The American Musical. New broadway vs. old broadway

[ko74612]

Posted: 7/11/08 at 10:53pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/theater/newsandfeatures/27bran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3&oref=slogin

probably one of the most interesting articles I have read in quite a while. A commentary on the current state of broadway arguing that "the blandness in broadway singing lies less in the material and more in the execution." And it blames American Idol for contributing to the influx of singers with big heavy belts but no individuality.

*I don't really have a question, but I think this could develop into a very interesting thread if people were to post their thoughts*

:)

[Gary Indiana]

Posted: 7/12/08 at 12:40am

That was a really interesting article. The author made some really good points. I don't really agree that new musicals are homogeneuos. I think that many new musicals today definitely have a specific sound to them and are easily identifiable as being from this time period, but I think that's true of musicals from any time period as composers cater to the audiences they are writing for and incorporate trends of the time.

I do agree with the author's assessment of the voices produced by American Idol. As much as I love that show (I'm slightly obsessed) there isn't very much value placed on originality. And it drives me crazy when Simon calls performances "too broadway" as if that's an insult! Although American Idol is a huge part of pop culture and there are many Idol alumni performing on broadway, I don't think it's fair to blame Idol for this trend.

[ko74612]

Posted: 7/12/08 at 1:11am

First: Thanks for the reply! It's nice to know there are thoughtful intelligent people reading and responding. :)

In terms of new musicals not being homogenous, I would tend to agree. As you said musicals today are easily identifiable, and I think the same could be said for any era.

I would also agree that American Idol cannot be blamed for a the lack of originality today. Though I think it is safe to say that it does strongly influence popular culture and in a way, defines popular music.

That being said, when a preformer gains fame through a show like Idol and then jumps to the broadway stage that unoriginality seems to carry over save for a few. (Fantasia I think?)

So I guess the real question would be: Do shows like American Idol praise "unoriginality" thereby encouraging lack luster preformancers/preformances?

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 7/12/08 at 1:15am

Thanks for linking us to page 3 of the interview.

Here's the link for those who want to read it from the beginning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/theater/newsandfeatures/27bran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&oref=slogin

[Gary Indiana]

Posted: 7/12/08 at 1:39am

I definitely think that American Idol praises unoriginality. Not only are contestants who are different less likely to succeed, once a contestant is established as a favorite of the judges, they are criticized harshly whenever they try to veer from their established sound and experiment with something new.

I think that another part of the problem of unoriginal broadway performances is replacement actors trying to imitate the original stars rather than bringing something new to the role. I saw Rent this week, and although I think she's talented, I felt like Eden Espinosa was playing Idina Menzel playing Maureen rather than just playing Maureen. Although it was my first time seeing her play the role, it didn't feel like a new experience. Merle Dandridge, on the other hand, played Joanne in a way that felt unique and fresh, which I think is pretty rare these days.

I strongly agree with you that when an American Idol performer comes to broadway they bring a lack of originality with them. I was unfortunate enough to see the train wreck that was Clay Aiken in Spamalot. It was one of the blandest performances I've ever seen on broadway, but Simon probably would have loved it!

[Cartwheel]

Posted: 7/12/08 at 8:08pm

This article was written in March of 2005, before Diana, Fantasia, Clay, Constantine, to name a few, even set their foot on Broadway. For one thing, nobody ever accused Fantasia of lack of originality, because she's as unique as they come, and critics acknowledged that in their glowing reviews.

As for Clay's performance, it was bland compared to what? The deadpan delivery of David Hyde Pierce?

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 7/12/08 at 8:13pm

Updated On: 5/2/09 at 08:13 PM

[Timmer]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 12:33am

Intereting article, but why is a 2005 article being linked now?

[morosco]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 12:42am

They misspelled Jennifer Holliday's last name. (I'm not usually a bitch about spelling but it is the New York Times.)

[ko74612]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 12:52am

Cartwheel. I don't know who you are but people around here don't seem to like you too much, and I can understand why.

Did you even bother to read the article? My bet is "no" because if you had, you would know that the article is praising Fantasia for her orginality. And for that matter it's not just American Idol that encourages uniformity. Uniqueness is not encouraged and for new musicians to be accepted they must find their niche and develop a very distinct sound and a strong following and then hope that their following accepts their new found diversity.

And for the love of god, get off the Clay Aiken bandwagon. One person's ordinary is another's extraordinary. Clearly you and Gary Indiana have different tastes. Suck it up and deal with it. And feel free to make an informed commentary on the article. Feed back is always welcome.

