Broadway... Now and Then.
Broadway... Now and Then.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
Broadway... Now and Then.#0
Posted: 1/15/05 at 11:47am
I am greatly disturbed by the proliferation of new books, films, and articles which insist on projecting a mypoic view of the fate of the Broadway musical.
According to popular theory, there was a "Golden Age" on Broadway, which ended (depending on which author or filmmaker you are reading or viewing) with CABARET, HAIR, ANNIE, CATS, or MAMMA MIA.
My big question is this: Why are writers and filmmakers so dead set on proving the (ridiculous and patently untrue) theory that "The Broadway Musical Is Dead"?
Since 1985-1987, which I concur was the nadir for the Broadway musical as an art form, there has been a noticeable upswing. We are building more Broadway houses. There are more commercial successes. There are also more artistic successes.
Look at last season: WICKED, AVENUE Q, TABOO, CAROLINE OR CHANGE. The quality of ANY of those shows surpasses the 1985 Tony winner, BIG RIVER. And yet, the belief that the musical DIED sometime in the 80's and has never recovered is still being proliferated.
Why hasn't anyone acknowledged the upswing? Why is the death knell still being tolled?
To me, it smacks of defeatism, and it angers me.
Updated On: 1/15/05 at 11:47 AM
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/10/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#1
Posted: 1/15/05 at 12:12pmI did not finish reading the interview by broadwayworld. Let them cry and cry for a lost time. They enjoy it. And I enjoy my show , happily.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/29/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#2
Posted: 1/15/05 at 12:18pmIt's particularly interesting when you think that the grosses a couple of weeks ago were the largest in Broadway history. Fans obviously don't agree that the Broadway musical is dead.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#3
Posted: 1/15/05 at 12:44pm
Yes, erinrebecca. Even accounting for inflation, Broadway is in a healthier state today than it has been in decades.
To be clear, I'm not arguing the "artistic" state of Broadway. Many complain that the Disney shows, BROOKLYN, MAMMA MIA, et al., are destroying the artistic integrity of Broadway.
But this doesn't really seem to be the case either. Last season and this season have both had high profile, "arty" shows: CAROLINE and LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA. The reasons for CAROLINE's failure can be argued ad nauseum... but that's another discussion entirely. I'm just saying that the whole "Broadway is dead" argument is ridiculous, from ANY vantage point, whether artistic OR commercial.
Updated On: 1/15/05 at 12:44 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/20/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#4
Posted: 1/15/05 at 12:53pmVeuve, I agree totally. Yes, there were definite plusses to the Golden Age, mainly that there were so many shows to choose from, it cost much less to produce and see a show, stars stayed the full run... But there have been so many wonderful shows over the past 10-20 years, and as recently as this past year that Broadway is hardly dead. It is a shame that good shows have to close, mainly because the inflated ticket prices prevent all but the well-to-do to attend regularly, and out-of-towners only want to see the top 3 hits. But quality is alive and well, despite what naysayers believe.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#5
Posted: 1/15/05 at 1:12pm
eslgr8, while I agree with most of your post, I do feel compelled to say this:
Regarding "choices" of today compared with the so-called "Golden Age": Say you wandered into NYC this season without having seen anything. What are your choices? Tony Award winners: HAIRSPRAY, THE PRODUCERS, RENT, AVENUE Q. Hot tickets: WICKED, DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS, SPAMALOT, MAMMA MIA. Artistic, smart musicals? SPELLING BEE and LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA. Long runs? CHICAGO and PHANTOM.
Yes, in the so-called "Golden Age" there were a few more choices. But ANY SINGLE ONE of the musicals mentioned above is of better quality than BAJOUR or WHOOP-UP, a couple of your moderately successful "choices" during the Golden Age.
Do you know what you couldn't have seen during the so-called "Golden Age?" SPELLING BEE or LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA. Those musicals didn't exist. They are the evolution of the American musical, a lineage that is directly traceable from Oscar Hammerstein, through Stephen Sondheim, to William Finn and Adam Guettel.
Updated On: 1/15/05 at 01:12 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/20/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#6
Posted: 1/15/05 at 1:23pmVeuve, are you sure we don't agree??? Actually, I never stated that the Golden Age shows were better, just that there were more to choose from, they cost less, and the stars stayed the whole time. I agree entirely that much of today's theater is far better than what was produced during the "Golden Age." I recently saw a "staged reading" of Redhead starring Jane Lanier (actually it was almost a production with Equity actors who were required by their contract to carry scripts except when dancing). Redhead won the Best Musical Tony, and boy did it creak! Nothing to compare with the quality of things I've seen recently: Wicked, Avenue Q and Hairspray (all twice), Caroline or Change (three times), the amazing Dirty Rotten Scoundrels in San Diego...and lots of others. They are definitely better than much of what was considered excellent during the "Golden Age."
