So I've been writing lyrics for the theatre for nearly 18 years now, and everyday I am still learning. Like all the best forms of artistic expression, mastery is the work of a lifetime. So I hope I've still got a long way to go, but more and more folks are getting in touch asking for advice on lyric writing so I thought I'd see if I can't distill what I've learned in to something easily digestible... so here goes:

1. Write a Characters True Experience

To write a characters true experience of their world/situation we must be fully aware of their environment. While writing a lyric we should be able to figure out the answers to the following questions:

What time is it?
What season is it?
Where are they?
What's the weather like?
When did they last eat?
Are they under the influence of alcohol/drugs?
What has just happened?
What can they see, smell, taste, touch and hear?
What is their emotional state?

Why are these questions important? Well they provide an authentic way in to the characters world.

​So rather than saying "I'm so angry at the world" you can then imagine what a person who is angry at the world would focus on in their environment. And that is what will give you that characters unique take on their experience. A song set late at night in winter is going to sound vastly different to a song set mid morning in spring. A person who is angry one morning in spring might for example see a blooming flower and be immediately filled with envy or jealousy or even rage at the simplicity of the flower's existence. A person who is angry one night in winter might see a fire burning in the hearth and identify directly with it's flames and the way it eats everything in it's path. The emotion might be the same but the way in which we identify with it can be vastly different and, when influenced by our environment becomes an authentic and unique (yet universal) expression of that feeling. 

And, as in life, one of the greatest challenges we face as humans is the difficulty of identifying the emotions we are feeling in the moment that we are feeling them. Using external markers and our senses help us as humans to identify what we are feeling, and so our characters should do the same.

Once you have established that environmental influence of course there is then scope to go deeper into the characters internal mind, but it is often the first minute of a lyric that will tell an audience whether this lyricist knows what they're doing and will give themselves over to more emotional exploration.

2. True Rhyme is not your enemy, your enemy is scansion and line length.

A rhyme that says:
I love you with all of my heart
I hope we will never part

Is an incredibly lazy lyric. But it's not the rhyme itself that is lazy, it is the way in which it is utilised:
I love you with all of my heart
But there may come a day when the seasons of life will break us and pull us apart

This lyric remains simplistic, but infinitely improved by the increased and unexpected length of time between the two simple rhymes. So focus not on the words themselves, but rather the length of the lines between the words.

3. Turn your editor off

There are two people living inside every lyricists head. The creator and the editor. Both have their place, but should not encroach on each others time or space. And should never operate together. The creator will create some inevitable crap and it's the editors job to remove the dirt and leave the gold. But if the editor is turned on too soon, the creator will never get to dig down to the gold. Each hole that is begun, if gold is not immediately apparent the editor will tell the creator to move on to a different hole. That's not how mining works and it's not how lyrics work.  You have to dig through the crap to get to the gold. Once you've got to the gold, it's then the editors job to polish it and clean off the dirt. It's not their job to tell you to stop before you've even reached the gold. So make sure you dig down through the dirt. Give yourself a frickin' break.

I'll leave it there for now. But there'll me more I'm sure.

Darren

I've been thinking a little bit about age recently, partly because my own musical The Curious Case of Benjamin Button looks quite closely at the subject. But I'm thinking about it now in relation to opportunity, praise and critique that seems to use the idea of age in an interesting way...

Why for example are we more impressed with someone who is able to do something excellent when they are in their teens than someone who has achieved something of equal or better quality who is older? Surely it should be the quality of the creation that should be assessed, rather than the age of its creator. There is an argument I suppose that goes along the lines of...
​
"Well, if they can do that when they are so young then think of their potential to create even greater things as they gain experience, skill and wisdom."

But potential is not owned by the young. It is owned by the young at heart. It is owned by the curious and the fascinated. It is owned by those who are driven to discover and uncover. As much as the media would like us not to believe it, potential and skill is open to anyone of any age.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I have recently seen several reviews and articles about a variety of shows that either directly reference the creators exact age or mentions that they are in their twenties. Interestingly, I cannot find a single review of work of writers in their 30's or above that mentions the age of the creators, until we get to the age of about 70+ where it suddenly becomes an item of interest again. 

