How long has this been going on . . . The Last 14 Years of the Musical- Page 2

[sanda]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:32am

I did not despise A chorus line at all. but I don't think it is not OK to compare them. And A chorus line is not Mozart either.

But you are not ghobehert and I respect you cause you are fair. Updated On: 12/17/04 at 03:32 AM

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:43am

movin out was neither experimental or unique. Music Revues set to dance have been done on Broadway for decades.
And of course there are extenuating circumstances like Phantom for the success/review ratio. Let's look at the big picture please and not cite singular instances as the overarching themes.
And the problem I have with the ticket prices is that the product is simply not of a consistently good enough quality to warrant EVERY show having the same exorbitant prices.
There are many many factors that have lead to Broadway being an incredibly unwise investment for producers. The fact that Broadway no longer produces the pop hits, the price of real estate in New York, etc. This means that producers are looking for pieces that already have commercial value. Spectacle is tending to dominate and challenging material is left unproduced. Please don't pretend that I'm talking about something new here. People within the Broadway community have been talking about it for years. You can choose to not believe it, that's totally your prerogative. And honestly, most of the time I choose not to believe it. But to deny the trend completely is optimistic to a fault.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:44am

thanks, sanda. Nice to meet you, I haven't seen you on here before.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:45am

Going to bed. Feel free to have the last word.

[magic8ball]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:50am

I just thought that I would interject that fact that Broadway ticket prices are fixed at a MINIMUM rate that allows shows to continue running. The production budgets for Broadway productions are ridiculously long, and this is not to mention the original investment to get the show running or the weekly production costs. "Wicked"'s difficult to break even is a prime example of this.

As for the current state of Broadway... One can only hope that the "transitional period" theory is correct.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 3:52am

then you should thank to our friend gherbert for that. we have crossed fire about Les Miz before. it is him who draw me into the debate. I quite like him though I said "I hate him".

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 5:13am

Veuve,

I love your posts, but it's simply not true that "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 ticket prices have increased at a rate that has completely and totally far outstripped the rate of inflation in the last 40 to 50 years. If you watch the documentary "Broadway: The Golden Age" (now on DVD -- a GREAT movie incidentally) several different stars from the 50s (Barbara Cook, Celeste Holm, Hume Cronyn, Betty Garrett, Mary Rodgers et al) talk about the fact that a balcony seat at a Broadway show was actually cheaper than the price of a first-run movie ticket in the 1950s and 60s. One theatre historian noted that in 1949, movies cost $2, but you could get a balcony seat at the biggest show on Broadway for 85 cents (and standing room was 25 cents). Jerry Orbach talks about how when he was in "Promises, Promises" in 1968, they went to the then unheard of price of $15 for Friday and Saturday evening performances (but, the top for the rest of the week was still $10, and you could still buy rear balcony seats for $1) -- that was at a time when movie tickets cost $3.50.

I have old playbills from when I was a child in the early 1970s and looking through the theatre listings in the back (when those ads still included the prices) every hit show of the time -- Company, Follies, Fiddler, Man of La Mancha, Applause, Grease, Coco -- had balcony seats available for $1, $2, and $3, as well as good seats in the mezzanine for $4 and $5. The top price went to $20 with A Chorus Line and Chicago in the mid-70s, $25 for Liza Minnelli in The Act in the late 70s, $30 with Evita in 1980 and $35 for Dreamgirls in 1982. But the cheap seats for those shows went for $5 to $10 -- at a time when movie prices were at $6 in Manhattan.

Then the producers let their insane greed run wild in the last 20 years, pushing the top ticket price to $40, $45, $50, $55 $60, $65, $70, $75, $80, $85, $90, $95 .... there was a $5 increase less than every two years since 1985. At the same time those $5 cheap seats disappeared and have more than quintupled in price. They eliminated the multiple price levels and now in most cases have two or three prices at most -- a top price that applies to the entire orchestra and so-called front mezz, which now can go a dozen rows up (so-called "prime" seats are now 80% of the entire theatre -- there used to be great variation in these price levels -- now there's ONE); $65 for most of the rest of the mezz and $25-40 for the rear.

To hear producers tell it, the increased ticket prices are just a reflection of the increased costs of production, with the biggest increase, according to them, being the higher salaries they have to pay out to Equity performers and union stagehands. B-LL SH-T. I have been close friends with several Equity performers over the years and I know what the minimums have been annually for the last 20+ years. My friends who were in the chorus of Dreamgirls back in 1983 were making $770 a week or thereabouts. The Equity minimum today in 2004, 20 years later, is about $1300. That's less than 100% salary increase in 20 years. Over the same period, the top ticket price then was $35; today it's $101. That's almost a 300% increase -- and that's just for the top seats (there are more of those now under the current price structuring than there used to be and they've completely eliminated the cheap seats in the mean time). That's not even factoring in the $480 prime seats at certain hit shows.