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#7
Posted: 1/15/05 at 1:24pm
What are you all talkign about? The Broadway musical has DEFINITELY lost something since the Golden Age.
Look at the 1954-1955 season:
The Boy Friend with a young Julie Andrews
Fanny
Peter Pan with the incomporable Mary Martin
House of Flowers, a flop, but with a beautful score
Plain and Fancy, easily one of the most underrated musicals of the entury
Silk Stockings, Cole Porter's last musical and a damn good one at that
Damn Yankees, the runaway hit of the season with direction by George Abbott, choreography by Bob Fosse, and the spectacular Miss Gwen Verdon
Now look at this season's musicals:
Dracula the Musical, a cliffnotes version of a story by a less than mediocore pop composer
Brooklyn, the screaming musical that's so inane and cliched it makes Home Sweet Homer look like The King and I
Little Women, another cliffnotes of a famous story
Spamalot, there's a problem when what is supposed to be the runaway hit of the season proclaims itself literally "ripped off" from a Monty Python musical
All Shook Up, Shakespeare comedies set to Elvis, enough said
Good Vibrations, you know a friend of mine said that he refused to see Illya Darling in 1967 because he resented it for interpolating the song "Never on Sunday" from the film for which it drew its basis because in 1967 it was the first time a musical contained a song not espressly written for the theatre and now we have to listen to a ridiculous story set to the music of the Beach Boys
It is stuff like this that makes people want to look back and remember when musicals were the talk of the town. When musicals were actually artistically valued and affordable and interesting and compelling. Now I really don't agree with the new book The Rise and Fall of the Musical Theatre when the author says that the Golden Age ended with Cabaret in 1966. I think that it held out until about 1975 with A Chorus Line and then teetered around with a few good musicals until Cats really lobbed off anything still good about the musical theatre.
But Mark N. Grant's point that there are really three stages in the American musical theatre, and the first and the third are very similar. In the teens and into the twenties the musical were ridiculous stories with songs that were aimed primarily at the hit parade. The book had really no importance whatsoever and the music and lyrics seldom had anything to do with the story.
Then starting with Show Boat and a few musicals leading up to Show Boat, that completely changed. The songs began to stem from the book. Musicals could still be star vehicles or have popular songs, but that wasn't the most important reason to do a musical. The music and libretto became equally important and the form perfected itself into the late forties through the fifties to the early to mid-sixties. People began to experiment with the form like Stephen Sondheim. And they were successful. The musical was still intriguing and entertaining, but were just a little more challenging and deep.
Then something happened. New musicals suddenly began to decline in quality and structure. And now we are back where we started, except in my opinion it is worse. Silly little stories surrounded my music that quite often is aimed at the hit parade and not very good. There are really no pieces of musical theatre that can entertain you and challenge you at the same time. Something comedic yet dramatic. It is all spectacle or pieces that are challenging, like Caroline, or Change, but not really very entertaining.
Personally I think the whole craze in archiving and studying and glorifying The Golden Age is good because if we do it enough maybe history will repeat itself. I can only hope that it does.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#8
Posted: 1/15/05 at 1:26pm
Didn't make this clear though:
Broadway is not dead. There will always be new musicals and there will always be the few that go to see them.
But the so-called "fabulous invalid" is in serious intensive care.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#9
Posted: 1/15/05 at 1:57pm
gherbert, thanks for the long, thoughtful response.
But for me, you didn't prove your point. In fact, to my mind, you proved mine.
"Look at the 1954-1955 season:
The Boy Friend with a young Julie Andrews
Fanny
Peter Pan with the incomporable Mary Martin
House of Flowers, a flop, but with a beautful score
Plain and Fancy, easily one of the most underrated musicals of the entury
Silk Stockings, Cole Porter's last musical and a damn good one at that
Damn Yankees, the runaway hit of the season with direction by George Abbott, choreography by Bob Fosse, and the spectacular Miss Gwen Verdon"
You listed a slew of mediocre musicals. Yes, some of them had great extenuating circumstances -- Julie Andrews in the otherwise unremarkable THE BOYFRIEND, Verdon and Fosse's work in DAMN YANKEES (I would add the terrific Adler and Ross score, although I think that the book of DY is a prime example of George Abbott's ineptitude as a creative collaborator).
