How long has this been going on . . . The Last 14 Years of the Musical

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 7:09pm

So I am reading my new favorite book, Broadway Musicals: The 101 Greatest Shows of All Time and in the back they list the shows by year and categorized by decades. And I drooped my head when I came to see the number of musicals included from the last 14 years. Three. Three musicals. That is 2.9% of the 101 greatest shows according to the authors. And what is more, I completely agree with them! Also, NONE of the shows of the last 14 years that were featured were financial blockbusters, which says something about the taste of musical theatre fans.

Broadway used to be a place where artistry was more important than industry. A hit was a hit because it had a wonderful book and score and performances and now hits are hits because they sport the songs of ABBA. Plus producers are now basically CPAs who don't give two craps about the quality of a show as long as it is putting dough into their pockets. Shows don't go to Philly, Boston, or Baltimo' anymore, but instead open cold or go to regional theatres where the audiences and critics really tell them nothing new about the show. Plus producers and directors are so focused on demographic that they're really reluctant to go with their gut and we get these saturated messes like Mamma Mia! and sentimental mish-mashes like Les Mis. Where is the fire? The artistry? The David Merricks?? The Hal Princes???? The Michael Bennetts????

Ticket prices are about $25-$30 too high and theatre is gradually becoming less and less accessable and soon only the ery wealthy will be able to afford tickets to a Broadway show. And it is sad that when you get tickets from a discount place like TKTS the deal is something like $25. Now, no student can really afford to do that a lot. Ticket prices should make Broadway available for everyone and I do not mean that the top price should be really low, but the cheap seats should be a lot cheaper so that real people could afford the see Broadway shows with some frequency.

And the worst part about all this . . . the Broadway I treasured and studied and loved as a kid disappeared before I was ever born. And it's really only been the last 14 years. Grand Hotel and Dreamgirls and La Cage aux Folles and Sunday in the Park with George are all great musicals.

And then something died. Broadway went somewhere like most fields of American culture that suddenly made it unoriginal. Something has gone stale and something is not the same. Will we ever be able to regain some of that glory, even a little, maybe. But right now I say this because we are really in an armpit of a musical season. And junk like All Shook Up and Good Vibrations are NOT musicals!!! I am talking about an amalgam of original music and lyrics and story. And the only new musical of the entire fall was Brooklyn, which did musical theatre more of a disservice than a favor.

What happened? Disney happened. Rock operas happened. Cats happened. And here we are, looking into a blackhole. I just can't believe it and still there is no place on earth I would rather be than in a Broadway theater as the lights dim, but there is something lost. Something we just have to find again. I can only hope that we will.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 7:14pm

amazingly put. AMEN BROTHA! i totally agree with you!

[Bway=happy]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 7:26pm

While I 100% agree with you, I'm really not even sure if there is a solution to your problem posted. I've thought about this before: it's basically a downward spiral! Can someone give me an explanation of hope?

Is it fair to make a comparison that how Chicago the movie revived musical that maybe in the near future watching an original and creative movie musical could be translated to stage with success? Is this the future?

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 7:29pm

we are in a transition stage, that's how i see it. most the yesteryear great composers are dieing off or dead (ie: Cy Coleman, Loesser, ETC...) and the new composers/lyricists (ie: Q people, Jason Robert Brown, Lippa etc...) are just finding their b-way voice.

[cturtle]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 10:16pm

well, at least we have that coffee table book to remember it all by! sure hope my copy arrives from amazon before xmas ...

Posted: 12/16/04 at 10:36pm

I do think a big part of the problem, as you say, is prohibitive prices. Sondheim recently complained that one big change was now the majority of New York theatre goers are tourists--before they were locals. nothing wrong with that except tourists usually quickly choose hit shows they're familiar with and aren't as adventurous. but the reason for this is obvious--Broadway is just too expensive for the average citizen IMHO.

Sondheim also said how now going to a show by a family is seen as similar to going to a theme park--done maybe once a year, and you all go to something familiar (like Lion King)--but the reason for this is cuz it's gonna cost u about 80 dollars or more for each member of the family. that's a LOT of money. I get the impression in the 50's, say, many New Yorkers would go to Broadway the way they might go to a movie almost--which would make you much more open to trying different things--not keeping the same couple of shows running ad nauseum and the others dieing quickly.

E

[sndtrklvr]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 10:39pm

Interesting take. Can't wait to get the book for Xmas

[cturtle]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 10:39pm

eric your comment makes perfect sense. so sad to see those days gone

[i*heart*fame]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 10:46pm

I completely agree with everything said above except for something

I think that in some ways Broadway is making a comeback, the shows are definetly exactly "good" but they are so disgustingly commercial souped up hits that more people are going like I have lots of friends who 5 years ago wouldnt see a show but now they are gradually going, I hope that with this comeback broadway may come back and have a new golden age, as in bway gets more popular, the commercial shows bring popularity and then people start listening to more bway music, which promotes more um, good shows, and then perhaps we can have a new golden age, does that make any sense?

