Based on the Hungarian play Liliom by Ferenc Molnar, Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Carousel first opened on April 19, 1945. To many, the “poignant story of the faithful Julie and her brutish husband Billy is one of the most powerful books of the musical theatre . . . ,” the score to which “was considered one of [Rodgers and Hammerstein’s] best and finest works.”¹ However, despite Carousel’s initial acclaim, the musical (and others from the same time period) have been recently criticized for upholding, if not reviving, sexist and outdated social mores. When it came to relationships, golden-age musicals (such as Carousel) were notoriously sexually conservative, a belief that was common in Western society at the time (the “American Dream” was the ultimate symbol of freedom and democracy and the family was at the center of it all).² This concept is both upheld and satirized by two versions of Carousel’s “What’s the Use of Wondr’in”: the original and a more recent cover by singer-songwriter Amanda Palmer.

Before I begin, I would like to mention that the problem with analyzing songs from musicals; however, is the lack of traditional “artistic ownership,” if you will. Over the years, many different actresses have performed “What’s the Use of Wond’rin” under the supervision of many different directors. Ergo, there are many different renditions that can convey different nuances while still falling within the context of the musical. Thus, for the purpose of this post, I have decided to consider the version from 1956 film (sung by Shirley Jones).

“What’s the Use of Wondr’in” is an example of golden-age musical theatre and thus contains specific musical features. Jones’ singing is operatic and the instrumentation is melodic and unsyncopated. The lyrics (which is built off the eponymous riff) help drive the plot: during this scene, the protagonist Julie (Jones) confides in her fellow women and advises them of their mutual roles in romantic relationships. Julie, who has recently become pregnant, is concerned about her unemployed husband Billy’s increasingly distant and erratic behaviour (he had even hit her during the previous act).³ However, Julie explains that she is determined to stay with Billy in spite of everything in “What’s the Use of Wondr’in:” Julie laments that romantic relationships are oft difficult and can end in heartbreak. However, the fact that the women love their respective partners is all that matters. Whether these men “are good or bad” is irrelevant: they are products of their environment (the same environment that brought their wives to them). Therefore, due to their love (deserved or otherwise), women will ignore the “rest” and remain devoted. In the scene, Julie appears content and at peace as she comforts her tearful friend. As she faces the crowd of women, she appears to encourage a general sense of optimism. Julie seems to accept her husband’s faults. Even as she looks to the heavens near the end of the song, Jones’ performance cements the underlying message of the song: that the interactions between men and women are up to fate and the things that happen are simply the cost of love.

While Carousel was initially lauded by audiences (despite the fact that critics found the second act slow and strange), the musical has been viewed less favorably in recent years and has even earned the nickname “the wife-beater musical.”⁴ While other films and musicals during the mid-century did address various so-called “gender problems,” Carousel was one of the first films to acknowledge domestic violence in such a frank way. It is worth noting; moreover, the specific nuance that accompanies the term “domestic violence” (an expression coined during the 1970’s): “gender crimes” such as rape and domestic violence were thought to happen sequestered behind closed doors (for example, while everyone knows about Billy’s mistreatment of Julie, they choose to do very little about it).⁵ Domestic violence is also addressed in Carousel’s source material, Liliom, albeit in a more serious way. The other characters in the play, including Julie herself, openly condemn his behaviour.⁶ Liliom is unpleasant and deeply unsympathetic, which can explain the apparent disconnect between the way Billy is presented as a hero and how he acts like a villain.

“Liliom is a lout. He has no redeeming qualities. When he dies, you feel nothing. What humanizes Billy in the musical are the songs, ‘If I Loved You’ and ‘Soliloquy.’ They give him humanity. The bench scene . . . couldn’t come out of [Liliom] . . . When he hits Louise, I think, that’s Liliom up there, not Billy Bigelow. Liliom is hateful. He made me angry.⁷

Thus, while the characters of Liliom and Billy act in a similar way, Rodger and Hammerstein attempt to make Billy an antihero (rather than a villainous protagonist) by showing that he really does love Julie after all. Furthermore, Carousel attempts to portray Billy’s violence as signs of his inward devotion. During the play’s second act, the spirit of Billy slaps his teenaged daughter, Louise, after meeting her for the first time. However, Louise later remarks to her mother that the slap didn’t hurt at all:

Louise: There was a strange man here, Mother… and he hit me, hard. I heard the sound of it, Mother. But it didn’t hurt. It didn’t hurt at all. It was just as if he’d kissed my hand.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louise: But is it possible, Mother, for someone to hit you hard like that, real loud and hard, and not hurt you at all?

