"Hamilton's" Place in Musical History

For my last blog, I want to go kinda meta with my commentary. Since so much of Hamilton is about legacies, I thought it'd be interesting to talk about what the legacy of Hamilton itself will be.

Hamilton arrived at an interesting place in musical history. It follows many shows such as Avenue Q, Spring Awakening, Next to Normal, American Idiot, and Miranda's own In the Heights, which, like Hamilton, do interesting and new things with the format of the musical, which usually manifested itself in new and inspired choices in music and choreography. But none of these musicals gained much significant traction in popularity outside of the Broadway community, and were certainly not as popular as more traditional musicals. Hamilton, however, is another story; it's reached such a height of popularity and has entered the popular consciousness to a point almost unlike any other musical in the history of our culture (has the writer and star of a musical ever hosted SNL before?). Sure, it might not be as big a household name as other classics like The Phantom of the Opera, Les Miserables, Beauty and the Beast, or even more modern shows like Wicked, but those shows have some years under their belt.

Hamilton's place in modern pop culture is fascinating to examine, and I really think it's going to be looked back on as a turning point for the modern musical. While I doubt there will be another Hamilton in terms of pop culture presence and significance, I'm sure that there will be plenty more that are just as daring, original, and revolutionary (no pun intended). If Lin-Manuel Miranda continues writing at the level he currently is, I bet his name will be remembered alongside names like Sondheim, Rogers & Hammerstein, or Gershwin.

King George's Role in "Hamilton"

A few blog posts ago, I wrote about the cut John Adams rap, and why Lin-Manuel Miranda chose to remove it from the show. The conclusion that I came to was that it was cut for the sake of perspicuity; the rap is ultimately redundant and takes up unnecessary stage time, as well as being targeted toward a character that never actually appears in person on stage throughout the entire show.

But upon further thought, I realized that this logic completely falls apart when you examine another aspect of the show- that of King George III. He has three songs to himself, all of which are solo numbers, and he never interacts with another character outside of that- hell, he's never even featured on stage outside of his ballads. With the Adams rap, it was half of one song ("The Adams Administration") that was cut, but in this instance, it's three full songs that are fairly inconsequential in the scheme of things- not only that, but really King George's entire character could be cut from the show and none of the other characters would really be affected. The only character that is stated to have interaction with George is John Adams, who, as you'll recall, isn't actually in the show.

But I think that there's a fundamental difference between George's songs and the Adams rap. No other songs in the show are anything like the Brit-pop pseudo-love ballads that the monarch spouts every so often during relevant events in the chronology of the show. They are both lyrically and musically different from everything else in the show, and cutting it denies the show the variety that these songs very effectively inspire.

"The World Turned Upside Down" and Revisionist History

In "Yorktown," there's a lyric towards the end of the song as the Americans win the Battle of Yorktown- and in effect, the Revolutionary War- which reads, "And as our fallen foes retreat, I hear the drinking song they're singing..." followed by the repeated lyrics "The world turned upside down." This, and the lyrics that proceed it, are lifted from Chernow's biography upon which the show was based. However, there's no actual direct record of the British troops singing this song, but Lin-Manuel Miranda incorporates it as a major theme of this piece- it's even in the parenthetical of the song title.

This points toward a very interesting larger trend in the show, a trend of changing historical facts in the show. Maybe my title decrying the musical as a revisionist history was a bit extreme, but the point still remains. Many of the historical details in the show are either glossed over or completely changed. For instance, Philip Schuyler had many more children besides the three sisters we meet in the show, including several older sons. This fundamentally changes Angelica's motivation upon meeting Hamilton. She also was married when they met in real life, another huge change in the dynamic. Another lesser example was the fact that Alexander and Eliza had seven other children that (if I recall) aren't even mentioned, and definitely don't feature as strongly into the story as Philip.

These types of changes are not unique to Hamilton, however. Many historical films, such as Braveheart, Amadeus, Marie Antoinette, and The Imitation Game take massive liberties with telling true historical events. Many of these events fundamentally change the courses of the stories they're telling, which, initially, seems pretty dishonest.

