Message Board trend- Page 2

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:26pm

MYFAIRLADY - nothing wrong at all but there are many MANY great musicals written before 1960: GYPSY, WEST SIDE STORY, GUYS AND DOLLS, THE KING AND I, ANNIE GET YOUR GUN and even (gasp) MY FAIR LADY.

JasonF - EX posting and interesting question to raise

The really young people here are just discovering Broadway and it it's RENT or WICKED that drawn them in, so be it. If you read a lot of the posts, some avoid the older shows out of the mistaken belief that anything recorded pre-digital doesn't sound good. (You and I know that even the 60+ year old OKLAHOMA CD sounds pretty good even though it is from the pre-LP era.) There is also a perception that older shows are not well written. That is true for some and those shows do not play well in revival. (BELLS ARE RINGING a perfect example.)

Still, like you, I encourage true theatre fans to get out to libraries and on the internet and sample as many shows as they can. Only after you have seen or heard or read a majority of the musicals ofn the last 60 years can you make an educated guess about the quality of the current offerings.

As for the others, the fake posters, the **** disturbers, and the out-and-out idiots, you will quickly add most of them to your ignore list.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:30pm

As far as not appreciating musicals that were written prior to Rent because of a lack of exposure to the older works, all I can say is, 'Do people no longer rent movies?'

I fell in with musical theater by watching old movie musicals. I know it's a different medium, but is seeing them performed live the only way you can come to appreciate the the so-called classics?

I have the Pajama Game on tape because I adore Bob Fosse's dazzling choreography for Steam Heat. Am I the only one who gets a high off those old MGM and Warner Bros. Musicals?

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers made me want to do theater. The so-called Holy Saviors of Musical theater like Rent and the ALW mega-musicals just don't do it for me.

And I'm in my 20's.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:39pm

"I'm 14, and I would love to expand my knowledge on those "Golden Age" musicals.....but I don't really have any cast recordings accessible to me. Or anyone to tell me about them because I always feel stupid..."

AIGOO - feel free to PM me with any questions about older shows. I will be glad to help you out.

As for recordings, I don't know where you live but most public libraries have CD's that either circulate or can be listened to in house and many also have the published scripts. (AS I kid I got the LP and script for MAME from the library and went home and read and played through it on a Sturday afternoon.)

There are also some good books about the history of the music theatre. THE WORLD OF MUSICAL COMEDY by Stanley Green covers major shows up to about 1980.

Ethan Mordden's books are great reads but he expects you to have good knowledge of the shows in the first place.

Avoid any books by Kurt Ganzl who claims to like musicals but takes a dim view of most major American shows, and read Gerald Bordman's Chronical of the Musical theatre for dates only. Bordman is an old fuddy duddy who believes that musical theatre reached its apex in 1924 with ROSE MARIE. He hates Rodgers and Hammerstein, Kander and Ebb and especially Sondheim and seems bitter that operettas have fallen out of popular favour.

But please, ask questions of me and some of the other, shall we say "mature" members. I belive most of them, like me, would welcome a chance to share knowledge with someone truly interested.

[Plum]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:40pm

And how are people with no background in this supposed to know what movies to rent, or what CDs to buy? The "classic canon" isn't something we're born knowing.

[MyNameInLights]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:43pm

I'm going to try as hard as I possibly can to word this exactly how I want it. I think it is highly pretentious of you to say that those who listen to and favor "newer" musicals are lesser Broadway fans than those who are fully familiar with the musicals of the Golden Age. Who are you to say what shows can be considered a favorite? Who are you to dictate the amount of time that should pass before a show can constitute as one worthy of a person's admiration? You say that anyone who calls themselves a fan of musicals cannot be taken seriously without knowing the history. I am truly, truly sorry you feel that way. Don't you see what you are saying? To you it may seem that many of this board's posters are harping on new musicals that are maybe not the best. Whether it be because of the book or the score or whatever, or the fact that they haven't "stood the test of time." BIG DEAL. The fact that we see the same threads over and over by Wicked, Avenue Q, Piazza, etc. lovers is enough to say that contrary to your belief, it is possible to love a new musical. A musical becomes a favorite after it appeals to the listener/viewer, after it touches them in who knows what way. A musical does not become a favorite after it has been around for fifty-odd years. You don't just pick up a classic musical and say, "This will be my favorite because it is dusty and old and has been around forever." You need to listen to it. Feel it. And that is how it becomes your favorite. All in all, there's no reason for you to say what should make a show a favorite. People will like what they like. You'll like what you like. And if it's contemporary, I'm sorry. THESE ARE CONTEMPORARY TIMES. Deal with it.

