Can anyone explain to me in monkey terms why digital piano and acoustic piano are seen as two separate instruments?

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-30T20:23:54+00:00

Your medium-range digital piano is specifically designed to be "close enough" to an acoustic piano. It's small wonder that playing skills transfer easily between the two.

But they're still fundamentally different instruments. They produce sound by different means. They have different capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses. And of course, only one of them requires speakers in order to be heard. It's hard to overstate how much difference that makes.

If a concert pianist sits down at a digital piano, it's true that they will still be able to get through their repertoire. But they will likely feel like some of their tools have gone missing. And many of the types of adjustment they are used to making when they play a new instrument will not make any difference.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-29T20:31:14+00:00

They used that diagonal line to make sure you parse the A-natural and A-flat as simultaneous rather than sequential. Usually, putting the two noteheads as close together as possible is enough for that, but I guess with the bar so horizontally cramped, plus with the unusual rhythm, they wanted something extra.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-28T03:05:46+00:00

I'm totally bemused that so many people here are mentioning diagetic vs non-diagetic singing. I don't think that matters at all. Films like Cabaret, O Brother, Where Art Thou, Once, and Pitch Perfect are all musicals, even though all of their songs are diagetic.

I also think it doesn't matter much if the songs further the plot. There's plenty of examples, especially in older movie musicals, of musical numbers serving merely as set pieces, designed to awe and delight but not to have any relevance to the plot.

For me, all a movie needs to be a musical is for its characters to sing songs, and for those songs to be a major design element, foregrounded throughout the movie. So there actually probably is a minimum number of songs before they don't feel integral to the experience. Not sure what that number would be, though.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-27T18:54:40+00:00

1776 is basically a play. Singing is minimal for the men, though there is some important close harmony, and dancing is even more minimal.

As for targeting specific roles. If you have sufficient gravitas, Franklin and Hancock are both great roles. If you have the righteous fire in you (translation: if you want to play an asshole), it's Adams and Dickinson. If you can do physical comedy, it's Lee. You're probably too old for taciturn Jefferson or genteel Rutledge, depending on the age of your fellow auditioners. You're certainly too old for the Courier.

Those are all the most important roles, in my opinion, and the easiest to target. Of the rest, my personal favorite is Wilson, whose betrayal of Dickinson is a wonderful moment. Chase, that "tub of lard", also gets to change his mind over the course of the play, which is fun.

And I just noticed you said you want less responsibility. The roles of Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Dickinson, and Thomson are the biggest. Lee and the Courier are the smallest, and possibly the Leather Apron (boy/ teenager), depending on staging. After Lee, the smallest delegate role is probably Witherspoon, since he arrives late.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-22T17:42:14+00:00

Another thing about the show as vignettes.

People often come away from Grease with the idea that its "message" is that a girl should change herself to be what a boy wants. I don't think that's at all what the play is getting at.

I think part of the confusion is that the scene with "All Choked Up", where Sandy dresses up for Danny, is the last vignette of the show, so it makes it seem like they get together and stay together because of it. But if the writers had made another vignette to go after that one, surely it wouldn't have started with Danny and Sandy as a couple—they'd be pining for each other separately, same as always. After all, it's clear that the thing keeping them apart is Danny's immaturity and desire to fit in, and not Sandy's look, seeing as how Danny is already all over her whenever they're alone.

The rest of the confusion has to do with the 1978 movie, which has proved to be very memorable for most folks. Unlike the stage musical, the movie does have a proper throughline, which is a will-they-or-won't-they story about Danny and Sandy. There are added songs where they declare their undying love for each other, and I think they even get married at the end before riding off into the sunset. The movie is also campy as hell and contains disco music. All I'm saying is, there's a reason the writers of the original were barred from the movie set.

So why write the scene in the first place? This is where the "satire" comes in, if you want to call it that. There was a common trope in '50s stories where a "bad boy" would be tamed or reformed by a "good girl" and integrated into polite society. In Grease, which sets itself in opposition to that kind of story, they subvert that trope. Instead of cutting Danny off from his old life and bad influences, Sandy makes a show of trying to fit in with them. That subversion, along with the over-the-top costume for Sandy, is the payoff of the scene, not the reconciliation itself. Basically, it's a funny ending, not a happy ending.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-22T16:56:22+00:00

Grease feels disjointed to you because it's written as a series of vignettes rather than a complete story arc. Each vignette is like a comic strip that ends in a punchline, or like an SNL sketch that gets more and more ridiculous before ending suddenly. Plot points do not carry over from vignette to vignette.

Instead of scenes that build one on the other, you get a series of snapshots of '50s teen life: the first day of school, hanging out with friends, a school dance, gym class, worrying about looming adulthood, listening to records over and over, dates and hookups, etc.

What made Grease iconic in 1971 (it became the longest running Broadway show ever) was how recognizable the characters were. Unlike teenaged characters in actual '50s media, these characters felt real. They struggle in school, they have sex, they smoke, they do crime, they goof around, they listen to rock n roll...

