This transcript was automatically generated and might contain errors.

[0:00] ♪ Musical number: "The Lees of Old Virginia" — performed by Howard Sherman ♪

[0:57] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Welcome everybody to A Musical Theatre Podcast, where we discuss the cultural and emotional impact of some of our favorite musicals in theater history. My name is Jeffrey Scott Parsons. You can call me Jeff. Today, we are discussing the musical 1776, which was a listener request from several of you, including Bruce, who included both this musical and the Leonard Bernstein flop, not a bad word, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Quote, you've already done Assassins, and I think these two shows, especially the Lerner Bernstein one, help to call out the messiness that underlies American political mythology. As we are coming into another presidential election year with democracy potentially under threat, shouldn't we take a look at the ideals and compromises we've made along the way?

End quote. Well, Bruce, I didn't get this done in time for last year's presidential election. Would it have changed things? I mean, probably. And you know, and I will single-handedly claim responsibility for everything that's happened since. But you are right. 1776, I think, is often thought of as a very nationalistic, very traditional musical, and it's far more complex and deserves its own conversation. This episode also marks the next great entry in our mini-series here on the Musical Theater Podcast dedicated to the American Dream. And in many ways, this musical looks at where that audacious, practically impossible, but somehow still aspirational anvil of hope comes from. Our guest, who has been interested in 1776 since he was basically a toddler, can't wait to hear that story, by the way.

As a full-grown adult, however, he managed the American Theater Wing, oversaw the Tony Awards for many years, as well as many of our country's finest theaters. His writing has been seen in the New York Times, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal. Everyone, please welcome not Roger Sherman, the delegate from Connecticut, but the great Howard Sherman! Yay!

[2:54] Howard Sherman: I'm pleased to be identified as an adult starting off this conversation, because you know that's rarely recognized.

[3:04] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: I feel like it's important. Not just an adult, but a full-grown adult, Howard, so you're welcome. I am so grateful you're here, however. More than anything, I just need to hear your connection to the show, because we went back and forth a lot trying to figure out a show for you to talk about, and then here comes the dream that I didn't know was coming, which is that you have an undying love for 1776.

[3:31] Howard Sherman: I can't go quite as far as saying undying love, but I have a deep, deep affection for the show, and it stems back to, believe it or not, before I'd even really started going to the theater and was a little kid growing up in New Haven, Connecticut, which of course was home to the Schubert Theater, which in an earlier era was such the home of shows trying out before they came into New York. When I was seven years old, there was this show coming to the Schubert—now I would know that it was an out-of-town tryout—called 1776. Apparently, I was trying to figure this out. I must have already been reading the arts pages of the New Haven Register, because I learned about this show, and what specifically appealed to me was not, oh, I was a theater kid.

I wasn't a theater kid yet, because I barely knew what theater was, but I read about this show, about the early days of the founding of the U.S., and I was at age seven in the way that only seven-year-olds can be, obsessed, but in my case, it wasn't with dinosaurs. It was with Ben Franklin, and because Ben Franklin would be in this musical, I really wanted to see it. I remember, and my parents long remembered, my asking them if we could go, and I also vividly remember my parents saying no, and in trying to assuage my seven-year-old disappointment, said to me that they'd heard it wasn't very historically accurate, and so that was meant to explain to me why I wouldn't actually want to see 1776, and such was my obsession.

I have to tell you this, complete digression, but my parents, to deal with my Ben Franklin mania, had mentioned to me that one of our neighbors in New Haven, literally a couple houses away, was an expert on Benjamin Franklin, and that she taught at Yale University, which even a seven-year-old in New Haven knows what Yale is. I remember that I would periodically pepper this woman with my seven-year-old questions about Benjamin Franklin, and it was just a few years ago that I suddenly got into my head the realization that, of course, I had no idea. She could have just been a history professor. What did I know? All I knew was her last name, because her first name was Mrs., and so I looked up Mrs. Lopez, Yale University, Benjamin Franklin, and lo and behold, she was a preeminent Benjamin Franklin scholar, who obviously was tolerating, perhaps with amusement, a seven-year-old's interest in this intellectual field of study that she herself had chosen.

[6:21] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: It's like Oscar Hammerstein and Sondheim, really, you know?

