Posted: 5/9/16 at 7:42pm
qolbinau said: "Lebowitz: "The thing I hate most in the world are musicals. Among the many awful inventions of human it is in the top 2."
How can one be wrong about their opinion?
Posted: 5/9/16 at 8:31pm
newintown said: "Fran really was great fun - 30 years ago, when she was working toward the easy-to-achieve goal of being the 80's answer to Dorothy Parker (and only the essayist Dot; not the excellent short story writer or adept screenwriter, or merely-OK playwright). And she achieved that goal for a maybe a year or two. But since then, she's been mostly just smoking cigarettes and coasting on a minuscule and yellowing output of amusing essays. A great disappointment to those of us who expected years of good work from her.
"
Exactly. "I hate musicals" was something hipsters liked to say in the 1970s. (Minus the reference to HAMILTON, obviously.) Ms. Lebowitz is merely dating herself.
As for the American public at large, I haven't seen an updated statistic, but several decades ago a survey showed that only about 5% of the public ever sees a professional production. I doubt the numbers have increased. So theater is a minority taste and has been since popular music and Broadway parted company in the 1960s. Maybe HAMILTON will change that. We'll see.
But musicals still thrive in high schools (at least the best known shows from the Golden Age; my teacher friends say they play to empty houses if they try anything remotely "edgy"
. And millions of people watched the mostly mediocre (IMO) live broadcasts of SOM, PETER PAN, GREASE, THE WIZ, etc. And the minority is apparently large enough to keep PHANTOM running long after decency and good taste demanded it close.
Bottom line: Lebowitz' remark hardly seems to merit the impassioned response it generated here.
Posted: 5/9/16 at 8:40pm
haterobics said: "How can one be wrong about their opinion?
"
Of course opinions can be wrong. I don't know why you and Hogan keep insisting otherwise.
If I opine that the world is flat, I am just wrong. Opinions re matters of fact can be correct or incorrect depending on the fact.
If I opine that Donald Trump will make a great president, I may be proved wrong in time. (I hope we never see that proof.)
I think you and Hogan are talking about matters of taste. "I'm not a fan of rap music" is a statement of my taste and says nothing about the music per se, only my experience of it. "I hate musicals" is also a statement of taste.
Now we are certainly allowed to conclude that Lebowitz has bad taste, but our conclusion is merely a contrary statement of taste, no more or less provable than Ms. L's original remark.
But opinions can be wrong. Dangerously so. "The Iraqis will greet us as liberators" is only one example.
Posted: 5/9/16 at 8:52pm
I'm also one who believes that opinions cannot be wrong. Whatever the reason is in the mind of the "opiner" , unless it is a provable fact, like the world being round, and it's a matter of whatever you want to call it, taste or opinion, it cannot be wrong.
example - I and a friend are looking at a paint color. To me, it's blue, to her it's gray. It isn't really a matter of taste, it's how we each see it. She cannot tell me, "no, you don't see it as blue," and vice versa.
Posted: 5/9/16 at 8:54pm
GavestonPS said: "Of course opinions can be wrong. I don't know why you and Hogan keep insisting otherwise."
She's not really discussing anything that can be empirically proven, though. So I think it falls under the old chestnut, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Posted: 5/9/16 at 9:05pm
@Gaveston-
Opinions cannot be wrong. This is not rocket science.
The world is flat is an incorrect statement of fact, and has nothing to do with an opinion.
Oh and i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "I hate musicals" is not out of style, nor is it by any means a sentiment reserved to "hipsters"
Posted: 5/9/16 at 10:30pm
It's odd that a solid majority of Americans don't like musical theater, since musicals were the most popular genre of film in the thirties, forties, and leaking into the fifties. In the thirties Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald became great stars, in the forties it was Astaire and Rogers, Gene Kelly, Judy Garland and many more. If you have seen MGM's love letter to itself and its musicals, That's Entertainment, then you are familiar with what the public valued so highly.
