what is the most overrated musical of all time- Page 11

[Sivan2]

Posted: 10/18/17 at 12:51am

Mister Matt said: "A musical with rap and trying to have a diverse cast simply for the sake of being diverse and PC (but today's standards) is nauseating to me.

It's not "just for the sake of being diverse and PC". It was a very deliberate and brilliant artistic choice that makes perfect sense. Ditto with the musical styles he utilized and the characters/scenes they were assigned. Perhaps if you saw the show you might understand why he made the choices he did. It sounds like you find it "nauseating" because you've made a snap judgment without knowing much about the show at all."

Thank you for sharing your $0.02. I'll stick to being judgmental. 

[MarkinTex]

Posted: 3/28/18 at 5:29pm

I think about what makes certain musicals very popular, outside of New York, or even among dedicated theatre fans, is cast recording albums. Cast recording albums have turned many a teenager whose parents rarely took them to musicals into a lifelong dedicated theatre nerd.

People like to diss on Phantom and Les Mis, but I was around in the 80s and I remember how different and new they were in sound compared to the cornball Rogers and Hammerstein 50s stuff that was still getting regurgitated on stages around the country, the mainstays that were most Americans' idea of musical theatre just 35 years ago. Now people are trying to say they were never that good, never that innovative, but that's a little bit revisionist history. Because they were innovative compared to South Pacific and the Sound of Music, which were fresh compared to Showboat, which was itself innovative compared to what came before it. And you can bet that 25 years from now people will be saying that Hamilton wasn't all that.

So people fell in love with the music of Phantom, Les Mis, Miss Saigon, played on the cassette cast recording in their car walkman, long before they ever saw the actual shows. By the time the national touring production got to their town, they could mouth every word along with the actors. It's hard to be objective about a show on seeing it for the first time when you've already been in love with its' music for months, or more likely a few years. I think that's how shows get the kind of hype that makes some people, especially avid theatre goers, decide they are overrated.

On the other hand, just this weekend I saw Bright Star. Hadn't heard any of the music before going in. I have to say, there wasn't a single song that jumped out at me as a real anthem. I won't be rushing out to buy the cast recording album. The pacing wasn't great, especially in act 1, where it seems drawn out, then in act 2 where everything resolves itself too quickly. I don't think this musical is in any danger of becoming overrated. But it was still an enjoyable way to spend a Saturday night. But I digress.

My top truly overrated musicals?

First, Rent. Apart from being a deliberate ripoff (sorry, "adaptation") of La Boheme, which is fantastic, the musical sound of Rent, and a lot of the theme, is a ripoff of Hair (especially the song La Vie Boheme). Really the only good song was Seasons of Love. And talk about pretentious, self-important characters who are solely unlikeable. Benny is really the only sympathetic one, he's let his friends abuse his generosity and good will for way too long and even when he tries to help them out, they crap all over him and call him a sellout for not making pretentious drivel and calling it "art" like they do.

Jersey Boys. First of all, it's a jukebox musical, and like most jukebox musicals clumsily shoehorns familiar hits into a plot, with limited success. Second, the Frankie Valli falsetto, one of the most excruciating musical instruments inflicted on humanity since the invention of the bagpipes. Jersey Boys' success was primarily due to Baby Boomer nostalgia. We all know that shows don't make money on Broadway, it's the merchandising (including cast recordings) and when they go on tour that they make money. So they have to generate enough buzz in New York, market the sh*t out of their cast recording to build up anticipation for a a national tour. And here's what happens in the Middle America theatre world: your average middle class person in Omaha or Dallas doesn't start becoming a regular theatre goer until they got all their kids through college and now have the disposable income to buy season tickets. And by then they're late 50s, set in their ways, want something warm, comforting, nostalgic. Empty nesters in the 70s and 80s wanted the musicals of the 40s and 50s, which is why regional theatre stages were dominated by Rogers and Hammerstein. Now Baby Boomers want the music of their childhood, the doowop. That's why Jersey Boys did so well. (Or they want something they can take their grandkids to, hence the Lion King.)

Hamilton. They marketed the sh*t out of that cast recording. Lots of people eagerly awaited when it came to their town. But it's all gimmick. Take 1776 and set it to hiphop. Gimmick. With People of Color in Founding Father roles. Gimmick.

Spring Awakening, I felt like it was overrated circa 2006-2008, but generally the hype died out by the 2010s, so no longer overrated.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 3/28/18 at 6:05pm

Everything that has opened in the 21st century.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/28/18 at 8:32pm

People like to diss on Phantom and Les Mis, but I was around in the 80s and I remember how different and new they were in sound compared to the cornball Rogers and Hammerstein 50s stuff that was still getting regurgitated on stages around the country, the mainstays that were most Americans' idea of musical theatre just 35 years ago.

