How Broadway Lost Its Voice to 'American Idol'

NYT Article

---

Oh snap! Those are some fighting words.

BRAVO BEN BRANTLEY! These are almost the exact words that people around here have been using to discuss the tragedy of, and their depresssion regarding, Christina Applegate not getting to do Sweet Charity:

"That self-congratulatory element is also part of the 'American Idol' package - the subtext that goes, 'I deserve to be a star because it's my right as an American, and because I try so hard.'

---

Great article. He may be tough, but Ben Brantley is excellent. I've been reading his reviews and articles going on ten years now and find him very perceptive.

It does not cost you anything to subscribe.

---

Wow... I never realized how much of an impact Idol had on Bway...

Yeah she looks amazing... so does Sho... ahhh Sho :looks off dreamly:

Well said, Al.

Well, that was certainly a refreshing article from Ben Brantley. In the last few paragraphs, he actually expresses a love of musical theatre. Did anyone else catch his indirect praises for DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS?

---

Hmm, I agree with part of what is being said, and disagree with some other points.

First of all, I think his putting Sutton Foster into this category is a mistake. How long did Thoroughly Modern Millie run after she left again? And let's see how Little Women fares after she is gone. I think she posesses tht spirit of uniqueness he is talking about, but maybe that's just me.

The same with his stab at Menzel...he seems to write her off as easily replacable in Wicked, but irreplacable in Rent, so I wasn't sure of where he was going with that. But I think its funny that he tries to attach Chenoweth to that "unique" charm, when she was not only easily replaced in Wicked, but her replacement shines more brightly than she did.

Anyway, he has a point, but I hardly think the trouble is the type of singing. It's more the fact that actors are getting by JUST by being able to sing this way. The perfect example is Rent. When I saw it a couple of years ago, it was certainly an audience pleaser, but there was only one person in the cast who actually had a good grasp on her role and some decent acting chops, while the rest of the cast could sing the heck out of any song in that show, but without any real character development. Yet the audience walked away more than pleased, and pleny of people found simply "very talented" singers to be "great actors." So, I don't think people like Menzel (and heck...the majority of the rest of the original Rent cast)and Foster are like cogs in a machine. The "problem," if you will, is that these performers are being replaced by good singers who can't act, and the audiences are thrilled by the singing alone, and they can walk away satisfied that they've seen a performance just as good as the original just because so-and-so can belt a high F...and the show will just keep on running even though the quality of performance lowers.

Ok, maybe I misread.

It's early in the morning.....for me.


I think my point was I think the problem isn't the STYLE of singing, but more the writing, as well as the lack of singers who CAN act. It didn't seem (to me) that that's what Brantley was saying.

Updated On: 3/26/05 at 04:06 PM

I agree with Plum and Broadwaygirl.
As a person who came to the Bway community from an acting background and not a pop or exclusively music background, I see these musicals and all I keep asking myself is "Where are the actors?" I see a lot of good voices, albeit pop voices which I can only dig for a little while, but rarely is there a person with real presence or a unique charisma that MAKES me want to watch them, much less, God forbid, someone who can actually ACT the part. It seems that for every Marc Kudisch or Michael Cerveris there's a bland pretty-boy with a passable voice that's less impressive than his abs. In my career, I've seen UNIVERSALLY better acting in regional theatre than on the Broadway stage. There are great musical actors in this country. Why the hell are they everywhere else and not on Broadway?
Also, it seems that composers are catering to this style of music. A style that is ultimately destructive to a singer's voice. A style that demands inhuman amplification rather than rich, biological resonance. In my experience, hearing someone with a "legit" voice sing ANYTHING from Les Mis is better than a pop-infused version of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" or "Heart full of Love." When I hear Anthony Warlow sing "Music of the Night", I remember that though a song can be composed in a pop style, when sung correctly, it SOUNDS like great musical theatre music. So why cater to the whims of radio? Broadway will never return to the days when its composers wrote the popular tunes of the day, because Broadway is no longer the entertainment centerpiece of culture in our country. Its been replaced by tv and film. I'm okay with that. Trying to make it closer to "the music the kids listen to" isn't going to help anything, so why try to convert them? Why not give them something unique amid their homogenous radio dials? Why not give them something to discover: a wealth of music history and musical performances that DO NOT exist in contemporary pop styles? Broadway should never strive to be LIKE something. It was perfect as it was. Composers: stop worrying about writing "catchy" tunes, and worry about writing compelling theatre.
*steps down off tangential soapbox*

---

Why break copyright? Registration is free.