Some of those great film musicals were original, but many were adapted from Broadway musicals. Would the same audience of that time have not cared for musical theater? More would certainly have appreciated it than now, but the star-obsessed population of the great depression would have mostly missed the great film stars in the theater roles. In addition, somewhere along the path of theater to film, some less popular songs would be dropped and replaced by new songs, or songs known to be popular.
To those who profess to dislike "show tunes," many songs that originated in theatrical productions have endured in popularity seventy to eighty-five years after they were introduced. Among the most popular of these songs, of which performance and/or recording of one or two is almost required, are "My Funny Valentine" and "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" (Rodgers and Hart), "All the Things You Are" (Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein) and the Gershwins' "Someone to Watch Over Me." The latter, which celebrates this year the ninetieth anniversary of its introduction by Gertrude Lawrence in the Gershwin musical "Oh Kay!," has been recorded by hundreds of artists and performed by even more. (Amazon lists over 2000 recordings, although the same artist may appear two, three, four or more times.)
Recent recording artists include Linda Ronstadt, Sting, Lea Salonga, Rod Stewart, Gladys Knight, Willie Nelson, Brian Wilson and Art Garfunkel. Clearly Americans like many show tunes, even if they don't know that they are listening to one.
Updated On: 5/9/16 at 10:30 PM
Posted: 5/9/16 at 11:07pm
old blue eyes said "To those who profess to dislike "show tunes," many songs that originated in theatrical productions have endured in popularity seventy to eighty-five years after they were introduced."
That would be me. No, i'm not fond of showtunes. And although I do really appreciate reading your vast knowledge of them, seriously, those tunes aren't my favorites regardless of how long they've endured and been sampled. I rarely listen to show tunes. I don't hate them, but I never choose them. I loved Ronstadt's singing, but I preferred her singing other than show tunes. Same with the other artists you mentioned.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 12:03am
@OlBlueEyes- what was "the most popular genre of film in the thirties, forties, and leaking into the fifties" has, by your own terms, become something that was popular well over a half century ago. Why is it odd to you that a majority of Americans don't like musicals? The overwhelming majority of the country was born long after that era. Why would you expect people today to like it any more than people who were in their prime in the 30s-50s would be infatuated with the shows and music of the 1880s?
And while it is true that some songs from that era are popular (in spurts) today, that misapprehends the subject which is the musical, not the music from musicals. Even during the nadir of the disconnect between musical theatre and popular culture there were occasionally songs that crossed over. But the theatre is a form of live entertainment, not the packaged projects created to exploit the output of the theatre.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 12:23am
"There's a difference between people that actively dislike musicals and those that have just never thought to give them a chance before. The latter group is the one that people could see being introduced to musicals as an interest through Hamilton, or any other show that reaches the mainstream."
I don't think so. Back when that lamentable phenomenon known as the counter culture imposed its perfidious self upon our lives, Hair made a big stink as a cultural phenomenon. Many young people who wouldn't have been seen at a musical were smitten with it. Their infatuation did not suddenly make them embrace Illya Darling, The Happy Time, or Dear World.. Nor were they suddenly prompted to buy the original cast recordings of Oklahoma!, Plain and Fancy, or Mame.
The same will doubtless be the case for the younger generation of admirers of the greatest show of all time.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 12:46am
Dear Colonel Hogan,
Please do not ever stop posting here. There are about three thousand lurkers who think that you are a hostile and argumentative contributor, not understanding your basic decency and kindness.
And you can imagine what chaos would ensue here if all those new posters descended here and began posting? This site would collapse under the weight and no one would be able to post any comments.