Starting in the early 60s, contemporary sound was already finding its way to Broadway and by the late 70s, the difference in sound to the classic and conventional Golden Age musicals had already settled in.

the musical sound of Rent, and a lot of the theme, is a ripoff of Hair (especially the song La Vie Boheme).

 

Actually, neither is a ripoff of Hair.  A lot of shows between Hair and Rent used rock orchestrations and COUNTLESS stories have been told in every medium expressing themes of bohemia vs capitalism as well as self-expression and discrimination.  The only thing Rent emulated much like Hair was its impact on a young generation at the time it premiered.

Benny is really the only sympathetic one, he's let his friends abuse his generosity and good will for way too long and even when he tries to help them out, they crap all over him and call him a sellout for not making pretentious drivel and calling it "art" like they do.

Okay, that's an excellent example of revisionist history!  Or perhaps the Trumpian exaggeration I would expect to hear from Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz or a Fox News talk panel.  Because that's not how it goes down.  But I will admit it's humorous to read.

Hamilton. They marketed the sh*t out of that cast recording. Lots of people eagerly awaited when it came to their town. But it's all gimmick. Take 1776 and set it to hiphop. Gimmick. With People of Color in Founding Father roles. Gimmick.

Sounds like you've never actually heard nor seen it.  Perhaps not thinking or understanding a show is your gimmick!

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 6:53am

^I'd add that it's bizarre to speak of Webber's scores as an innovation in relation to R&H.   MarkinTex, you not only crudely and dismissively trivialize R&H as "cornball," as if Webber were somehow the height of gravitas (seriously?)....  but regardless how one feels about Webber, your comment is laughably oblivious to the facts that there were many important musical titans before and or during the R&H era (Kern, Gershwin, Porter, Weill, Bernstein etc.); and that in between R&H and (and contemp with) Webber there were a great many famous examples of musical theatre composition highly distinguishable from both the R&H canon and Webber's oeuvre: from, among others, Styne to Loesser to Colman to Bock/Harnick to Schmidt/Jones to Kander/Ebb to Herman to MacDermott to Schwartz and, in case anyone else might have inexplcibly forgotten, Sondheim.

Updated On: 3/29/18 at 06:53 AM

[MarkinTex]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 12:00pm

Mister Matt said: "People like to diss on Phantom and Les Mis, but I was around in the 80s and I remember how different and new they were in sound compared to the cornball Rogers and Hammerstein 50s stuff that was still getting regurgitated on stages around the country, the mainstays that were most Americans' idea of musical theatre just 35 years ago.

Starting in the early 60s, contemporary sound was already finding its way to Broadway and by the late 70s, the difference in sound to the classic and conventional Golden Age musicals had already settled in.

the musical sound of Rent, and a lot of the theme, is a ripoff of Hair (especially the song La Vie Boheme).

Actually, neither is a ripoff of Hair. A lot of shows between Hair and Rent used rock orchestrations and COUNTLESS stories have been told in every medium expressing themes of bohemia vs capitalism as well as self-expression and discrimination. The only thing Rent emulated much like Hair was its impact on a young generation at the time it premiered.

Benny is really the only sympathetic one, he's let his friends abuse his generosity and good will for way too long and even when he tries to help them out, they crap all over him and call him a sellout for not making pretentious drivel and calling it "art" like they do.

Okay, that's an excellent example of revisionist history! Or perhaps the Trumpian exaggeration I would expect to hear from Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz or a Fox News talk panel. Because that's not how it goes down. But I will admit it's humorous to read.

Hamilton. They marketed the sh*t out of that cast recording. Lots of people eagerly awaited when it came to their town. But it's all gimmick. Take 1776 and set it to hiphop. Gimmick. With People of Color in Founding Father roles. Gimmick.

Sounds like you've never actually heard nor seen it. Perhaps not thinking or understanding a show is your gimmick!"

Looks like being an ass is your gimmick.

[Robert16]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 12:35pm

HAMILTON 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 1:00pm

1.  CATS  -- by several thousand miles

2.  Oklahoma -- I hate this show, despite the score.  The Ado Annie sub-story is downright embarrassing, it is so bad

3.  The Lion King -- great opening number and design, occasional scenes of visual brilliance, mediocre score, periodic intervals of sheer boredom

4.  Into the Woods -- I love most Sondheim shows...not this one.  I actually dislike the score, although I fell that there are several excellent ones.

