Dan Savage Interviews Frank Rich on Sondheim, lloyd Webber. AIDS, Homosexuality, the Theater and Journalism

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 3:51pm

...and life and the movie of A Little Night Music.
Dan Savage Interviews Frank Rich

[Pgenre]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 4:12pm

Thanks so much for this, PJ!

Two of my favorite newspaper personalities together at last!

P

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 7:18pm

It's a titch lengthy and I wonder what Dan is referring to when he says he hates "rock," (but surely not rock and roll?), yet the whole thing was worth it for Rich's statement:

In the 1980s, which was the bulk of when I was a Times drama critic, to the early '90s, two things happened in New York theater. One was unfortunately the arrival of Andrew Lloyd Webber and the other was the AIDS epidemic...

[Pgenre]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 7:49pm

And, I ask this in the most sincere honesty: which was more detrimental to the long-term legacy and vitality of the theatre at large, AIDS or ALW's work from CATS to SUNSET?

I guess we'll never know... but I must admit I had never equated the two as Rich seems to do here, and with at least some merit.

P

[James885]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 8:02pm

I think Rich makes a valid point concerning Broadway and rock music:

Why wasn't Broadway ever able to digest and regurgitate rock and roll like it had done so many other forms before?

It's so interesting--my own theory is that it was an incredibly shortsighted industry. You would think the obvious thing to do would have been for a producer to go to Laura Nyro, Simon and Garfunkel, Lennon and McCartney, whomever, and say, "Write a score, write a musical!" No one did it!

Later on, he says: "Broadway thought rock music was a fad and laughable."

IMO, he's right on point.

Updated On: 10/25/09 at 08:02 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 8:09pm

When he put Andrew Lloyd Webber and AIDS together like that, he summed up my entire experience of the 1980s.

All he left out was Reagan.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 8:35pm

Wow, PJ, thanks for clearing that up, I truly had never thought of it that way... so so sad, really, isn't it?

P

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 9:27pm

I was just talking to someone this evening about Napster being a watershed, so it's interesting Frank Rich of all people mentions it in that context.

[Q]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 3:57am

"When he put Andrew Lloyd Webber and AIDS together like that, he summed up my entire experience of the 1980s."

That's a bit limited, and somewhat NYC centric, don't you think?

Impactful, without question, but somewhat glib and dismissive of the entirety of human experience at that point. Unless it all really does just come down to you.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 8:16am

Absolutely!

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:43am

"New York is the center of New York."
- Patti LuPone, Gypsy

She invented the role and wrote the show, after all.

Well, Frankie is missing this little show called "Hair" that opened on Broadway in 1969 and had many #1 hit songs from its rock & roll score. Was he sick that day? Did he miss 1969?

The fact that "Hair" turned out to be a fluke is the real mystery here. But Broadway wasn't asleep at the switch. They just didn't embrace rock music, post-"Hair."

My personal feeling is the rock & roll and most pop music genres that have followed it are all based on rhythms, drum beats, and highly repetitive lyrics and "hooks." They are not based on melodies and lyrics (with very few exceptions). Theatre music relies (dramaturgically) on strong melodies and lyrics.

Rock and roll just isn't a genre that generally lends itself to the theatrical musical medium. There have been a handful of exceptions, and certain rock writers are more adaptable than others (The Who's Tommy, etc.). But on the whole, it just doesn't work. That's the real problem. And that's when the "big divide" happened between the pop music world and the theatre world. Broadway didn't ignore rock & roll. It just didn't get along with it too well.

[nealb1]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:43pm

AIDS has devestated the Broadway community - no question. To say that people dying of a disease is the same thing as ALW coming to Broadway, is such a terrible thing to say.

Look at all the human experiences that have come from ALW - all the millions and millions of people worldwide who have gone to the theatre - all the actors, writers, producers, crew, orchestra and theatre personnel who have worked because of his shows.

The hundreds of millions of dollars that have been put into the NYC economy because of his shows - people coming to NYC to see his shows - hotels, restaurants, taxi cabs, etc.

