Reprises in musicals that take on a completely different mood than the original

[Sampiro]

A very highly focused question so may not get much response, but here goes:

I've mentioned here in threads about the U.S. South and other cultures how I love the song Tradition in "Fiddler on the Roof". The first time you hear it the song is jolly, fun, a little moving, and basically a "teambuilder". After Tevye disowns his daughter there's a reprise (sometimes offstage, always background to the action) in which the same chorus is sung again only this time it's ominous and exclusive and dark, basically the downside of tradition and the reminder that Tevye himself is not immune to prejudice and religious intolerance. (Original number begins around 2:50 in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZsY7p-GNgk&feature=related); ominous reprise @ 4:55 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFS_90tM6_c&feature=related) .)

In [I]South Pacific the number Honey Bun(about 10:00) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB2LiJ9Pfyo&feature=related) is a very lighthearted burlesque from a talent show by the nurses. Later when the men are all pulled off the island- where their main problem has been boredom and that they "ain't got dames" to the "war with bullets" where they could well be on their way to a bloody battle*- they withdraw to a very down-tempo reprise of Honey Bun (about 3:45) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DwuJ4O5qpk). (Couldn't find a clip- I don't think it's in the movie version.)

What are some other examples of the same song having completely different mood and purpose when reprised?


*An unrelated side question: is it ever stated when South Pacific takes place? Honey Bun is performed as part of a Thanksgiving Follies but I don't think the year is given, but even if it's 1944 then there's almost a year of fighting left. I'm curious if the men were being pulled out to go to a specific (historical) campaign.

[Saint Cad]

"Where do we go from here?" from Evita The first is a represents her rise to influence, the second her illness.

[WhyNot]

"I'll Cover You" from RENT. The first time, it's an upbeat happy happy number sung by two lovers newly in love. The second time it's a funeral dirge.

Much like "Tradition," it's a great use of a great song. It works better than a new song would have in the second scene because of the echoes of the former happiness.

[Roderick Femm]

This isn't really what you're asking for, but it sort of captures the spirit. I think. The first thing I thought of was from the movie "Topsy Turvy", about Gilbert and Sullivan, and their lives and careers while producing The Mikado. The final scene is the song "The Sun Whose Rays are All Ablaze" by Shirley Henderson, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP2qJXT3olM).

In the play, it's supposed to be artless fun, a young girl feeling on top of the world, beautiful and in love.

In the movie, somehow through the song's pacing and overall performance, what you get is the contrast between the sunny exterior and the sometimes desperate interior lives of the actors, and indeed everyone involved in the play. It's masterfully done.


Roddy

[Sampiro]

This isn't really what you're asking for, but it sort of captures the spirit. I think. The first thing I thought of was from the movie "Topsy Turvy", about Gilbert and Sullivan, and their lives and careers while producing The Mikado. The final scene is the song "The Sun Whose Rays are All Ablaze" by Shirley Henderson, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP2qJXT3olM).



My main thought was "OMG, Moaning Myrtle sings!":D

[multimediac17]

Came in to say 'I'll Cover You' from Rent, but since that's been covered (groan) I'll put forward 'Look At Me, I'm Sandra Dee' from Grease. The first time, performed by Rizzo, it's a fun song about holier-than-thou girls who lead sheltered lives. When reprised, performed by Sandy, it's much slower, about how people only see her as what they perceive to be a holier-than-thou girl who has led a sheltered life.

[chrisk]

A lot of my favorite musicals have these:

"Dulcinea" in 'Man of la Mancha' starts off as Quixote's very wistful and sweet declaration of courtly love. The last verse of the number, though, is taken up by a chorus of Aldonza's usual 'patrons', and they turn it into an overtly sarcastic mockery of the pedestal that Quixote has put his 'Dulcinea' up on. Finally, the reprise is even more bittersweet and desperate, as Aldonza, at Quixote's sickbed, tries to use the theme to trigger his memories of his crazy dreams.

The title song of 'Camelot', (aka "It's true") is originally very fun, upbeat, and carefree, all about how magical and perfect the place is. And the reprise is a eulogy - Camelot is about to die, Arthur knows it, and is singing its praises one last time, hoping that people will remember the good times.

'Once more with feeling' features a wonderful mash-up of two reprises, but only one of them is really a different mood than the original: "Standing" stays on the same kind of melancholy I-can't-stay-here-anymore vibe as it started, while "Under your spell" goes from a gorgeous declaration of love to stark betrayal and even a hint of despair.

[DooWahDiddy]

"Where do we go from here?" from Evita The first is a represents her rise to influence, the second her illness.

I think you mean "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina".

In Gypsy, the first time Mama Rose sings "Small World" with Herbie it's a light flirtatious number, but by the time the reprise comes, she's sold her daughter into prostitution (just about) and lost Herbie altogether.

[SciFiSam]

Does 'Send in the clowns' count?

[multimediac17]

"Where do we go from here?" from Evita The first is a represents her rise to influence, the second her illness.

I think you mean "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina".

And the song that starts with the line "Where do we go from here?" is 'You Must Love Me', which if I remember correctly isn't reprised.

[amarinth]

"Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" - Pal Joey
"You're Nothing Without Me/I'm Nothing Without You" - City of Angels
"Not a Day Goes By" - Merrily We Roll Along

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

From Les Misérables -

The first time we hear the melody of 'Empty Chairs at Empty Tables' is in the scene at the Bishop's house, when the Bishop sings about kindness and generosity. Then, in the second act, Marius sings in the empty ABC Café in despair about his friends' deaths.

