"Fans" of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals — Page 5

Does any of this really matter?

Does anything really matter?

Of course it doesn't matter. However, given that we are all spending our free time on a message board I think it's safe to assume that the goal here is that one of two (if not both) agendas be served.

1) Listen to what other people who have similar interests and hobbies have to say about a specific topic, show or concept.

2) Share your thoughts and opinions about a specific topic, show or concept with people who have similar interests and hobbies.

Both of those are being served in this thread. It's about theatre and therefore on topic, so whether it not it "matters" really becomes an irrelevant concept on a message board.

That is unless we want to start the "Are fans of musicals who don't think that fans of musicals who don't like Golden Age Musicals threads matter really fans for musicals?" thread.

If one is truly a "fan" of anything, they should be irresistably compelled to search out past material.

I don't think that is necessarily universally true. I mean, I am that way. However, being a fan of something in the current doesn't necessarily mean you have to take a history lesson on it. Especially something as diverse as theatre and the arts. I mean if you like "Rent" or "Les Miserables" do you have to just study musicals of the last 10 years. Musicals of the last century? Do you have to study straight plays too? What about Greek Tragedy? Shakespeare? Kabuki theatre? When blanket statements are made about what "should be the norm" it makes it very difficult to get a handle on where the stopping point is.

Furthermore, as has been illustrated in this thread a lot of people have stated that they were compelled to research older musicals and understand their worth, they just don't like it.

Let's not get too far off the original question. It isn't about recognizing old musicals. It isn't about acknowledging that they are important and relevant. It's about "liking" them. That is a slippery slope because everyone's tastes are so different and unique.

In general, it's really difficult to equate a value to the importance of personal taste and preference.

FYI, I am rocking out to "Redhead" as I type this, and am considering playing "Rent" when I am finished.

Updated On: 5/14/06 at 11:22 AM

One is not better if they shun Rent, and glorify the Golden Age.

Of course not.

Can't we all just be fans of musical theatre, and leave it at that?

Well, that is the question that we are debating here. For the most part everyone is being respectful and I don't see any reason to "leave it at that." Again, this is a discussion forum. The purpose of this forum is to discuss theories and opinions. The Main Board has been so overrun with review threads and "OMG I Love XX" threads that rarely illicit and good conversation. I personally think that this thread is fantastic because we are having an intelligent debate.

Of course any label is irrelevant. There isn't any need to call yourself ANYTHING. You like what you like and that's that.

Now, in the interest of discussion...

Can someone who only likes two specific shows really be considered a musical theatre fan?

Can someone who dislikes 90% more musical theatre than they like be considered a musical theatre fan?

Can someone who only likes a specific performer be considered a musical theatre fan?

I think the key is really breaking down the meaning of the word fan. Fan is derived from "fanatic".

The definition of fanatic is:
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Now, let's say you love Rent, but you don't really love any other musicals. You like some, but it's mostly about Rent.

Can you really be called a musical theatre "fan". Who would you be a Rent fan who likes some other musicals?

It's all semantics really.

Updated On: 5/14/06 at 11:38 AM

I don't know, man, no matter how long he wears my beautiful pinstripes, how many runs he scores, or how many great plays he makes, I don't think I can ever love Johnny Damon. He just irks me.

On topic: I think Patronus asks some great questions and wickedrentq had some good responses.

I'd have to say that this person who loves RENT, but doesn't really love any other musicals is a fan of RENT, but not really a fan of musicals.

While someone tried to argue the movie thing the other way, I would say it IS the same with movies. A person can love certain movies like (based on a real person I know) Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Braveheart, and The Patriot, but I wouldn't classify him as a fan of movies. Were this person a fan of movies, whether or not he enjoys the films in general, he would watch a movie like Sling Blade and enjoy the quality writing and acting or Rear Window and enjoy the tension Hitchcock creates through his meticulous care in making us care for the characters.

