Just saw this wonderful production last Thursday for the second time (first was at St. Ann's). While still dark, thoughtful and disturbing, the edges have been sanded off for the move to Broadway to mostly enjoyable effect. The stage space is somewhat smaller condensing the action. The playing between the actors is straighter and much less ironically distant, increasing the show's emotional intensity. The band and the arrangements remain fresh and lively. But now, unlike at St. Ann's the sound is amplified so you can hear everything from every seat without straining. All of which clarifies the production's dramaturgical direction, making it as moving as it is provocative.
I was in tears during the beautiful duet described in this article. Kudos to Jesse Green for such a granular analysis of what makes it so wonderful.
But you know what? You had to be there. And if you have an open mind (plus admittedly the significant $$$), maybe you will.
3
I've loved R&H and Oklahoma since I first listened to them in the late 40s on the 78s when I was 7 or 8 years old. Then I came to love "country" music such as the old-time stuff as sung by George Jones. I don't *love* bluegrass, but I kind of like it -- I'll certainly listen to it if there's nothing better around. To listen to this bluegrass version of "People Will Say We're in Love", however, was the most painful musical experience I've never completed. Horrible, horrific, horrifying. The horror, the horror! This entire article must be the most clueless piece ever to appear in the New York Times. I suppose, that for those brought up on hip-hop or rap, however, that this, by comparison, sounds wonderful....
3
Why am I told "video unavailable" when I try to open the new version? I really wanted to compare the two side by side, perhaps to make some sense of it all.
I saw the current production a month ago and was terribly disappointed by it. I had read reviews that had me - I thought - ready to roll with and enjoy this modernization but I miscalc'd on that one. All the darkness put so far forward was just ultimately too much. Who needs to leave a Broadway production of Oklahoma! feeling like they've been kicked in the teeth? The darkness has always been there. No need to amp it up to this extent, IMHO.
And while I'm at it, what the heck is up with the new ballet? The lone dancer is obviously very talented but the dance itself is so far off from expressing Laurey's confusion, it's ridiculous.
2
Interesting to compare singers with really spectacular voices to those with so-so ones. I'll take the older versions. These songs were written for people who could really sing, That's not to say that bluegrass singers can't sing! Many can, but in the clips I heard in this article pitch semed to be optional, and the voices were weak. Not sure how they would have sounded a few inches further from the mike. The originals could project from a stage with no amplification at all. Lets hear the music the way it was written to be sung.
6
Thank you for allowing us to compare/contrast the two versions of the song with sound/video clips and your analysis. Totally engaging. Please continue to do more of this.
10
Fabulous!
4
Reading the comments, think it’s great that R & H’s masterwork still elicits such strong feeling from so many, even after more than 75 years.
8
I loved the film and previous stage versions of "Oklahoma!"- a number of them seen as a child. I appreciated the 2019 revival because of the way the book and songs were unchanged, and yet so different. But I hope that future revivals go back to the original format. All the darkness was still there, yet subtle. The audience is now limited, excluding many children.
2
I enjoy the new take on the song. I'm sure I'd enjoy a concert-style presentation of the new take of all the songs, but I don't think I could take another of the now giraffe's-eye-high book.
I loved this stage version of “Oklahoma!” and particularly love the way the score sounded. With a seven piece country swing band, R& H’s songs never sounded better. I’m a Baby Boomer who grew up watching old movies on TV throughout my childhood, and I particularly loved musicals (though the film version of “Oklahoma!” was never a favorite.) I could never abide operetta — no amount of watching Jeanette McDonald and Nelson Eddy (or Howard Keel and Ann Blyth) ever gave me a taste for that ossified form, as cold, remote and formal as Kabuki. At last these great songs sound as passionate and erotic as they never have before, but as Rodgers amd Hammerstein perhaps meant them to be within the strictures of the musical comedy form. The ‘darkness’ people see in this version of the show was always in the book but was habitually glossed over. Not now. And the show (and score) are much richer for it.
5
"People Will Say We're In Love" was a gorgeous song the way it was sung in 1943 and later on in the film, and it's a gorgeous song now - rewatching the clip of Shirley Jones and Gordon McRae one is reminded of how very, very good they were and what justice they did to the genius of Rodgers and Hammerstein. It was a magical intersection of composition, lyrics, and the talent delivering it.
You don't mess with magic. I have yet to see a "revisionist" production of any of the classics that match the magical gestalt of the original. They keep trying, they keep failing, and they never figure it out: it doesn't need "fixing".
