Sad to see Honeymoon go...and this disturbing trend- Page 4

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 1:35am

 

Maybe the reason for the difficulty of new American musicals to succeed is something as simple as this: the music now is greatly inferior to the music of the "Golden Age." (I guess the golden age ended about the time that they stopped making films out of musicals and began to make musicals out of films.)

 

A few years ago, a PBS Great Performances put forth the proposition that the unique confluence of talented composers who wound up together in a small area of a small island made the musicals so special. I'll quote a little from a review in a San Francisco paper.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/tv/article/Broadway-Musicals-A-Jewish-Legacy-review-4149422.php

 

Michael Kantor, the man behind the Emmy-winning PBS series "Broadway: The American Musical," revisits the subject with a narrower but even more detailed focus in "Broadway Musicals: A Jewish Legacy," airing on PBS' "Great Performances" on Tuesday. The 90-minute documentary argues that without Jewish composers, the Broadway musical as we know it today would not exist.

 

Virtually every great Broadway composer of the 20th century was Jewish. One major exception was Cole Porter, who once said that the secret to songwriting success was to adopt themes and style from Jewish music. Listen analytically to such Porter classics as "My Heart Belongs to Daddy" and you'll hear the signature musical sighs of minor chords that derive from traditional Jewish songs.

 

 

The other Broadway greats didn't have to adopt a Jewish sensibility in their music: They were born with it. Just a list of the best-known composers from Broadway's past and present attests to that fact: Lorenz Hart, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein II (raised Protestant but the grandson of a Jewish theater owner), George and Ira Gershwin, Sheldon Harnick, Jerry Bock, Jule Styne, Jerome Kern, Kurt Weill, Leonard Bernstein, Stephen Schwartz, Stephen Sondheim

 

It's interesting to see what Cole Porter thought. As the outsider of the group his opinion is very valuable.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 1:56am

Doesn't the golden age of musical theatre end in 1965? Considering shows like Cats, Miss Saigon, Les Mis, The Phantom of the Opera, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Chicago, A Chorus Line, Jersey Boys all ran/running for years and years and years, i don't really think the music has any correlation with how long the show runs. I agree with a lot of things you say though OlBlueEyes. Hogan will just shoot anyone down lol

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 01:56 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:01am

"Maybe the reason for the difficulty of new American musicals to succeed is something as simple as this: the music now is greatly inferior to the music of the "Golden Age.""

 

Ain't that the truth.

But you'll hear people on this board proclaiming Jason Robert Brown a genius, the score for Marie Christine to be on a par with that of Porgy and Bess, and a child's whining her attraction to a delivery woman to sickly music a work of art.

Not to mention the accolades the critics lavish on this crap.

Out of touch much?

But we have no need of them, nor should pay them any heed. Our ears tell us all we need to know.

 

 

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 02:01 AM

[BobRandomGuyMan]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:12am

While I do think the score of Fun Home is way beyond what we usually hear on Broadway, I'm in agreement that Jason Robert Brown has to be stopped. Both Bridges and Honeymoon were subpar, and the Last Five Years film brought all of the glaringly bad material in that score under a microscope. I absolutely adore Parade, but it looks like we're never going to get that level of work from him again.

Furthermore, I still don't know what crystal meth Brantley was smoking when he reviewed Honeymoon. The only thing remotely funny about it was Nancy Opel's shrieking. Everything else fell pathetically flat and didn't even manage to make the baby boomers I was surrounded by crack a smile.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:32am

well i actually think if people went to see the show, the crowd would be a lot better, and there would be more audience reaction, which would make it better.  Ambience is a huge deal.  I don't really care about the audience though, I saw it on a Sunday Matinee and the energy was droopy, but I still laughed cause it was funny. If the theatre was filled with young people, I'm sure i would have had an even better time

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 5:40am

Oh, good lord.  Just put away the shovel before you hit China. 

More people would indeed make more audience reaction -- but BETTER audience reaction?  Maybe not.

Look up the word ambience.  The audience doesn't create it.

 

Yes, young people are to blame. 

 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 6:40am

It closed because not nearly enough people wanted to see it. Sometimes, it's just that simple. It has zero to do with Brantley power, trends, demographics, golden ages or Elaine Stritch's death.  Some shows people want to see, some people don't want to see.  Welcome to Broadway.  

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 06:40 AM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 8:06am

I imagine it will have a healthy life regionally and in college productions.

[evic]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 8:24am

The moronic producers of HIV sure had tons of money to flush down the toilet.  I was watching local NBC news last night after 11:00 pm......and there was a commercial for the show!!!!!  The had plenty of time to cancel all ads.  Unbelievable. 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 8:53am

evic - that's not really how it works. You don't "cancel" the ad campaign when you've already paid for the time. What you saw was probably leftover time bought at an earlier time and part of a much larger package/campaign. Since it was still Sunday and the show had technically been open on that day, they wouldn't have pulled the ad. But I can assure you that once Midnight hit, their ad buy agreement ended.

