Broadway... Now and Then.- Page 2
Broadway... Now and Then.
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#25
Posted: 1/16/05 at 9:50am
I agree with Gherbert.
1) Broadway Musical is NOT dead, sure, it does lack, well the certain something that makes shows better than the others.
2) the length of show runs doesn't really say anything about the quality of them. So producing a show in a clever manner to have them please the crowds doesn't make it a great piece of theatre.
3)thus while it is great that modern scores do draw "American Idol" audiences, this can hardly be regarded as the top of the art.
4) the problem with the issue of broadway scores being part of the culture of popular music or not being it is not really routed in the broadway scores but rather in a vast decline in the quality of popular music. Whether it is approvable that the broadway scores try to assimilate into that direction is quite questionable.
And last but not least: I am looking forward a lot to DRS, Spamalot and LITP who might draw up this season from a mediocre one to a good one.
Jay
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#26
Posted: 1/16/05 at 10:22am
Yes. The notion that Broadway music always emulated the pop charts is completely wrong. Through the 50's Broadway music was high on the charts, but when the sixties hit with the rock n' roll craze and the Beatles, Broadway music didn't suddenly turn to that type of music.
It stayed consistent throughout the 70's. The songs from "A Little Night Music" or "Chicago" or "On the Twentieth Century" were still very much in the mold of the Golden Age.
People think it is good that Broadway composers have tried to aim their music to the pop charts, but personally I think it has completely taken away from a sound and a quality that was present decades after it lost popularity.
I don't hate everything that comes to Broadway. Call me a negative Nellie, but the quality of the work has completely dropped off. AND the worst part about it all is that it doesn't have to be that way, but it is anyhow.
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#27
Posted: 1/16/05 at 12:17pmOk, I agree that musicals have gotten a little blindsided on what it is supposed to be. I mean, even though it is a musical it is still theatre. Theatre, in general, should reflect life. I mean, a lot of the "Golden Age" musicals did just that. Mame talked about the depression and WWII which was only a few years before the "Golden Age" started. I think a lot of the argument of "Is broadway Dead" is that we have gotten into fluff musicals with a straight pop score to appease the masses of teenagers that are among the majority of musical theatre fans right now. I am not saying that is bad because it is great that we are pulling in new people into the theatre. And the whole "Movie to Musical" thing is still doing the same thing. I mean, people go "Hey, I like that movie so I will more than likely like the musical." Even though people don't like RENT it is still something that Broadway went against and that is dealing with REAL issues (Aids, gay people, poverty, etc.). I think that is why it struck such a core in a lot of people. Also, Phantom and even CATS were/are pure entertainment, to take us out of our world of turmoil and hate. CATS is kind of like the ROCKY of musical theatre. I mean, the lone cat, the one everyone despised and hated was the one that was chosen to be reborn again. I don't know. Musical Theatre is definetly NOT dead and will soon rise even higher and then fall again. I think what a lot of it is, is that people are so fixated on what is "proper" theatre (Sondheim, etc.), that do not like ALW and such because it is not "Sophisticated"...........and then we have those that would rather be entertained than have to sit through something that makes you think and actually listen to the lyrics, etc. It is two difference of opinions and they are clashing. Probably during the "Golden Age" there were people who said bad things about Gypsy, Oklahoma!, Mame, WSS, etc. They probably wanted to go back to the days of the Follies. We will always have this argument no matter how the theatre changes in the future.
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#28
Posted: 1/16/05 at 1:49pm
"Probably during the "Golden Age" there were people who said bad things about Gypsy, Oklahoma!, Mame, WSS, etc. They probably wanted to go back to the days of the Follies. We will always have this argument no matter how the theatre changes in the future."
Great point.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#29
Posted: 1/16/05 at 6:02pm
Whoa, gherbert, sorry if my comments were miscontrued. Believe me, I'm not personally attacking you, or implying that you know nothing about the musical theatre.
Just trying to have a discussion here. Sorry if I came across as rude, it honestly wasn't my intention.
Spider, you bring up a great point. Did some people who saw OKLAHOMA trash it and pine for the Follies? I wonder...
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#30
Posted: 1/16/05 at 6:37pm
gherbert:
"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."
Actually, I don't recall anyone saying any of those things.