6
The London version starring young Hugh Jackman is way better than the old movie.
2
@Mary - everything is always right for Hugh Jackman. ("Every part is right for every star" is the thought, or as Mrs. Meers felt in the lyric in "Millie," she could still play Juliet if the house is big enough.) I'm especially curious to see who they cast next season as Mrs. Paroo, who will have to make us suspend disbelief as the mother of both the 44-year old Marian and 10-year-old Winthrop. Shirley Jones still was magical about ten years ago as Mrs. Paroo opposite her son Patrick Cassidy as Harold (who IMHIO is like Karen Morrow, should have been a superstar, but never got offered or took the right roles) - I don't think either alone was big box office, but the two of them in the same show were box office gold in Connecticut; and they delivered big, giving them a dance section in "Shipoopi" that fit the plot.
Ridiculous revisionism.
We saw the show a few months ago and enjoyed virtually none of it. Breaking down this song and pretending this show is more than it is, a high school production with talented performers, is silly. It's typical of the NYT and other social engineering-types to ascribe more to something than there really is. If you enjoy "Oklahoma!" as a Lincoln Center spectacle with a Hugh Jackman-Curly and wide open spaces, avoid this show. If "Mother Courage" is your thing, run. The show was different, that's for sure, but that doesn't make it good, enjoyable or worthwhile. Sad.
7
This well-appreciated article treats "operetta" as a dirty word, not an uncommon sentiment. To me, the difference between the contemporary and traditional versions is "yeah, that'll show 'em" and out-and-out tears of pleasure. Yes, I get it, but I can't help but think that this production, as well as comparable revisionist works, are destined to be perceived as historical curiosities, while the operatic tradition will endure.
11
Good article. TBH I've always thought it was the R&HF that keep a country/blue grass style of Oklahoma from happening all these years. I'm sure the idea has bounce around for a long time now. I've heard several country & blue grass groups in performance cover Oklahoma Songs and have always said "That really sounds good and true too."
1
I saw the latter production at Bard a few summers ago and was really taken by its originality and the dark undercurrents it fleshed out. Watching the two versions of that glorious song today I found myself more interested in the chemistry between the actors. I thought in both versions there was a-plenty, to be sure, but they were different and that difference came about greatly through the orchestration. Shirley and Gordon were charming, winning and fabulous singers, and yes there was chemistry between them onscreen. The two young players(sorry, can't remember names) were not virtuoso singers, but somehow they still honored the glorious words of this song through their unabashed, unprettified, Oklahoma hello style attraction. Let's get it on and we might do it right now, we are so hot for each other. Shirley and Gordon had that little house in the background, but they wouldn't have run into it to do the deed. Our latest version's lovers very well might have. You know what, it's all good.
3
I remember reading that People Will Say We’re In Love, and If I Loved You in Carrousel, were “What If ‘ songs so you can put in a love song into the first act before the characters fall in love.
1
@Allen, that's such an interesting possibility. I'd been taking "Sweetheart, they're suspecting things" as the turn in the song that says they're already sure; but maybe Laurey is being ironic there since it's the only line that says that. (Like strange lines here and there in "My Fair Lady," it often seems that it never occurred to the writers when they first wrote the show that this particular show of theirs would be so revered and analyzed more than any others. Even a show like "Falsettos" where so much seems so carefully chosen, then one assumes gone over by James Lapine, has lyric lines that somehow remained on opening night and then on the recording, so never changed although they could have in the various iterations.)
Don’t get me wrong—I love bluegrass and country swing, and appreciate and look forward to seeing the new interpretation on its own merits. But, as a trained soprano, I take umbrage to the patronizing tone regarding the original version. The vocal music as originally conceived is glorious to sing, and written in ways that allow the singers express the emotions of the characters. “There’s no more showing off for the audience or even for Curly....” “It’s as if Laurey were worried about more than just making pretty sounds....” Jeez, classically trained singers take a lot of flak. There is nothing wrong with having a beautiful instrument and using it to the fullest. Would you say the same if a violinist in the same ensemble played with poor tone? In those old clips from the film, I heard and saw real feeling expressed, not just “showing off.” To modern ears the original may seem “old fashioned,” but maybe those ears need to broaden their musical vocabulary (not easy, given cuts in music education). The soaring voices in the original take us to a place we might not be able to get to ourselves.