[philly03]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 10:14am

I also can't believe they didn't save their money and use it to buy a slot on the Tonys regardless if it gets nominated or not. Or save the money for the road. At least try to get some money out of licensing or the cast recording, which without a Tony performance I imagine this won't be that popular regionally. It's not exactly a "Bonnie & Clyde" famed-title.. How many regional productions have there been of "Leap of Faith"?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 10:19am

Blue Eyes,

Or maybe it's not that simple, and maybe there is nothing as facile as a simple explanation. What we do know about those golden age composers is that what they were writing was popular music, and that most of what is written for the musical theatre today is not. That goes far in explaining much of the mediocrity: we do not have the best of today's songwriters contributing to the genre. But do not let some tyranny of nostalgia guide your understanding of this complex subject.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 11:36am

The argument that a young audience would make the show survive or the reaction to the show better is absurd. I'm 30, right in the middle of the 20-40 demographic mentioned. I had no interest in seeing this at all. I can't tell you a thing about the movie and I am okay with that. Like I would have only been 8 when the movie came out. It didn't become some classic that most people will see. Actually, I cannot even think of one friend who could speak fondly of the movie. That's not to say it isn't good. But, I think it is stretching to say that 20-40 would be the audience looking to see this. I also do like Tony Danza a bit from seeing reruns of "Who's The Boss?", but he does not scream "I need to see this show now" for me.

 

And while it was a revival my favorite show of the season so far is Side Show. It was disappointing to see it close so soon, but it also is an example of a show that got good reviews that could not find an audience. And didn't the same happen to the original production as well? 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 11:52am

 

I said "maybe." Can't miss it. The first word. And I documented the theory with reference to a respected PBS documentary. You rarely see the need of documenting any of your assertions.

 

It is a complex topic.

 

What we do know about those golden age composers is that what they were writing was popular music, and that most of what is written for the musical theatre today is not.

 

This could be construed as circular reasoning. If the composers of musicals wrote better songs, then those songs would become part of the popular music, as we have seen with "Clowns," "Memory," "New York, New York."

 

Liked the show. A little spooky how almost all of you died prematurely. Maybe it was not such a good idea, highlighting the humorous side of Nazi Germany.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 11:52am

We also have shows like Wicked which didn't instant acclaim when it first debuted, but is still going strong financially to this day.

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 11:52 AM

[ggersten]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 11:59am

New York New York was written for film.

There are song composers on Broadway - Sting, Bono, Cyndi Lauper, Elton John.  Mencken writes songs that have a "pop" signature - and several of his Disney film songs are pretty well known.  Then there's that Wildhorn guy.  In any event, writing for the theatre - where the songs are mostly intended to be character and story advancing - is different from a 3-4 minute hook.  Although, I'm reminded that when I interviewed Marvin Hamlisch, he explained that he begged to have "What I Did For Love" kept in A Chorus Line saying "Michael, you got to let me have one hit song".  

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 12:06pm

Blue Eyes,

well, "maybe" was both my second and eighth words, so I think you should not have missed that I recognized that you used the word. On a happy note, we agree it is a complex subject.

I think the point about popular music is not circular or unimportant. Most musical theatre music since the so-called golden age is NOT popular, and the fact that a few songs have filtered through actually says more about the general state of the genre vis a vis popular music. The more important point is that most of the great songwriters today have not and are not inclined to write for musical theatre (at least not until their careers are in the waning stage). This is an enormous problem when the work is being presented in a popular commercial medium like Broadway . What we end up with are second or third rate writers whose work is, more often than not, mediocre, at least in terms of popularity, or (with limited exceptions) first rate songwriters phoning in music for a show. 

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 12:24pm

"If the composers of musicals wrote better songs, then those songs would become part of the popular music, as we have seen with "Clowns," "Memory," "New York, New York.""

 

Those songs were written 30-40 years ago.

 

"Better" has nothing whatsoever to do with it - are you saying that "Single Ladies" displays "better" music and lyrics than, say, "Sibella" (from Gentleman's Guide)? If you are, you and I will have no common ground for an intelligent and informed discussion of music.

 

The two forms have separated, and I doubt that any of us will live to see them unified as they were in the first half of the 20th century.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 1:16pm

newintown-

I don't think there is "no common ground" but I also don't think we are in full accord. When I say better, I mean it in terms of songs that appeal to popular rather than musical theatre tastes. Musical theatre, in its Broadway sense, is and needs to be a popular genre, and I think it is essential that it re-find that footing. A good deal of what we have now are songs written for an outdated popular sensibility and I think that has to change. I hope you are not right that we will not see them unified (and I see signs that contradict your pessimism). 