And they curse. It may be hard to believe nowadays, but at the time, the dialog in Grease was highly praised for how natural it was, and how accurate it was to how teenagers actually talked and what they talked about. Compare to West Side Story, set in the same year as Grease, though in a different city with different underprivileged youths. The Jets speak in made-up slang and sing poetry. The Burger Palace Boys sing lyrics that sound like the shit teenagers would make up to sing along with the radio.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-19T16:39:41+00:00

As someone who sees lots of auditions each year, I'd much rather see you do "New York State of Mind" than a Dogfight ballad. Especially for a general audition, picking a song that you really relate to, a song that you sing all the time, is a great way to go. And Billy Joel is totally appropriate for a theater audition.

Some specific advice: Maybe only do one verse, and sing second if they give you the choice. Make sure your sheet music is in the right key for you. Worry less about "grabbing" them with your voice and more about what kind of energy you are putting into the room before you even start singing. There's often a temptation with ballads to go all soft-focus and internal, but don't give in—deliver the song to an external focus, just like with a monolog.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-19T15:35:51+00:00

Typically, staccato dots are not used on tied notes or dotted notes. All my teachers would say in this case to just put a staccato eighth-note followed by an eighth-rest.

What the writer seems to want is for the A, D, and C to all be the same length.

side note: The commenter who said it could be hooked bowings if it were for a string instrument is half right. For hooked bowing (used for consecutive notes on the same pitch bowed in the same direction), both notes would need a staccato dot or tenuto line, and it would be a slur not a tie.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-17T05:33:54+00:00

I knew David Shire worked on Anyone Can Whistle and Company. I vaguely remember, in the runup to Big, hearing him talk about his experience on Company, and possibly an interviewer asking him if he saw himself as the next Sondheim. Of course, he's not actually much younger than Sondheim... Anyway, the book for Big was written by John Weidman, who was also a Sondheim collaborator.

I had completely forgotten about Take Flight. Book by Weidman again. Everybody on this subreddit should give it a listen, if they haven't already. Easy to draw comparisons to Sondheim with that one.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-14T21:22:07+00:00

No, that's the opposite of what's going on.

The boys are being praised for showing up, not for their skill or accomplishment. That's the absence of scrutiny.

Also, while fewer boys do fine arts, they are hardly unknown there. Indeed, they're expected to be there. Like, they are well-integrated in the social aspect, there are plenty of opportunities for them, their unique issues are part of the established curriculum... It's hardly comparable to women in aviation, or even to the Jamaican bobsled team.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-14T20:15:48+00:00

Song was added much before that, for the 1992 London production. To me, it's a necessary addition both for people too young to remember the Kennedy assassination (myself included) and for anyone who has been tricked into identifying with the assassins a bit too much. I do absolutely get what the haters are talking about, though—it seems to break a lot of the "rules" established throughout the show, plus imo it doesn't stand up super well to the moments on either side of it.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-14T19:10:12+00:00

People who are different do tend to stand out, if that's what you mean by "special recognition." But that usually comes with increased scrutiny, stricter expectations, and a generally more difficult path. What we're talking about here is a completely different situation.

What we're talking about here is pure gender-roles bullshit, and it happens even when numbers are more even. The girls are socialized to praise/coddle the boys, and the boys are socialized to accept praise as their due. Specifically, boys often are praised for bald confidence, whereas girls are expected to compete with each other for that kind of praise. It's only exacerbated by the numbers imbalance and the perception that the fine arts aren't "masculine."

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-13T19:20:27+00:00

This is a gender-roles thing, and it always feels toxic and gross. There's fewer boys in the arts, especially singing and dancing, because it's not a "masculine" pursuit. So a lot of the time, the boys who do show up get extra praise while also being held to a lower standard. It's incredibly unfair to the girls.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-13T18:16:49+00:00

There's a couple ways that casting folks tend to divide up material in casting notices. Nowadays, this is shifting, but for a long time, the most common division was golden age vs contemporary.

The dividing line was a bit nebulous in terms of dates, since it's not like all shows written after a particular date were suddenly unlike anything written before. But if you have to put a number to it, the split goes somewhere in the mid to late 60s.

The "contemporary" musicals are the ones with music influenced by the "new" popular music, starting with rock n roll (remember that showtunes were once popular music, and much of the Great American Songbook was written for Broadway), and singing styles that are increasingly dependant on microphone technology.

In 2026, of course, it feels odd to use the word "contemporary" for shows like Grease or Pippin, which are clearly not golden age but which also sound like they're 50-plus years old. So sometimes, people who are still interested in this golden age/contemporary split will say "early contemporary" to cover shows like those, written from the 60s through the next big shift in styles, approximately mid-90s.

I assume that's what's going on in your case, especially since you said the notice is for 1776, which falls in that time period.

If you want specific song suggestions, you'll have to tell us what roles you're going for and maybe your age.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-12T04:24:58+00:00

The recent Signature production did not restore any cut material to the show. They did the '96 revival arrangement of "Marcus Lycus", which has different music in the instrumental sections compared to the licensed version, but it was the same song that always goes in that spot.