38
@KJ NEFFSKY, I know what you're saying - but before Bard did this production (which was well before the regional same-gender version covered a lot last summer), and producer Eva Price identified its maybe having commercial potential, very few non-theater-professionals were even talking about "Oklahoma!" in any form.
Now there's even a TV series in the pipeline, which could be terrific for R&H awareness (as I feel, though I gather many don't, that the Ariana Grande "My Favorite Things" pop single has been, since Ms. Grande apparently could always have her heart in theater since Jason Robert Brown's "13" on Broadway) or a head-shaker (like that 1999 animated "King and I" which must have looked like a good idea at some point before it turned out not to be; no one says "hey, let's spend lots of money on R&H intending to lose most of it."). This Dan Fish take went in development stages, from Bard College where it would have quietly slipped away if it thudded, then to St. Ann's a few train stops away, or maybe a limo ride away, which is higher profile but still was far enough away that if it were a disaster would have had its run but closed with a whisper, before hitting Broadway where nothing disappears quietly. We're hearing Hammerstein's heirs are not all happy, but the family sold all rights. (Alan Jay Lerner's widow had stayed uninvolved, but maybe she never knew she could object, as she's starting to ask what her late husband might have wanted as long as she's here.)
1
@KJ NEFFSKY It's called lowering standards and dumbing down so people without the same level of talent can be elevated.
4
As a next step, I suggest classic musicals; e.g., Oklahoma!, West Side Story. South Pacific. and On The Town with all male casts celebrating gay love.
It's about time.
3
Thank you so much for this. I learned so much.
7
excellent reportage, kudos.
was fortunate to see the production in Dumbo last year and was stunned (positively)
For those who only want to think of 1943, i am guessing you probably are originalists when it comes to the US Constitution as well.
Great lively arts can indeed be interpreted decades later.
6
@Richard Cohen
It's not about 1943; those glorious orchestrations have stood the test of time. Listen to the original orchestrations of any of the great shows from the thirties - I think they sound as fresh as anything being created today.
19
Take away the orchestra and it sounds just like a stripped down version that you would have heard on "A Prairie Home Companion" any time during the show's run.
But context is all. In "The Caine Mutiny" there's a chapter describing a tedious period of escort duty in the tropics, and part of that tedium is someone replaying the new record of that song, over and over.
When the hero finally makes it back to home to a wintry New York and looks up his girl, she's singing in a club, and he comes in just in time to hear her sing it and he's right back on the equator again.
@Steve Paradis
I do recall reading the book in my youth, before hearing the show. There were references to "Don't throw bouquets at me" that I did not understand at the time. Thanks for the allusion.
OK, so the revisical can be dissected to death. But for me, the new version seems very much like a production for people who never completed their musical theatre training -- and then passing it off as "raw" and "innovative." It's the beginning of the fall of western civilization as we know it. The "American Idiot-ization" of beautiful show music has begun. As such, they should also charge 1943 prices to see the new bowdlerized version. Like HAMILTON, I ain't seeing this show until I can pay $10 or $15 for it.
11
Can I still hum along?
1
@northlander Only if you do it off pitch.
5
Brilliant revue, and brilliant methods for elucidating and explaining. I have one small question: Am I the only one, and maybe I am an old picky music guy, who thinks they, particularly Daunno, sing a bit out of tune ? Not country music style note bending, but - umm, really out of tune ?
9
@David Rubinson it was actually kinda painful listening to both Curley and Laurey attempting to sing this material. The only actors who did the material justice were Mary Testa as Aunt Eller and Ali Stroker as Ado Annie.
10
@David Rubinson You're not the only one. Training is not out of fashion.
6
Of course it's the songs. You could read the words on a page and still be charmed and moved by their sweetness, naïvité and hopefulness. Fortunately we also have the music, to approach them in ways that are innovative and fun.
The country style seems more appropriate to the setting, but the musical was so daring for the time that it's doubtful Rodgers and Hammerstein would have even considered going further with so informal and intimate a presentation.
2
Always thought the older version was gorgeous in its operatic way, but nothing I could personally identify with. Now the latent Midwesterner in me is completely taken with this honkytonk version that channels the best of Hank Williams--admittedly, a narrow road to tread. But tread it they do, and beautifully so.
2
Whether performed in bluegrass style, or operetta, and whether the show was written in the 1940s and reimagined in 2019, the Rodgers and Hammerstein music remains timeless and retains the power to speak to any generation.