But let's compare to today. We're not comparing BROOKLYN or DRACULA to that list. You listed the "best" of that season, so let's compare the "best" of what's currently playing. For its "type" of show, THE PRODUCERS is miles better than DAMN YANKEES. (DAMN YANKEES has a better score, sure. But THE PRODUCERS is, hands down, a better show.) PIAZZA is rather similar to FANNY, in subject matter, and yet infinitely superior, in ALL respects. SILK STOCKINGS? A terrible film translation with a middling Porter score. I would submit either DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS or SPAMALOT as a better film-to-musical translation. ("Ninotchka" was a really, really terrible property to musicalize. "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" may seem like a dumb idea, but audiences are apparently feeling differently. While audiences found SILK STOCKINGS pleasant, it was a pale comparison to its predecessor. DRS is probably the best idea -- a middling movie can often make a great musical. A great movie NEVER makes a great musical, unless it happened to be a great play beforehand (i.e., MAME)).
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#10
Posted: 1/15/05 at 2:11pm
"There are really no pieces of musical theatre that can entertain you and challenge you at the same time. Something comedic yet dramatic. It is all spectacle or pieces that are challenging, like Caroline, or Change, but not really very entertaining."
I would submit the following pieces which premiered during the time period that you're speaking of that entertained me and challenged me at the same time:
PARADE
RAGTIME
FIRST LADY SUITE
HELLO, AGAIN
FALSETTOS
PASSION
CAROLINE, OR CHANGE
ONCE ON THIS ISLAND
THE WILD PARTY
VIOLET
TICK, TICK, BOOM!
THE LAST 5 YEARS
FLOYD COLLINS
A NEW BRAIN
THE FULL MONTY
THE BUBBLY BLACK GIRL SHEDS HER CHAMELEON SKIN
BARE
THRILL ME
THE SPITFIRE GRILL
AMOUR
But maybe that's just me.
Updated On: 1/15/05 at 02:11 PM
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#11
Posted: 1/15/05 at 3:31pm
"I've been hearing about Broadway disappearing since I put on long pants. I mean, it's been the fabulous invalid, you know? But, it survives...it survives."
-Al Hirschfeld, Broadway: The American Musical
Whenever there is a new trend, people proclaim it is the end of Broadway. The same was said of the introduction of ragtime in the early 1990's. Hollywood was faced with the same lament when "talkies" were introduced in movie houses. It's really sad that people choose to only live in the past and reject the evolution of art. The same people who wail about the Golden Age forget that it also had a beginning, and that there was a Broadway that existed previously. Who mourns for that? It just boils down to small-minded snobbery. Painting did not end with Modernism. Music did not end with Rock and Roll. As long as there is freedom of expression, then every art form will continue to live on. There will always be trends and there will always be change. And there will always be those who choose not to accept it.
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#12
Posted: 1/15/05 at 3:45pm
"Dracula the Musical, a cliffnotes version of a story by a less than mediocore pop composer"
Nearly every musical is a cliffnotes version of something and there have ALWAYS been mediocre composers. This is nothing new.
"Brooklyn, the screaming musical that's so inane and cliched it makes Home Sweet Homer look like The King and I"
Similar was said about Rent, Hair and Jesus Christ Superstar
"Little Women, another cliffnotes of a famous story"
Again, not unique to post-Golden Age musicals
"Spamalot, there's a problem when what is supposed to be the runaway hit of the season proclaims itself literally "ripped off" from a Monty Python musical"
How so? Most musicals are "ripped off" from other works, they just use the term "adapted from". It means exactly the same thing.
"All Shook Up, Shakespeare comedies set to Elvis, enough said"
Though the show doesn't work, there is nothing wrong with the concept. Shakespeare has been adapted musically in many forms including West Side Story, The Boys From Syracuse, Two Gentlemen of Verona and another without an original score, Play On. If you are offended that it uses songs by Elvis, then I assume you are also offended by reviews, as they do not have original scores, either.
"and now we have to listen to a ridiculous story set to the music of the Beach Boys"
Not if you don't want to. That is your choice to make.
"until Cats really lobbed off anything still good about the musical theatre"
Please elaborate. Exactly how did that happen?
"There are really no pieces of musical theatre that can entertain you and challenge you at the same time.'
Maybe not entertain and challenge YOU, but they entertain and challenge millions of others.
"But the so-called "fabulous invalid" is in serious intensive care"
Actually, it is alive and well. It is just different and not what you personally want it to be.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#13
Posted: 1/15/05 at 4:39pm
Great points, Mr. Matt.
This particular nomenclature is really bothering me. It's one thing for someone to say, "Hey, it ain't what it used to be." It's quite another for myriad printed and filmed histories of the art form to come out, entitled THE RISE AND FALL OF THE BROADWAY MUSICAL, or BROADWAY: THE GOLDEN AGE.