[Cartwheel]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 7:58am

"Cartwheel. I don't know who you are but people around here don't seem to like you too much, and I can understand why. "

Duh. Try going against the grain, and being a fan of someone that people hate for no good reason, and trash on a daily basis.

"Did you even bother to read the article? My bet is "no" because if you had, you would know that the article is praising Fantasia for her orginality."

Actually, I was responding to Gary Indiana's statement:
"I strongly agree with you that when an American Idol performer comes to broadway they bring a lack of originality with them."

The article was written in 2005, long before Fantasia made it to Broadway, and it talks about her performance on Idol. My point is that she did not lose that originality when she was cast in The Color Purple.

"And for the love of god, get off the Clay Aiken bandwagon. One person's ordinary is another's extraordinary. "

So I'm asking him to explain in what way was Clay's performance bland. Should be an easy question if he has actually seen the show.

Posted: 7/13/08 at 9:34am

One good point: "But a great Broadway voice doesn't have to be pretty."

As Sutton Foster proves over and over and over....

[Gary Indiana]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 10:08am

I do agree that Fantasia is very original. My statement was too broad, and I should have specified that I was making a general statement about my opinion of AI performers, but I do consider her an exception to the rule.

Clay's performance was bland in that he had no stage presence. He seemed like even he was bored with his performance and I just couldn't get into it. We just have different opinions on his performance, but that's one of the great things about theater - there's something for everyone. And I actually like David Hyde Pierce, but I guess I'm alone in that one. (-:

Also, just for the record, I'm a girl, but I do have a very misleading screen name. (-:

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 11:06am

I agree with the sentiments of this article, but there are many contributing factors.

Singers today are taught that style is more important than content. They're hired because they can belt a high E and riff on it, not because they're outstanding, unique, individual personalities on stage. It's all about the high E.

To me, this is the "Cinderella Syndrome" (which I've been calling it lately). We go around desperately seeking a lovely girl who will fit a shoe, rather than finding someone genuinely interesting and special to fall in love with. The shoe in this case is the high E (or F or G, for that matter). So, we get a lot of cookie-cutter belters. The riffs may be slightly different, but when it boils down to it, that's about it.

We have to remember, these girls (or guys too!) aren't hiring themselves. It's the producers of the shows that are basing their talent choices on high E's.

I remember a chorus friend of mine was called back endlessly for the original run of "42nd Street." In the end, there were three guys left for one replacement slot. They all had Broadway credits, and they all were good dancers. So the guy that got it was the one that fit the costumes for the dancer who was leaving. In a show like "42nd Street," where each chorus member wears several very expensive costumes, it makes sense. They're also CHORUS dancers.

What I'm finding today is that leading players are being cast with the same mentality. We don't care if you stand out, only if you can get through the part, say the lines, and when it comes time for it, belt the high E. This is the creative, artistic equivalent of "fitting the costumes."

The biggest point I'd like to make in this post is that shows today aren't being tailored for stars anymore. They're being produced with the hope that they can create a franchise... a 10-year-plus run, spawning outlet stores all over the world. Back in the Golden Era, shows were written specifically for the talents of Mary Martin, Ethel Merman, Gertrude Lawrence, Helen Hayes, Katherine Cornell, etc. Their personalities were as much a part of the fabric of the show as the plot and the songs. Those personalities were celebrated, promoted and integrated into every aspect of "selling" the show to audiences.

For modern Broadway producers, that's not being "financially wise" these days. They would rather sell "The Lion King," "Wicked" or "Jersey Boys" as commodities. Most people have no idea who the leads were or are in those shows. "The play's the thing," true... but somewhere along the way, we lost the people on stage.

[Hest882]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 2:27pm

'This is the creative, artistic equivalent of "fitting the costumes."'

Really good post and I think your point is spot on. Producers are casting for blockbuster shows, so the more generic the voice the easier it is to fit into that franchise.

I also agree it's not just an AI issue. I actually think more of the blame lies with Disney, but it's certainly not the only culprit. It's really just a result of the current situation on Broadway, where bloated, middle of the road shows are what everyone is aiming to create. Not that those don't have their place or value, but it's sad when they come to typify "Broadway" to the average theatre-goer so much that it becomes harder and harder for either the atypical voice or the atypical theatre experience.