Posted: 12/16/04 at 11:14pm

Actually I think theatre is in a better state than it was... 15 years ago let's say. I know among people of my generation (i'm 24 now) in different cities I've lived in people seem more interested in going to theatre than they used to. My mom recently said the same thing--the late 80s for example really did seem to be a problem when people would go to one or two huge hit shows and that was it--it's a bit more evened out now (and I suppose I'm talking about theatre in general not just Broadway) and that can only be a good thing.

I gotta wonder about the prices though. I know the average chorus person doesn't make great money at all--but is there a way to bring down the average prices a bit? it seems liek the raise in price hasn't been even with th eraise of inflation--it's gone MUCH faster.

E

[JMVR]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 11:28pm

I agree that the theater is almost restricitve when each ticket costs so much. However, I don't understand how it could be helped. WHose fault is it? unions? producers? labor costs? taxes? How could this all work together to lower the prices and make the theater as acdcessible as it once was and lure locals back to the hteaters on a regular basis?

Posted: 12/17/04 at 1:00am

That's my dilemna too. I don't think the majority of theatre workers are overpaid--to say the least... But I do think the prices are a bit insane--and have gotten much worse, relative to inflation and how much people make, than they wereeven 30 years ago...

E

[paradox_error]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 1:09am

I think we can blame some of the mega-Broadway hits for the raising of the cost of tickets to the musicals, especially those of the late eighties and nineties.
Just because their shows were successful, I believe they saw it as their right to increase the prices. And they were within their rights...but then the next show set this as the benchmark for their show, and when it was successful, the producers saw it as their right to increase the prices...
A vicious circle it is...
Didn't a ticket to Oklahoma! cost $1?

Posted: 12/17/04 at 1:35am

I'm sure I read somewhere that a ticket to Follies in 1971 was 12.50 or something. I know many things were cheaper in 71 but still--that's a huge increase from 12.50 to 115...
E

[paradox_error]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 2:12am

AND I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING TO SEE THAT PRODUCTION...I'D PAY $1000 FOR A TICKET TO THAT...
I wouldn't to anything that is available now...not even to the shows I adore...
They aren't in the same calibre, yet the cost so much more.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 2:34am

I'm of the opinion/hope that there is going to be some sort of backlash in the next few years. Broadway is clearly something that people still enjoy, it's just priced itself out of casual entertainment or even a regular evening's entertainment.
Macintosh learned this year to 900% profit with the iPod: take something that people want, make it relatively affordable, and it'll make out like gangbusters. Let's hope that B'way producers take the hint, make less expensive shows, and can lower the ticket prices.
Adam Guettel said in an interview that "There is a real dearth of book writers, lyricists especially, and a lamentable surplus of composers."
He thinks that the problem with current musical theatre is that the books really REALLY suck. I am inclined and have been inclined for the last several years to agree with that assessment. These composers (Guettel, Lippa, JR Brown, etc.) need to get hooked up with great playwrights and give us the next great piece of musical theatre that we fans have been waiting for for years.
Two cents, tossed.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 2:36am

I think you are very biased when you express your opinion. It is not based on fact and reason, but personal feelings. Because of this, it hurts your opinion deeply. You did not realize it.

I hate you because you said Les Miz a "sentimental mish-mashes". It is not true. When you sang high about the glorious "A chorus line" or "sweeney todd" and despise the British musical, your opinion is so unfair that it is not believable.

Do you read Frank Rich? I read him a lot. I knew he was hated by a lot of ppl and I don't think I would like him personally either. But I believe his opinion. I read a lot of his reviews, most of them I never watched. But I believe him because I think he is a fair person, a reasonable person in dealing with theatre.

Frank Rich love and is always proud of American musical. I believe he is one of the Sondheim fan and his review about the historical A chorus line performance is the most touching, beautiful review I ever read. Yet he admit that British sometimes beat American in his own game. He did not like Webber but he admit the great scene design of Cats and Phantom. He praized highly about Les Miz, its infinitive humanity theme, its highly sophisticated technology yet down-to-earth scene design, its powerful beautiful music, its touching smart lyrics. That is called fair. When you love something, you still admit its disadvantage. When you hate something, you still admit its advantage.

When you only praize the glorious old time and despise anything else. That is not fair. When you only admit the goodness of American musical and ignore all the efforts of other nation, that is biased.

Is musical the exclusive American art? What if British talked only about Gilbert& Sullivan and Shakespear? Please,if talked about history glory, British got a lot to say. What makes you feel about?