Of course, it's shockingly presumptuous to quantify that sort of thing, especially given today's trends. Yes, there was a severe decline in both the quality and quantity of the Broadway musical, starting roughly around 1970. There was also a significant upswing in both the quality and quantity of the Broadway musical, starting roughly about 1990. NO ONE has documented the upswing. Look at BROADWAY! A GRAND TOUR! or even Mordden's HAPPIEST CORPSE I'VE EVER SEEN. All of these books point to the decline, and yet not a single one of them has pointed out what seems blatently obvious to most of the rest of us: the Broadway musical is bouncing back. Both creatively, with the new forms of musicals we discussed earlier in this thread, and financially, with proportionately larger audiences discovering the art form every year.
The basic argument that everyone uses doesn't wash. Everybody says, "Well, Broadway music is no longer "popular" music." Sure. That's a fact. However, it does not explain why PHANTOM OF THE OPERA has run nearly three times as long as MY FAIR LADY -- even though the PHANTOM cast album didn't have remotely the success that the MY FAIR LADY cast album did. Using this simple "hit parade" comparison to justify the theory that Broadway is on its deathbed makes NO LOGICAL SENSE WHATSOEVER.
Not only that, but it's a destructive statement. Saying that Broadway had a "Golden Age" artistically implies that no new composer will ever come up with a show that can compare with what came before them. The act of publishing all of these titles simply reiterates all this destructive nonsense.
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#14
Posted: 1/15/05 at 5:27pmMy thing is, that a lot of people are complaining about musicals now-a-days that have music that is very "pop" and can be heard on the radio if the country was into that sort of thing. Well, back during the "Golden Age" the songs in the musicals WERE what you heard on the radio. And the whole "introduction of rock music ruined musicals" thing is stupid. It was going with the time period that the world was in (just like musicals did with Oklahoma! and such). And do you think that all the musicals during the "Golden Age" were thought provoking and intelligently written? NOPE!!!
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#15
Posted: 1/15/05 at 5:42pm
Good point, Spider, which leads me to another point about this whole "pop" music as showtunes thing.
Isn't it funny that the SAME people who are complaining that Broadway music is no longer "pop" music are the ones who also tend to loathe contemporary "pop" music when it appears in Broadway shows?
The reason that show tunes are no longer on the "pop" charts is simple. Show tunes used to be extractable from Broadway musicals. Look at "Hey There" from THE PAJAMA GAME, a terrific example. A big, big hit on the pop charts. But utterly extractable. That song says nothing SPECIFIC about the characters in the show, although it fits the situation in which it occurs.
The musical theatre has advanced significantly. It is no longer acceptable to write random, generic songs that sort of suit the character in a show, but can also be extrapolated as "pop" tunes.
For me, this is a good thing. Not someting that portends the "death of the Broadway musical."
I'm all for musical theatre songs that specifically FIT the action going on when the character sings it. They make the theatre piece more compelling.
Updated On: 1/16/05 at 05:42 PM
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#16
Posted: 1/15/05 at 6:59pm
Vevue,
How old are you? Any musical in their original produciton is ten times as better as any musical in a thirty mile radius of Times Square.
The point was, today, musicals are inconsistent, inane, under-developed, and ridiculously overblown.
The American theatre was the only thing that this country really invented besides jazz, and as Kitty Carlile says, "And it's gone."
Musicals are the worst they have been in years. How can you stand there and think that saying musicals of the Golden Age were worse than the ones now? Musicals in 1920 were better than the musicals now, although not exactly Show Boat.
Any show that opens its doors today would have been swallowed if it had opened 40 years ago. Shows that were flops are much better than the crap that we are supposed to believe is musical theatre.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#17
Posted: 1/15/05 at 7:09pm
Whatever. Call me a purist, a fool, whatever you want. Take your best shots. Tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
But I have friends who lived the Golden Age. They saw it and they were part of it. And you ask any one of them if musicals thrill them the way they did 35 years ago. And you will get the same answer every time, "No."
Love Wicked and Rent and Thoroughly Modern Millie. Call me an old fogie although I am only a teenager.
Say I'm unable to accept new trends and new ways of music. Argue that Idina Menzel has the same presence as Ethel Merman and tell me that Cole Porter really wasn't that good.
Say that George Abbott was a bad director and tell me that Jerome Robbins's choreography was simple and overrrated.
Tell me that Broadway stars like Gwen Verdon and Alfred Drake are the same thing as Brooke Sheilds and Joey MacEntire.
Tell me that the book to Gypsy is bad and that Sondheim's music isn't hummable.