But I think it's important to allow artists to take some creative liberties with historical events. All of the films I listed above received high praise, so it isn't like changing the events makes the films worse- if anything, the events are being changed to make the narrative better. The alterations that Miranda made to Hamilton didn't harm the narrative, they only made the story more focused and the character arcs more impactful. Historical revisionism is important, even if it initially seems misguided.

The Incredible Luck of PBS' "Hamilton" Documentary

A few weeks ago, PBS aired a documentary entitled Hamilton's America that chronicled the writing, production, and success of Hamilton, through the eyes of a variety of individuals including Lin-Manuel Miranda himself, various members of the cast, and a number of other significant public figures- including President Obama himself.

What I find really interesting about this documentary is the fact that they started filming it a number of months before it first debuted off-Broadway at the Public Theatre. Yes, Miranda and his work was well-known at that point within the Broadway community after his success with In the Heights, but there is no way that PBS knew how insanely popular Hamilton would go on to become. So what inspired them to actually go through with making this documentary, instead of shifting their focus elsewhere to something that was a more guaranteed hit?

I think the largest factor by far was the buzz around the show even before it had finished being written. A variety of performers and musicians had talked to Miranda about his project, and they all had a very similar response- skeptical at first, but eventually very impressed and huge fans. Miranda first performed one of the songs, the opening number, at a poetry night being held at the White House, and while many initially thought it was a joke, everyone- including the President and First Lady- recognized Lin's incredible ability and songwriting prowess.

Another factor- and one that is more than a little connected to the last one- is Miranda's established ability. As I mentioned, Miranda was already fairly well-known within the Broadway community after his first show, the aforementioned In the Heights, won four Emmys, so any buzz around a new project from him was bound to be huge. There's also his work with the rap improv group Freestyle Love Supreme and on various TV shows, so the guy was an established talent.

But the last factor, and I think probably the biggest one, is luck. "Hip-hop American history musical" was bound to be very original and probably pretty good, especially coming from the creative team it had, but they really had no way of knowing it was going to be such a smash hit. So hey, congrats to PBS for getting as lucky as they did.

(By the way, if you haven't seen it you should watch it ASAP. It's on PBS' Facebook page and website for free, it's pretty great.)

"Sit Down, John"

The John Adams storyline, while a pretty short one, is very entertaining. John Adams himself isn't actually a character in the show, but his presence is represented by a deep, almost demonic voice that doubles several lyrics in mid-Act II. We're told that Hamilton and Adams constantly fought and practically destroyed the Federalist party- of which they were the only two significant members- but we only get a tiny bit of back-and-forth: Adams calling Hamilton "creole bastard," and Hamilton's response, of which we only get to hear a clip (including a censored F-bomb).

As a lot of people know, the "sit down, John" line is the end of what was originally a much longer diss rap from Hamilton to Adams. With a quick YouTube search, you can find Lin-Manuel Miranda performing said rap, and as you'd expect, it's some pretty good stuff. His trademark wordplay and rhythmic originality are on full display. It's not a bad rap at all, it's actually pretty great. So why cut it?

Say what you will about Hamilton, but it's an incredibly focused show. This might seem like an odd thing to say about a musical that clocks in at around two and a half hours, but there's not a lot of fat. Every song has a pretty distinct purpose, and the story loses something if you cut any of them. Even "Tomorrow There'll Be More of Us," a reprise of "The Story of Tonight" which shows Hamilton receiving word of John Laurens' death at the tail end of the first act, which is famously missing from the soundtrack, adds a little something to the story and Hamilton's motivation going forward.

This is ultimately the explanation for the cutting of the Adams rap. However good it might be, Hamilton accomplishes ultimately the same thing in one sentence. The show has a lot of story to tell, and can't affort to stop for anything that doesn't add anything of substance. Who knows, maybe it'll end up on the mixtape.