[6:26] Howard Sherman: It's not quite there, but you're right. It was extremely fortuitous, and I did not go on to become a noted Benjamin Franklin scholar. I can't even fully remember Lin-Manuel's lyrics for the cut Benjamin Franklin song from Hamilton, though I love the song, but it was just a sidelight to this whole youthful obsession. But flash forward to years later, when the film of 1776 would come on TV, and I'd be at home or visiting home as I got older. On the 4th of July, it was a holiday, and I'd plant myself in the den when 1776 was on and watch it. My parents would eventually realize, you know, they didn't know where I was, and they'd look and see me sitting in front of the TV, and they'd say, what are you watching?

And I would go, oh, it's a musical that I probably wouldn't like very much because it's not very historically accurate, and I'm in there singing my head off. So that is my affection for 1776. It's not that I will say, oh, I think it's the greatest musical ever written, or that there aren't other musicals that I have deep emotional attachments to, falsettos being one, but it is literally my earliest moment of when I said I wanted to go to the theater. There is no memory and no experience in my databanks that say otherwise, and that is why you're tolerating me here on this program about 1776. So I am not a Benjamin Franklin scholar, I am not a 1776 scholar, but I am a fan and it has a place in my heart as really perhaps the start of my interest in going to the theater.

[8:20] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That's beautiful. I love having all types of guests on the show. Sometimes we have people who are original cast members, sometimes we have writers of the show, and sometimes we have fans, because the intent behind the show is to explore its emotional impact, its cultural impact. And here is a young kid, Benjamin Franklin. I can't get over it, because my first introduction to Benjamin Franklin is that Disney cartoon where he has the mouse who's telling him what to do. Do you remember that?

[8:53] Howard Sherman: You know, I vaguely do. That may have been after my time for Disney cartoons, but I'm not thinking you're out of your mind for saying that to me. But Benjamin Franklin, what a fascinating guy. When you stop and think, and jumping into the history, let's not forget that it was only about five years before 1776 that Benjamin Franklin had his own musical. Ben Franklin in Paris. So he exerted some force. It's always surprised me that there's never been a big screen Benjamin Franklin docu-movie. I know there was recently a miniseries, which I did not get to see. But when you look at his influence, when you look at his inventions, his discoveries, his political and social impact, he's one of those people that you look at from that era and say, how did one person do this in an era when everyone wrote by hand, if nothing else?

[10:27] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Well, I was going to say, someone who is a supporting character in the play that we're discussing today, that's how many really fascinating characters from history are packed into the show. And probably why it's lengthy. I had the film on yesterday, and hearing you talk about being a child and plopping down in front of it, talk about a tension span that impresses me, sir, because most of my nieces and nephews can barely get through Moana, let alone speaking of Lin-Manuel.

[10:59] Howard Sherman: Well, it wasn't on TV when I was a child, to be clear, because the film didn't come out until 1972. So, by the time it found its way to television, I was already a teenager.

[11:15] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Well, okay. Even worse. Even crazier. But it is a show and a story and a film that requires attention, both because of its length and what it's asking you to invest in. It gets, really, most of the musical numbers out of the way in the first hour, many of them in the first 20 minutes, and then it asks you to sit down and watch. It's a musical that becomes a play, interestingly enough. I was thinking about this in contrast. It's the flip side of what David Henry Huang did with Soft Power, which is basically a play that becomes a musical. This is a musical that essentially becomes a play for its last hour. It has a couple of interruptions, but not many. I guess, between Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards, they never figured out how to do more to musicalize the debate, and Stone's writing was so strong, it carries you through.

You don't sit there going, for God's sakes, get out there and dance more. Which I felt in Newsies. No offense. I love Newsies. First time I've thought about Newsies in comparison to 1776, but please go on.

[12:40] Howard Sherman: No, but truly, there are a lot of shows written by very talented people, and I'm like, awesome, let's speed through this book scene. Can we take out the pauses? Can we get going to the next song? 1776, the script has me in the palm of its hand. I'm leaning forward, and this is the Peter Stone of it all, and we'll get into it. But to write a show that we all know how it ends, and he did it with Titanic as well. We all know how this is going to go, and yet we're still leaning forward in our chairs, can't wait to see what happens. Well, can't wait to see. You actually sit there and worry that it's not going to happen.

[13:18] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That it's not going to happen. I mean, in Titanic, maybe you sit there and hope, make them miss the ice cream this time. Maybe they'll be fine.