Al Dente, I am fifteen years old and I am tired of listening to that same comment come from blind and generalizing people like you.

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:47pm

Okay, Plum and and frontrowcentre, you completely misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that my favorite musicals were written after 1960, although I do love many Golden Age musicals. I don't think it's right to say something's inferior just because it's written later.
Updated On: 6/27/05 at 08:47 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:49pm

Oh my lord. Once again, the problem isn't the favoring of new shows, it's a complete ignorance of what came before. In fact, how can you even say you favor new shows when you haven't made the comparison?

And MFL, I directly addressed your point.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:53pm

We're not saying anyone has to like the classic shows, but if the under 25's would take a little time to at least learn about the important pre-CATS shows, they would understand why the rest of us refuse to fawn over derivatives like AIDA, RENT and WICKED.

In my time I have seen hundreds of musicals. The truly great ones do, as Jason suggests, stand the test of time and remain entertaining and enjoyable 40, 50, 60 years later. GYPSY (1959) remains a classic that is done on stages everywhere. To suggest that anyone should not see GYPSY because it was written before 1960 shows a real lack of understanding of what makes a GREAT musical as opposed to a merely good or passable one.

All we are encouraging is that people expand their knowledge base. Since when is encouraging education a bad thing?

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:55pm

Okay Plum, I understand you, and I won't write anymore for fear that I'll look stupider than I already look. Updated On: 6/27/05 at 08:55 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 8:59pm

When did I ever say differently?

[stonewall2]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:07pm

Darned young 'uns- guess us ol'geeezers'll just have ta edjucate 'em!
No, seriously, I agree, for the most part. My daughter has been exposed to show music since she was an infant so she know all of the "old stuff", but most of her friends think "old" means Les Mis. Wouldn't it be great if music teachers could incorporate "broadway musicals" into their curriculum! Perhaps this would help??

Updated On: 6/27/05 at 09:07 PM

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:08pm

My music teacher put some Gershwin and Bernstein into the curriculum, but everyone hated it.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:08pm

"the problem isn't the favoring of new shows, it's a complete ignorance of what came before."

Thank you. People act as if it's impossible to like Golden age stuff and more recent shows.

[bwayrunner22]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:10pm

Just for the record. I'm only 16 and I love older musicals. I do wish more people my age would be into the theatre. If it takes newer contemporary musicals to get them into it then so be it. I feel it is more important to get more people into broadway and then introduce them to the older classics that all the newer ones get their base off. Just my two cents.

Kate

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:15pm

It would be wonderful if many boards or Ed still HAD music programs. The few that do tend to cater to the students, like the one mentioned above who "hated" Gershwin and Bernstein.

You know, I can understand someone not liking music because they do not understand it or even because it sounds alien to what they have heard before, but to "hate" two of America's greatest composers ever...well I just wonder who they do consider great composers?

See this is what depresses us here. A chance to teach students about the contributions of Gershwin and Bernstein to both theatre and 20th century "concert" music...and the kids hate it. WHY??!!!??

Updated On: 6/27/05 at 09:15 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:26pm

If it's completely different from what you've grown up hearing, you're not just going to like it right away. Imagine having an ear attuned to what you hear on top-40 radio, then suddenly listening to Gershwin. It's a big change.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:29pm

In all honesty, I don't think even contemporary musicals will make people love musical theater if they aren't prone to like it. Some people will simply never accept people bursting into song in order to advance the narrative. It's "unrealistic," so I've been told.

Never mind that a hero repeatedly escaping death in the barrage of violence one finds in the average action movie is also unrealistic. Some people just don't want to like musicals. And they feel that way even about shows like avenue Q.

As to assuming that all musicals prior to Rent are granny shows, well that just proves that they haven't seen any.

[jasonf]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:30pm

I'm so gald so many took an interest in this -- it makes me feel better about the board in general that so many people are jumping to defend the older musicals! I would even add to the "older" musicals smaller/lesser known shows than the "big" shows (ie Wicked, Avenue Q etc.) -- but that would be akin to including indie bands in a discussion of pop music, and that's a losing argument. However, I think my point earlier still stands -- to not talk about Oklahoma or My Fair Lady is like talking about pop music without mentioning the Beatles or Elvis.