Julie: It is possible, dear… for someone to hit you hard, and it not hurt at all . . . ⁸

To many modern audiences, this interaction is problematic, to say the least (of course, it had plenty of critics at the time. Jones herself admitted that plenty of viewers found Julie’s final phrase appalling).⁹ Such controversy is addressed in Amanda Palmer’s modern, feminist cover of “What’s the Use of Wondr’in.”

As a long-time fan of Amanda Palmer, I find it a little bit difficult to categorize her musical tastes into strict genres. Personally, I find her to be a little punky, a little gothy, and usually righteously angry. Her music often showcases a dark sense of humor (for example, this song never fails to cheer me up on a tough day). In her cover of “What’s the Use of Wondr’in” (2009), Palmer does not stray lyrically from the original. As a song interpreter (rather than a classically trained vocalist), Palmer’s voice is significantly rougher than Jones’ while still maintaining an idyllic sweetness. The musical accompaniment is simple and features what I believe to be a keyboard simulating a celesta. However, Palmer veers greatly from Jones’ original in the way she presents the song. While the original is presented within the context of Carousel as a whole, Palmer’s cover is presented within the context of the music video. At the beginning of the music video, shots of blissful mid-century domestication (specifically, plates of quivering, brightly-colored gelatin salads) are interspaced with gritty, dimly-lit shots of weapons and various torture devices. As the video continues, a pastel-clad Palmer and her companion (Casey Long) dance and continue to construct various gooey culinary delights. Their exact relationship is unclear (are they best friends? Sapphic lovers? Family? Regardless, they appear to be extremely close). Again, shots of post-war rapture are interspersed between the dark-side of domestic women-hood: Palmer tearfully reveals a dark bruise on her shoulder while her friend consoles her and violent man yells and attacks an unknown figure (implied to be Palmer’s character) hidden behind a wall. Palmer and her companion return as the videos focus, coiffed and dressed in cocktail dresses (perhaps they are preparing for a dinner party?) Palmer and her companion impishly smiles and faces the camera. The girls hold hands and enter the dining table. The abusive man is prostrate and naked on the table. He has an apple in his mouth and is presented as a luau pig. The women sit down and pick up their cutlery, ending the video comically with implied cannibalism. The submissive lyrics of the song and the subversive images in the video serve as a paradox. As a result, it becomes apparent that the song’s lyrics (and traditionally accepted message is meant to be understood sarcastically and the “piece” (which includes the song and the video) should be classified as satire. While it could be considered a satire of Carousel in its entirety (Palmer’s character seems to be an anti-Julie who decides to eat her husband rather than justify his behavior. However, Palmer’s cover is somewhat removed from its original context and is presented as a stand-alone piece. Thus, while previous knowledge of the source material may be enriching, it should not be necessary. Nevertheless, through costume and recognizable cultural markers (for example, aspic and marshmallow casseroles), Palmer places her version of the song within the context of an oft politically-idealized timeframe, thereby criticizing the concept of traditional womanhood that features so strongly in Carousel and adapting the song for a new generation of angry women.

Endnotes:

1. “Carousel,” The Guide to Musical Theatre, accessed July 9, 2018, http://guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_c/carousel.htm; Patricia Álvarez Caldas, “What’s the Use of Wondering if He’s Good or Bad?: Carousel and the Presentation of Domestic Violence in Musicals,” Investigaciones Feminastas 3 (2012): 26, doi: 10.5209/rev_INFE.2012.v3.41133.
2. Ibid., 27.
3. “Carousel.”
4. Ann Sears, quoted in Caldas, 26; Laurie Winer, “Rodger’s and Hammerstein’s Carousel, After #MeToo,” Vulture, last modified April 11, 2018, http://www.vulture.com/2018/04/rodgers-and-hammersteins-carousel-after-metoo.html.
5. Caldas, 27-28.
6. Ibid., 28.
7. Roger Pines, quoted in Todd Rosenberg, “That wasn’t such a nice clambake: Some thoughts on the Carousel problem,” Chicago Reader, last modified May 1, 2015, https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2015/05/01/that-wasnt-such-a-nice-clambake-some-thoughts-on-the-carousel-problem.
8. Carousel (1956), quoted in Caldas, 30-31.
9. Caldas, 31.