[13:32] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: The Declaration of Independence, what can and can't be included, the personalities that play, that it actually drums up suspense about the signing of the Declaration of Independence is truly a testament to its construction. So 1776, as we've said, and for maybe some of our international listeners who don't know, it is about the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was essentially ground zero for the United States finding independence from Great Britain in their colonial state. In order to talk about the creation of this musical, however, I want to first begin with Mr. Sherman Edwards. We've got a lot of Shermans today that we're going to be talking about. Sherman Edwards, composer, music and lyrics.

At this point, before writing 1776, he was mainly like a pop song guy, right? He'd written songs for C in September. He'd written for all kinds of people, Sarah Vaughan and Elvis Presley, if I remember correctly. But as the story goes, at least how I found it, is that he was working with collaborators doing the same old, same old, and at some point during the work session, he just got up and said, I can't do this anymore, and stomped out. Not stomped out, but felt this call to do something different. And in many ways, his collaborators said that that was the beginning of creating 1776. He wanted to add something more to his work other than just a great bop that's on the radio. So he, all intents and purposes, kind of begins this journey as a new Meredith Wilson from the Music Man, where he's going to write music, lyrics, and book all about the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He does so, and then the book has to be rewritten, I'm sure, for many reasons. Enter Peter Stone.

[15:31] Howard Sherman: Well, let's stop for a minute. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but he found a producer. Stuart Ostro found this script and said, there's something here, and wanted for it to go forward, but felt it needed something.

[15:50] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Sure. And now that something is, enter Peter Stone.

[15:55] Howard Sherman: Great. Yeah, 100%. So Peter, at this point, has he done Charade? He was already an Oscar winner. He had already done several very popular light thrillers, and starring Cary Grant, films starring Cary Grant and Gregory Peck, and very established as a screenwriter. He had only done two Broadway shows, Keen and Skyscreen.

[16:27] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That's right. Keen was his first Broadway outing. And Keen was earlier. Keen was around 1960, but he'd done those two shows, neither of which were majorly notable, but was better known for his writing for the screen. It is interesting, though, that during the 60s, you could have a flop like Skyscreen, and it still wasn't that big of a flop. There were probably still a couple bops that people loved to sing in, and it would get you enough momentum that maybe there's some more work coming down the tube. Peter Stone brings quite a bit to the script, maybe more than anything by centralizing it to the Congress, keeping it in, I don't want to say one location, but more centralized in one location. He also brings in some female characters in the face of Abigail Adams and Martha Jefferson. What else do you know?

[17:29] Howard Sherman: Honestly, I don't know. I was thinking as I was preparing to talk to you that I wonder where the Sherman Edwards papers exist, because it would be completely fascinating to read the version of the script that was handed to Peter Stone and see exactly what he restructured. But I don't know. I only know what is. I don't know what was.

[17:56] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Whenever one is creating a project like this, you have to be able to answer, at least for yourself, the why. Why are we doing this? Why are we creating the story? Certainly, Sherman Edwards had left his day job, as it was, to create a show like this. I took a moment in preparing for this episode to ask myself, and to be completely honest, chat GPT, what is so special about the American Revolution? If anything, what makes it different than any other revolution that's happened in history? Is it different than any other revolution? Can't we just quote 1776, or I'll have to say possibly paraphrase 1776, never before in the history of mankind has a colony broken from the main stem. A colony of people, number one, who were doing well, right?

All of these people, this isn't a revolution out of poverty in a way that maybe we see in Les Mis. This isn't a revolution of indigenous people standing up to their colonizers. These are people from Europe who are actually doing pretty darn well, and who are able to spark a flame based a lot on ideological themes and beliefs, right? So much—

[19:24] Howard Sherman: Beliefs and freedom. So much of the show is about freedom and liberty and rights, and not since you want to start with the American dream. Well, this is the quintessential American dream. It is about the dream of America. What was this country going to be separate and distinct from Great Britain, separate and distinct from the British Empire? So even before the idea of what individuals might have, in some cases even materially from the American dream, it was simply the idea that people had inalienable rights, not unalienable as is argued in the show, but inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That fundamental idea, and the idea that the government would derive not from something that was coming from heritage, but coming from what the people chose to give in authority to someone to help guide them, was in its way a truly radical idea in its day.

And the challenge for the musical, of course, coming almost 200 years after the founding of America, was to remind everyone that these were not simply givens, but things that, in fact, were not being given at all, and therefore had to be taken.

