, Choreographers, Production Team, etc. are also responsible for the laziness. As extensions of the Creator's thought, interpreters of the script and libretto, they must also be held artistically accountable. I recall hearing of a certain company that many of my performer friends have had experiences in, where the production team would encourage them to be cheesy. Choreographers would create dances that would be simply "fun" and have little or no thought applied to them. A scatterbrained, in-cohesive and unthoughtful production team can easily lead to the demise of even the best written show.
Which all trickles down to the Performer. No doubt, the Performer has a huge amount of responsibility in regards to the success of the show. But also, if the Performer is handed a "bad" script. If the Production Team is lazy... even the best Performer cannot save an entire production! The responsibilities of the Performer are to act with courage and honesty... but if the script was not written with the intent of honesty, the Performer can only go so far...
My proposal then is this. While Music Theatre cannot be a lot of things, why can't we simply do the best in every area than we can. When we create dances, I propose that they be as well thought out as Baryshnikov's. When we write songs, I propose we do it with the heart of The Beatles or with the prowess of an awesome choir. When we write libretto and scenes, to do it with the spirit of Harold Pinter or Neil Labutte. This is a demanding proposition, however, I cannot see how we can uphold ourselves as an artform and claim infrovility if we do not! We have the power to shake the souls of an entire cast and audience, and we also have the power to make them never want to come back again.
SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE vs. HELLO DOLLY! or FRIVOLITY AND REBELLION
Frivolity is not created by the "depth" of material, it is created by laziness.
For example, let's take "Sunday in the Park with George" and then something like "Hello Dolly". Who can say which is better? "Sunday" may have won a Pulitzer, but then again, what about the people who have seen something like "Hello Dolly!" and come out feeling better about the world around them? Perhaps, more optimistic, more hopeful.
Both shows have powerful themes about love and the lives we lead. Even themes such as identity and class are touched upon in both shows. They are simply presented in a different manner. So if a show such as "Hello Dolly!" has an equally profound Empathic impact such as "Sunday" (Albeit extremely different) who is to say which is better as an artistic piece?
Another way to look at it would be a Broadway performance of a show like "Into the Woods" pitted up against a middle-school performance of "Into the Woods Jr.". The second act may be cut, the songs watered down so they are attainable by young performers, but if it changes the lives of these young performers.... If Empathic experiences are being created in both the audience and the cast of both shows... who is to say which is really "better"? Which one has more "value"?
The problem of laziness and frivolity being created in the shows we have today, is because of the awesome success of the shows we had yesterday. Rogers and Hammerstein shows may seem frivolous and of little consequence in theatres today.. but in their time they were huge statements of rebellion. They were rebelling against the Follies and other forms of entertainment that were commonplace in that day. They were bringing up extremely sensitive and uncomfortable topics such as race and class (An issue still pertinent today, but in a largely different manner). Other composers and artists were awed by this. They created their own forms of rebellion. They made their own musicals with actual plots (something that before Rogers and Hammerstein were practically unheard of!). And as time grew on... this replication and huge success turned into a formula. The formula we have today, a product of slothfulness and laziness.
Music Theatre has in many areas become frivolous or commercialized... because the formula for the most part can fool an audience into Sympathy or at the least, lesser forms of Empathy. But have we forgotten this spirit of rebellion? Our artform was birthed by people trying to do something different. To break the artistic norms. Many composers, many shows have not forgotten this. They first rang out in the composition of people like Stephen Sondheim (who gave birth to the concept musical) or Kander and Ebb (who challenged our very souls and morals as a society). It then came with Jonathan Larson. "Rent" challenged a generation. It challenged our ideas about AIDS. It challenged our willingness to accept one another for who we are. Musicals like "Spring Awakening" dare challenge us to what we teach our children and musicals like "Passing Strange" or "In The Heights" challenge what we think Music Theatre should sound or look like. Musicals like "Title of Show" challenge commercialization and other musicals like "Urinetown" challenge us to think if our lives are nothing less than absurd.
I submit that it is the time for us to honor what has gone on before us. To cherish the foundations that Sondhiem and Rogers and Hammerstien, all the greats, too many to mention, have laid before us. But now is also the time to challenge the thoughts of those great artists. To create new forms of Music Theatre. To challenge the thoughts and ideas that we as a society think are better left unsaid, unthought about and undiscussed. To bring to light what is in the shadows. To allow ourselves to experiment, to fail and to birth new ideas and concepts. Let us revive the works of those great composers. If we do not know where we came from, we are most certainly lost in our paths forward. But now is the time to open our hearts and say the dangerous things within our minds. I truly believe this is what the spirits of those living and dead would have us do.
It is my firm belief that what is unsaid and undone will be our ultimate downfall and regret... rather than the things we draw out of shadows and secrecy. Whether in the realms of society, the country we live in... or in the narrower, deeper and sometimes darker corridors of our own hearts.