Also, Jean Valjean and Javert have the same music when the two characters are in similar situations - when Jean Valjean is saved by the Bishop, and after Javert has allowed Valjean to escape with the unconscious Marius. In Valjean's case, it is about accepting the possibility of salvation. In Javert's case, it is about the unacceptability of Justice tempered with mercy. Valjean lives a life as a new man, Javert cannot face life and throws himself into the Seine.

[Zsofia]

In Big River, "Waiting For the Light to Shine" is first a contemplative song and then a strident song of rebellion, starting off the reprise with "All right, I'll go to hell! I'll take up wickedness again, which is my line, being brought up to it!"

[Sampiro]

A lot of my favorite musicals have these:

"Dulcinea" in 'Man of la Mancha' starts off as Quixote's very wistful and sweet declaration of courtly love. The last verse of the number, though, is taken up by a chorus of Aldonza's usual 'patrons', and they turn it into an overtly sarcastic mockery of the pedestal that Quixote has put his 'Dulcinea' up on. Finally, the reprise is even more bittersweet and desperate, as Aldonza, at Quixote's sickbed, tries to use the theme to trigger his memories of his crazy dreams.

Also Little Bird is first sung as a sentimental if slightly risqué in its double meanings. The next time it's sung it's a violent prelude to abduction and [off-stage] gang rape.

[straight man]

Honestly, are there any musicals where this doesn't happen at least once? It's such a cliché, it's kind of annoying.

[Serenata67]

"I'll Cover You" from RENT. The first time, it's an upbeat happy happy number sung by two lovers newly in love. The second time it's a funeral dirge.

Much like "Tradition," it's a great use of a great song. It works better than a new song would have in the second scene because of the echoes of the former happiness.

I came here specifically to say "I'll Cover You." That was the first song that came to mind for this question. I love its use in the musical. Because it is a reprise, it is soooo much more powerful as the gospel-inspired tribute the second time. And in my opinion, this is the song that makes or breaks the musical. If the actor playing Tom Collins has a less-than-stellar voice, it just ruins the song and quite possibly the whole musical.

[Reno Nevada]

..."Under your spell" goes from a gorgeous declaration of love to stark betrayal and even a hint of despair.

I came in here to mention this one, as a perfect example. The significance of being under a spell changes from the original to the reprise.

[drpepper]

Well, no stage musical thread would be complete without a mention of 'The Sound of Music'. There's a couple of them that I can think of in that one (from the movie version, anyway), but my favorite is 'Lonely Goatherd'... the first time a fun marionette romp with the kids, the second time a waltz variation played by the orchestra during the formal party scene. The latter is very wistful and weighted with meaning: Maria is reminiscing with the kids about the traditional Landler dance from when she was a girl, ends up dancing with Captain VonTrapp and they fall in love, all against the backdrop of the grand party symbolizing the Captain's fierce loyalty to the old Austria which is of course threatened by Nazi domination.

[Sampiro]

Edelweiss is also more somber the second time.

I'll Cover You is one of the few in which the reprise will bring you to tears, a masterpiece of the same lyrics and melody having two completely different contexts.

[DooWahDiddy]

Honestly, are there any musicals where this doesn't happen at least once?

Yes, quite a few.


It's such a cliché, it's kind of annoying.

Like thread-shitters.

[Skald the Rhymer]

One example might be "Agony" in Sondheim's Into the Woods, though it's somewhat iffy. The first time the two Princes Charming sing about their "love" of Cinderella and Rapunzel, the song is light, romantic, and ever-so-slightly disturbing if you're paying attention. The music doesn't change in the reprise, but the lyrics do--enough to make inescapable what is only implied in the first song: that both Princes are vain, selfish, untrustworthy jackasses.

[Skald the Rhymer]

..."Under your spell" goes from a gorgeous declaration of love to stark betrayal and even a hint of despair.

I came in here to mention this one, as a perfect example. The significance of being under a spell changes from the original to the reprise.

Precisely. When first she sings it, Tara thinks she is being metaphorical; the reprise makes it clear that she is, in fact, in a borderline abusive relationship.

[Cyberhwk]

"All I Ask of You" from Phantom of the Opera. Goes from Raul and Christine talking about loving each other ("Love me, that's all I ask of you") to the Phantom threatening her for shunning him ("you will curse the day you did not do, what the phantom asked of you").

[Chronos]

"Dulcinea" in 'Man of la Mancha' starts off as Quixote's very wistful and sweet declaration of courtly love. The last verse of the number, though, is taken up by a chorus of Aldonza's usual 'patrons', and they turn it into an overtly sarcastic mockery of the pedestal that Quixote has put his 'Dulcinea' up on. Finally, the reprise is even more bittersweet and desperate, as Aldonza, at Quixote's sickbed, tries to use the theme to trigger his memories of his crazy dreams.For that matter, Aldonza's song (I was born in a ditch to a mother who left me there...) is basically the same tune as Man of La Mancha, but much more detailed and ornate. It's like it's emphasizing that Quixote's world is a mere fantasy, compared with Aldonza's reality.

[straight man]

Honestly, are there any musicals where this doesn't happen at least once?

Yes, quite a few.


It's such a cliché, it's kind of annoying.

Like thread-shitters.
The latter point is noted —I see that he was looking for examples, not opinions. That said, it is extraordinarily common. Offhand, I can't think of a single Webber musical that doesn't have at least a few seconds of it. And actually... I can't think of a single musical I've watched that doesn't have it. And I'm far from a musicals-junkie, but you still see quite a few over time.