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 2:41am

Sanda, Les Mis is a french musical, not British. Boublil and Schoenberg(admittedly, a German name, but what are you gonna do...)

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 2:42am

gherbert, this is a common argument, but an essentially incorrect one.

Broadway is currently in a better financial state than it ever has been. People can bemoan the Disney Corporation all they want, but it's gotten butts in the seats. I don't particularly care for any of the shows they have produced, but I think that the argument that they are bringing new audiences to the theatre far outweighs my artistic quibbles with AIDA.

Musical theatre has long been the fabulous invalid. But let's look at the facts: Very few of the major musicals that we historically consider brilliant were big, fat hits at their time. GYPSY wasn't. WEST SIDE STORY wasn't.

I disgree with your statement that "Broadway used to be a place where artistry was more important than industry." It's a business, first and foremost. It always has been. Granted, a business that has been the sprouting ground for some truly terrific art. But art and commerce are strange bedfellows. And Broadway has always been about the money. OH, CALCUTTA far outgrossed FOLLIES, even though they opened around the same time. No one could argue that OH, CALCUTTA is a better show than FOLLIES, and yet there you have it.

This isn't a new development. Broadway has always been this way. However, Broadway is still producing some great artistic achievements. Look at a few of the offerings from last season: CAROLINE, OR CHANGE, WICKED, and AVENUE Q. All terrific musicals, and artistically speaking, a much better season than, for instance, 1985/86, when QUILTERS, LEADER OF THE PACK and BIG RIVER were the top Tony contenders.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 2:46am

Of course I know it. Boubil is French, Shonberg is Hungarian.
But it is British musical. It is designed, translated, directed, produced by British. French even don't like it cause they cannot accept anything change about Hugo's novel which is into the blood of the nation.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 2:48am

I agree, veuve. That still doesn't change the problem of Broadway pricing itself out of its market. This is the age where the review makes or breaks the Broadway musical. If something is "experimental" or really unique in its format or storyline and it is REMOTELY reviewed negatively, the audiences will simply not come.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 2:55am

Here's the thing: the musical is a consumately American artform. That is a fact and it cannot be denied. However, that fact should not negate the great work that comes to us from across the pond or that exists in the West End right now.
I certainly don't agree that Les Mis is a "sentimental mish-mash". I think it's wonderful and personally think it should be labeled as an opera, but that's another thread...
But, gherbert clearly doesn't like it. That doesn't mean that he is negating the UK's contributions to musical theatre! The effects of Phantom of the Opera on the Broadway world (heh...) are clearly seen. Cats is just awful but, again, that's another thread...

[sanda]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:06am

I think he draw a doomed pic of broadway simply because a lot of shows don't meet his personal taste. Especially when he praised American musical so high while despise Les Miz so low. Les Miz can compete with any great American musical, period. The only problem for our friend is that it did not come from U.S.

Don't agree with me? Then what is the difference between A chorus line and Les Miz on both the success of commercial and artistic point? If you praise one and despise one, I call it unfair.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:22am

B.B., I don't agree that "This is the age where the review makes or breaks the Broadway musical." If that were true, PHANTOM wouldn't be the top grossing musical of all time: the majority of the New York critics loathed it, including Frank Rich, the so-called "Butcher of Broadway" who supposedly had the power to close any show with his mighty pen.

And while a Broadway ticket is very expensive, it's not really any more expensive, proportionally speaking, than it was 40 years ago. In fact, the proportional difference between the price of a movie ticket and the price of a Broadway show is nearly the same as it was 40 years ago. Broadway has not "priced itself out of its market." If it had, theatres would be empty. And they aren't.

Your point that "If something is "experimental" or really unique in its format or storyline and it is REMOTELY reviewed negatively, the audiences will simply not come" isn't really supported by the facts, either. MOVIN' OUT was certainly experimental, and unique in its format, and yet audiences flocked to it. Yes, it was well-reviewed. But so was THE HUMAN COMEDY, which closed in a week.

I do understand what you're trying to say, and I agree with your sentiments. I just don't think the facts support your argument, as much as I would like to agree with you from an emotional standpoint.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:28am

You cannot compare A Chorus Line and Les Mis. A chorus Line was a cultural EVENT and a catalyst for the musical theatre. We would have never had Les Mis if we had not had A Chorus Line before it. Show some goddamn respect for its predecessors. I think Les Mis is a great musical. Yes, great. I love it. But it CANNOT be compared to A Chorus Line. No way, no how. This has nothing to do with British vs. American musicals. It has to do with history. One changed Broadway forever. The other was an incredible influence on an entire generation of theatre-goers. Both very important. But one decidedly more important than the other.