Until, maybe 20 years ago, Broadway was still an viable financial option for a couple or a family looking at entertainment options for a fun night out together. Up until the 80s, you could go to a movie, or for just a few dollars more, you could get decent seats for a new play or musical on the Great White Way. However, today movies cost $10 and the top price for musicals on Broadway is $101 -- TEN TIMES AS MUCH (with the cheapest seats going in most cases for $40). Broadway has become an EVENT, not an every day, every week, or even every month kind of habit for the vast majority of people nowadays. And meanwhile, I read articles about Andrew Lloyd Weber and his various estates and that he has a net worth of 500 million pounds (over a billion dollars, US). I also hear that the big "name" stage directors routinely make well into the six figures for every major show they direct (not to mention the major stars who pull in six figures weekly plus a percentage of box office revenue for "slumming it" doing theatre). Yeah, I guess the big theatre professionals are having a really rough time of it these days .........

There used to be a huge, smart, perceptive, regular theatre-going audience in the city and in the suburbs for Broadway and Off-Broadway that supported new plays and musicals and non-traditional theatre and experimental work, but their numbers have dwindled precipitously over the last decade or two. Clearly they've been priced out of the current marketplace and discouraged to make seeing plays a consistent habit anymore, and their absence has hurt the state of serious theatre in this country, by ceding much of theatregoing to undemanding and untutored tourists from out-of-town who make few if any demands on the sort of theatre that gets presented here other than it be "entertaining." We've entered a lost period in American theatre history in which the prevailing greed of producers has systematically destroyed so much of the regular theatre-going audience. One can only hope that they soon the see the error of their ways and find a way to right the ship.

Updated On: 12/17/04 at 05:13 AM

[sanda]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 7:28am

Margo, you make a very effective comment. I learn a lot. Thanks.

But now I have a new question. Following the new development of several shows, I find out most of them are developped outside of Broadway. The creators test the audience's reaction, then improve it and move to broadway when they are sure about the potential of the show. Did they do this in 50-70s? I think this is a method to polish the program and decrease the risk cause it is too expensive to make a show in Broadway.

I am not living in NYC . Based on my own experience, the theatre here is not cheap either. The broadway tour is $60-70 or $30-40. The residential theatre is about $30-50. Of course it is cheaper than Broadway but no way to compare with movies. So, my solution is that theatre is indeed a EVENT. It is not a thing you can enjoy everyweek as a movie or a video no matter in broadway or not.

Thus we went back to the topic. The ticket is expensive, that is ture. But how is the quality? Does this luxury thing decrease or increase the quality of the show, or doesn't make difference?

My persoanl theatre experience when I choose a show is this. I read NYTimes' review or my place's newspaper review. Go to internet and listen to the other's opinion, then make a decision. If I watch a movie, I don't care that much. But when spend a lot of money for a show, I absolutely plan it carefully. And I always choose the hot show because there are so many shows and hot show is safe to choose.

Does this mean I am an untutored audience? Perhaps. Does this mean the hot show is not as good as before? I don't know . What I can say is this expensive ticket make the money flow into the hottest , the most successful shows. It is a winner takes it all game. No middle path.

But, does this decrease the quality of the show?

Although theatre is more expensive, I still like to compare it with movies. IMHO, theatre is a business like movies. There is always the art movies which please the small group of audience who have a special or say high taste. And there is the main stream movies which entertains the big number. Can we compare Les Miz , or A chorus line, or cats with LOTR, god father or spiderman? Pacific Overture with Blue?

I remember I watched a talk from the movie critic Roger Ebert. He talked about the movie business problem which I feel exactly like show business. The cost of production and ad are huge and the competition is throat-cut and only a few could win the game. Does this mean the quality of movies decrease? I think it keeps the same. We still get some great films every year which could please most people and a lot of garbage too.

The same is show. One or two great shows and a lot of garbage. Updated On: 12/17/04 at 07:28 AM

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 10:29am

Margo! Margo! Margo!

I love your posts - here and elsewhere - thanks for taking the time to offer well thought responses on sometimes difficult topics.

The qualitative issue with theatre is so difficult because it is an ephemeral art form - each event lasts only as long as the individual performance, and despite the best work of the stage management, no two are exactly the same. The quality of a performance of Grand Hotel, for example was demonstrably changed with cast alterations. Great performances made good material stronger and lesser performances made exactly the same material (book, music, choreography) look just confused.

Has extreme pricing changed the quality of what we are seeing . . . not the quality, necessarily, but certainly the quantity. I used to be able to come to NYC (just got here this morning) and see a week of shows for less than $100 (I could take a chance on Shogun)!

That allowed for a plethora of first-hand experiences. Today, I can come and see, maybe 1 or 2 shows in that week. I can't work a week out of my life to take a chance on an unknown quantity - even Off Broadway.