Musicals now are different than musicals then mainly because of two reasons: the writers are different and the audience is different. We have new writers ad new producers with new ideas to try and draw audiences to musical theatre who are now surrounded by multiplex cinemas, cable TV, music videos, MTV, SNL (TV and films), and the internet. We are no longer performing to an audience where theatre is a main source of entertainment. To say that musicals of 1920 (nearly all of which were simplistic reviews) EXCEPT Show Boat simply makes no sense whatsoever.
Your explanation of being a teenager is the most comprensible argument you have made. It clearly shows that you have been influenced by a lot of what you have read, but objectively analyzed little. If you actually watch Broadway: The American Musical with an open mind, you would understand why musicals change over time and why things don't simply lovingly stay the same forever and ever and ever. Theatre is an art. Art changes over time and is greatly influenced by social and political change. If you accept that, then maybe you can actually enjoy musical theatre for the rest of your life. If not, then you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment.
"..and I have worked my butt off my whole life..."
Most of the creators of the musicals you now look down upon have worked two of your lifetimes to accomplish what they have. I wish you success, perspective and a little humility.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#31
Posted: 1/16/05 at 6:53pm
MisterMatt, thanks for reposting that.
I'd love to analyze it, bit by bit. Gherbert, this ISN'T a personal attack, it's simply an analysis. Discussion is good!
"Argue that Idina Menzel has the same presence as Ethel Merman and tell me that Cole Porter really wasn't that good."
Well, of course Idina Menzel doesn't have the "same" presence as Ethel Merman. No two actors have the same presence. It Menzel a better actress than Merman? Probably. Did Merman have more stage presence than Menzel? Probably. But the fact of the matter is that the number of people who actually saw both performers live on stage and can compare them is exceedingly slim. As to Cole Porter, I'm certainly not going to deny his brilliance. But I will say this: He had a terrible mid-career run, between ANYTHING GOES and KISS ME KATE. Seven flop shows.
"Say that George Abbott was a bad director and tell me that Jerome Robbins's choreography was simple and overrrated."
Abbott was a terrific director. But he was a terrible playwright. He had no patience for character motivation, he was the leading proponent of "faster, louder, funnier." I've NEVER heard anybody say that Jerome Robbins's choreography was simple and overrated. No one. I've heard from a lot of people who despise him, either because of his caustic tactics or his repulsive behavior during the House of Un-American Activities scandal. But even those people who worked with him and hate him still credit him for the genius that he was.
"Tell me that Broadway stars like Gwen Verdon and Alfred Drake are the same thing as Brooke Sheilds and Joey MacEntire."
That's a silly comparison. Neither Ms. Shields nor Mr. McEntire have ever created a role on Broadway. A better comparison would be Gwen or Alfred's replacements to Brooke and Joey. Try to make that same comparison with a more compatible candidate: say, Gwen Verdon vs. Donna Murphy.
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#32
Posted: 1/16/05 at 7:24pmExcellent points, Veuve. Whil we're at it, why not compare Philip Glass to Mozart? Or Pollock to Rembrandt?
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#33
Posted: 1/16/05 at 7:44pm
Fine. I'm an idiotic and stupid kid who knows nothing and am speaking out of my behind.
I watched Broadway: The American Musical with an open mind. And by saying that I worked my butt off my whole life is completely different to the composers that I look down on. First of all, I know that they have had much more experience than I have, but like they wanted to when they were kids, I just want to change the art form that I love for the better. That's all I really want.
But I'm tired of everthing I say getting used against me. Truthfully it's tough to read and hurts my feelings.
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#34
Posted: 1/16/05 at 7:57pm
I'm going to jump into this fray.
Singular creative genius always creates room for itself, in any age.
Unfortunately, nearly everyone working in the theatre today has been heavily influenced by television, and of course, movies. Both of which recycle someone else's ideas as well. The younger the performer or creator, the more heavily influenced he or she is. True individual creativity is less obvious now.
Sadly, to me, most of today's theatre creators are recycling someone else's creative ideas without any individual stamp.
Broadway is as it's always been. Shows at all levels of quality have always been produced on Broadway since the days of THE BLACK CROOK. The percentage of poor shows, rightfully forgotten, far exceeds the number of truly terrific shows still remembered generations later.
I remain, yours for a better Broadway.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#35
Posted: 1/16/05 at 8:02pm
Jose, that's a wonderful thought: "Singular creative genius always creates room for itself, in any age."