[21:05] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: And I would even argue humanizing the situation even more, because when I look back at this particular Broadway season, which I've always thought, and many people have argued, and I'm not interested in having the argument to be clear, that this is the year that ends the Golden Age, right? That Hair comes in in 1968 and 1969, and in many ways, 1776 is the last musical of the Golden Age. That's something that is said, right? And so, I've always thought of this Broadway season as being 1776 and Hair, like these two diametrically opposed musicals. But when I sat down to really look at things this time, I actually see how they're holding hands quite a bit, because in a way, it feels like 1776 in an era where we're trying to remind everybody about imperfect humans that run countries.

I mean, certainly that's what Hair is about, right? We have created messes, and we can't pretend that everything that we've done smells beautifully, right? So, 1776 in many ways is taking these very lofty figures that have been on money and have been on posters in every history classroom, and giving them sex drives, giving them wants, needs, making them a little prickly, having them argue, fight, be hypocritical. And I think that maybe as time has marched on from its premiere, the argument could exist that 1776 is somehow an apologist musical, that it tries to put a little bit of frosting on the deep problems that were at its founding. But when you look at the imperfect people that somehow figured out how to get together, I think there's quite a bit there to chew on in a beautiful way.

[23:17] Howard Sherman: Well, when you mentioned the relationship between Hair and 1776, I come back to what is 1776 about and what is Hair about. And it is about freedom, and it is about liberty.

[23:31] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Revolution.

[23:32] Howard Sherman: I don't think that Hair was so much about a particular revolution, a political revolution, but certainly a cultural revolution, and a social one. And so, in that way, they are related, and I think it's impossible not to look at both of those musicals as products of coming out during the depths of the country's involvement in the Vietnam War, at a time when young people, young men in that era were subject to the draft, they were questioning the leadership, they were questioning why we were even over there. Deaths were piling up. We were seeing it on the evening news. It was the first war that came into people's homes. Again, as a child, I remember being aware of the Vietnam War, and frankly, being aware of the draft, and how many years was it before I might get drafted.

Literally, I can remember the newspapers publishing draft numbers, and people's numbers coming up, and that was a very frightening idea to me. But I think what's important to frame it in your term of, was this the last year of the golden age musicals? I don't think 1776 qualifies as the golden age of musicals, because it doesn't follow the rules.

[25:00] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: You show me another golden age musical that's 30 minutes without a single song.

[25:07] Howard Sherman: Right. It doesn't follow the rules. It doesn't really have that structure of, let's introduce the village, let's have the I Want song. Its romances are already established. The only women that we see are already married, so it's not a question of couples getting together. Who's going to end up together? The AB couple? You could argue that there's an AB couple in that you have the Jeffersons and you have the Adams, but ultimately, to what you were saying about what Peter Stone brought to the musical, even those romances are in some ways interruptions. They humanize the characters, but they're not central. This would not pass the Bechdel test in any way, shape, or form. It's a radical musical in a different way than Hair.

Hair was stylistically, socially, culturally different. 1776, as you point out, sought to humanize people who we were all taught in school. 1776 benefits from the fact that we already have some idea of the history, but its success, and its success continues to be whenever it plays, is that it delves into aspects of the founding of the United States that are glossed over in certainly the earliest of history and social studies classes in education. I think 1776 is not a jingoistic musical. It is not a reactionary musical. It is not trying to sell you on America as an untarnished ideal. In a moment where we're literally seeing history rewritten in order to conform to an idea of American exceptionalism, I wonder if someone paying close attention to 1776 might not find fault in it because it does debate.

[28:05] Howard Sherman: Subsequent people doing revivals of inserting into the musical for political purpose of something more apt, yet it is not only from the musical, it's from Franklin. That's where 1776, for all of its formality, and I will say that it has a formal feeling, if not a classic musical feeling, does provoke a lot of debate that I think is incredibly valuable, and it's why the show holds up at 55, 56 years on.

[28:42] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Thank you for saying it so beautifully. No, you're exactly right, Howard. Let's look a little bit more at the season before we continue on, because as it turns out, and I had forgotten, there were other musicals this season. There are other big musicals this season, but I just always forget about them. Promises, Promises, also this season. Big, big hit, and Zorba. Was Zorba a hit? Zorba was a moderate success. I don't think it was, it was not a smash. It's coming out of Cabaret. It was Herschel Bernardi, who at that point had probably already done Fiddler on the Roof. I can't be sure. Somebody's going to come at me and say, no, Bernardi did Fiddler on the Roof later. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but yes, it was coming out of greater successes, let's just say that.