(ETA: the cliché is definitely wistful and/or sad — Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat/"Any Dream Will Do", Evita/"Another Suitcase", etc. Opening it up to other moods makes it a bit wider, I suppose.)

[Raguleader]

Like thread-shitters.
The latter point is noted —I see that he was looking for examples, not opinions. That said, it is extraordinarily common. Offhand, I can't think of a single Webber musical that doesn't have at least a few seconds of it. And actually... I can't think of a single musical I've watched that doesn't have it. And I'm far from a musicals-junkie, but you still see quite a few over time.

(ETA: the cliché is definitely wistful and/or sad — Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat/"Any Dream Will Do", Evita/"Another Suitcase", etc. Opening it up to other moods makes it a bit wider, I suppose.)

It doesn't only happen in musicals, but also in quite a few movies and shows where the music features a little more prominently as part of the storytelling rather than just serving to set the mood in the background (Did that make sense? Did that sound pretentious? I'll move on.)

An example that comes to mind soundtrack-wise is Casino Royale. All through the movie's score, they play the Casino Royale theme as a lietmotif for when Bond is up to something or preparing for some task (such as when he's first putting on the dinner jacket that Vesper has given him). If you listen close to the tune, you can also hear the James Bond string lietmotif just sorta plucking its way along in melody with the Casino Royale theme. It's not until the very end of the movie that the CR theme gets dropped entirely, and we're treated to the James Bond theme itself as he gives his trademark introduction (while carrying a submachine gun, no less)

And yeah, Once More With Feeling (AKA "The Buffy Musical") has a couple of great reprises. Other than "Under Your Spell" (which, if you like to partake in fanwanking, you can suppose that Willow never sings in that song because she's feeling guilty about what she's done to Tara, rather than Alyson Hanningan merely being stage-shy about her singing voice).

Another reprise from OMWF is "Coda", which reprises "Rest In Peace" and "Walk Through The Fire". In the original songs, Spike is singing about how Buffy won't reciprocate his feelings, and yet she won't leave him alone either, while Buffy is singing about how, after being pulled from Heaven, she can't feel anything on Earth, just a state of emotional disconnect. In the reprise, both of their songs come together to show that they have complimentary needs. Spike can get the affection he craves from Buffy, while she can feel love (or something, their relationship didn't turn out to be very healthy) towards Spike.

And speaking of Joss Whedon musicals (how many of those does he have now, like two?), there is Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog. There's not a sung reprise in this one that I can recall, but again with the character lietmotifs, in this case of Dr. Horrible and Penny. Aside from being the themesong of the show, Dr Horrible's tune plays in the background from time to time when he's scheming on something (actually, I think it only shows up outside of the theme song when he is stealing the Wonderflonium).

After seeing Dr. Horrible basically be the helpless nerd that Captain Hammer beats on, when one of his plans looks to actually work, we are treated to him singing his theme song, with the lyrics being about how he intends to cause massive anarchy, take over the world, and murder Captain Hammer (all three things which Penny, the girl he is trying to impress, would presumably not approve of). After the end of the show, the credits come on with a piano reprise of Penny's Song/Caring Hands, only for the song to suddenly get trampled over with Dr. Horrible's Theme again, reflecting how he lost the one he love (or, well, the one he was infatuated with, anyways) in the course of gaining membership to the Evil League of Evil (he should have seen it coming, it being a Joss Whedon production)

[Darth Nader]

In Hair, "Manchester England" comes back for a verse near the end with a much different tone in "The Flesh Failures (Let the Sunshine In)"

It's very touching.

[DooWahDiddy]

The latter point is noted —I see that he was looking for examples, not opinions. That said, it is extraordinarily common. Offhand, I can't think of a single Webber musical that doesn't have at least a few seconds of it. And actually... I can't think of a single musical I've watched that doesn't have it. And I'm far from a musicals-junkie, but you still see quite a few over time.

(ETA: the cliché is definitely wistful and/or sad — Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat/"Any Dream Will Do", Evita/"Another Suitcase", etc. Opening it up to other moods makes it a bit wider, I suppose.)

Okay, that's fair. But what you have to keep in mind is that Lloyd Webber has been highly criticized for doing just that. Some (usually the highbrow, Sondheim et al. fans) say that he uses the same melodies in inappropriate places for the sole purpose of grinding it into audience's ears, so they'll be humming the tunes as they leave the theatre. And it really is true... I've seen dissections of his shows where they'll illustrate how polar opposite characters (i.e. Judas and Jesus, Phantom and Christine, etc.) will sing the exact same melodies at different points in the show, which really doesn't make sense in the context of the plot.

"True" musical theatre composers, the kind usually praised by critics but never heard by the masses, don't do this very often because they understand that the music should be true to the character, and should reflect their state of mind in that very moment. The song I quoted from Gypsy earlier is a good example, because she sings "Small World" with Herbie when they first meet each other. Then in the second act, when her life has gone to hell and Herbie leaves her, she sings a mournful version of it by herself. It works for two reasons: 1) She is one of the characters that sang it in the first place, and 2) That's what people do when they break up; they think back to how it all began.

Having said all this, I will agree that it is a convention that's common in musical theatre. It just needs to be done right to be effective, and not used in such a way as to just sell albums after the show.

[Labdad]

In The Music Man, the slow and wistful "Goodnight My Someone" is the same tune as the rousing and upbeat "Seventy-Six Trombones."

[Ulf the Unwashed]

In The Music Man, the slow and wistful "Goodnight My Someone" is the same tune as the rousing and upbeat "Seventy-Six Trombones."