Bibliography:

Caldas, Patricia Álvarez. “What’s the Use of Wondering if He’s Good or Bad?: Carousel and the Presentation of Domestic Violence in Musicals.” Investigaciones Feminastas 3 (2012): 23-32. doi:10.5209/rev_INFE.2012.v3.41133.

“Carousel.” The Guide to Musical Theatre. Accessed August 9, 2018. http://guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_c/carousel.htm.

Rosenberg, Todd. “That wasn’t such a nice clambake: Some thoughts on the Carousel problem.” Chicago Reader. Last modified May 1, 2015. https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2015/05/01/that-wasnt-such-a-nice-clambake-some-thoughts-on-the-carousel-problem.

Winer, Laurie. “Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Carousel, After #MeToo.” Vulture. Last modified April 11, 2018. http://www.vulture.com/2018/04/rodgers-and-hammersteins-carousel-after-metoo.html

For my third blog post I will be analyzing the song Fast Car in its original form by Tracy Chapman and the 2016 cover version of the song by Jonas Blue.  I would like to start this blog post by saying, although very different, both versions of the song are so great and I honestly can’t decide which one I like most!

The original version was written by Tracy Chapman in 1986 and launched her debut album ¹. The song is classified in the singer/songwriter genre but personally I feel it has a soft folk feel to it. I feel that the beauty in this song comes from the simple instrumentation, focusing on the chords of a single guitar. Tracy Chapman’s version of Fast Car is not elaborate or complex, it is more stripped back, putting on emphasis on the vocals.  I suppose that’s why it is considered singer/songwriter.  The track hit number 6 on the Billboard music charts and also won Chapman a Grammy ², its no wonder why so many artists choose to cover this song.

The recent cover done by Jonas Blue in 2016 also made the Billboard charts, peaking at spot 13 ³. Although this cover has the same lyrics to it, it has a completely different feel to it. This version would be considered in the dance or pop genre of music. It is also classified as “tropical house” ⁴ which is a genre I’d personally never heard of before.  Upon further research I discovered that tropical house can be defined as “a mix of catchy, melodic chimes and good vibes”⁵, which I would have to agree does sum up Blue’s version of Fast Car.

These two versions of the same song have so many differences I don’t even know where to begin analyzing.  As mentioned before, the lyrics of both theses songs are the same but I feel the message, the intended demographic and the overall feel of these songs could not be more opposite. One obvious difference is that the original song was released 32 years ago, so naturally this song is more popular to an older age demographic. For those super cool adolescents who do know the original version, it would be considered a classic to them. The Jonas Blue cover however was only released 2 years ago, attracting a younger age group of listeners. I bet a huge majority of people who have heard the Jonas Blue cover aren’t even aware that it is a cover song. With that being said, he made this song accessible to a whole new group of people by essentially bringing it back on to the charts so many years later. Another reason why the two version of this song resonates with such different audiences is due to their very different styles.  The original version is a slower more laid back tempo, the sound is simple. This is the kind of song I like to listen to when I am studying or winding down for the day. The cover version is the complete opposite. It is upbeat and complex and makes you want to dance, so much so that it is often played at the bars on a night out.  After listening to both, could you ever imagine Chapman’s version being played in a nightclub? Ya, me neither! So naturally, the two different sounds reach different people, not just due to age but also do to personal preferences in sound. One of my closest friends is a music enthusiast, who really appreciates the classics. When I asked him, he had never even heard of the new Jonas Blue version of Fast Car but at the same time he loves the original song.  On the other hand, my best friend and myself always sing the cover version when we are driving around together but she had no clue that it was a cover song from way back when.  They are both the same age, these differences were based solely on music preferences.