[29:38] Howard Sherman: Absolutely, and by the way, no one come for him, okay? We can't attack our own at this point.

[29:42] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: I don't know, Peter Felicius listening to this program is just going to call me immediately. Peter, you can call me and come on the show, all right? So then the reason I remembered that there were other shows is because I saw how many Tony Awards 1776 won, knowing that it had won Best Musical, won three, which by the way, probably would have won more if Best Book and Best Score had been separate awards at that point. It wasn't in that particular season, but you, sir, being someone who oversaw the Tony Awards for quite a few years, what else can you tell us about the Tonys at this time? There were some weird kind of rules.

[30:19] Howard Sherman: Well, I don't think the rules were weird. The rules were of their time and I was one of the people involved in running the Tonys. I was certainly by no means the Uber voice of the Tonys. In fact, a lot of the administration stuff is run by committee. So I just want to be clear on that. But that said, when we talk about the number of Tony Awards that 1776 won, there is an obvious gaping hole, which is it did not win Best Actor for William Daniels, who gave—

[30:50] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Who's playing John Adams.

[30:52] Howard Sherman: We know from the film and we know from the cast recording and we know from accounts of the show, was giving the performance in that show. Star performance. Why did he not win the Tony Award? Well, he didn't win the Tony Award because in that era, to be considered Best Actor, you had to be billed above the title. If you were billed above the title, you could be Best Actor or Best Actress. If you were billed below the title, you were considered supporting. In the case of 1776, because no one in the show was a huge star, probably the best known person in the show was Howard DaSilva playing, yes, Ben Franklin.

[31:33] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Ben Franklin.

[31:35] Howard Sherman: I think we could give a little counter in the corner, how many times I managed to mention Franklin in here. But William Daniels was unquestionably the star of this show, but because the billing for everyone was below the title, he was nominated in Best Featured Actor, and he declined the nomination.

[31:54] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: He was like, no thank you.

[31:56] Howard Sherman: Much, I don't know William Daniels. I don't know William Daniels. I feel like the William Daniels I imagine is the person I've watched him play over and over again in 1776. And he had the good sense to say, you know what? I'm not supporting this show. I'm the lead in this show. And so, denied himself what I would think would have been a slam dunk Featured Actor, but he wasn't featured. He was the main attraction.

[32:25] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: What hill are you going to die on, Mr. Feeney? By the way, for those who are Boy Meets World fans, he was the teacher in Boy Meets World.

[32:32] Howard Sherman: Well, you know, the funny thing about William Daniels is you can go through eras of how people know William Daniels, because there's also the fact that William Daniels was the voice of Kit, the talking car on the TV series Knight Rider with David Hasselhoff.

[32:47] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: No way, Knight Rider?

[32:48] Howard Sherman: Yeah, that's like my older brother's era for sure.

[32:52] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: So, you know William Daniels from that. And then between Boy Meets World and Knight Rider, he was on a very popular television series called St. Elsewhere.

[33:04] Howard Sherman: And played a somewhat John Adams-like doctor. I mean, I think he was probably cast. So, William Daniels had this extraordinary career and may not be by any stretch of the imagination a household name, but all of that really was launched by his performance in 1776.

[33:23] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That is what put him on the map.

[33:25] Howard Sherman: And John Adams really is the driving force of energy in the show. I mean, it is such an important role within—

[33:35] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: The show is structured—

[33:36] Howard Sherman: Within a show that has many roles. You are watching it from John Adams' perspective. John Adams is our way into the show. As we said, any number of people who were involved in this history could have been the lead person in a story about the founding of the United States of America. There could be a George Washington musical. There could be a Benjamin Franklin musical. There could be a John Hancock musical. We got the John Adams musical. Hamilton is sort of proof of this, that there were all of these extraordinary people, each of whom had more than enough to validate their centrality in American history.

[34:24] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: It's so true because when I was reviewing the show, one of the gags, one of the bits in the show is that New York is constantly abstaining. And then I think John Hancock, who's president of the Congress at the time, says, what is happening in New York? And this time when I heard it, I thought, you know what's happening? Hamilton. There is a universe where this is all happening at the same time. I'm kind of obsessed.