You're absolutely right, it does.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#36
Posted: 1/16/05 at 8:30pm
Jose is completely correct when he says that many people today working in theater has been heavily influenced by television and movies. Theatre has recently taken the role of the poorer cousin of the two: pretty prestigious but not as important to pay attention to.
There was a time that Broadway was equal with the television and movies and didn't need to take hints from it. I guess that is the point I am trying to make. I always wanted a Broadway that was all the wonderful things I had listen to and read and watched. There's nothing like watching the lights dim in a Broadway theater whatever age you are in and whatever show.
The point I am trying to make is that Broadway need not be influenced by MTV and SNL and movies and television and sitcoms to be wonderful and often that true creative genius shines through when influenced very little by the surrounding culture.
But in a thread like this it is hard to say everything. I think the out-of-town tryout was much much more effective in the past, I believe that cast albums were once held in high fashion even when they weren't near the Billboard top 10, producing by committee has become a trend in recent years and instead of producers wildly dedicated to their shows like Hal Prince, Feuer and Martin, David Merrick and Alexander H. Cohen, we get too many cooks in a kitchen, many of whom are really inexperienced and are really looking for the money in the situation.
It's always been different for me. Unlike most my age I was brought up on the Golden Age musicals simultaniously with current Broadway and Les Mis and Rent never thrilled me the way that Gypsy or Follies does.
I've never really sat in a theatre and knew I was seeing something historic that would be talked about long after I was gone (exept when I saw Elaine Stritch at Liberty) and some part of me always felt a little deprived because I know friends who could sit here and tell you every moment of seeing Cabaret in Boston before Broadway.
Maybe I am a purist. A young dinosaur. But I've always felt like I've grown up in an age of musical theatre that I'm wrong for, but love it so much that I could never turn my back on it. Kind of like A Chorus Line, huh?
As I've said about a billion times, I'm sick of bickering, but that's just my view. I guess I have been searching for a Broadway that existed only before I was born and I learned at a very young age that to capture any part of it I would have to make it myself unless there is some producer out there that wants his shows to tryout in Boston and Philly without unnecessary amplification and a full thrity piece orchestra absent of synthesizers. If there is, I'd really like to meet him.
Maybe it's a pipe dream. I'm not so green to think Broadway could somehow climb the pop charts again or have tickets for $15. But I can't just wonder what it was all like and mope over what I missed. Would you even if you don't agree with me?
So that's why I feel the way I do. I know half of you are
sneering at this sappy post, but its just how I feel. I'm a lot of things, but one thing I'm not is someone who compromises what they feel.
And Veuve, I appreciate your earlier apology and let me apologize for taking your comments as personal attacks.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#37
Posted: 1/16/05 at 8:51pm
"... instead of producers wildly dedicated to their shows like Hal Prince, Feuer and Martin, David Merrick and Alexander H. Cohen, we get too many cooks in a kitchen, many of whom are really inexperienced and are really looking for the money in the situation."
I wonder about this, Gherbert. It was said in "Broadway: The Golden Age." But I suspect that this theory is wrong.
Yes, there are a litany of "producers" names above the title of any new musical. But how many of them are really "producers," and how many are simply taking a credit for pumping a large investment into a show?
Whether there is one name credited above the title or 200, there is generally only one producer of a Broadway show. Mark Platt was the guiding financial voice behind WICKED. Margo Lion is singularly responsible for getting HAIRSPRAY to Broadway, even though she shares "producer" credit with a litany of other names.
I don't think it's a case of "too many cooks in the kitchen" as much as it is a savvy producer selling above-the-title credit for financial investment purposes.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#38
Posted: 1/16/05 at 9:14pm
That's what I thought for a while too, Veuve. But the more that I read and researched, you can see a distinct separation between producers from the Golden Age and a bit after to now.
It may be that only one or two are really producing, but since they have major investments from all different major corporations with billing they tend to think with their checkbooks over their creative minds when producers used to really work and are that their show was not only a hit, but also that it was artistically the best that it could be.
For instance, in Ted Chapin's wonderful book Everything Was Possible: The Birth of the Musical Follies, if I remember correctly there were some changes that were not really completely necessary, but would benefit the show. So Hal Prince put up his own $14,000 to make some changes to the show. Today most producers will let a bad number or scene stay in a show just because it is costly to make changes, especially musical changes: you have to pay for the orchestrations, copies to be made, then pay your actors, directors, and orchestra members overtime to learn the song. That cost money, but quite often it is worth it.