As for the whole education argument - I've been a middle school teacher for three years now. I've been trying VERY hard to understand what determines what the kids like, and the only conclusion I can come to is that most of the kids like only what they think will make them popular (excuse the Wicked pun). I teach in a fairly well-off district - why rich, BRIGHT, white girls love Eminem is something I've never been able to understand, and I can't get a good answer out of them. However, these same girls also go to band and play Mozart and Chopin etc. and love it.

To help make grammar more fun, I try to use music - I play songs and the kids have to pick out nouns, adjectives etc. Some stuff they like, some they can't stand. The most popular song I've played in the last three years? Mack the Knife. (Granted, it was the Bobby Darin version, not one from Threepenny Opera, but the kids couldn't believe it when I played them the original. Still, this is an older song -- and they liked it.

I think what I'm getting it is a lack in knowledge is one thing, but the lack of UNDERSTANDING or LIKING of older musicals is based on a lack of true exposure. The kids can take Grease or Hair or Bye Bye Birdie because the music is at least mildly familiar. Gershwin, Porter, Lerner and Lowe - they all sound foreign to the kids, and like "older people" music. I think that I can understand that, though I don't agree with it. What puzzles me still, though, are the people who say they are theater fans but don't make the effort to know where the genre came from. Again, I'm not CONDEMNING new musicals - I go see them and buy the CDs and enjoy them as much as the next person, but why limit yourself when there's so much more to explore?

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:30pm

I agree it's a big change, but isn't that what music classes at school are about? Exposing students to music that they otherwise might not have heard?

Isn't all school supposed to be about expanding knowledge and introducing new concepts?

What would be the use of going to school if you just learned what you already knew!

[Plum]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:31pm

Kids seem to be fine with singing in Disney movies; I don't see why live musicals are such an adjustment. In my opinion, that's mostly kids trying to show they're "cool" by rejecting an "outdated" art form.

[bwaybaby891]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:35pm

Stonewall2 is my mom so I can say that I do know a ton about the classics. They are the reason that I got into theatre. By the time I was 5 years old I was able to tell you every lyric from the Sound of Music and the Music Man. By the time I was 10 I could sing all of Oklahoma, Carousel, and My Fair Lady.

The reason I love the newer shows is because most of them relate to my life better. Also the music is closer to what my generation is used to hearing. I'm almost 14 and so the only shows I can go and see and actually experience are the newer ones on Broadway. Yes I do see the classics on tour and at high schools but they aren't the same as actually seeing it on a Broadway stage. That's why what is mostly talked about between the younger members are the newer shows. We can see those now.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:39pm

I think Plum (and JasonF ) have hit it...kids don't want to be perceived as uncool. ANd the pere pressure to like certain groups and reject others is enormous.

I on the other hand went through public and high school delighting in baffling my friends (and enemies) with endless knowledge of movies and plays. Most of those dummies had no idea what I was talking about. (Sometimes I didn't either. I read the script of FOLLIES in Grade 7, but it was years before I understood Phyllis's line about coming home "with my panties wringing wet.")

[jasonf]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:45pm

Tennessee Twang -- I don't agree with that predisposition to be against bursting out in song. My best friend COULD NOT UNDERSTAND my interest in musicals. He refused to be swayed, or even try them out for a LONG time. He thought the idea of people "bursting into song" was just so stupid.

Finally, after five years of arguments, his girlfriend made him go with her to see Les Mis -- and he loved it. I mean, he's not buying cast recordings or going around whistling - well - "I Whistle a Happy Tune" or anything, but at least he's gone to a few more shows and seen that musicals really aren't all that bad. Although -- he did hate Rent...go figure.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 9:46pm

"Again, I'm not CONDEMNING new musicals - I go see them and buy the CDs and enjoy them as much as the next person, but why limit yourself when there's so much more to explore?"

So true. Besides, nothing is completely new no matter what the medium of entertainment. Heck, if it wasn't for the old school stuff, most rappers wouldn't have anything to sample.

Btw, I have a friend who adores many old musicals, yet she's writing a hip hop musical.

And she becomes furious when people refer to it as a hip hop RENT because she insists that she IS NOT trying to revolutionize musical theater. Besides HAIR and RENT were supposed to do that but failed. So why should her musical, IF it ever gets produced, be any different? She's writing her project as a hip hop musical because it's her favorite kind of music and it's the kind with which she's most comfortable.

[jasonf]

Posted: 6/27/05 at 10:03pm

I don't think Hair or Rent were written with the INTENTION of revolutionizing theater -- I think they were more assigned that weighty role by critics and fans at the time...