But you know what, I am beyond the point of caring.
Its gonna be people like who who are going to tell me this my entire life and who have already told me my whole life up until now. And I just don't care any more.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#18
Posted: 1/15/05 at 7:31pm
gherbert, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.
I obviously disagree with it.
I also don't understand your rationale. If you hate everything that's being produced on Broadway today, and long for a so-called "Golden Age" which you insist upon claiming as superior to today's product, then why do you bother? Do you think that you can affect a return to the creaky, George Abbott style of illogical musical with extractable pop tunes instead of character songs?
Listen, I would much prefer sitting through WHOOP-UP! than BROOKLYN, any day. WHOOP-UP!, dumb as it is, is still less insulting than the treacley, dramatically inane mess that is BROOKLYN. (And I find the score more listenable, as well. But that's my personal preference.)
But I'm not really discussing artistic merit here. "Artistic merit" and the success of a Broadway musical are seldom linked. Look at the runs of HELZAPOPPIN' or OH, CALCUTTA compared to the runs of CAROUSEL or SHE LOVES ME, for example. My point is this: Where does this "it was better in the good old days" attitude get us?
Nowhere, obviously. One can take the position that the musical has stopped progressing, and will never achieve the heights that it once had. The end result? The art form dies. Or one can take the position that the musical is an ever evolving art form, and look at not just the years from 1946 to 1964 as the ultimate peak, but as a historical reference of where the art form has been, compared to where it is headed. The end result? The art form continues and grows.
I know that this is a "glass half empty/half full" argument, on its face. But I think it is more than that. The continual insistance that "Broadway ain't what it was" is defeatist. A younger generation won't want to examine the history of the Broadway musical when the older generation continually screams that everything new is automatically inferior.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#19
Posted: 1/15/05 at 7:39pm
Whatever. I've stopped caring. People say this to me all the time and I have worked my butt off my whole life for somethings that I can't really mention and soon they are finally oming together.
So I've just stopped caring and started working to get my opinions heard by people who can do something about it rather than arguing with you all over the artistic merits of Dracula the Musical vs. Gypsy.
I'm not meaning to offend anyone. But just bickering and getting constantly ripped apart by people isn't fun at all. So instead of doing it my whole life, I wanna tell people who will really listen to what I have to say about all this.
I used to be nice and polite before I entered this board. Oh, well.
Updated On: 1/15/05 at 07:39 PM
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#20
Posted: 1/15/05 at 7:47pm
"Whatever?"
Not a particularly persuasive argument, gherbert.
But that's fine. While I enjoy a good debate, I find that debating with myself can often be nearly as valuable.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#21
Posted: 1/15/05 at 7:49pmAre you calling me some sort of a liar? I'm confused.
Leading Actor Joined: 6/26/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#22
Posted: 1/15/05 at 8:04pm
"A younger generation won't want to examine the history of the Broadway musical when the older generation continually screams that everything new is automatically inferior." True.
While I understand gherbert's point, I can't sympathize with it. (And the following post is a general statement, it is in no way directed at anyone on this board. These have been my thoughts for a while)
When Broadway has a large, enthusiastic and increasingly youthful audience, I cannot see it as anything but good. Yes, there are some shows that lack the quality, but there are many shows with heart, engery, creativity and exuberance that lead me to believe the future is bright. And there is a generation coming up to carry on with it.
Shows like Wicked, while they may not have appeared in "the Golden Age", are drawing scores of people to theaters that never would have thought to do so before. The Broadway "scene" is alive. There's fans, sold out performances, ENERGY everywhere.
Yes, times are different. But look at how everything else has evolved. Sports, music, cinema. Everything is changing. For better or worse, each side can be argued.
But when people proclaim that Broadway is dead, I wonder "Dead to who?" Look in the faces of millions of Broadway fans across the country and tell them that Broadway is dead. Tell them the cast recordings they love are garbage, the stars they idolize are insubstantial, the money they've been saving up for months to spend on that ticket would have been better spent 50 years ago. The devotion, the passion and hunger for theater is still alive, why demean that?
*end rant* 
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#23
Posted: 1/16/05 at 2:28am
Amen, NightLaughs.
Give me a WICKED-obsessed teenager any day over a contrary, ill-informed negative Nancy.
Professing dislike for something is extremely easy. It can also be an effective tool to disguise one's lack of knowledge about a subject.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#24
Posted: 1/16/05 at 9:06am
Excuse me?
Are you now saying that I do not know anything about musical theatre. I'll have you know that since the age of seven I have studied and could probably tell you any question you asked me off the top of my head.
Don't through around comments like that when you don't know me.
Videos