As a side point, I also think that there can be a non-commercial form of musical theatre that does not seek popular acceptance, just as their is opera, classical music and dance that doesn't. But I think it is preposterous for a popular art form to eschew a backbone that is calculated to appeal to popular tastes.

ggersten-There are, as you point out, people working in musical theatre who write in a popular vein. But I think they mostly fall in the categories of people I don't think support the vitality of the popular art for for the reasons I mentioned-either being second or third rate songwriters (e.g., Wildhorn), being pop songwriters who have moved into musical theatre in their waning days (e.g., Lauper) or people who just phoned it in (e.g., Bono). Also, I think the best work by the Disney writers (kinda sui generis anyway) was written for the screen also. I agree the art of writing for the theatre is different than the art of writing a self-standing song, and there are certainly cases where the transition has not been especially well informed, but I also think there are skilled people who have shown an interest in writing for character and story without reverting to songs that sound like they were written for Ethyl Merman.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:09pm

This is such a troubling sign for theater fans.

Then that sign is as old as Broadway.  You're not seeing anything new happen at all.

By "new musical," I mean one with an original score -- not a straight play, not a revival, and not a jukebox musical whose music consists solely of tried and true pop/rock hits.

I'm glad you explained how you redefined the term as to anyone else, a "new musical" would be any musical that is not a revival.

This is something that all of us who are fans of musical theater -- not merely fans of Honeymoon -- should lament.

Thank you for telling me how I should feel, but I think I can handle that myself.

Maybe the reason for the difficulty of new American musicals to succeed is something as simple as this: the music now is greatly inferior to the music of the "Golden Age."

I doubt it since the quality of music is wildly subjective.  Not to mention, styles and genres of music evolve rather quickly.  Much of the music from the Golden Age musicals reflected the popular music of the period, now considered the "classic" style of musical theatre (wasn't it Mary Rodgers who saw the original production of West Side Story and hated it, claiming it was devoid of melodies?).  If you want to compare apples to oranges, you will need a very convincing way to quantify it.

If the composers of musicals wrote better songs, then those songs would become part of the popular music, as we have seen with "Clowns," "Memory," "New York, New York."

Apples/oranges again.  The music industry has changed drastically just within the last ten years, let alone the last 70.  There have been loads of threads on the subject of the decline of musical theatre songs transitioning to pop standards.  And since you listed "New York, New York" (which is from a film), look at the phenomenon that is "Let It Go" (not to mention the parade of popular hits from Disney animated musicals since 1989).  Musical theatre detached from popular music as the Golden Age came to a close as popular music itself evolved and new genres consistently emerged under the ever-growing "popular music" umbrella.  And in response, new genres of popular music found their way into musical theatre (and they sometimes produced popular music hits as seen with Jesus Christ Superstar and Hair).

But now in the digital age, just as the rules of popular music are being rewritten, it will become more difficult to define the transition of musical theatre songs to popular music hits.  It's like trying to do calculus with an abacus.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:14pm

Hogan, I was replying to OlBlueEyes' bizarre statement that musical theatre songs would be "popular" (top 40?) if only theatre composers wrote "better" songs.

 

But I don't think musical theatre songs will be played on Top 40 radio or be as widely popular with the masses as they were in the early-mid 20th century. But I also don't see that as bad or a problem.

 

Musical theatre has taken on a more specific quality overall, I think, where the "theatre" matters as much as the "musical."

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 02:14 PM

[philly03]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:19pm

While music is certainly subjective, it's usually this inner Broadway crowd that keeps out the newer forms. Other than Lin Manuel-Miranda, I can't think of any other composer who has tried to be "modern" sounding (and succeeded). There's this pretentiousness around musical theatre scores (stemming from composers like Jason Robert Brown and Michael John Lachuisa).

It's all about what's in people's heads for what theatre "should be" -- not to mention that Broadway is really just a brand nowadays. You can see stunning musical theatre all over the globe now (usually with larger orchestras, choirs, sets, etc). 

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:28pm

No matter how "modern" a theatre songwriter tries to be, theatre songs are not what the public seems to be yearning for - witness how the songs from "pop" or "rock" oriented musicals from the last decade or so (In The Heights, Spring Awakening, Next To Normal, etc.) haven't found the kind of exposure or popularity one finds in the oeuvre of popular music artists like Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, Drake, Justin Bieber, Beyonce, Meghan Treanor, etc., etc., etc.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:51pm

But I don't think musical theatre songs will be played on Top 40 radio...

And "Top 40 radio" is already starting to sound as antiquated as "American Bandstand".

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:52pm

Very true...