Lastly I think it is super cool how a song can have very different meanings even when there are no change in words. What I take away from both versions of this song is a feeling of reminiscing and wanting to escape your life for something different.  Chapman’s version feels almost sad, like she is remembering a time that left her heartbroken. When she says “I remember when we were driving in your car”it sounds like a blue memory that left her hurting. When she says “I want a ticket to anywhere” she sounds like she is unhappy with her life.  The cover version on the other hand makes you feel less like they want to run away and more like they want an adventure. When Jonas Blue says “I remember when we were driving in your car” he sounds like hes thinking back on a crazy fun adventure. Again, when he sings “I want a ticket to anywhere” it sounds more like he wants to go explore the world. The performance of these two songs in their music videos captures theses feelings as well. In Chapman’s music video she is portrayed alone, always being filmed in dark lighting with a slight shadow and her face looks sad, never showing a smile. In Blue’s video it shows two people taking an adventure around amazing scenery, living like wild adolescents. Overall the songs have a similar meaning behind them but the original comes off as a pessimistic view whereas the cover is more optimistic.  Now that is just what I take away from the songs. When I looked into it though Chapman does in fact state “It’s not really about a car at all… basically it’s about a relationship that doesn’t work out because it’s starting from the wrong place.”⁶ This statement would imply that I am not completely off track.

To conclude, I would just like to  reiterate that although I describe the original version as more dark and sad and the cover version as upbeat and happy, I do love them both equally. I have both songs on my phone and listen to them equally, just in different settings!

References:

¹ http://www.about-tracy-chapman.net/tracy-chapman-fast-car-meaning-fast-car-lyrics-fast-car-videos/
² https://www.billboard.com/music/tracy-chapman
³ https://www.billboard.com/music/jonas-blue/chart-history/hot-dance-airplay/song/961141
⁴ https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/fast-car-feat-dakota-radio-edit-single/1065675243
⁵ http://www.bassfeedsthesoul.com/tropical-house/
⁶ http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=3603

          Johnny Cash performs a heart-wrenching cover of Nine Inch Nails 1994 song “Hurt”. Replacing the angry sound of the original with a tired melancholy Cash’s version “brought it to a huge new audience in 2003” (Minay). Personally, I believe that Cash’s version is best appreciated through its music video, filled with flashbacks from the past “we see the aging singer in the near-derelict ‘House of Cash’, where he had lived from 1968 onwards, with the lyrics evoking images of his life and losses” (Minay). Here we glimpse images of Cash’s empire of dirt, as everything he built falls into decay and ruin as the singer reaches the end of his life. A lesson to us that we all grow old, and all our accumulated possessions with us.

Johnny Cash Cover (Music Video)

          Lunney contrasts the two versions in her article Nine Inch Nails Vs Johnny Cash – Which Version of Hurt Is Best? saying “NIN’s version speaks primarily of self-loathing, self-harm, and drug addiction while Cash focuses on the universal feeling of pain and deep sadness that makes you hurt.” It is perhaps in this contrast that each song finds its audience, with Nine Inch Nail’s version resonating with those journeying through self-harm and drug addiction, while Cash’s version speaks to the melancholy that we all sometimes feel.

          One of the only changes to the lyrics I noticed in Cash’s version was removing the profanities and replacing them with Christian imagery, such as the transition from “crown of shit” to “crown of thorns”. This shift in imagery reflects Cash’s more hopeful sound as opposed to Nine Inch Nails more destructive sound. Cash draws on the Christian imagery common in his genre to leave listeners with a feeling that behind the hurt there might be a purpose and a chance for redemption. Through this the songs meaning changes from talking about a hopeless pain to a hopeful one, opening it up to resonate with a wider audience. We all feel pain though life, and we all look for hope in those moments, a part of the human experience that this song connects with.

          Personally, I appreciate both versions of the song, but find myself listening to Cash’s version more often. It’s the kind of song that I find I want to listen too on rainy days, through melancholy moods, or break up blues. Hurt is a song that plainly acknowledges that sometimes life hurts us, but Cash’s rendition leaves us with a peculiar sense of hope, that if we are listening to it we are alive and we still have time for things to get better. If Cash leaving us this song at the end of his life embodied anything it would be a stoic reflection on memento mori, the practice of remembering that we will all die so that while we are alive we use the time we have to truly live. This is a cover that I would recommend anyone have in their library, it is the song to listen to on the low days, reminding us that higher days are still coming. It’s a song about pain, that leaves us with a sense of hope. I first heard this song in 2014, and it is one that I have not forgotten.