Frankie
Posted: 5/10/16 at 12:50am
what you misunderstand, After Eight, is that those people who embraced Hair were never going to be interested in tired old shows like the ones who mentioned, because they reflected tastes of their grandparents, not theirs. And the tragedy is that musical theatre did not take advantage of the audience with new interests by offering them something that resonated for them. Instead, at the time, the powers that be were backward looking folks like you, and as soon as the potential new audience saw the parade of show music based shows that followed Hair (with extremely limited exceptions) they looked at it and said no thanks. It has only been in this century that we have finally escaped the shackles of the past and started to see musical theatre start to reassert its rightful place as a part of the popular culture. This has been a struggle and it has required patience as shows like Rent, Spring Awakening and now Hamilton have helped paved the path to a healthy art form again. Hopefully we are over the hump and the tired musicals of yesteryear recede more and more as anything other than the museum pieces they are.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 5:34am
haterobics said: "qolbinau said: "Lebowitz: "The thing I hate most in the world are musicals. Among the many awful inventions of human it is in the top 2."
How can one be wrong about their opinion?
"
A good question. I think the idea that ‘opinions cannot be wrong’ is an oversimplification of the issue here. To me, it is one of those clichés people often say in every day language without putting much thought put into the idea.
I think that the word ‘opinion’ encompasses many different types of statements that people can make, and while I agree at least one type cannot be wrong, I think other types can be wrong or at the very least be misinformed. Let me explain what I think are at least three different types of ‘opinions’ and whether they can be falsified or not:
1. Opinion type one: subjective experiences
Falsifiability: are necessarily true/never wrong (unless the person is mentally or physically impaired)
Can the opinion holder be misinformed? No. Their opinion is their experience.
Example 1: “I enjoy Hamilton.”
Example 2: “I haven’t enjoyed any musical I’ve ever seen, except Hamilton.”
Example 3: “I’ve never been so moved in a theatre as I were when Bernadette Peters sang Send in the Clowns.”
Example 4: “I don’t like musicals based on my previous experiences.”
In these examples, I absolutely agree they cannot be ‘wrong’. They are the person’s experience and are always right. I probably agree that Fran Lebowitz’s joke about how awful musicals are is really a hyperbole for example 4 (I don’t like musicals based on my previous experiences). So perhaps we can’t evaluate it as “wrong” (but before you stop reading, don’t forget she made two different statements, not one).
2. Opinion type two: appraisals based on objective criteria
Falsifiability: can be proven to be either right or wrong.
Can the opinion holder be misinformed? Yes – people holding the opinion can be better informed than others. Their opinion is based on external information and some people can possess more of this knowledge than others.
Example 1: “Bernie Sanders will never get his policies through congress if elected as President.”
Example 2: “Hillary Clinton will get defeated by Donald Trump in a general election.”
Example 3: “Casting Bernadette Peters in a musical will increase the likelihood a show will recoup on Broadway.”
These are all opinions. They differ from the first type in that they introduce an argument (specifically, conclusions of an argument) – they are making a judgement and arguing a certain outcome will happen. In these cases, they also argue positions that can be (or eventually be) evaluated against some objective criteria. By evaluating these outcomes against the criteria we can suggest that the opinions are/were “right” or “wrong”. If Bernie Sanders is elected and the policies he has advocated for don’t pass, the opinion was right. If they do, it was wrong.
In addition to being able to evaluate whether the opinion is right or not, we can make an evaluation about how informed the opinion was to begin with. This is because these opinions are (or should be) based on processing external information. For example, if a person argues that Bernie Sanders will never get his policies through congress if elected as president but they don’t actually know what the policies are, this opinion is misinformed. Misinformed opinions have a greater chance of being wrong. Maybe by sheer luck the opinion turns out to be right, but if the person didn’t know the policies in the first place it doesn’t change the fact that it was still misinformed.
So in summary, here we have a type of opinion that can be evaluated about whether it is 1. Right or wrong, and 2. Informed or misinformed.
3. Opinion type three: appraisals based on subjective criteria
Falsifiability: difficult to prove right or wrong unless people agree beforehand on what the subjective criteria is.
Can the opinion holder be misinformed? Yes – people holding the opinion can be better informed than others. Their opinion is based on external information and some people can possess more of this knowledge than others.
Example 1: “The best recording of FOLLIES is the 2011 revival with Bernadette Peters.”