And in a brief reprise toward the end Harold and Marian sing both songs, alternating one line from each--and halfway through they start singing each other's song instead. Pretty cute.

I haven't seen this show in a long time, but ISTR that "As Long As He Needs Me" from Oliver is about different people from the original singing to the reprise. The song is sung by nancy, and the "he" refers to Sykes; she's saying that she'll do whatever he needs her to do with no questions asked, regardless of the consequences. As the play goes on, though, she increasingly sees the immorality of what Sykes is up to and decides she must protect Oliver at all costs--including the cost of her own life. So in the reprise the song's about how she'll never betray Oliver's trust. The words work equally well for both characters.

Now someone will come in and tell me I'm remembering this all wrong--

[Fenris]

The title song of 'Camelot', (aka "It's true") is originally very fun, upbeat, and carefree, all about how magical and perfect the place is. And the reprise is a eulogy - Camelot is about to die, Arthur knows it, and is singing its praises one last time, hoping that people will remember the good times.

That's the one I was going to post. "Don't let it be forgot...that once...there was a spot. For one brief shining moment. That was known as Camelot."

[Kythereia]

The obligatory TV Tropes links, because someone has to go out there and be evil: Dark Reprise (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkReprise) and Ironic Echo (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IronicEcho).

Joss Whedon, of course, does it worst in Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. "And I won't feel...a thing."

[Mehitabel]

In the musical TITANIC, the opening montage of "In Every Age" and "Godspeed Titanic" is reprised at the very end with the survivors, wrapped in blankets, making their way back to the sides of their now-dead friends, husbands, colleagues, etc.

[Sir Prize]

I think all the examples have a reprise that is more melancholy or downright tragic. Are there any examples where the reprise is more upbeat and optimistic than "prise"?

Is there a term for the first time a melody is played before the reprise?

[Rodgers01]

In South Pacific the number Honey Bun(about 10:00) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB2LiJ9Pfyo&feature=related) is a very lighthearted burlesque from a talent show by the nurses. Later when the men are all pulled off the island- where their main problem has been boredom and that they "ain't got dames" to the "war with bullets" where they could well be on their way to a bloody battle*- they withdraw to a very down-tempo reprise of Honey Bun (about 3:45) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DwuJ4O5qpk). (Couldn't find a clip- I don't think it's in the movie version.)
I asked about the "Honey Bun" reprise in a recent thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12779221), and still don't get it. Most of these recast reprises make some kind of sense, lyrically. But "Honey Bun"? I got nothin'. The closest the previous thread came to explaining was that it was just a catchy tune the soldiers could march to. Then why was it so downbeat? It just seems like another song would have worked much better - either a completely new song, or a reprise of "Cockeyed Optimist", which could at least have been given a "Whistle A Happy Tune" function as they marched off to war. (Yes, yes - I know the soldiers hadn't heard Nellie singing that song the first time around, but still.) Any other ideas?

In Gypsy, the first time Mama Rose sings "Small World" with Herbie it's a light flirtatious number, but by the time the reprise comes, she's sold her daughter into prostitution (just about) and lost Herbie altogether.
One of the most famous recast reprises is also from Gypsy: "Let Me Entertain You"! From a cute kid's vaudeville song to a sexy striptease number with (IIRC) no lyrical changes - quite a feat. Plus, one of the exceptions to the rule that most of these reprises are happy songs turned melancholy.

Okay, that's fair. But what you have to keep in mind is that Lloyd Webber has been highly criticized for doing just that. Some (usually the highbrow, Sondheim et al. fans) say that he uses the same melodies in inappropriate places for the sole purpose of grinding it into audience's ears, so they'll be humming the tunes as they leave the theatre. And it really is true... I've seen dissections of his shows where they'll illustrate how polar opposite characters (i.e. Judas and Jesus, Phantom and Christine, etc.) will sing the exact same melodies at different points in the show, which really doesn't make sense in the context of the plot.

"True" musical theatre composers, the kind usually praised by critics but never heard by the masses, don't do this very often because they understand that the music should be true to the character, and should reflect their state of mind in that very moment.

Lloyd Webber is a "true" musical theater composer, and quite a good one at that. While he does sometimes drive the same melody home a few times too often, in principle there's nothing whatsoever wrong with having different - and even polar opposite - characters sing variations on the same song.


Anyways, I rather like the reprise of "There's No Business Like Show Business" from Annie Gets Your Gun (e.g. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdCegoTXolI)). It's not so totally different from the original, but it's interesting how it's used to reflect on how far the character has come in a short time.

[MovieMogul]

This isn't really what you're asking for, but it sort of captures the spirit. I think. The first thing I thought of was from the movie "Topsy Turvy", about Gilbert and Sullivan, and their lives and careers while producing The Mikado. The final scene is the song "The Sun Whose Rays are All Ablaze" by Shirley Henderson, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP2qJXT3olM).

In the play, it's supposed to be artless fun, a young girl feeling on top of the world, beautiful and in love.

In the movie, somehow through the song's pacing and overall performance, what you get is the contrast between the sunny exterior and the sometimes desperate interior lives of the actors, and indeed everyone involved in the play. It's masterfully done. All in one exquisitely calibrated, beautifully langorous crane shot. Wonderful. :)

[DooWahDiddy]

Lloyd Webber is a "true" musical theater composer, and quite a good one at that. While he does sometimes drive the same melody home a few times too often, in principle there's nothing whatsoever wrong with having different - and even polar opposite - characters sing variations on the same song.




