Bio-Musicals: Why So Many "Oldies" Acts & Not More "Classic Rock" Ones?

[RumTumJM]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 7:40pm

As great as shows like Jersey Boys & Beautiful are, I often wonder why producers/show writers don't start venturing into the world of "classic rock" for their next shows. (I think of acts like The 4 Seasons, Neil Diamond, Carole King & Bobby Darin as "oldies" ones, as iconic as they are.)

Considering the sucess of movies like Bohemian Rhapsody & Rocketman, why are they not trying to tell the stories of acts like Elton John, Queen and their comtemporaries on stage? - The closest we've seen is Stereophonic, and they haven't really admitted to the Fleetwood Mac aspect or MJ. And, both of those shows have been doing really well. 

Imagine if they got the rights to tell the story of The Beatles' early days or The Eagles rise to superstardom. For something a little more comtemporary, they could tell Eddie Van Halen's story, about him coming to America from The Netherlands, falling in love with the guitar & going on to become an innovative icon! I feel like those stories would translate to the stage just as well as the "oldies" acts and their stories. 

Updated On: 10/22/24 at 07:40 PM

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 9:02pm

I don't think there's any shortage of bio-musicals and jukebox musicals of people from every era.

I have no doubt producers have TRIED to make all of your examples happen. It's all up to the estates and the artist's reps. Some estates don't want these stories adapted for the stage. Some artists prefer to be dead first. The film biopic rights might prohibit a stage bio-musical; Michael Jackson can have two unrelated projects (a bio-musical and a bio-pic), but not every estate operates that way.

On the artist side, it's all about strategy. Queen and Bob Dylan might have preferred WE WILL ROCK YOU and GIRL FROM THE NORTH COUNTRY to represent their songbooks onstage (for now), instead of a bio-musical, while letting the biography happen via film. Some songbooks are better served by something like & JULIET or MAMMA MIA.

Updated On: 10/22/24 at 09:02 PM

[greensgreens]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 9:04pm

I think it’s just a matter of audience. I’m not a fan of biomusicals in general simply because I can see the real thing. As some of these artists pass, the demand rises again and people become more open to loose interpretations of their work. For instance, Prince’s Purple Rain would’ve never materialized during his lifetime. 

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 9:11pm

"Imagine if they got the rights to tell the story of The Beatles' early days or The Eagles rise to superstardom."

There was a musical on the West End years ago called "Backbeat" about the early days of the Beatles. I have no idea how good it was and if there was any thought of bringing it to Broadway.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 9:24pm

Very few people have lives worth staging let alone using their music to do so.

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 9:28pm

"But you know would it kill you every once in a while to play a little FOGHAT??"

--Jim Carrey, 1999 MTV Movie Awards

[kdogg36]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 10:23pm

If we're defining a "biomusical" as a show which tells the story of a musical artist through that artist's songs, I feel like we already have plenty of them. It's an inherently self-limiting form, since the score can only consist of a set of already-written songs, and the book must conform to an artist- or estate-approved story. Given these constraints, the very best of this ilk is not a great artistic achievement compared to even a mediocre original musical. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 10:54pm

It's not just one thing. Like with Elton John, he's more focused on bringing original musicals to Broadway. Likewise, U2 (or half of the band) wrote the Spider-Man musical and Paul Simon wrote The Capeman. 

Billy Joel, Alanis Morissette, Huey Lewis, The Go-Go's, The Who, and Green Day all brought their songs to Broadway but weren't interested in making the narrative about them. Through Beatlemania, the Beatles music came to Broadway via musical revue. 

Bruce Springsteen and Melissa Etheridge basically did the bio-musical as a (mostly) one person performance. 

There's a lot going on, but creative people don't necessarily want to cut and paste use The Jersey Boys formula.

[darquegk]

Posted: 10/22/24 at 11:31pm

The classic rock acts of the late 1960s to mid 1980s, the titans you’re thinking of: a good number of them either don’t have the musical variety and catalog depth to be good onstage (Bob Marley’s music is too groove oriented to be a classically structured musical), or they don’t particularly care to license yet (if Across the Universe could legally be staged, believe me, it would be).

The third option is the ones who are holding onto the rights for personal and professional reasons, like Alice Cooper (wants to eventually do a residency based on his old theatrical act) or Pink Floyd (the classic rock feud to end all classic rock feuds).

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 12:04am

The Beatles have also explored other opportunities for stage licensing of their catalog with the help of young upstart Broadway Licensing. Let It Be (which quite frankly looks to be a "poor man's Across the Universe") and the forthcoming adaptation of the animated Netflix series Beat Bugs are gonna clean up in the school market.

Updated On: 10/23/24 at 12:04 AM

[RumTumJM]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 12:22am

darquegk said: "The classic rock acts of the late 1960s to mid 1980s, the titans you’re thinking of: a good number of them either don’t have the musical variety and catalog depth to be good onstage (Bob Marley’s music is too groove oriented to be a classically structured musical), or they don’t particularly care to license yet (if Across the Universe could legally be staged, believe me, it would be).

The third option is the ones who are holding onto the rights for personal and professional reasons, like Alice Cooper (wants to eventually do a residency based on his old theatrical act) or Pink Floyd (the classic rock feud to end all classic rock feuds)."

Don't toy with me! I LOVE Alice Cooper & Pink Floyd and would shell out some SERIOUS money to see Welcome To My Nightmare or The Wall on stage...anywhere yet alone on Broadway. But, I also can't help but wonder how much demand there is to see shows like that on stage in 2024. (I mean, if Tommy only lasted 4 months or so...with it's Broadway history...would Welcome To My Nightmare or The Wall really fare any better?)

 

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 1:39am

As we have seen from Tina, unless it’s done well. It’s actually a slog to set through. The current Australian production is elevated by both central performances by the ladies who share the role of Tina. The rest of it is sadly a lifetime movie that lacks. 

Updated On: 10/23/24 at 01:39 AM

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 10/24/24 at 8:42am

"If we're defining a "biomusical" as a show which tells the story of a musical artist through that artist's songs, I feel like we already have plenty of them. It's an inherently self-limiting form, since the score can only consist of a set of already-written songs, and the book must conform to an artist- or estate-approved story. Given these constraints, the very best of this ilk is not a great artistic achievement compared to even a mediocre original musical. "

I agree with you 100%. The other thing is they all follow the same formula for the most part. Artist comes out of nowhere to become huge success. Along the way, they have issues with "drugs/alcohol" or troubled relationships. Artist overcomes these problems and lives happily ever after, close curtain -lol.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 10/24/24 at 11:36am

https://youtu.be/K3q3LEaK7_U?si=pQXtKxBUjQpvq1eX

I would also add that hard rock isn't as suited to musical theater voices. And it's harder to make the story work in a biomusical compared to the sincerity of American Idiot or irony of Rock of Ages.