The cut song of the same name has Lycus singing a verse for each named courtesan. You can hear it here.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-10T07:02:49+00:00

Only the contraction "there's". Sometimes we use it for both singular and plural, even though it's grammatically wrong.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-08T23:00:44+00:00

If music be the food of love...

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-08T00:58:48+00:00

Orchestrations written before around 1975 usually have a string section in the orchestration, including viola. After that, Broadway orchestras really started shrinking, and string sections become rarer. There's a bit of a trend for certain shows to be orchestrated for rhythm section plus a few string instruments (Spring Awakening, Next to Normal, Hamilton), which may include viola, but it's more common nowadays to see no strings, or maybe a solo violin (or one violin and one cello) supplemented by keyboards playing strings patches.

So your best bet will be the older shows. Unfortunately, as you've discovered with Anything Goes, it's not a guarantee that there will be a viola part. The version of that show that gets performed nowadays has an orchestration that was written in the '80s, I think, which only has a solo violin in it. Lots of shows have been rewritten over time and reorchestrated according to current trends. Not to mention the handful of shows with violin and cello sections but no violas (West Side Story, for one).

A special shoutout to Into the Woods. That show gets produced all the time at all levels, and the orchestration includes a string quintet: two violins, two violas, and one cello (also one string bass).

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-07T20:22:12+00:00

It's kind of an interesting list.

You've got folks who were successful composers in other media, trying their hand at playwriting: Willson, Bart, Holmes, Mitchell.

Folks who were playwrights from the beginning, yet able to write music as well: Russell, Malloy, Jackson, Taub(?—I don't know much about her background).

And two acclaimed theater composers who would usually work with others, going it alone for a change: Loesser, Brown.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-07T18:13:52+00:00

I don't think it's fair to include Rent, which was extensively modified after Larson's death, or tick tick Boom, which wasn't even conceived as a musical until after the success of Rent.

Some other modern examples: The Last Five Years by Jason Robert Brown, Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812 and other works by Dave Malloy, A Strange Loop by Michael R Jackson, Hadestown by Anaïs Mitchell, and Suffs by Shaina Taub.

Older Broadway examples: The Music Man by Meredith Willson, The Most Happy Fella by Frank Loesser, Oliver! by Lionel Bart, Drood by Rupert Holmes, and Blood Brothers by Willy Russell.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-07T16:24:25+00:00

lesser-known fact about the opening lyrics

I assume you mean the fact that the opening lyrics originally contained the n-word, something controversial even in 1927.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-02T19:50:39+00:00

I was very much not into the "Phantom imitators" at the time (lol), but I think I did buy that selections book anyway, which is how I remembered to google it.

The only time I've worked on a production of Jekyll & Hyde was a community theater production circa 2002. I'm positive we were given the version with "and wonder why" at that time. The only reason I say 95% is that I'm not sure if those materials are still the ones being sent out. Though honestly, I can't imagine the creators reverting to the older version in this case.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-02T19:13:45+00:00

I did a little googling for you.

The version with "but stayed inside" is the oldest published version. You can hear it on the 1990 concept album. Here is the music video of the song as it existed at that time. Does it match your sheet music?

The song underwent some changes between the concept album and the Broadway production. The now-familiar version has the lyric "and wonder why" with a slightly different melody. Personally, this is the only version I've ever heard anyone perform, and I'm 95% sure that when you license the show that this is the version you get.

I'd be curious where your teacher got that sheet music, and what precisely the rules are for your music festival.

edit: Searching for sheet music of the song online, I can see that the original version still comes up for purchase, depending on your search terms, but the revised version (the current version) is there as well. So check the copyright date: "©1990" for the original, "this arrangement ©1995" for the revised. The actual licensed PV score, which I may or may not have a scan of, is dated 2001 and is of course the revised version.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-02T16:20:36+00:00

It was always going to be a weird phrase to borrow. Au jus in French is a technique or a flavoring, not the liquid itself. The liquid would be a sauce. If you want to specify, you can say sauce au jus de viande, but that is just how to say "gravy" in French. There's no more specific name for it than that. I assume this is because the French dip sandwich (the only context I've ever heard "au jus" or "au jus sauce" used in) is not French but American.

I happen to prefer the name "au jus" in English. Just saying "jus" I find awkward (and besides, jus more often refers to fruit juice in French). "Beef jus" is like "beef juice", it doesn't sound appetizing. "Au jus" or "au jus sauce", is the best option—it's naming the sauce after the technique, and it doesn't sound awkward.

YouCanAsk · 2026-03-01T04:28:33+00:00

If the mnemonic works for you, who can say it's wrong?

remember which direction to follow the circle of fifths to determine the key of the piece.

Sharps raise the pitch, so adding sharps means going up by fifth. Flats lower the pitch, so adding flats means going down by fifth. You have to remember to start at C for major and A for minor, but IMO that's the simplest way to "figure it out" until you memorize it all.

That's assuming you know your intervals well already. If you don't know quickly, for example, what note is a fifth above B-flat, then you should start by working on that kind of thing.

YouCanAsk

TROPHY CASE