There's no way I'm going to derail this thread by getting into a big Andrew Lloyd Webber debate, but this--especially my bolded part--is categorically, unequivocally false.

Look, I'm a fan of the guy. Superstar is what introduced me to musical theatre in the first place, and I also love Evita and Sunset Boulevard. But there's a difference between using reprises of melodies to further enhance the story, and being lazy. Giving polar opposite characters the same melody is just that; lazy. The music should establish a character's entire personality... his or her goals, moods, desires, everything. And you can't do that effectively if you just recycle the same songs. I won't even go into how he uses the same songs in different shows.

[filling_pages]

My example is from The Sound of Music as well, but the song I thought of was "Maria". The nuns sing it early on to introduce us to the character and to sort of run down the problems she's having as a nun - she runs, she sings, she wears curlers. "How do you solve a problem like Maria?" they ask. Well, that's answered toward the end, when the song is used as the bridal march during her wedding. Evidently, the solution was to marry her off - she was never any good as a nun anyway.

[Annie-Xmas]

"All I Ask of You" from Phantom of the Opera. Goes from Raul and Christine talking about loving each other ("Love me, that's all I ask of you") to the Phantom threatening her for shunning him ("you will curse the day you did not do, what the phantom asked of you").

"Music of the Night", ditto. Goes from "help me make the music of the night" to "it's over now, the music of the night."

[choie]

There's no way I'm going to derail this thread by getting into a big Andrew Lloyd Webber debate, but this--especially my bolded part--is categorically, unequivocally false.

Except when it's true. There's no musical "truth" that is wholly universal, with no exceptions whatsoever. Because we will find you an exception. :)

Giving polar opposite characters the same melody is just that; lazy. The music should establish a character's entire personality... his or her goals, moods, desires, everything. And you can't do that effectively if you just recycle the same songs. I won't even go into how he uses the same songs in different shows.

And here's where I'm gonna show you the exception (and answer your OP too!). Mary and Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar both sing "I Don't Know How to Love Him."

Mary's a dewy-eyed whore who sings IDKHtLH out of romantic/spiritual love with Jesus, emotions that confuse her because she's only used to dealing with men in a sexual way. Her version of the song is filled with longing, awe, and acceptance of this new feeling Jesus inspires in her.

Judas is a pragmatist who's just betrayed his best friend in order to save his people (so he thinks). He sings IDKHtLH in bleak acknowledgment of the magnitude of his crime and is desperate to express that he still loved Jesus, even as he betrayed him. He fears he'll be haunted by Jesus until Jesus dies ... or until, he comes to realize, he himself dies. The song represents his realization that he can't deal with both loving Jesus and having killed Jesus, and leads to his suicide.

If you have a good lyricist, using the same music for diametrically opposed characters can indeed have a purpose. ALW's problems (which, let's face it, he's taken all the way to the bank!) arose when he partnered with a dud lyricist rather than the incisive Tim Rice.

Moving on...

I'll go with "Tonight" from West Side Story. First time it's a hopeful, soaring declaration of new love. Second time Maria and Tony's duet becomes a Quintet, their love song competing against the backdrop of the approaching rumble between the Jets and Sharks, and also the lusty fantasies of Anita, who's looking forward to sexytimes with Bernardo.

Sondheim performed a similar transformation (one that was quite possibly influenced by his work on WSS) in Sweeney Todd with "Johanna," which is first a solo by Anthony sung in besotted, heroic tones after seeing Johanna for the first time and discovering she's a ward of a creepy judge who doesn't let her out of his sight. In the second act, Johanna has a different sort of 'cage', and has gone missing entirely. Anthony sings "I feel you, Johanna" in hopes that he's getting closer to finding her. Meanwhile, his yearning is played against an entirely different song (also called "Johanna") sung by Sweeney Todd, who's missing his daughter 'less and less' while continuing his murderous activities.

[ouryL]

In State Fair, by the third or fourth iteration of "It's a Grand Night for Singing", you want to machine gun down everyone.

[Kythereia]

I think all the examples have a reprise that is more melancholy or downright tragic. Are there any examples where the reprise is more upbeat and optimistic than "prise"?

Is there a term for the first time a melody is played before the reprise?

*sneaks in*

Again from TVTropes (I know, I know, I'm sorry!): Triumphant Reprise (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TriumphantReprise).

*runs back out*

[Rodgers01]

Lloyd Webber is a "true" musical theater composer, and quite a good one at that. While he does sometimes drive the same melody home a few times too often, in principle there's nothing whatsoever wrong with having different - and even polar opposite - characters sing variations on the same song.


There's no way I'm going to derail this thread by getting into a big Andrew Lloyd Webber debate, but this--especially my bolded part--is categorically, unequivocally false.

Look, I'm a fan of the guy. Superstar is what introduced me to musical theatre in the first place, and I also love Evita and Sunset Boulevard. But there's a difference between using reprises of melodies to further enhance the story, and being lazy. Giving polar opposite characters the same melody is just that; lazy. The music should establish a character's entire personality... his or her goals, moods, desires, everything. And you can't do that effectively if you just recycle the same songs. I won't even go into how he uses the same songs in different shows.

