Hamilton is the greatest musical since RENT? — Page 2

Updated On: 4/16/16 at 06:55 PM

"If only rent was a great musical..."



If only Hamilton were even a good one...

I think people in the theatre community tend to conflate how much HAMILTON has really penetrated the masses. Because It hasn't really that much.

I disagree. No, it's not Star Wars or something like that. But I keep finding myself on websites that have nothing to do with musicals or theatre and people will start referencing Hamilton which is something I've never seen before with a new musical.

Mr. Nowack said: "I think people in the theatre community tend to conflate how much HAMILTON has really penetrated the masses. Because It hasn't really that much."

I'd love to know the object of "conflate" but if you are going to make an observation about penetration it seems to me the intelligent prerequisite is a metric. So what is it? Because everyone I can come up with refutes your point.

And if you can successfully supply that answer, you may want to move on to a discussion of market context. By which I mean, for example, has Spotlight "penetrated the masses"?

Please, please believe me here... I've seen H, twice, and totally loved it, was amazed by it, play it endlessly, applaud its' originality and spirit, I think LMM is a true marvel of the Broadway and NY stage, and agree with its' "revolutionary" magnitude, (even though I still hate it when it's called hip-hop)...but, when I scan the topics and read the comments, you would think that before H there was no life on Earth.

It seems like every conceivable topic on every possible idea gets hashed and rehashed endlessly. I mean down to box office to news to stars to chorus members. Don't hate on me either! I LOVED the show!! But, It's getting to the point where I'm expecting to see a thread on, "Which Line Sitter Peed Today?" or "Which Hamilton Cast Member Picked Up Their Dry Cleaning Today?"

Just a thought...no sour grapes.

It's a popular show. People want to talk about it. It's on Broadway. That's why people are talking about it here, on a chat board about Broadway shows. It's a great problem to have. If it bothers you, come back around September or so, it will likely have died down by then.

Call_me_jorge said: "If only rent was a great musical...



"

This site so desperately needs a like button

sarahb22 said: "It's a popular show. People want to talk about it. It's on Broadway. That's why people are talking about it here, on a chat board about Broadway shows. It's a great problem to have. If it bothers you, come back around September or so, it will likely have died down by then."

Yep, most fads die down. It's popular and, as HogansHero said, people care about it. I think it's great that it's driving people to read true history about the Founding Fathers. I think it's culturally significant too; but, then again, so is Keeping up with the Kardashians. And as for being the "greatest musical since Rent" - I don't think Hamilton is the greatest musical since Drowsy Chaperone. However, it is popular and people care about it. Bring in a new generation!!

After Eight said: "If only Hamilton were even a good one..."

Thanks!

HogansHero wrote:

To suggest that the Pulitzer does not signify greatness is culturally depraved. It is the artistic equivalent of being a climate change denier.

This can only be true if you believe that a work is great at the time it wins. Lots and lots of plays have won the Pulitzer and then faded, and would certainly no longer be considered great works. Without getting into detail about current and very recent works that people may have differing feelings about, I think it’s safe to say that the following baker’s dozen are not works we would think of as “great” today.

No Place to Be Somebody

That Championship Season

The Shadow Box

The Gin Game

J. B.

The Teahouse of the August Moon

There Shall Be No Night

Harvey

State of the Union

The Kentucky Cycle

The Shrike

The Old Maid

Both Your Houses…

And so forth. And that doesn’t mention the certifiable great plays that have not won the Pulitzer: Joe Turner’s Come and Gone, M. Butterfly, Perestroika, etc.

Once you get into recent years, I personally don’t think that Between Riverside and Crazy, The Flick, Water by the Spoonful or a number of others will remotely stand the test of time, but I concede that it’s too soon to tell. But as for the prize being a guaranteed signifier of greatness? No way.

Fair enough. I guess I was just reacting to your contention that prizes absolutely confer greatness. I don't think they do, and I don't think it's heresy to say so. But with the understanding that you mean that the winners tend to speak loudly to the community in which they're presented at the time they're presented, I'd say that's largely true. What's more shocking is the naturally conservative nature of the prize-givers, including the Pulitzer, which shied away from, say "Virginia Woolf" and then gave the prize to a couple of other Albee plays later on, when he was no longer an "Enfant Terrible". Certainly "Virginia Woolf" was the most important play produced in 1962, and probably the only one from that season that has achieved a permanent place in the repertoire, yet the Pulitzer Committee ducked it and gave no award. So Prizes may confer greatness, but they're not always a reliable way of judging it.

^ shush!