Example 2: “Bernadette Peters and Mandy Patinkin in Sweeney Todd would be the best Sondheim revival in two decades.”
Example 3: “Hamilton is the best and only good musical of the last 65 years.”
These opinions are similar to the previous type in that they are making a judgment and arguing a certain outcome will occur (or has occurred) - they are conclusions of arguments. However, the difficulty here is that the criteria they would be evaluated against is subjective. For example, in the case of Example 1 what does “best” mean? It’s hard to evaluate it as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ unless we discuss what criteria it should be evaluated against (and, particularly in the Arts, it might be hard for us to do that).
However, like the previous type, we can make an evaluation about how informed the opinion was to begin with because each required (or should) require external information. In particular, each opinion is comparing something to another. Example 1 compares a recording to other recordings. Example 2 and 3 compares productions with other productions. Here is how these opinions can be misinformed. Example 1: the person has only heard the 2011 recording. How can they make an apt comparison? Example 2: They have only seen one Sondheim revival in the last two decades (say, the Frogs in 2004). How can they make an apt comparison? Example 3: (crux of the thread, given it’s Fran’s opinion) If they have barely seen any theatre, how can they be confident that Hamilton is the best and only good musical of the last 65 years?
Fran Lebowitz attempted to make an appraisal (based on subjective criteria) that Hamilton was the only good musical of the last 65 years. It’s hard to suggest it is ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ because who knows what she means by ‘good’. But it’s easy to call it misinformed because she apparently does not go to the theatre very often. And this is why, at least in the domain of musicals, Fran Lebowitz does not know what she is talking about.
I would have less of an issue if she stuck with opinion type 1 (i.e., her subjective experience). In general, I prefer informed opinions of type 2 and type 3 because it’s a lot more interesting when it comes to discussing issues. So I’m definitely not advocating that people shouldn’t make arguments. But when they do, at least be as informed as possible.
Updated On: 5/10/16 at 05:34 AM
Posted: 5/10/16 at 8:16am
Are we all really arguing this much about the opinion of someone who is completely irrelevant in 2016? My head hurts.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 8:41am
It is my opinion that quolbinau and I are the only native English speakers remaining in this thread. Hogan and Jane have obviously overstayed their visas and are in the U.S. illegally (which is not, of course, a reason we should love them any less). These are my opinions so they can't be wrong.
I think you exaggerate the "hatred" for musicals, Hogan. Obviously, kids grow up on Disney musicals and films like GREASE. They have musical TV shows like THE BACKYARDIGANS (which I highly recommend).
Now (because the musicals they know are mostly intended for children and After Eight), most people grow out of the habit of watching them on film. But musical films have been making more money lately than at any time since the mid-1960s. And to say the rest of the population "hates" them overstates the extent to which the rest of the population considers them at all. IMO, obviously.
Updated On: 5/10/16 at 08:41 AM
Posted: 5/10/16 at 9:15am
After Eight said: "...Hair made a big stink as a cultural phenomenon. Many young people who wouldn't have been seen at a musical were smitten with it. Their infatuation did not suddenly make them embrace Illya Darling, The Happy Time, or Dear World.. Nor were they suddenly prompted to buy the original cast recordings of Oklahoma!, Plain and Fancy, or Mame."
After Eight is completely right about this. I plan to copy his text and save it for future threads where the "Hamilton is creating more musical theater fans" argument is used again.
I'm also saving my comment above for when the Unpopular Opinions You Hold thread becomes popular again.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 9:23am
Smart thinking. Always be prepared for any eventuality
Posted: 5/10/16 at 9:24am
I don't think anyone is claiming that because of Hamilton millions of people are suddenly going to become avid musical theatre fans. However, it absolutely has happened where people who didn't think much about musicals/hadn't seen any, get exposed to one (usually a mainstream one), fall in love with it and then start researching other shows. That's exactly what happened to me. Not with Hamilton, but with another big hit. Why would it not happen again with this show?