Bibliography

Minay, Michael. “Johnny Cash’s ‘Hurt’ Remains A Timeless Classic With An Unforgettable Video.” LADbible. September 12, 2017. http://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/celebrity-music-johnny-cashs-hurt-remains-timeless-with-an-unforgettable-video-20170912.

“Nine Inch Nails Vs Johnny Cash – Which Version of Hurt Is Best?” Louder Than War. June 01, 2013. https://louderthanwar.com/nine-inch-nails-vs-johnny-cash-which-version-of-hurt-is-better/.

Posted by Daily Stoic on June 27, 2017. “”Memento Mori”: The Reminder We All Desperately Need.” Daily Stoic | Stoic Wisdom For Everyday Life. May 18, 2018. https://dailystoic.com/memento-mori/.

          Johnny Cash performs a heart-wrenching cover of Nine Inch Nails 1994 song “Hurt”. Replacing the angry sound of the original with a tired melancholy Cash’s version “brought it to a huge new audience in 2003” (Minay). Personally, I believe that Cash’s version is best appreciated through its music video, filled with flashbacks from the past “we see the aging singer in the near-derelict ‘House of Cash’, where he had lived from 1968 onwards, with the lyrics evoking images of his life and losses” (Minay). Here we glimpse images of Cash’s empire of dirt, as everything he built falls into decay and ruin as the singer reaches the end of his life. A lesson to us that we all grow old, and all our accumulated possessions with us.

Johnny Cash Cover (Music Video)

          Lunney contrasts the two versions in her article Nine Inch Nails Vs Johnny Cash – Which Version of Hurt Is Best? saying “NIN’s version speaks primarily of self-loathing, self-harm, and drug addiction while Cash focuses on the universal feeling of pain and deep sadness that makes you hurt.” It is perhaps in this contrast that each song finds its audience, with Nine Inch Nail’s version resonating with those journeying through self-harm and drug addiction, while Cash’s version speaks to the melancholy that we all sometimes feel.

          One of the only changes to the lyrics I noticed in Cash’s version was removing the profanities and replacing them with Christian imagery, such as the transition from “crown of shit” to “crown of thorns”. This shift in imagery reflects Cash’s more hopeful sound as opposed to Nine Inch Nails more destructive sound. Cash draws on the Christian imagery common in his genre to leave listeners with a feeling that behind the hurt there might be a purpose and a chance for redemption. Through this the songs meaning changes from talking about a hopeless pain to a hopeful one, opening it up to resonate with a wider audience. We all feel pain though life, and we all look for hope in those moments, a part of the human experience that this song connects with.

          Personally, I appreciate both versions of the song, but find myself listening to Cash’s version more often. It’s the kind of song that I find I want to listen too on rainy days, through melancholy moods, or break up blues. Hurt is a song that plainly acknowledges that sometimes life hurts us, but Cash’s rendition leaves us with a peculiar sense of hope, that if we are listening to it we are alive and we still have time for things to get better. If Cash leaving us this song at the end of his life embodied anything it would be a stoic reflection on memento mori, the practice of remembering that we will all die so that while we are alive we use the time we have to truly live. This is a cover that I would recommend anyone have in their library, it is the song to listen to on the low days, reminding us that higher days are still coming. It’s a song about pain, that leaves us with a sense of hope. I first heard this song in 2014, and it is one that I have not forgotten.

Bibliography

Minay, Michael. “Johnny Cash’s ‘Hurt’ Remains A Timeless Classic With An Unforgettable Video.” LADbible. September 12, 2017. http://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/celebrity-music-johnny-cashs-hurt-remains-timeless-with-an-unforgettable-video-20170912.

“Nine Inch Nails Vs Johnny Cash – Which Version of Hurt Is Best?” Louder Than War. June 01, 2013. https://louderthanwar.com/nine-inch-nails-vs-johnny-cash-which-version-of-hurt-is-better/.

Posted by Daily Stoic on June 27, 2017. “”Memento Mori”: The Reminder We All Desperately Need.” Daily Stoic | Stoic Wisdom For Everyday Life. May 18, 2018. https://dailystoic.com/memento-mori/.