BROADWAY vs WEST END

hello everyone? a big question, the most important one as well

Big, Dramatic, epic, glorious British musicals eg:
Jesus Christ
Evita
Les Miserable (I know it is french but never-the-less comes under "West End"
Blood Brothers

OR...

Cheesy, optimistic, sing-a-long american shows eg:
Wicked
Oklahoma!
The Producers

I think It comes down to... West End pretty much pioneered the sung-through musical while Broadway maintained the "stand up then sing" book musicals as it has done for 100 years. Im English and personally find the sung-through musical infinatly a better art form in every way!
but what do you think, can anyone convert me? does anyone else think that the old-american musichall show is out the window to make room for Limey tragedies with more mature orchestration and pesamistic subjest matter

And anyone who can claim that the West End pioneered sung-through musicals should really learn their history of musical theatre!

---

With all due respect, Daniel3, you might want to learn a bit more about musical theatre history before you make grandiose claims like that. I mean, did you just completely overlook Sondheim??

---

The musical is an American invention, and an American Icon.
The Brits have had a few successes, but they will never take away from the wonderful History of Broadway.
The sung-through musical is done to death, and the Brits are probably the worst at it. Have a look at Sweeney Todd (mostly sung through) or Caroline, or Change and you will see the Americans are better at this art that you claim is British.

WELCOME TO BWW.com!!!
I hope you like it here! I'm sorry if my first post to you sounds a little negative, I'm just responding to the topic, not to you.

Now I need to take some Aleve.

If it doesn't cure my headache, maybe it will kill me.

Either way, I win.

---

Bah. And of course the West End has had some of the most cheasy and awful long running shows ever. Starlight Express is one of the better ones compared to stuff like TIME (which does have a cult following I know) or the continuing success of honestly crappy shows like Fame (which didn't even last long *off-Broadwa* or ever make it to Broadway), stuff liek Dr Dolittle, the Ben Elton jukebox musicals like We Will Rock You (notice in N America it's skipping Broadway for... Las Vegas. Fitting) and Tonight's the Night ( a musical structured around Rod Stewart songs? What the F*CK?). I admit to when I was in London I actually had a great fun night at Saturday Night Fever--but it's not a great show yet seems destined to run there forever.

Anyway Id love to hear you defend these shows as neither cheasy or "sing alongs"....

The megamusicals from England owe a LOT to Broadway--it's ironic that many Sondheim fans hate ALW's shows etc, as *staging wise* Trevor Nunn learns and has refined TONS of directing and staging ideas created by Hal Prince in his concept works from Cabaret on--ALW is such a big fan of course he got Hal to stage Evita and Phantom (and fought hard to get him back for Aspects of Love). Hal involved himself in both shows early on--for Phantom fighting to get a better lyricist (hey got Alan Jay Lerner--who died of course) but also helping structure much of the action of the show before staging it--and with Evita forcing ALW and Rice to make changes to the work as it was on the concept album. There was a great book on Hal Prince I had once which wentinto increased detail about how these British megamusicals (which is many ways, staging wise are concept musicals) owe a LOT to the Prince/Sondheim and Kander and Ebb shows

E

True enough but I'm Canadian not American and have never embraced Fergie :)

E

As a Canadian, I have no patriotic interest in musical theatre. But I'd like to say that some of the opinions expressed by Daniel3 seem rather ill-informed.

I do enjoy the sung-through musical, but just because the Big Four (CATS, LES MIZ, POTO and MISS SAIGON) and Webber employ it doesn't mean that the sung-through musical is a distinctly West End form, . As well, the idea that only the West End produces "Big, Dramatic, epic, glorious" musicals overlooks the fact that some of these musicals have flawed books, one-dimensional characters, clanky narratives and -- worse of all -- bombastic, repetitive, simplistic music. Andrew Lloyd Webber is regarded by most critics (on both sides of the Atlantic) as a bit of a joke; most of his musicals are all dazzle with no subtlety. I'm not saying all British sung-through shows are artless, but I am saying that it's not a black and white comparison between American and British musicals. I just spent the evening watching INTO THE WOODS on DVD, and it's every bit as "dramatic and "glorious" as anything to come out of the West End.

The statement "Broadway musicals have come to represent smiles and suger" reveals an utter ignorance of musical theatre history and the breadth of the genre. Sondheim musicals are anything BUT smiles and sugar. And how about CABARET? Or CAROLINE OR CHANGE? Or COMPANY, KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN, PARADE, RAGTIME, RENT....the list goes on and on and on. These are all musicals written by Americans for the Broadway stage (albeit KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN debuted on in London first, it was first staged in Toronto with the intention of going to New York). I think Daniel3 has a skewed idea of what the contemporary Broadway musical is; he seems to be focusing on the "Golden Age" of Broadway, but that is overlooking the 40-50 years that have passed since.

And when has the West End be equated with the sung-through musical?? I think more theatre needs to be experienced before one makes such grand generalizations.

---

Updated On: 12/28/04 at 01:02 AM

You know, when I think of Cabaret and Sweeney Todd, I think of sugary sweet cheesy sing-a-long optimism...and when I think of Mamma Mia! and Bomby Dreams, I think of glorious dramatic epics.

---

"Evita is banned in South America"

Not true. It has been produced in Argentina and my parents lived in Buenos Aires when they filmed the movie. They used to see Antonio and Melanie eating breakfast on the terrace of their hotel every morning from their apartment.

"'West End Musical' is a term used for sung through stuff about big events."

Since when? A "West End Musical" is a any musical that runs in London's West End theatres. Just like a "Broadway Musical" is any musical that runs in a Broadway theatre.

---

Everyone stop your bickering, you all sound like children. Right now the West End is the equivilent to LA, or Chicago, or anywhere where the shows get started before they transfer to Broadway. Personally Jukebox musicals make me sick, but wether you like them or not doesn't depend on your taste in Broadway, but you're taste in mainstream music. I enjoy TOMMY but despise MAMMA MIA, because I don't like Abba. And in both the West End and Broadway, they have long running muicals where I would persoanlly like to place a brand new one, and let things be produced that they have never seen. But whatever we have to do whatever it takes to keep the industry running. Trust me we'll get our next SWEENEY TODD, or RENT, JCS, or CAROLINE OR CHANGE. And wether it comes from the West End, LA, or Sweeden. It will morph the industry and when it does we'll accept it and enjoy it. Because Broadway cannot remain stagnet.

I think you open a very interesting thread. I may not agree all your opinion but I would like to listen to more discussion about this topic cause I have some question about it too.

Hope there is not a lot attack about place or country or nationality. Focus on theatre, please.

ummm... Broadway is not a road in New York. It's more a whole section of New York with theaters just dotted around...