5.  Avenue Q -- I really disliked it intensely.  My son loved it.  Maybe I was just too old for this.  

[fanatic3]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 1:10pm

The answer is Cats.

[Demitri2]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 1:13pm

Nope. It's THE PRODUCERS.

[denali.fire]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 2:51pm

Nope. It's Hamiltrash.

[haterobics]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 3:29pm

How am I not just the 261st person posting "Wicked"?!?

[Christoph]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 3:40pm

I second The Lion King.

[Nicole 10]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 3:56pm

Dear Evan Hansen, easily

[broadwaysfguy]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 3:59pm

most overrated of all time is a big statement...
im baffled that Cats ran so long on great costumes and choreography one great song and no story

lion king-again fantastic costumes and some great songs but a boring second act

these two are probably a tie for all time overrated from the 1960s on

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/29/18 at 11:46pm

Once (snooze fest)

Come from away (snooze fest)

Titanic (Snoozefest) 

 

Fun Home (Snooze Fest)

[MarkinTex]

Posted: 4/1/18 at 9:01pm

henrikegerman said: "^I'd add that it's bizarre to speak of Webber's scores as an innovation in relation to R&H. MarkinTex, younot only crudely and dismissively trivialize R&H as "cornball," as if Webber were somehow the height of gravitas (seriously?)....but regardless how one feels about Webber, your comment is laughably oblivious to the facts that there were many important musical titansbefore and or during the R&H era (Kern, Gershwin, Porter, Weill, Bernsteinetc.); and that in between R&H and (and contemp with) Webber there were a great manyfamous examples ofmusical theatre compositionhighly distinguishable from both the R&H canon and Webber's oeuvre:from, among others, Styne to Loesser to Colman to Bock/Harnick to Schmidt/Jones to Kander/Ebb to Herman to MacDermott to Schwartz and, in case anyone else might have inexplciblyforgotten, Sondheim."

How old are you?

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 4/1/18 at 10:25pm

Certainly not of "all time", but most recently I really don't care for Dear Evan Hansen and I don't totally understand the furor around it. The sound is a very big stumbling block for me - generally speaking, I don't really care for how most musicals in the last decade and change have handled having a "modern" sound. It usually translates to something that would be passable as the background jingle in a Target ad, or limp faux-grunge/alternative/2000s pop punk pastiche, or, god forbid, "guy who plays his acoustic guitar in the quad". I guess that's the equivalent of someone in the 80s complaining about disco musicals, but I just think it's a really, really boring sound.

The bigger problem I have is its handling of its material and subject matter. I appreciate the concept, which reminds me a great deal of Harriet the Spy, but, as someone who suffered in high school with both social anxiety and compulsive lying, it sucks. The drama is afterschool-special quality and twice as clumsy, failing to explore the true, discomforting darkness of the situation and sweating to make us as appreciative as possible of Evan and his actions, so much so that it almost comes across as a fictional hagiography. They throw out the possibility of a truly intense and meaningful story in favor of endless ushering of audience sympathies from vapidity to vapidity, tying everything up in a reassuring bow so everyone can go home and sleep well.

[Dave13]

Posted: 4/2/18 at 3:21am

Cats. Nothing more to say.

[mc1227]

Posted: 4/2/18 at 7:09am

I vote for ONCE and CATS.  

[JVJ93]

Posted: 4/2/18 at 7:44am

Hamilton, by leaps and bounds.

Followed by Dear Evan Hansen, Memphis, Grease.

[ShowToonz]

Posted: 4/2/18 at 12:56pm

Without a doubt, Hamilton.  Other honorable mentions include The Lion King, Dear Evan Hansen, Next to Normal, and Spring Awakening. 

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 4/2/18 at 1:04pm

Dear Evan Hansen, most definitely.

I’m not really sure CATS counts, since I see that show getting bashed all the time in theatre circles. How can something be “overrated” if theatre fans don’t seem to like it in the first place?

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 4/2/18 at 1:27pm

I think for shows that are really huge, like Hamilton huge or a notch or two below, being overrated doesn't mean it's bad per se, just that it's over-hyped to the point where nothing could match the hype it has received.

I do think there are some shows that were/are overhyped and bad though. For me, that's Wicked. I'm happy it turned all these new people in the past 15 years into theatre fans, and I admit the concept is a really good one. However, I find the music and book to be really bad and the staging to not be very inspired.

Updated On: 4/2/18 at 01:27 PM

[BroadwayAndSports]

Posted: 4/2/18 at 2:38pm

Billy Elliot and Once On This Island