Could Point of No Return not be said to be more half way between the two? While it is a rehearsed song the characters are aware they are singing, it is also a character driven song, about the situation the characters are currently in, as opposed to the Hannibal or Il Muto sections of POTO. The same could be applied to Think of Me, although it is not as much so as Point of no Return. And then, the title song of POTO, at the end, the Phantom is directly telling Christine to sing, so again, not a clear separation.

I can think of several shows off hand that use this, Love Never Dies is obvious, as it is the same style as it's sequel. Chicago and Cabaret play with this idea, I would say, staging character rehearsed numbers, that are nevertheless explicit to current character events.

Even Cats could be said to use this, as the characters constantly reference their own singing and dancing, and the fourth wall is completely discarded, as the characters spend half the show directly addressing the audience.

Both yes and no. The distiction lies in the form of the songs, not the content. I think it's brilliant when diegetic songs, like those you mention, turns out to fit both the show within a show and the situation of the characters that are aware that they're singing a song. In fact, I think that is the only really good reason to include a diegetic song in a musical. But they are still diegetic numbers.

It's like The Moustrap, the play within the play in Hamlet. It's totally about Hamlet's situation, but it's still a play within the play.

Cabaret obviously have both diegetic songs (the repertoire of the Kit Kat Klub etc) that also comment the events of the play and mimetic songs that functions as monologues or dialogues for the characters in the play.

Chicago doesn't have many diegetic songs. The inmates of the prison haven't actually rehearsed the Cell Block Tango, for example, although the film presents it as a "performance".

When the Phantom tells Christine to sing, I suppose he's referring to her vocalisations, which may be a diecetic part of the otherwise mimetic song. I think Cats sort of blurs the line, which makes it messy, imo.

Is I am totaly wrong or isnt the last song of Chicago a diagostic song? You have two entereiners that are totaly awere of that they are just that and that they are in the midst of an number. Another example would be when Cathy Seldon does her little behind the curtain performance in Singing in the Rain, even thou I totaly lost the title off the song now.

Its severel musicals where you have characters that are performers, and as such has songs where they perform, or train for performances. POTO is obviously one.

I would also say that when Christine sings for Phantom in the title song that part is totaly a diagostic song, after all shes a singer and is asked directly to sing by her friend. I dont think that the Phantoms track in that song is diagostic thou, but I might be misstaken.

I think you're right.



Yes. Cabaret, Follies and Gypsy are other obvious examples.

But as Mungojerrie correctly points out, there is also a difference between diegetic numbers that are about the theme of the show and diegetic numbers that are only diegetic numbers. For example do songs like Rain On the Roof and Ah, Paree in Follies, and A Night of a Thousand Stars in Evita nothing else than add mood to the show, they are pure props - while songs like Good Thing Going in Merrily, Love Never Dies in LND and If You Could See Her Through My Eyes in Cabaret comments the action or themes in their shows respectively.