[34:51] Howard Sherman: It leads to one of the most reliable jokes, what you just raised, what leads to one of the most reliable jokes in the entirety of 1776, not a show known as a yuck fest, though it certainly has its laugh. And the response to John Hancock's question is, have you ever been present at a meeting of the New York legislature? They speak very fast and very loud and nobody pays any attention to anybody else with the result that nothing ever gets done. Well, you say that line, certainly in New York City, then the New Yorkers laugh in recognition. And if you say that line anywhere else, then everybody laughs because they want to laugh at New York. But it's a pretty great laugh line in a show about the founding of the United States.

[35:37] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Well, we're not going to be able to talk through the entire show because once again, it is dense and so many characters, all of whom I think are really beautifully drawn. They have more colors than I think you'd expect. But there are a couple that we should definitely point out. We got John Adams, of course, who begins the show with this monologue saying how ineffective Congress is.

[36:02] Howard Sherman: Oh, I want to come back to that monologue. I'm ready for that monologue.

[36:02] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Great. Then we'll come back to it. Then we've got Benjamin Franklin.

[36:08] Howard Sherman: John Dickinson. Remind us who John Dickinson is.

[36:10] Howard Sherman: John Dickinson is the highly articulate, gentlemanly foe of John Adams, who does not stand for independence. He sees it as treason, basically.

[36:25] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: He sees it as treason. But Dickinson is such a great invention because it points out something that you were alluding to, that the characters are all shaped and rounded. There are no villains. There are no true villains in 1776. Again, avoiding anything that would seem like the construct of a classic musical. Yes, there are antagonists, but they are antagonists with honor, even to the point that Benjamin Franklin points out that these are not nobodies. They are the cream of their communities who have been sent to represent them. And so, Dickinson, along with Rutledge, are both intelligent men who have different beliefs than our heroes, the Adams-Franklin-Jefferson triad, but they're not bad men.

[37:27] Howard Sherman: And they have points that are valid and, like you said, are representing communities. I think is it Lyman Hall who, in the very first vote to see who's for independence, who's not, he says, I find myself leaning more towards yes, but I know that I'm coming from a community that leans more towards no. And so, until I really kind of figure out where I stand on this, I need to go with the people that I represent. Well, again, if we want to relate to what's going on in the country now, as we're watching these incredible machinations being done to alter congressional districts to advantage themselves, you do see these representatives struggling with the idea of, are they there to represent what the people want, what they have a sense of?

And there were no polls in those days, but sort of a sense of popular opinion, however that was formed, given the media of the day, or what they personally believe, and that struggle over how they should vote. They're not doing it for the purpose of winning the next election, because we don't even have this system of elections set up as we know them now, but just for the purpose of what is their responsibility as elected representatives in their states, or their colonies, I should say. I misspeak, because they weren't even states yet.

[39:01] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Exactly right. Speaking of the colonies, there's one person that I will never forget what colony they came from, and that is, of course, Mr. Richard Henry Lee from Virginia. That is the song that gets stuck in my head, and is also, as an educator, such a great point for how music helps us learn our history. Because of that song, anyone who sees the show will never forget that Richard Henry Lee is from any other colony besides Virginia.

[39:31] Howard Sherman: No, we get that, and Lee is actually one of the more fun characters in the show. While he does ultimately introduce the resolution on independence when he returns from the trip that he's setting up in the Lees of Virginia, that number is probably the most exuberant, light-hearted, funny, conventional song in the show. Again, out of the way after 20 minutes.

[40:02] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: After the first 10 minutes. I remember my AP history teacher showing this in high school, and unfortunately, all we got to was, you know, here Lee, there Lee, and I think everybody in the class was like, what are we watching? And then the bell rang, and then we were done. But little did they know how much good stuff was coming after it. Who else do we need to talk about? Of course, Thomas Jefferson.

[40:30] Howard Sherman: Well, Jefferson in the show is portrayed as the intellect and a man struggling with what he's written and what everyone else wants to do with it.

[40:38] ⚠ About 14 minutes of audio could not be automatically transcribed.

