Flop Musicals -- Why the fascination?

I'll tell you why I'm interested - just because something is a flop, it doesn't mean that it's BAD. Most of Sondheim's shows have been considered flops.....'nuff said.

---

Sondheim is an anomoly.

Even so, why not pick one of his shows and discuss it in a positive way?

Rather than lumping his work in with the other flops of history? He deserves more than that surely.

I'm annoyed by people who find the discussion of flops annoying.

I'm fascinated by names with accents.

---

Take FOLLIES, for example.

If someone is insterested in flop musicals, then perhaps start a discussion of FOLLIES, or a discussion of Chapin's book.

My point is, to be meaningful center the discussion on why something may not have worked, if you want to discuss flop musicals, or, heaven forbid on this board, straight plays.

But to simply create lists, and demonstrate who can raise the most obscure or most ridiculous example, is pointless and rather sad, in my opinion.

Let me be clear, I'm not targeting anyone in particular. I am, however, being critical and expressing my own bias against this unconstructive fascination that appears to exist among some theatre afficionados.

Updated On: 7/3/05 at 11:06 AM

I don't understand the bitterness either. I'm not harping on Sondheim as bad because the shows flopped. I'm saying why link all flops together as unworthy of (y)our attention? (yes, the semi-Sondheim pun is intentional, so don't ask).

And really, what's WRONG with creating lists? It's a natural tendency for fans to do that in any genre of interest. As musical theater fans, flops are just as interesting as hits, sometimes more, because we wonder at what it is that MADE them flops, especially if it's something great like Follies.

Are we supposed to just sit and say "all hail Wicked," and "Rent is the beginning of all things musical theater related"? We have a thread about this going already -- check out "Message Board trend."

---

To: NMartin

Since when is a message board meant to be constructive?

With a perspective such as that, participating in message boards would never be anything other than masturbating the mind.

If you are so easily offended by someone's comment or perspective as expressed on a message board, then you might want to consider spending time someplace else where all opinions and points of view mirror your own. You are liable to be much happier there.

Updated On: 7/3/05 at 11:18 AM

It's a typo.

My assistant is off today, I have to type all my posts myself.

What is "unconstructive" about analyzing a flop and thinking creatively about how it may have been improved? People around here who truly know what they're talking about aren't obsessed with flops. They are simply interested in musical theater as a whole, not satified to just discuss "hits." What a bore that would be.

Why isn't it fascinating to look into how even greats like Sondheim, Rodgers & Hammerstein, etc., managed to produce big flops in their time?

(By the way, I'd kill to have seen Mambo Kings, I don't care what anybody said about it. Unfortunately, it's now gone. I don't believe that makes me obsessed or whatever.)

One of the reasons flop shows are so interesting is that they only live on in people's memory. Hit shows are seen by many people, and done constantly by stock and amateur groups. They have cast albums. A show like "Carrie" only exists as far as people's recollections of the event. This gives flop shows a mystical, ephemeral quality. And, by the way, I'd much rather see a real life disaster like "Dance Of The Vampires" than a mediocrity like "Little Women" any day!

---

I think it is interesting to try to understand why some shows have not been hits. Theatre folk are always trying to reinvent a lot of those shows that failed, for one reason or another, so there must be aspects of those shows that work on some level. Look at MACK AND MABEL, for instance. I, for one, loved the show originally. It has a great score, great characters, but the problem has always been the book and not knowing how the score fits into that very dark story. It was way ahead of its time. The original show was way over produced, and should have focused more on the story rather than the overblown production values. But even with those problems I really liked it. They are still trying to make that show work. Same thing with FOLLIES. I was the musical director of the Paper Mill production, which was a very special time for all of us involved, and it was very successful there. It is just not a show that the mass audience will ever go for. It is dark, which I love, and it asks audiences to think! I think it is fascinating to discuss these things. What bothers me now is that musical theatre doesn't have much substance any more. Too much of it is glitz, special effects, and very little plot developement. Thanks God for Stephen Sondheim, Adam Guittel, William Finn, and shows like RAGTIME, LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, CAROLINE OR CHANGE. These are shows that are about something!! I applaud them.

---

schadenfreude? What is that, some kind of Nazi word?

---