There are very few things in musical theater that are "categorically, unequivocally false". It's a young art form that is still developing - it's not like trying to write a sonnet or a haiku where you can definitely state that there is a strict protocol for how to do it. People try to make rules - for a while after Oklahoma! there was a "rule" that every musical should have a dream ballet sequence. Right. (When's the last time you thought a show fell short because it lacked a dream ballet?) Even basic principles such as that songs should advance plot or character could be broken: someone could welll write a '20s or '30s style review (The Garrick Gaieties of 2010!) with a bunch of novelty songs and interchageable ballads, and create a great evening of musical theater. It probably wouldn't age well, but in its time it could be quite intelligent and "real".

But fine: conventions have grown up around musical comedies and dramas in the last 60 or so years. Songs reveal character and advance plot, there's a dramatic arc, and at least one "I Want" song early on. Great. But even only looking at convention, your rule doesn't hold up: in The Music Man (as classic and respected a musical as you could want) when Marian sings "Seventy-Six Trombones" as "Good Night My Someone" was Meredith Wilson just too lazy to come up with a new tune? Or was he trying to subtly link the two leads together? Later in the show when Harold and Marion take on one another's songs (the moment Ulf the Unwashed mentions), is it again laziness, or is he saying something about how the characters have changed?

For a later example, in Disney's Aladdin when Jafar sings the reprise of "Prince Ali", did anyone think, "That's the genie's song - it reveals nothing about Jafar's personality!"? Or how about when Pseudolous sings the reprise of "Lovely" in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum? Or Daddy Warbucks' reprise of "Maybe" in Annie? Or the moment in Jesus Christ Superstar that choie mentions?

It's simply a technique: not a hugely popular one, but not unheard of, and perfectly valid either way. It's been used to great effect and to poor effect, and everything else in between. If you want to argue that Lloyd Webber uses the technique badly, well, that's material for a different thread. But since you singled out the technique itself, all I can say is that...well, that you're categorically and unequivocally wrong! :)

[DooWahDiddy]

Agree to disagree. Although I will say I should have put a smiley after my previous post, because I'm certainly not taking it as seriously as my tone probably suggests.

I do think choie's example is a poor one though, and really only serves to reinforce my point about it. That, to me, is an early example of Lloyd Webber reprising a melody in order to drill "the hit song" into the audience member's heads so they'll remember it better later. It would have made more (or at the very least, as much) sense to have him sing a reprise of "Damned For All Time".

And, not to like, talk myself up or anything, but I am aware of techniques used in musical theatre. I've worked as a professional music director/pianist/composer in NYC for eight years now, and before that I did it elsewhere for twelve. So I mean, I get what you're saying. However, I stand by what I said, and my use of the word "true", as in "a true musical theatre composer" is valid. I'm talking about composers like William Finn. Jason Robert Brown. Michael John LaChiusa. And of course, Stephen Sondheim. People who seriously know how to construct a musical.

I think ALW has a place in this world, and I am seriously in love with some of his work. But you guys aren't allowed to use examples from The Music Man and Aladdin (seriously?) to refute what I'm saying, when those are the exact types of shows I'm talking about... shows that use the structure of a musical to let the audience hear great songs, as kind of a "Hey, thanks for coming... sit back and let us play these tunes for you, and we hope you enjoy" kind of thing. Some people demand more from their theatre. More sophistication in their storytelling, more sophistication in their songwriting, more sophistication in their character development.

But I do agree that it's an evolving art form, and as I've said, there is a place in this world for both ends of the spectrum.

[Annie-Xmas]

Speaking of ALW, "Love Changes Everything" is Aspects of Love's musical motif, used to describe the relationships between all the principle players. As Gerasrd Alessandrini parodied it in [iForbidden Broadway[/i]

I, I sleep with everone, sleep with Jenny, sleep with Rose
She, she sleeps with everone...
With your uncles and my beaux.
Yes I, I sleep with everyone, while I lust for Guiletta....

Yes, we, we sleep with everyone, one by one and two by two.
And if you're in the audience then you'll sleep too.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Speaking of ALW, "Love Changes Everything" is Aspects of Love's musical motif, used to describe the relationships between all the principle players. As Gerasrd Alessandrini parodied it in [iForbidden Broadway[/i]

I, I sleep with everone, sleep with Jenny, sleep with Rose
She, she sleeps with everone...
With your uncles and my beaux.
Yes I, I sleep with everyone, while I lust for Guiletta....

Yes, we, we sleep with everyone, one by one and two by two.
And if you're in the audience then you'll sleep too.

Except, of course, that's not true. I'm not convinced that Alex ever sleeps with Jenny. He WANTS to, but he knows it's illegal. He says as much:

If my body really ruled me, then we both know all to well / You'd end up wiht a lover locked inside a prison cell!

[Fenris]

But there's a difference between using reprises of melodies to further enhance the story, and being lazy. Giving polar opposite characters the same melody is just that; lazy. The music should establish a character's entire personality... his or her goals, moods, desires, everything. And you can't do that effectively if you just recycle the same songs.

Gotta disagree a bit: it's very effective to have polar opposites use the same tune/song but one use is proud/serious/happy, and the other's use of it is ironic/mocking/sad.

[Fenris]

...which...I now see a bunch of other people have commented on and you've responded to. :smack: ;)


That said, what's wrong with Music Man--it's a wonderful example of a musical comedy. There's room in the genre for comedies, dramas and tragedies.

[choie]

I do think choie's example is a poor one though, and really only serves to reinforce my point about it. That, to me, is an early example of Lloyd Webber reprising a melody in order to drill "the hit song" into the audience member's heads so they'll remember it better later. It would have made more (or at the very least, as much) sense to have him sing a reprise of "Damned For All Time".