Lastly, I leave you with these words from, in my opinion, the most artistically successful and best producer of the American musical of all time, Hal Prince (in an interview conducted by Playbill.com):
What made the visionary producer of West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Cabaret, Company, A Little Night Music and more return to producing?
"Well, my wife, Judy Prince, has been after me for years," Prince said in the Oct. 22-28 Playbill On-Line Brief Encounter interview. "She's angry I stopped. But I stopped for a very good reason. Twenty-some-odd years ago, I stopped on the grounds that I was sick of reading 'Producer-Comma-Director.' I wanted people to know I'm a director. It somehow seemed I was muddying the waters some. What's happened, of course, is that's not a problem anymore. So I'm perfectly willing to have 'Director-Comma Producer.' I'm not a snob about producing. It's just that the directing is the core of my work. I went to see a show last winter. Good play. And there were 23 producers' names over the title. First I smiled and thought, Gee, I hope they win the Tony because I want to see that with my own eyes. And then I thought, what is that? What does that say about producing?"
He added, "It says it's expensive, but, you know, people can invest in shows and they don't have to have their names over the title. The simple truth is you can't have producing by committee and we need creative producers. That is a breed that still exists, of course, but in smaller numbers than when there were single people and partners presenting plays. I would love to see a modicum of that in the business."
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#39
Posted: 1/16/05 at 10:07pm
gherbert, I agree that Hal Prince is the most important Broadway figure in the last 40 years.
But his comment that you quoted has a ring of sour grapes to it.
I have a friend who was an above the title "producer" of a recent Mitchell Maxwell flop. The only reason he invested in the show was so that he could get the ego boost of having his name on the cover of a Playbill. He had no artistic input into the show. Maxwell (a fascinating, bizarre creature, by the way) made his investors "feel" like they were producers of the show, but they weren't. I think this is a trick that today's producers have to resort to. While Hal Prince can decry it all he wants to, the economics of Broadway today are much different than the days when he produced THE PAJAMA GAME. And desperate times call for desperate measures.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#40
Posted: 1/16/05 at 10:23pm
Veuve,
While your perspective is definitely appreciated, Mr. Prince produced his last show just two years ago with only his and one partner (Arielle Tepper) above the title.
It's still possible, but, frankly, most of the time it is big time companies like Miramax that make investments probably not because they are looking for a lot of profit or because they especially believe in the show, but because it looks good for the company to have their name above the title on a hit Broadway show.
But frankly besides that, it has more to do with the other things that I said as well.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#41
Posted: 1/16/05 at 10:53pm
I totally see what you're saying, gherbert, but it seems to me like there's a blanket misconception going on here.
Unlike television or the movies, there's really no way to make a "quick buck" by investing money on a Broadway show. Statistically speaking, it's a horrible investment. Sure, once in awhile someone inadvertently puts $1,000 into a CATS, and then they rake it in. But more often than not, it's a tax writeoff.
I understand the point you're making, and I concede that a "too many cooks" situation could be problematic.
It just doesn't make sense to me that Broadway has been "taken over by corporations." Even when a corporation entirely finances a show (like Universal/MCA and WICKED), there is usually a single person who has a passionate vision (in that case, Mark Platt).
Sure, there are other reasons to sink money into a Broadway show than a tax writeoff -- there is a certain cachet about it. But shows don't get produced without someone picking up the ball to begin with, generally a producer who sincerely believes in the material.
I'm glad that Hal Prince still has enough street cred that he can raise the money to produce a show without having to list his investors above the title. I'm sure Margo Lion wishes she were in the same position. But the fact that Margo Lion is forced to list a litany of above-the-title producers on a Playbill doesn't negate her inherent passion as a producer.
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#42
Posted: 1/17/05 at 12:48pm
"Sadly, to me, most of today's theatre creators are recycling someone else's creative ideas without any individual stamp"
Which is also true of most of the musicals of the Golden Age. Look at the endless parade of musical comedies that followed exactly the same structure and style. Even Rodgers and Hammerstein recycled what worked into another show to make lightning strike twice.
"I just want to change the art form that I love for the better"
The art form will evolve and change due to a series of events. It cannot be changed by one person (no, not even Sondheim could do it alone). Do you want to change it in general, or try to force it to be something it used to be in a completely different social, political and economic era?
"There was a time that Broadway was equal with the television and movies and didn't need to take hints from it."