[54:10] Howard Sherman: And spilled our blood. And still this Congress won't grant any of my proposals on independence, even so much as the courtesy of open debate? Good God, what in hell are they waiting for? Now, why did I just do that, aside from the fact that I never had the chance to play Adams? I did that because, and all reasonable offers will be accepted, absolutely. The reason I did that is in a few short sentences, Peter Stone managed to define the character of John Adams as a man who is impatient and angry and not willing to stand for the status quo. He set up exactly where we were in time when the show begins into understanding where in the process of seeking independence we were. It's funny because of the three or more become a Congress.

You want to get an audience on your side, make fun of lawyers, and then make fun of politicians. Are you kidding me? And that is simultaneously the overture and the opening lines of 1776. And then they launch into the song. But we already know so much with an incredible economy of construction that it remains to me just a brilliant, brilliant piece of writing. And whether it's Stone or whether it's Edwards or whether it's both of them, I can't answer that. Someday, I'd love to know. It sure works like gangbusters. Probably 60 words.

[55:54] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That's beautiful. And I hadn't even considered that it's not a song, that it's that effective without even a note of music. But then the introduction of "Sit Down, John," right after it, is so instrumental to creating maybe the one thing that the monologue doesn't, which is setting. Where are these guys? How hot is it? How annoyed are they? You are laying the foundation of all of these details that are so informative to what's about to happen.

[56:25] Howard Sherman: And you are laying the foundation for what is central to the success of the show, which is that this is going to be a show about debate. This is going to be a show about argument. This is going to be a show about ideas, in some cases opposing ideas, being played out before you. So the song does set you up for all of those songless scenes two hours later, where it's just about what are the points to be made and where is it going to stand?

[56:59] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: So true. 1776 has this emotional truth that creates a feeling even with the dense and like formality that you mentioned earlier. There is this accessibility because of the humans and the emotional stories that you see. We mentioned "Mama Look Sharp" at the beginning of the second act. And this is a beautiful ballad that reminds us that people are dying, right? That for all of this debate, it isn't necessarily just about ego, though there are quite a few egomaniacs in the Continental Congress at that time. There are people whose lives are being lost. In the case of the song, it's a young boy who has just lost two of his best friends, and yet is still continuing to be the courier and doing his job.

So I find it so, like I said, relatable. It's a really, really sharply constructed show, and I dare say it didn't create a spate of shows imitating it. I don't know that you can really look and say, oh, well, 1776 was a hit. It was certainly a hit in its day, but it didn't unleash a raft of other shows like it. And again, you really have to come all the way to Hamilton, and Lin-Manuel has acknowledged the influence of 1776 on Hamilton, even right down to having a sit-down John line in it, which would come from nowhere but 1776.

[58:32] Howard Sherman: As I talk about political musicals, I want to bring up one more because I think it's another one which would not exist without its awareness of what 1776 achieved, and that's Suffs. What's fascinating about Suffs is Suffs is a show that I saw when it first premiered off-Broadway at the Public Theater, and then saw it a couple of times when it moved to Broadway. Suffs underwent a very significant transformation. At the Public, it was an admirable musical which gave us a lot of history that we didn't know about the suffrage movement and the women behind it. When it reached Broadway, it had been significantly revised, and it really focused more on the core of what was being achieved, the goals and the emotions of the movement.

It gave us less history and gave us more aspiration. In doing so, the revised version was, and I can only say this because I am a fan of it, it gave us a greater success than its earlier version, and I think it connected with audiences more successfully. And I think it's absolutely, you can look to Hamilton, you can look to Suffs as fascinating companion pieces, both thematically, structurally, and historically in terms of musicals. So I wanted to shout out Shaina Taub, who I think did amazing work, and as you say, you talked about Sherman Edwards being Meredith Wilson-like in doing book music and lyrics. There are very few people in the history of musical theater who have successfully done that, and both Shaina and Lynn fall into those categories.

[1:00:31] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That's interesting, the kind of talent that people have to possess in order to create a musical that's about American history. This has been so wonderful. The final thing that I wanted to discuss is, of course, the ending, which is that the Declaration of Independence is signed. They come to a place where they agree to sign it. Infamously, they recreate this painting, this picture of everybody in Constitution Hall. I think the question that I have, in a time where I see so many of us not knowing how to disagree anymore, do you think 1776 is a good example of how to debate?