So what is this obsession with age in musical making? 

I did not start writing musicals seriously until I was 30, so have never been eligible for any 'emerging' opportunities despite the fact that 14 years on I am pretty sure I still haven't quite 'emerged.' And you know what? When I was 25 I didn't need the financial support that some of these emerging awards provide in order to pursue my passion. Because I had limited responsibility, was in a small share house (and admittedly living in 2005 when things were a hell of a lot cheaper!) I didn't need financial recompense to pursue my passion and hone my skills because I had the time to do it on my own dime. 

I know that the idea of age and its marketing power in selling a new show by the latest 'Wunderkind' remains important for selling tickets. But is it entirely helpful in sustaining a meaningful career for those involved? If the quality of work is assessed partly by the fact of age, then what happens when those same writers reach 30+? Are they suddenly going to be held to a higher standard that they have hitherto not been prepared for? And what good is that going to do them or the industry?

I would rather we go down the Hammerstein route who said to the young Stephen Sondheim after showing him his first musical, "I'm going to treat you like a professional. And as a professional this is the worst thing I've ever read. And if you like, I'll tell you why."

So what I'm saying is, if you want to mention age then please go ahead, it's your opinion. But I think it's worth noting that physical age has almost nothing to do with overall potential and that there maybe considerable downsides to the effect this has on the writers themselves. 

Several times over the last few years I have heard the word risk being used to explain the reason for the early closure of theatrical endeavours throughout the world. Risk is an inevitable part of the theatrical process but I just wanted to say a little something about it as it's been playing on my mind recently...

There's two different types of risk in my mind. There's the inherent risks that must be taken in order to undertake a journey of any kind and then there's the other kind... the avoidable risk.

I'll just mention two key avoidable risks:
1. Hiring people to do something at the very top level when they have no (or very little) experience doing that thing.
2. Opening cold in large theatres at prestigious venues with material that has not been properly strength tested.

These risks are not in the inherent risk category, which includes things like global economic factors. Unfortunately we are living in a world in which many industries, of which live performance is one are heavily affected by a global economic situation beyond our control making the business of show-making an even more risky prospect than it usually is.

In a world where the basic inherent level of risk is higher, show makers, producers and venues should be doing everything they can and more in order to minimise the avoidable risks that they do have control over. As ever, it's a shame to see any show not living up to it's potential both in terms of artistry but also in terms of financial sustainability and we should be doing everything we can to ensure that this the chances of this happening is as low as possible.

So just a little call out... when our shows close let's make sure it's because of the inherent risks involved and not the avoidable ones.

In most reviews and articles I have read over the past several years of new musical theatre there is one word and concept that seems to pop up more than any other. 

Innovation.

There seems to be a requirement that any new musical, in addition to being a new musical must push the form forward, or break new ground in order for it to have a valid place in the new musical world. Just going to take a few moments to tell you why I think it's a dangerous and unrealistic expectation to put on something that is already staggeringly difficult to do.

The most bizarre thing is that we seem to expect innovation in musical theatre to come from those who have no experience in the form. From pop stars, from bands, or singer songwriters, from playwrights or screenwriters or authors. From directors who have never directed musicals before. 

You wouldn't expect the major innovations in space technology to come from those who have no experience in space technology. Innovation does not happen in leaps and bounds, no matter how much the world wants us to believe that. Innovation occurs through almost invisible incrememental steps over long periods of time. It can happen by intention and design or in certain cases by complete accident. Much like the story of the overnight success, innovation is often the logical result of incremental steps completed and achieved over a long period of time until finally the tip of the volcano peeps over surface of the water.

In musical theatre, to denigrate something that is good purely because it does not appear innovative is naive. And to praise something objectively of low quality purely because it appears to be 'innovative' or trying to do something new is equally naive. 

For something to be good it must first be competent. Musical theatre is notoriously and famously very hard to do well. Instead of putting innovation on a pedestal we should be putting basic competence on that pedestal. Because even a basically competent musical is an extraordinary achievement. With rare exceptions any writers first musical will very rarely be their finest work. Musical theatre is a craft, a skill that must be mastered over many years and with the help of many generous collaborators. 

So let's give the whole innovation a break and just try and tell a good story well huh?