The first person is a fan of epics that uphold his moral standards, while the second is a movie fan. Your so-called musical theatre fan who only (<--key word) enjoys RENT, or Wicked, or Phantom, or Cats is a person who enjoys spectacle, or popularity, or fun musicals, while the person who, in addition to those, also enjoys My Fair Lady, Sweeney Todd, or South Pacific (for whatever reason), is a musical fan

---

Parade is a good example that made it to Broadway and got a few rewards and a loyal fanbase. Musical fans are clamouring for a London production yet our National Theatre's new Director doesnt seem to rate it at all. Oh well! At least we are getting Caroline, Or Change.

I absolutely take your point about Broadway not being the be all and end all. Its a shame that challenging musical theatre is not the commerical success that it can be. Thats more to do with the economics of broadway in 2006 than the tastes of audiences. No matter how hard we try to rewrite history shows like West Side Story, Company, Sweeney Todd Parade did not enjoy the massive runs of Cats or Phantom.

Because it costs so much money to mount a Broadway show, producers are looking for sure fire hits or at least something less risky. Didnt the producers of Wicked take a risk afer the bad San Francisco reviews? Yeah I would say so and it paid off. Avenue Q is another one thats made it too the big leagues, ditto Spelling Bee. Anyway before I rammble anymore I guess I am trying to say that audiences will respond to a *good* evening in the theatre regardless of what the subject is. It just needs to be a well constructed piece of theatre. The key is of course to "trick" people into seeing something a bit off key every once in a while and not just go back and see Chicago over and over.

I am of course an elitist snob from the UK so please take this all with a pinch of salt )))))))

(Who btw the way loves Rent, Wicked, Parade and even had a *fun* time at Footloose. Sometimes I want popcorn, sometimes a nice vintage wine so long as its well prepared!)

That's a very often-disputed claim; I would be careful when taking it as the truth so easily. More likely, it's probably neither completely true, nor completely false.

---

Act4ever- i agree with you about the length of older musicals. Shows like wicked, and rent are popular since there is alot of singing in them, among other reasons. Oklahoma has 16 songs spread across 3 hours, not all too evenly so while most of them are great it makes for a very long night.

---

Well if you want to talk about older shows seeming too long, blame it on the 6 minute attention span brought on by the parents of a generation who let their kids sit in front of the TV all day.

These shows were not considered horrible to sit through during their original productions. Producers and directors knew a thing or two about keeping the audience's attention, and they would not have made the show so long it would have lost its audience. Our attention spans have unfortunately gotten shorter. My advice is to watch less TV and do more activities that require concentration for longer periods of time.

---

Updated On: 5/14/06 at 09:22 PM

I still think that it's ridiculous to say that you have to like (all? 90%? where is the cut off?) Golden Age musicals to be considered a fan. And I'm not talking about quality of recordings or singers, but the shows themselves. I would never discount a show without seeing it on stage first, but I’ve not found that many I've seen to be worth me (remember, this is only an opinion!) seeing again. As I’ve said, I do have inexplicable exceptions (My Fair Lady and Guys and Dolls) and I hope to find more someday...

This is really just echoing what JazzySuite said, but just because shows were radical once doesn't mean that they still have the same impact. I don't doubt that South Pacific made many valuable points in 1949 but now it just seems like pointless moralising (there's a reason why it is rarely revived). Back then, racism was a casual, ingrained attitude which R&H bravely decided to take on. Now, racism is not as a result of the same ignorance in that it can't be taken on with logical argument and some pretty songs.

Another huge problem is that familiarity breeds contempt. The more these shows are done (and in some cases, very badly), the less people will want to see them. I want to be surprised by the score and book of a totally new musical rather than sit through three hours of hill-side yodelling only to watch Maria and the Seven Dwarfs climb over that hillside. Again.
Oddly, I find that productions of Sondheim shows tend to be more daring and I can usually find something new in them to keep me interested. Is that the writing, or a more liberal 'estate'?

This 'old is good, new is bad' mentality is just annoying. I rank Crazy for You with Footloose - a load of popular hits strung together with a terrible book and a lot of dancing. Whether you consider the score to be good or bad is a matter of taste rather than quality, though of course both sides will insist that their taste is better. And so life on a musical discussion board goes on...