Posted: 5/10/16 at 9:26am
@qolbinau nice try but opinions are still not right or wrong (even though the ones that amount to guesses on future events might later prove to be), and hyperbole is still a valid device.
@gaveston "hate" is not my word but I do believe (and the data backs me up unless you don't believe data) that a large majority of people dislike musicals. And ironically, I suspect that growing up on them is part of the cause because (1) they were force fed to us in school, often by teachers who didn't do a very good job of making them resonate for us (ditto, even more sadly, for Shakespeare) and (2) as adults they are viewed as kids' stuff-to be left behind with Thomas the Train. Add to the mix that the music is so different from that which is popular with kids and you understand why the theatre comes off as medicine rather than candy. My 10 year old nephew has been rapping for a few years-guess what musical he wants to see.
@OlBlueEyes Please don't you stop posting here either. Seriously. In fact, post more because I like reading what you write.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 9:37am
"Why would it not happen again with this show?"
aaaaa15,
Don't you understand? There is no other show. There is only one show. The greatest show ever written, and that ever will be written. And this is it. It begins and ends here.
And nothing else matters.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 9:42am
I don't want to mix metaphors, but there's a lot of splitting hairs in this tempest in a teapot.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 9:45am
I love the turn this thread took. Hysterical, Galveston, thanks!
Posted: 5/10/16 at 10:05am
aaaaaa15 said: "I don't think anyone is claiming that because of Hamilton millions of people are suddenly going to become avid musical theatre fans. However, it absolutely has happened where people who didn't think much about musicals/hadn't seen any, get exposed to one (usually a mainstream one), fall in love with it and then start researching other shows. That's exactly what happened to me. Not with Hamilton, but with another big hit. Why would it not happen again with this show?"
Because like Hair, newcomers to the theater aren't falling in love with the art form. They're enraptured with this ONE example that incorporates a popular music style, and is inclusive of a very large segment of the population that were previously disenfranchised from American history.
Hair was similar in its use of rock music, and its anti-war message and themes that catered specifically to the emotions/mores of the very large "younger generation" of that time.
In both cases, it's the message, not the medium that are being idolized. It seems doubtful that those who fall in love with Hamilton primarily because it's Hamilton would also decide that they need to see She Loves Me or Bright Star.
God forbid they should buy a ticket to Cats.
Posted: 5/10/16 at 10:09am
^ this
Posted: 5/10/16 at 10:17am
John Adams said: "Because like Hair, newcomers to the theater aren't falling in love with the art form. They're enraptured with this ONE example that incorporates a popular music style, and is inclusive of a very large segment of the population that were previously disenfranchised from American history.
Hair was similar in its use of rock music, and its anti-war message and themes that catered specifically to the emotions/mores of the very large "younger generation" of that time.
In both cases, it's the message, not the medium that are being idolized. It seems doubtful that those who fall in love with Hamilton primarily because it's Hamilton would also decide that they need to see She Loves Me or Bright Star.
God forbid they should buy a ticket to Cats."
I agree in some cases. In others though I absolutely believe that they can love other musicals.
When Hair came out, there were really few other musicals that appealed to young people in the same way. I don't see why a fan of Hamilton wouldn't find things to love in shows like Spring Awakening, Next to Normal, Rent, Dear Evan Hansen, In the Heights, Fun Home etc. etc. These are all shows that speak to young audiences and they include popular music styles.
It's absolutely true that in some cases the fans of Hamilton that weren't fans of musicals previously are people of color that love rap music and probably wont feel an inclination towards what other musicals are giving. Nevertheless, there are just as many - if not more - white fans of Hamilton or fans of Hamilton that don't listen to rap outside of Hamilton (as has already been established in this thread).
Audiences don't have to fall in love with the entire art form. There are plenty of people here that prefer the golden age type musicals or the Sondheim era of musicals to the modern day and vice versa. Everyone has their preferences, even within art forms that they love.
Updated On: 5/10/16 at 10:17 AM