18
What a great article and analysis. I heard the two stars sing "People Will Say We're in Love" on Live From Here and I was absolutely blow away. I wasn't really fully aware of how the revival was handling the source material so I was caught wonderfully off guard.
This production and Jesse Green's analysis prove a point that I've long advocated. That is, that all songs are fundamentally words and melody; even harmony isn't necessary. A truly great song can withstand and even benefit from new presentations and interpretations. That this production also maintained the original harmonizations and still pulled off such a different effect is testimony to the composers' genius and the skill and imaginations of the current production team.
I am always eager to hear something new and different in a familiar song and I'll definitely be purchasing this cast album.
While it's unlikely that I'll get to NYC to see this production, I did see the reimagined West Side Story many years ago felt the same way -- this is both familiar and fresh. I'm hearing something old as if for the the first time.
5
I like the twangy sound of the new version, but I find it harder to hear every word. I find most singers from the 1980s on either play with the phrasing for dramatic effect or perhaps just don’t articulate as well as the older style singers do so I miss some of the words. Maybe clear diction is considered old fashioned or stiff or simply isn’t valued as much as it once was so long as the emotion is in the voice. I’ve always had this beef with rock music too though I grew up with it and loved the music even though lots of the lyrics were unclear.
4
We just saw the new production over the weekend and thought it was beyond great. I would say the new orchestration is a kind of country music hybrid --- there are definitely bluegrass elements but to me the sound is more western swing through most of the show, with that easy-going loping style so much of Bob Wills' music has. But that's not the whole of it, there are significant doses of modern performance art/expressionist rock at play, too, the entr'act with the dancer was radical.
This show has a lot going on with cultural references and allusions that would bear at least another viewing. I hope a film version gets made of the production, much like Spike Lee did with "Passing Strange".
This article/analysis is a very good, digestible example of the kinds of issues that come up in performance practice musicology that I try to apply in my work as a pit orchestra bassist.
12
by my own definition, I am a country music lover, meaning Loretta and Conway, George and Tammy, Porter and Dolly, George Strait, and many more Hall of Famers. To me, the revival vocals are definitely inferior to any of those. I really can't find anything appealing about interpretations that sound like karaoke night at the local tavern, and I certainly would not pay Broadway ticket prices to hear them.
9
Thanks for this analysis. The amazing thing is that, despite the completely different sound of the revival, the music (including its harmony and accompaniment figures) is absolutely faithful to Richard Rodgers. Rodgers was notorious for his insistence on performing his music exactly as he wrote it. I suspect that after the initial shock of hearing it dressed in something other than the classical clothing Robert Russell Bennett gave it, he'd likely be pleased.
Another thing worth noting is that "the fill after each statement of the main melody" is derived from the first notes of the song's verse. It's a very clever way to unify both the song and the sentiment of the lyric. I had heard from someone, who should be a credible source, that Bennett had actually created this fill; but I had trouble believing it. From what I've seen and read, Rodgers' manuscripts included nearly all the elements in the orchestrations we hear in the theatre. (That's not to minimize what Bennett did to realize those elements orchestrally.) So it's good to finally see Rodgers' manuscript for "People Will Say We're in Love," and to dispel that error.
5
@Ted,
I'd bet Rodgers would love that the differences in his music are being so beautifully analyzed. I've clicked on this on every computer I've sat at today and sent it to my whole email list; hoping that will help get us more like this! This is the kind of stuff students will come back to years from now, one of the great things about the net that balance some of the bad stuff like tweet wars.
PS. Rodgers got over the "Anna and the King" sitcom, and kept writing all through the 1970s, until the very end. Here are the opening credits of that sitcom, which ended with Louis taking a Rob Petrie style pratfall, but instead of an ottoman, Louis is tripped by that scamp Prince Chulalongkorn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiA-fuByAc8
I was half-expecting the King and Anna plotting to win over the European dignitaries to play like Ethel helping Lucy impress Ricky's investors; it didn't get that bad, but they did try a laugh track for one episode. I bet Rodgers would love this whole shebang like Sondheim and Strouse and Harnick seem to be OK-ing re-thinkings, but likely just insist the original also be available for those who choose it.
1
I love both versions but was immediately taken back to a time in the 70s when Holly Near used to sing her version to largely female audiences with quite a different wink and nod. People will say, indeed! Lovely article, and memory.