What was it for...for nothing?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 6:01pm

To say that people dying of a disease is the same thing as ALW coming to Broadway, is such a terrible thing to say

Frank Rich would probably agree with you, because that is not at all what he said.

Did you even read the interview, nealb1?

[nealb1]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 6:09pm

Oh, yes, I read the entire review. It's just such a thoughtless and hurtfull thing to say.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 6:23pm

Oy. He didn't say ALW was as bad as AIDS, he said they both had an impact on the direction of theatre.

[Mamie]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 8:19pm

It wasn't the only thing he said but he did put them together in the same unfortunate sentence - "One was unfortunately the arrival of Andrew Lloyd Webber and the other was the AIDS epidemic..."

I said it before and I'll say it again - it's a crappy thing to say. There's plenty in ALW's work to criticize, but (for me anyway) there's far more to genuinely love. And when I think of all the kids in the next generation who were introduced to live theatre via Cats or Phantom, then I think an apology is in order. If there's a mathemetician out there who can do some figuring - just think of the dollars that ended up in the pockets of actors, singers, dancers, choreographers, electricians, lighting techs, stage managers, house managers, ushers, and on and on just from the runs of Cats and Phantom alone.

Updated On: 10/26/09 at 08:19 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 8:48pm

I read it as sort of a really dark joke, because of his use of "unfortunately" before Andrew Lloyd Webber. I think there might have been more outrage if someone else had said it.

The whole interview is really weird.
Updated On: 10/26/09 at 08:48 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:00pm

I don't even think it's much of an interview.

The interviewer is as much interested in sharing personal views, interrupting the interviewee in the middle of a response, and all around unprofessional behavior.

More like, "My Dinner With Frankie."

As far as the comment in question, it was hugely distasteful and disrespectful to mention them in the same sentence as a comparable "plague" on American Musical Theatre. It went way beyond bitchy humor.

Imagine if Rich had said, "Sondheim's melodies are as dissonant a sound as the Jews crying out in the concentration camps."

... then see if you still think it's funny.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:07pm

I've learned I never know what I (or anyone else, for that matter) am going to find funny or not.

I'm a fan of Dan Savage, so that part of the interview didn't strike me as weird.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:24pm

Imagine if Rich had said, "Sondheim's melodies are as dissonant a sound as the Jews crying out in the concentration camps."

... then see if you still think it's funny.

YAY! BEST 12 BARS WENT RIGHT TO THE HOLOCAUST ANALOGY. And fails miserably. That is not a valid comparison in the least, but 99% of comparisons to the Holocaust rarely are.

Christ, I was the one who pulled that quote out and said I thought it was funny. Which it is. I do not for a minute believe Rich was linking the two things, but that is how it looks because of the way the conversation was structured. I doubt it would have even been brought up here if I had not highlighted it.

Oh, and mentioning HAIR does not in any way take away from what Rich was saying. In fact it supports it. He mentions "Bye Bye Birdie" as being too radical and rock and roll and people dismissing rock and roll as a fad AND MISSING THE BOAT. Like newspapers and record companies missed the boat with the internet.

Saying Broadway didn't miss the boat by pointing out that Hair opened on Broadway eight years after Bye Bye Birdie is exactly his point. You know, the one about horses being outside of barns.

Complaining about Dan Savage being too prominent a part of discussion interview with Frank Rich is like complaining about Frank Rich being too prominent a part of his public conversations with Stephen Sondheim. That is the point.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:40pm

Every comment since yours has been about that comment, so whether people noticed it on their own or because you brought it to their attention, I don't think it's surprising that that's the part of the interview people here are talking about. And it's in the title.

I agree with you about Dan Savage.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:42pm

Old Debating Club Rule: He who mentions Hitler first loses.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:43pm

Godwin's Law, some call it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:48pm

So, in just this one special case, Best12Bars is a winner!

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 12:03am

I didn't even read your post, Namo. I rarely read your posts. They bore me.

So you lose. And you're wrong.