And at that time, television and movies were not as abundant or accessible as now. And back then, most of the ideas for musicals came from novels or plays. There were not that many more completely original shows than now. There were many more shows being produced, but there were also many more flops.
"I always wanted a Broadway that was all the wonderful things I had listen to and read and watched."
Then what you want is something that cannot possibly exist any more. Not unless you have a time machine.
"Unlike most my age I was brought up on the Golden Age musicals simultaniously with current Broadway and Les Mis and Rent never thrilled me the way that Gypsy or Follies does."
Then I'm sorry for that. I found both Les Mis and Rent to be thrilling, exciting, original milestone musicals for Broadway and I've studied it twice as long as you. Could you not just see them for what they were rather than what they weren't?
gherbert - I know what you're trying to say, but you need to apply your knowledge of the past to the audience of the present and the future to understand how the art form is progressing and to make a proper evaluation. It's like trying to force Marilyn Manson fans to embrace barbershop quartets. It's a different audience at a different time with different interests and tastes. It's one thing to pine for the way things were, but it's another to expect things to change back to the way they were and to try and compare now with then. It seems you have nothing but a pessimistic view of current musical theatre that can never change until it reaches some impossible expectations that were set it in an era that no longer exists. Brace yourself for the possibility that it may never happen.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/1/03
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#43
Posted: 1/17/05 at 2:04pm
Mister Matt,
I understand why Les Mis and Rent were thrilling for people.
I'm not saying they weren't. PERSOANLLY they never thrilled me the way that the Golden Age musicals did.
And I am aware that things will never be the way that they were ompletely without a time machine.
That last message was not meant to be really factual and I think I said in it several times that I know it's not the most realistic opinion and that it may just be a pipe dream. The message was supposed to be an explanation of why I personally love the musicals of the Golden Age and don't identify with current musicals. I'm not trying to discourage people or say that they are wrong at this point, but rather just to explain why I feel this way.
You've all made very valid points. Art changes over time and with technology art changes, especially theatre. I never said that I want exactly the Golden Age, as you implied. It would be nice, but really impossible.
Look, since a very young age I have wanted to be a Broadway producer/director. Not something every eight-year-old wants, but hey, we all gotta have some dream when we're young.
When my classmates heroes were Superman and Michael Jordan, mine were Hal Prince and George Abbott. It's just who I am.
I never said I thought I could single handedly start a new Golden Age. That's ridiculous. I never said I thought I will be really successful. Maybe I won't.
But what I can say is that I can't compromise what I love and what I want to do. And they musicals that have influenced me are just different than the musicals that others were influenced by.
It's just who I am. And please don't take quotes from this and rip me apart because I'm trying to be sincere and honest here.
Updated On: 1/17/05 at 02:04 PM
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/04
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#44
Posted: 1/17/05 at 3:05pm
gherbert, I don't think anyone is trying to "rip you apart" here, we're just having a lively and interesting discussion.
I completely admire your passion for musical theatre. The world needs MORE young people like you who are fascinated by the history of the Broadway musical.
My earlier comment about "negative Nancys" wasn't directed at you, personally. But there is this particular type of musical theatre "fan" that drives me up the wall. They are usually older, gay men who always proclaim loudly their superior knowledge of musical theatre, and then complain prolifically about the substandard state of the theatre today. Generally, they don't have a clue what they're talking about, they haven't even been to see a Broadway show since A CHORUS LINE, and they tend to have a skeletal knowledge of classic musical theatre at best. These "negative Nancys" don't really give a whit about the theatre, they simply thrive on the act of being contrary, because it makes them feel superior.
re: Broadway... Now and Then.#45
Posted: 1/17/05 at 3:25pmgherbert - Despite what you think, I'm not trying to rip you apart. I'm trying to understand what you're saying and I'm replying according to my perspectives on what you've said. More than anything, I just want to encourage you to see the good in what we have rather than what we don't and maybe broaden your perspective to understand why things aren't the way they were (or maybe the way you think they should be). As Veuve stated about the "negative Nellies", it is often the opinion I read of in these books that proclaim the end of musical theatre as being 1962 or 1975 and that there is nothing noteworthy thereafter. And while I am as nostalgic as those guys, I don't close my mind to the present or the future by trying to resurrect something that is gone and cannot come back. I love revivals and I think they are a wonderful way to keep the memories of these eras alive, but if art doesn't move forward, it dies. And if we don't move with it, we ultimately reject it.
Videos