3
Bravo to Mr. Green and to the NYTimes for giving the theatergoing public some nitty-gritty insight into creative decisions made in the process of both originating and reinterpreting theater music. As a musician who has worked as a keyboardist/conductor/composer in musical theater for more than 40 years, I am thrilled to see a mainstream publication help our audiences understand how music doesn't just...happen.
25
@Howard L: Indeed it doesn't. But one still hopes that it will feel to the audience as though it did "just materialize, fully formed."
Those not involved in music specifically, and theater more generally, really have absolutely no idea how much work and rehearsal goes into making everything *seem* effortless by the time they're immersed in it.
4
@Howard L, Thank you for your work.
As a non musician, this review brought me into whole new territories and a deeper understanding and appreciation of your work.
1
Wow! What a great analysis. I never liked the "operatic" style of the original version. I LUV the country style of this version. A stroke of genius to do it this way. Very sensual.
9
Loved this analysis. Being very familiar with this musical, the new interpretation of this song was at first jarring to hear. But it didn't take me long to love the new Laurey and the new Curly. Old Laurey always was too good to be true; new Laurey so sexy and free!
15
Aw shucks! I was expecting to hate the new version of the song, but dag nabbit, it was not only beautifully sung, but evocative and atmospheric. A real sense of intimacy too.
21
Alas, the 2019 version "is not available" in the article. I'd really like to hear what is being dissected. I hope you can fix this. I am using the beta version of the app on my iPhone.
1
@Ellen Smart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l3YiKi4usc
Unfortunately, the video of the new version appears to unavailable within the app on my iPhone.
1
Do they get to smoke, too? People did that back then.
2
The lush,rich orchestration of Robert Russell Bennett is what made me a musical fanatic at ten years old even when it came out of our tiny television speaker. As the years went by and I saw “Oklahoma” on the big screen and now have its beautifully remastered soundtrack all I can think of is why bother tampering with perfection?
11
@Greg Johnson Every production is in some ways a reinterpretation of the original. This revival also just happens to be a more significant one. I found it refreshing to revisit a work through a new lens.
7
@Greg Johnson
Like hearing music played on period instruments for the first time, if the song is good enough, the new settings will enhance your pleasure.
It is fun to play the clip of the film and the contemporary stage production at the same time. It helps parse some of the differences between the two approaches.
3
Thanks for this. My daughter and I saw Oklahoma recently. Beyond fantastic. A Broadway experience for the ages.
12
Bravo for your use of the capabilities of online publication to present your analysis and to educate your readers (and listeners). More, please! Unfortunately, the links to the two videos of the current revival are dead (on my iPad).
9
This is what great music journalism/criticism should do. Describe and explain and proffer an opinion based on the analysis. This analysis was informative for non-musicians and fairly obvious, yet still interesting, for musicians. What I appreciate as a musician is that you took the time to educate your reader. So much of arts journalism is just writers throwing out clever one liners that they enjoy seeing in print because they are lazy or arrogant or don’t respect their readers. You should be commended. Bravo.
50
@Trish
Presenting the critique on the internet with both video and audio comparisons was brilliant of the Times. Knowing nothing about the technical side of music, I would have been lost if I read this on the paper edition. This is as revolutionary as Oklahoma!
was in 1943. I add another Bravo.
17
@Trish, and a third BRAVO from here!
1
This is how a revival should be done and re-conceived with the full resources of Broadway. The new score and vocals were terrific - people pining for the 76-year old arrangements are welcome to go hear the original version at their community theatre. These bluegrass orchestrations are complex and charming despite a pared-down simplicity (likely as much from cost constraints as musical choices), and they are part of what makes the show feel fresh and exciting. Stellar performances and the new sound help drive along a book and lyrics that, despite tweaks, remain at times awkward and blatantly dated.
13
great analysis. Still in all, the sound of the current revival, compared to the original, makes me want to throw up.
25
@alocksley, then definitely don’t see it. I wasn’t nauseated, but angry at the directorial liberties he imposed on the material.
3
Thanks a million for this superb analysis! So fascinating to follow, even for someone with limited knowledge of music or Broadway musicals. In fact, necessary! Thank you again, and I hope to see more such thorough and detailed scrutiny and critique of music and theater in the NYTimes.
23
Splendid analysis--solid, careful, attentive. I think even more is going on than all you rightly detail, but your discussion is a refreshing reminder that great criticism lets readers follow great minds through great works. Well done!
28