The Redundancy of "Hurricane"

Alexander isn't a typical musical protagonist in more ways than one, but one of the most immediately noticeable ways is that he only sings one solo in the entire show. "Hurricane" comes about halfway into Act II, right as the sex scandal storyline is picking up, and features Alexander singing alone. The staging frames him in the middle of a number of chorus members, swirling and dipping around him like a hurricane, placing more of an emphasis of him, in the "eye" of the hurricane (also reflecting the repeated lyric in the song "In the eye of a hurricane, there is quiet").

So with all this focus and singularity, this song has to be something groundbreaking and fresh, right? A new look into Alexander's psyche, or an exciting new tune. Right?

Wrong. The subject of the song is just a reiteration of the opening number, this time told by Hamilton instead of about him, and the backing instrumentals feature motifs from "Yorktown."

What the hell, show?

But while this song is fairly redundant, both content-wise and musically, it serves a very important purpose. Miranda and his team didn't just copy and paste elements of other songs, they crafted them together in a meaningful way.

The lyrics remind us of themes that drive the character that we haven't heard since the beginning of act one- almost two hours ago in show time- and they're also used in a different way. In "Alexander Hamilton" they're used as exposition, setting the stage for the "important" parts of the story, but here they're used to reinforce Alexander's emotions and motivations.

The music also has purpose- in reiterating themes and motifs from "Yorktown," it gives us the same emotional context that we felt during that song- battle, struggle, and ultimately triumph. This can represent both the emotional struggle in his youth that he sings about, or the struggle that he is about to face with The Reynolds Pamphlet. Either way, the choice to use the same music from a scene in which our characters fought and won a war is not coincidental.

It just goes to show, like I've said before, that this show does nothing on accident.

The Hamilton Mixtape

As a lot of people know, Hamilton did not originally start out as a musical. Lin-Manuel Miranda's first idea, after reading Ron Chernow's biography, was to create a project entitled The Hamilton Mixtape. As time went on, he developed his songs to fit a stage musical structure, eventually writing the show in its full form as we know it today. And the answer to "why" it was developed as a staged production instead of a mixtape is one that has been answered a million times in a million different interviews and news articles, so instead I want to look at what makes a mixtape, and how Hamilton's story fits that mold.

Mixtapes have been around, in the hip-hop world, since the 1970s, when they originated as recordings of live performances (the only way the genre existed outside of the in-person gigs). Over time they grew and changed, as DJs and artists recorded samples and compilations of their material which were distributed primarily in large cities like New York. These recordings often blended genres like rap, R&B, and soul over hip-hop beats to create new and original tracks. Today, mixtapes take several forms, such as developmental recordings by new artists, experimental albums or passion projects by existing musicians, and promotional or "filler" material leading up to the release of an official album. One thing ties all of these together- they are almost always released for free. This is often for legal reasons- mixtapes usually predominantly feature mixes or samples of pre-existing songs which haven't had copyright agreements cleared or negotiated, thus making any profit gained from them illegal. But sometimes the tapes won't contain any copyrighted material, and will simply be released as a "gift" to fans from the artist.

While I doubt The Hamilton Mixtape would've been released for free, I do think it fits a lot of the molds of a mixtape. Many of the songs on the album contain a myriad of melodies and lyrics from pre-existing hip-hop tracks that, were the show not staged, Miranda may have chosen to sample for the recording. Hamilton also features lots of songs which blend genres ("Satisfied," "The Story of Tonight" and its reprise, and "One Last Time" come to mind), another classic staple of mixtapes. It could also be seen as a passion project, similar to many mixtapes released today by established creators- an umbrella beneath which Miranda definitely falls (and would've at the time), after the resounding success of his show In the Heights.

All this being said, The Hamilton Mixtape might not be dead. Miranda and producer Questlove have gone on record saying they're in the process of developing a supplemental album featuring covers of numbers from the show by famous musicians, as well as original new tracks about the characters. So this passion project might have a second life, even after the original idea has flown from the nest and become its own full-fledged creation in Hamilton. I, for one, really hope to see the mixtape released.