[me2]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 5:28pm

No, no please, Broadway, don't become contemporary or relevant. Anything but that!
Broadway Mouth: 20 Great Broadway Songs of the Past 10 Years: “People Like Us”

[PitPro2004]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:02pm

I am very proud to be, most likely, the only person here who has never (and will never) watch an episode of American Idol for various and sundry reasons, the least of which, I can't stand built in stardom for people who haven't "paid their dues". But sadly this is a trend that will likely continue for a while re: Idol stars coming to Broadway. Sometimes I think that they think Broadway will "legitimize" them, quicker than if they had actually climbed the ladder and invested the time to earn their success. If you ask me, these people have won a GAME SHOW and that's it. Your prize depends on how long the public embraces you. It does NOT however, give you a platform to behave like you are a Rolling Stone or Madonna. That's what sickens me the most, but I digress. :)

As for Broadway becoming commercial, I think it already has.

Hest882, I feel your post is right on the money. Here's why: Peter Filicia came and reviewed the show I am currently working on, William's Dark Lady. He loved the show, thought it was great for NYC, but feels it won't ever see light of the Great White Way. Why? Producers are no longer willing to do shows that aren't adaptations or originals anymore, they only want to fill seats and bring in material that is "known". Not necessarily good or popular, just known. The average theater goer will come and see a show that's based on a movie, book or tv show, but the chances of them coming to see an original plot with original music sung by legit singers is becoming a thing of the past. Now they come to see American Idols....shows based on movies...and so on.

Mind you, in terms of the audience, I am not talking about the people who post here, we love theater, period!! But it's highly unlikely that a producer will take a chance on something that has no prior ties to a successful venture of any type.

Read his latest diary at Theatermania to find out more. It's breaking my heart to think our little show won't go anywhere because we have all worked our tails off on this one and it has real potential.

[jaso937]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:16pm

I definately agree with this article. I love an amazing belt and amazing riffs but even now i've found myself bored with them. I feel that broadway is losing whats most important about a show, the characters. people are being rewarded because they have a amazing voices when the person they are portraying can hardly be called a character! I find this even in my college. We have some really great voices but when I go to shows or performances all i am seeing/hearing is someone trying to sing a song with the correct technique and breath support. Where is the character!!! Casters now adays are mainly looking at the voice and not what the person behind the voice can actually do with a role and it kills me alittle inside everytime i hear an amazing performance, but am not experiencing and feeling the performance at all.

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:21pm

Pit Pro your post sickens me.

I'll just point out one thing: Madanna paid zero dues. She was lucky enough to get her video on a TV station (MTV) and that is what made her a star.

[Lynnespock2]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:27pm

Maybe, I am naive, but when was Broadway NOT commercial? It is, was and always has been commercial.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:31pm

Updated On: 5/2/09 at 08:31 PM

[PitPro2004]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:35pm

"Pit Pro your post sickens me.

I'll just point out one thing: Madanna paid zero dues. She was lucky enough to get her video on a TV station (MTV) and that is what made her a star."

Um...who's Madanna?

Gee, a theater redneck, who would have thought it?

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:39pm

Oh I am so sorry Pitpro I made a typo! I bow to your far superior intellect and slink off into the muck.

[PitPro2004]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:53pm

"Oh I am so sorry Pitpro I made a typo! I bow to your far superior intellect and slink off into the muck."

Superior intellect...oh please, far from it!

And what does Madonna have to do with this, we are talking about American Idol contestants?? (Madonna already made a Broadway debut and got less than spectacular reviews for it, but then again we all knew she couldn't act). Regardless, she earned her success (with tons of help from MTV of course), she didn't appear on a GAME SHOW to get it, virtually overnight (or if you want to get anal, in the course of a season). She didn't take a day off from McDonald's to go stand in line for 5 hours and win a prize and suddenly develop an entourage and make a scene like Taylor Hicks did when he didn't get a table he wanted at a fancy restaurant with 8 of his friends. She didn't get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for only being around a few years as opposed to Carrie Underwood who was into the Grand Ole Opry. What the hell has Carrie Underwood contributed, she's only been around for 5 minutes compared to the likes of Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash and countless others who have been around for decades.

If you want to bring Madonna into this, we can discuss her vocal talents, or lack thereof.... but that's a whole 'nother thread...

Posted: 7/13/08 at 9:11pm

Well you brought up Madonna. I was just trying to inform you that she was attacked for the exact same reasons you cite: She paid no dues. She had never performed with a band or sung before a live audience when she scored her first hit. She may not have won her career on a "game show" but she might as well have. She went from completely inexperienced unknown to household name in a matter of days, due to her appearance on TV.

And for someone who brags they've not watched a minute of American Idol you sure do know a lot about it. Since I know nothing about you, I'll generalze like you did and say you are a frustrated musician who thinks you could set the world on fire if you could just get a goddamn break like that horrible Taylor Hicks who's making so much in that awful awful show while you slave away in some show that mean old producers won't even bring to broadway! It's not you it's those dopey producers who only want to produce shows they think will make money! Damn them!