Hey, Mr. Musical Director guy, you don't know JCS, do you? 'Cause Judas does sing 'Damned' again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPT06Oez5zA), right before the other reprise. Clearly ALW was opportunistically trying to get Damned to be a big "hit song," huh? After all, why else would Judas repeat it? ;)

Seriously, there's being cynical about ALW's motives, and there's letting one's cynicism become an obstacle to appreciating, or even acknowledging, a possibly wise move on the part of an artist. In JCS, it is extremely effective to have Judas, Judas freakin' Iscariot, the most famous betrayer in history, to sing "I Don't Know How to Love Him." I can't even fathom thinking otherwise.

But then, I don't think of musicals as being divided into categories called "True Art" (written by True Composers, aka an anointed few) and "Hey let's put on a show for the yokels!" (by shallow, Tin Pan Alley-esque hacks). I know you admit that each type of musical has its place, but such labels still seem like a rather tight-fisted, narrow way to look at art.

(And by the way, fellow JCS fans, the amazing Judas in that clip is Drew Sarich. You may thank me for introducing him to you later. :D)

[DooWahDiddy]

Hey, Mr. Musical Director guy, you don't know JCS, do you? 'Cause Judas does sing 'Damned' again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPT06Oez5zA), right before the other reprise. Clearly ALW was opportunistically trying to get Damned to be a big "hit song," huh? After all, why else would Judas repeat it? ;)

Seriously, there's being cynical about ALW's motives, and there's letting one's cynicism become an obstacle to appreciating, or even acknowledging, a possibly wise move on the part of an artist. In JCS, it is extremely effective to have Judas, Judas freakin' Iscariot, the most famous betrayer in history, to sing "I Don't Know How to Love Him." I can't even fathom thinking otherwise.

But then, I don't think of musicals as being divided into categories called "True Art" (written by True Composers, aka an anointed few) and "Hey let's put on a show for the yokels!" (by shallow, Tin Pan Alley-esque hacks). I know you admit that each type of musical has its place, but such labels still seem like a rather tight-fisted, narrow way to look at art.

(And by the way, fellow JCS fans, the amazing Judas in that clip is Drew Sarich. You may thank me for introducing him to you later. :D)

Ha, fair enough. I did forget he reprises that song too. :) But again, that kind of proves my point... I mean, just look at the other thread (or just listen to people's opinions over the past 40 years). The dude uses the same music over and over. Fact. Sunset Boulevard, as much as I love it, is Aspects of Love 2.0.

I'll concede that maybe I'm looking at it in terms that are a little too black and white, if you at least entertain the notion that maybe ALW isn't reprising all these songs because they serve the story, but perhaps because he thinks that's the way musicals should be written, with his songs repeatedly burrowed into our heads.

[AskNott]

I was a boy when I saw Kismet about 50 years ago, so I might have this one wrong. The leading lady sings "Sweet Mystery Of Life" a couple times early on, and it's wistful and dreamy. She can't remember the whole song. At the end, when the shy young man turns out to be the bold outlaw leader, who sweeps her away, she sings it triumphantly. She's found her love.

Years later, Mel Brooks brought back the song as a sexual gag in the unforgettable Young Frankenstein, where it means, ah, roughly the same thing. ;)

[Rodgers01]

Agree to disagree. Although I will say I should have put a smiley after my previous post, because I'm certainly not taking it as seriously as my tone probably suggests.

I do think choie's example is a poor one though, and really only serves to reinforce my point about it. That, to me, is an early example of Lloyd Webber reprising a melody in order to drill "the hit song" into the audience member's heads so they'll remember it better later. It would have made more (or at the very least, as much) sense to have him sing a reprise of "Damned For All Time".

And, not to like, talk myself up or anything, but I am aware of techniques used in musical theatre. I've worked as a professional music director/pianist/composer in NYC for eight years now, and before that I did it elsewhere for twelve. So I mean, I get what you're saying. However, I stand by what I said, and my use of the word "true", as in "a true musical theatre composer" is valid. I'm talking about composers like William Finn. Jason Robert Brown. Michael John LaChiusa. And of course, Stephen Sondheim. People who seriously know how to construct a musical.

I think ALW has a place in this world, and I am seriously in love with some of his work. But you guys aren't allowed to use examples from The Music Man and Aladdin (seriously?) to refute what I'm saying, when those are the exact types of shows I'm talking about... shows that use the structure of a musical to let the audience hear great songs, as kind of a "Hey, thanks for coming... sit back and let us play these tunes for you, and we hope you enjoy" kind of thing. Some people demand more from their theatre. More sophistication in their storytelling, more sophistication in their songwriting, more sophistication in their character development.

But I do agree that it's an evolving art form, and as I've said, there is a place in this world for both ends of the spectrum.

Ha, we will indeed have to agree to disagree! Because while I respect your experience, I still think you're very wrong! :) There is no "true" musical theater or one way to structure a musical; there are all types of musical theater. I'm not saying you should like them all or that they're all equally sophisticated (though our lists of what is and isn't would undoubtedly differ); I'm just saying it's ridiculous to draw a line and say "this type is true, and that type is not".

It's also kind of a destructive attitude, because while Brown/LaChiusa/Sondheim/etc. have done some great stuff, I shudder at the idea of a world where that's the only kind of musical that people try for. I say bring on the "Hey, thanks for coming... sit back and let us play these tunes for you, and we hope you enjoy" practitioners - like, I dunno, Jerry Herman, Charles Strouse, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Menken and Ashman...

