Broadway Composers Who Get Totally Screwed Over By Audiences — Page 2

Maybe when these 'screwed Broadway composers' (Sondheim excepted) learn how to tell worthy stories effectively, write good (not just accessible but actually GOOD) scores, and engage their audience instead of alienating them like rebellious adolescents at every turn, perhaps they will get themselves 'unscrewed.' But I wouldn't count on it. Another turn of the screw, guys! Faster!





Henry James
Washington Square, NYC

what is the livent scandal?

---

Wild Roses, I think the fact that sondheim does his own thing is what appeals to his fans, and while some people don't get it, i think he writes musicals in an "art for art's sake" manner, i also think that if sondheim isn't original, who is going to be... there is very little originality being supported right now...

---

Here's my real position on Thoroughly Modern Millie. I did not want to see Thoroughly Modern Millie when it came out because I wanted to see Into the Woods instead. As the years went by and Millie's run continued, I always thought to myself, "Do I want to see this show eventually?" The answer was no. Quite frankly, this show never appealed to me.

And, yes, Jeanine Tesori is working on the Shrek musical which I would in fact see because I friggin' love that movie.

---

Since I started this thread, I've actually had time to reflect on all of this. I was going to write my college essay about how audiences are extremely closeminded. But my tutor talked to me about it and I thought about it. It's not the audience. It's just that these composers write shows that they consider groundbreaking and innovative. But they're just not entertaining for an audience whose idea of a great night out does not involve watching people get their throats cut. They just don't find these shows appealing. The subject matter might be too unorthodox or the score might have, as they say in Amadeus, too many notes. And the audience has to think more than they're used too because the lyrics are full of hidden meanings or profound philosophies.

Does that sound about right?

---

I disagree with that. Look, audiences aren't going to see the shows by these composers for one simple reason: money. If you're a tourist and you're paying 100 bucks or more a ticket, you're going to go with what's safe - you're going to go with what you KNOW will be a good time. Mamma Mia, Phantom, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Rent -- these shows have established themselves as names -- people know these shows and know they won't be disappointed. Whether it be by name brand of the show (ie the Disney shows) or by the composer (Mamma Mia, Phantom), or the one-off shows that you still know what you're getting going in (Rent, Wicked) audieneces pretty much know exactly what they're getting with these shows. At 100 dollars a pop, who can blame audiences for not wanting to try the new show by Michael John LaChiusa - someone no one who is not obsessed with theater has any idea who he is?
To that end, Sondheim shows follow a similar pattern -- audiences don't know exactly what they're getting with him before hand, and thus aren't willing to go see the shows in droves. Sad as it is, we theater geeks aren't enough to maintain the run of an "artistic" show, no matter how much we may love it.

---

Updated On: 11/5/06 at 10:12 AM

"Wild Roses, I think the fact that sondheim does his own thing is what appeals to his fans, and while some people don't get it, i think he writes musicals in an "art for art's sake" manner, i also think that if sondheim isn't original, who is going to be... there is very little originality being supported right now..."

First of all, learn how to capitalize Sondheim's name and well as some of your "I"s please. (English grammar freak here. At least you spelled the rest of your words properly and know how to use punctutation. It drives me nuts to see the how the English language is slaughtered on this board.)

Secondly, I didn't say that Sondheim going his own way was a bad thing. I just was trying to say that the more innovative composers are going to be left behind (as most innovative people are regardless of what profession they work in) because their ideas are outside of the mainstream. Originality usually appreciated by the mainsteam until it has become mainstream. I do agree with you that there is very little orginality being supported right now. (Although from a feminist and ethnic studies perspective, I believe Broadway still has a ways to go before it can truly consider itself a radical place.)

Besides, Sondheim has repeatedly made it clear that doesn't want to win a popularity contest, that he goes his own way because he prefers being in the niche. (Although considering the guy lived through the Civil Rights, Anti-War, Gay Rights and Women's Movement, one would never know it from listening to his musials which is why I believe he is a liberal and innovative, but still quite traditional in his characterizations of men and women. If he is going to brag about how innovative he is, he should at least stop writing characterizations of men and women like it is still the 1950s/beatnik movement.)

*******************************

"How about Broadway Composer getting screwed over by Theatrical Politics? I think David Yazbeck got REALLY screwed for "Full Monty" the year "The Producers" came out. Yes, Producers is a good musical but, I personally felt Monty was GENIOUS and had it not been in the running during the same season, it would have taken everything.. everyone just went with the Mel Brooks hype. I also believe Yazbeck was screwed for "DRS"... Spamalot being another case of um total hype because the show really isn't funny without a star. And the music is fair."

Its really no different than with what happens with movies or tv award show politics either. There are tons of cases in Oscar and Emmy history where a more deserving movie/series creator, etc, etc, should have won but the voters give it to something else because there wasn't enough momentum for the person who really deserved it. It really is a case of a popularity contest and usually the more deserving person does get screwed over awards time. (The Emmy rules were even altered to give the underdogs a chance...and still the same old, same old, got the nods and wins.)

Yeah, I totally forgot to put David on the list in the first place. His stuff is awesome. I love Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and The Full Monty.

---

Why nobody talks about Jason Robert Brown? He actaully left Broadway for a while with the brilliant Parade and Last Five Years...

---

As far as I know, JRB's score is MUCH MORE complicated than Sondheim, though Sondheim's score is already difficult, and sure I know LFY is off-broadway. I just want to say he actually leave musical theatre for that period, but he's going to have a show soon...

---

You can't blame the audience, they came and paid $$$. He has had two successful shows. Both with national tours. You can argue he was robbed for Tonys, but the audience didn't vote. Personally, I think DRS was robbed, The Producers deserved it.

I suppose with your argument "A Chorus Line" got screwed over by the audiences because they let it close with fewer performances than Cats (eventually had).

Well for one, I don't trust anyone's opinion on a Broadway/musical theater related issue if they spell the Tonys "The tonies." But anyways....

I don't think audiences rejecting a show has anything to do with the composers. I know plenty of people who aren't theater buffs, but who love WICKED and listen to the CD everyday, but do any of them know who composed it? Nope. They go to what they like. I remember when I was in NYC in March '04, I didn't want to see Wicked because I thought it looked boring, then two years later, I actually heard the score and now I really enjoy it. I just didn't know anything about the show at the time. When I first heard Sunday in the Park With George I didn't really care for it, but after watching the video and listening to the score again, it's now one of my favorite scores.

I wouldn't consider any of those composers to be screwed over. Just because they haven't had a "hit" on Broadway doesn't mean they have accomplished anything. "Bernarda Alba" was a hit off-Broadway. And "Piazza" had a long, healthy run, extending a couple times. I'm not sure how that's considered over-looked?