[1:01:14] Howard Sherman: Yeah, I would say it's absolutely an aspirational goal, because even when there's impatience, there is ultimately respect, and people may walk out, but they come back. They're all willing to stop and laugh every so often, because there are jokes made in 1776, which are the characters making a joke in the context of what's being spoken, not a joke just for the audience, but a joke for one another in that room in Independence Hall. So yeah, I wish we could still have political debates over issues that come from a place of fundamental respect, and also respect for the office that they represent, that they are not there just to say whatever comes into their head, and they're not playing to the masses. They are there to achieve higher goals. I wanted to say something that maybe you'll stick in somewhere, and maybe you won't, but as much as we talk about Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone, I think something needs to be said as well about the original director of 1776.

[1:02:26] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Peter Hunt, yes, of course.

[1:02:28] Howard Sherman: Because Peter Hunt figured out how to do this show without forcing more on it that was conventional, that he was willing to let these things play out, that he felt that he could stage it in a way where he didn't need to break up a 30-minute segment of the show with songs. I think his willingness, his ability to do that and keep it moving and keep a show of argument, I think is an enormous credit. And when we see the film, about which I love because it's a record, it maybe at times feels a little bit stodgy, but at least we do get to see, given that Mr. Hunt directed the film of his own Broadway show, a relative rarity, we do have a record of what it was close to like in the theater back in 1969, 1970, and I think that's quite remarkable.

I just think we should never forget when we talk about the creation of shows any more than I wanted to forget the producer who first plucked up Sherman Edwards and said, I think we can do something with this, Stuart Ostro. We must give credit to the original director who created something so indelible. And I'll mention that possibly the very first time I ever saw it staged, I have to think through the timing, was a production at the Williamstown Theater Festival in the late 80s directed by Peter Hunt, who used the original design and some of the actors, not many, if any, of the original cast, but actors who had appeared in the show in the original Broadway run. I had a conversation when I was working on my book with his niece, Helen Hunt, about the Sing Sing production, and she regretted that she had not known anything about it. Again, not that it was widely publicized, but she talked about how much she wished she had been able to see that because, of course, of her uncle's work on the original production.

[1:04:40] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Beautiful. Thank you for reminding us of that. As always, if you have recommendations, just like our friend Bruce, who requested 1776, please email me at amusicalpodcast@gmail.com. It may take me a couple of years, but we'll get around to it because I've got to find great guests like Mr. Howard Sherman. Remember to join us on Patreon for bonus episodes, for polls, for essays, all sorts of things. I love our community over there. We're having a great time, and we just began Dreamcast. Were you Dreamcast? In which I have somebody come over, usually a guest from our Patreon subscribers, to discuss what their Dreamcast of a musical would be. Super, super fun. More than anything, just know that I love you being a part of this wonderful podcasting community, so follow us on social media. Share us. Let it be as big as it can be because I love the community to keep growing. Howard, what do you want to plug? What do you got coming up? Tell us about books.

[1:05:36] Howard Sherman: I can plug the fact that I'm now doing some writing for Broadway World.

[1:05:42] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: No way! That's wonderful.

[1:05:43] Howard Sherman: So you can find my column there every other week, and I'll continue to be doing some features for The Stage in London, where I've been writing for more than a decade. I've had a conversation with my editor about some book ideas. I now have to buckle down and pursue one of them, since he sort of liked them all.

[1:06:04] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Wow. I mean, come on. That's great. Also, so much work.

[1:06:10] Howard Sherman: Yes. So much work.

[1:06:11] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Yes. I do think back on the depths of my despair when I was writing the first book, but now that I've done one, I have more of an idea, and I want to do something different, but it'll still be about theater. I don't know anything else.

[1:06:28] Howard Sherman: That's wonderful. Is there any way that we can follow you? You have a great website.

[1:06:35] Howard Sherman: My website is HESherman.com, and I am H.E. Sherman on most socials except for TikTok because I don't dance.

[1:06:41] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Yet.

[1:06:41] Howard Sherman: Oh, no. I think I've made it this far in life and acted in enough musicals in my youth. I don't even think Jerry Mitchell or Susan Stroman could do something with me.

[1:06:54] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: We're producing 1776 again. You will be Ben Franklin, and we'll add a dance break into Richard.

[1:07:00] Howard Sherman: No, I just want to interpolate Lin-Manuel's song. I don't need a dance break. I just want to interpolate that great song that he wrote and that the Decembrists did the music for, and I would like to just be able to sing out that I am Benjamin fucking Franklin.

[1:07:17] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Ah! Everybody, thank you for listening, and remember, Benjamin Franklin.