[DooWahDiddy]

Ha, we will indeed have to agree to disagree! Because while I respect your experience, I still think you're very wrong! :) There is no "true" musical theater or one way to structure a musical; there are all types of musical theater. I'm not saying you should like them all or that they're all equally sophisticated (though our lists of what is and isn't would undoubtedly differ); I'm just saying it's ridiculous to draw a line and say "this type is true, and that type is not".

It's also kind of a destructive attitude, because while Brown/LaChiusa/Sondheim/etc. have done some great stuff, I shudder at the idea of a world where that's the only kind of musical that people try for. I say bring on the "Hey, thanks for coming... sit back and let us play these tunes for you, and we hope you enjoy" practitioners - like, I dunno, Jerry Herman, Charles Strouse, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Menken and Ashman...

I actually think we're saying the same thing. :) I can see from your point of view why it would be hard to understand that I'm not saying I don't like shows like that, but I do. Superstar got me interested in theatre in the first place, and hell, I even pop in Jekyll & Hyde every now and then when I want to hear amazing women belt out some well-constructed songs. That's what I was saying (albeit not very well) when I said there's a place in this world for both kinds of shows.

My use of the word "true" probably comes across as dismissive or condescending, but I don't mean it to be. I agree, we need both kinds of shows just like we need frivolous sitcoms and hard-hitting dramas on television. It's a yin-yang thing.

Of course I just noticed your user name, and I'm now realizing maybe I've been arguing with Richard Rodgers' grandson or something. ;)

[Rodgers01]

Ha, we will indeed have to agree to disagree! Because while I respect your experience, I still think you're very wrong! :) There is no "true" musical theater or one way to structure a musical; there are all types of musical theater. I'm not saying you should like them all or that they're all equally sophisticated (though our lists of what is and isn't would undoubtedly differ); I'm just saying it's ridiculous to draw a line and say "this type is true, and that type is not".

It's also kind of a destructive attitude, because while Brown/LaChiusa/Sondheim/etc. have done some great stuff, I shudder at the idea of a world where that's the only kind of musical that people try for. I say bring on the "Hey, thanks for coming... sit back and let us play these tunes for you, and we hope you enjoy" practitioners - like, I dunno, Jerry Herman, Charles Strouse, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Menken and Ashman...

I actually think we're saying the same thing. :) I can see from your point of view why it would be hard to understand that I'm not saying I don't like shows like that, but I do. Superstar got me interested in theatre in the first place, and hell, I even pop in Jekyll & Hyde every now and then when I want to hear amazing women belt out some well-constructed songs. That's what I was saying (albeit not very well) when I said there's a place in this world for both kinds of shows.

My use of the word "true" probably comes across as dismissive or condescending, but I don't mean it to be. I agree, we need both kinds of shows just like we need frivolous sitcoms and hard-hitting dramas on television. It's a yin-yang thing.

Of course I just noticed your user name, and I'm now realizing maybe I've been arguing with Richard Rodgers' grandson or something. ;)

Heh, alright then - I retract "you're wrong" and replace it with "I don't quite understand". I do understand you're saying we need both kinds of shows, and that's good enough for me.

As for "Uncle Dick", I'll never tell! ;)

[choie]

Ha, fair enough. I did forget he reprises that song too. :) But again, that kind of proves my point... I mean, just look at the other thread (or just listen to people's opinions over the past 40 years). The dude uses the same music over and over. Fact. Sunset Boulevard, as much as I love it, is Aspects of Love 2.0.

I'll concede that maybe I'm looking at it in terms that are a little too black and white, if you at least entertain the notion that maybe ALW isn't reprising all these songs because they serve the story, but perhaps because he thinks that's the way musicals should be written, with his songs repeatedly burrowed into our heads.

I definitely don't deny that he repeats his music to a fault, and I think hummability is often one of the reasons. I just don't think every time he does it is for a single reason -- propping up a song he thinks will be a hit -- and certainly not that early in his career (pre-gigantro-fame). Pretty sure he and Rice didn't seriously think JCS was gonna be a huge mainstream hit to the point where he'd try to prop up the love song by putting it in the mouth of one of history's greatest villains. :) In fact, the biggest hit off the show was sung only once, at the very end (albeit there is a hint of the first line earlier, during The Last Supper argument, and in the overture -- but that's standard in musical overtures).

Actually, I also think some of his repeating shtick stems from his love of opera and Puccini in particular. Repeated leitmotifs are very common in Puccini, and I think Webber fancies that kind of hammering-the-point-home form of musical storytelling.

I was a boy when I saw Kismet about 50 years ago, so I might have this one wrong. The leading lady sings "Sweet Mystery Of Life" a couple times early on, and it's wistful and dreamy. She can't remember the whole song. At the end, when the shy young man turns out to be the bold outlaw leader, who sweeps her away, she sings it triumphantly. She's found her love.

Years later, Mel Brooks brought back the song as a sexual gag in the unforgettable Young Frankenstein, where it means, ah, roughly the same thing. ;)

Oops, I think you're conflating two songs from two shows. "Ah, Sweet Mystery of Life" is from Naughty Marietta, the Victor Herbert operetta, and I don't think it appears in Kismet. I wonder if you're thinking of "And This Is My Beloved (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4mFL2Jd7zY&feature=related)" from Kismet, which does have a similar downward-scale melody?

[AHunter3]

Sound of Music has received several mentions but I'll add another one: the eponymous track! First sung by Maria in the Alps with arms outstretched & spinning, then later taught to the kids, it makes a slow multi-part-harmony reprise when the kids are practicing the music without her after she's left the family temporarily. The kids do it beautiful and very sad.