Even regional theatres can be outrageously priced. My last Steppenwolf subscription provided some of the most expensive nap-time one can imagine. Yet, two weeks ago, for only $20, I was able to catch ONE ARM there, and it took me back to a time when I went to the theatre without knowing exactly what I would be seeing, what it would be sounding like and how many honors had already been received. It was astonishing having the luxury to find a great piece of theatre on my own.

There so few favored musicals in recent years because people are always nostalgic for the past - The Golden Age of Television, Radio or Broadway . . . AFI's lists - Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind . . . Lucy, The Honeymooners and Your Show of Shows . . . and there were so many more shows to be fond of - did I really like the one mega-musical I experienced last year? No. Did I really like 2 or 3 less successful (financial or #s of perfs) productions out of the 7 or 8 in a week 20 years ago? Almost always.

Anyway - my 2 cents . . .

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 10:41am

I'm only 13 but the musicals from the 60's-80's make me wish I was born 20 years earlier. While I do enjoy Les Mis, Rent and tick...tick...boom!, there is something nice about the older shows. That's partly why I like Millie and (so far) Little Women-they have more old fashioned scores and they're so enjoyable. You walk out of the theater smiling, not thinking of death and sadness. I'm sorry for my rambling but I can't just say it in clear thoughts. I wish I could have been alive for both periods so I could have something to judge against besides student productions and revivals.

[misterchoi]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 11:31am

Wicked is not an artistic musical. I am sure Joe Mantello would agree.

Avenue Q really isn't either.

Art was not the purpose of either.
Caroline, or Change had an artistic purpose. Follies had an artistic purose. Just the process of Chorus Line was incredibly artistic. That really just doesn't happen anymore.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 11:39am

Excellent points Margo, but one thing was missed and that was star salaries for many musicals such as The Producers, The Frogs and Dance of the Vampires. Salaries for stars for these shows have proportionally skyrocketed since the 70s and producers consider this acceptable. I do think the Equity minimum is too low, but I also think that celebrity salaries are obscene and have also contributed to the high ticket prices of SOME shows. This, however does not explain high prices in other shows like Brooklyn that do not boast celebrities or extremely high production values, so I'm curious as to the rationalization of that. I wonder if it is a vain attempt to compete with other shows as being of equal quality, or perhaps a budgetary move in hypothesizing the possible length of run (not even the producers of Smokey Joe's Cafe ever predicted the show would make it past its second year). And considering Broadway theatres themselves are hot properties, I wonder how much they charge to book new shows and how have the stagehands' and musicians' salaries compared to those of 20 years ago. It's a lot to factor.

Another thing that has not been addressed, but I have mentioned it a while back is Broadway's competition as popular entertainment. Twenty years ago, the biggest movie multiplex theatres had maybe 6 screens. There were also a lot fewer of them. Cable TV and premium channels were becoming more expansive and more popular. VCRs were in at least 50% of households and video rentals were catching on like wildfire. Why go see a Broadway show when there was all this new technology making popular entertainment far more accessible and cheaper? Fewer people are attending shows and Broadway has to compensate in desperate attempts to recoup investments. By 1989, Broadway was in a major slump and the 90s were going to be its biggest challenge in facing its opposition. Since then, I think Broadway has made huge strides and the appearance of Disney and pop catalogue shows have been creative and successful attempts to keep Broadway alive by keeping tourists on Broadway. If the public can no longer afford these prices (and let's face it, how many people actually pay full price?), then producers will have to come up with new solutions for bringing in the audience and I have faith that they will do it. Broadway hasn't died yet and it has been through a lot worse than Lloyd Webber or Mamma Mia.

As for gherbert's comments, I completely disagree. I would like to know which three shows were mentioned in the book in the last 14 years and why there were so many exclusions, but golden age musical comedies are not the one and only form of musical theatre nor should they be. As I've said many times, musical theatre is an art form and art evolves. That is a fact. You can choose not to like it, but you can't deny it. I think it is funny that the emergence of rock musicals was mentioned as one of Broadway's demises in the last 14 years when the first true rock musical emerged on Broadway in 1968 (Hair) and is considered one of the most influential musicals in theatre history.

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 4:52pm

Some stuff happened in the last few days and I completely forgot that I started this thread and came back to find lots of responses.

Look, I agree with a lot of what you said, particularly you, Margo! The plain truth is that Broadway is slowly but surely closing the shutter on what can be seen and soon it is going to loose lots of it's charm. Because wherever Broadway went there was an element of charm and creativity that floated in the air and I'm afraid that soon there will be none of that.

Sanda, please do not hate me for saying I do not like Les Mis. Sure, dislike me, but hate is too strong a word for this. The thing that I think Les Mis lacks is that creativity and charm that fuels Broadway. And soon when Broadway is ALL pop operas, revivals, and spectacle, what will we do?

And it is something that Cy Feuer says at the end of his book (which is a really great read). I wanna quote this cause I think it is important.

""Of course now I'm probably no longer in a position to fairly judge the contemporary musical scene. I have outlived my time. Or maybe I just got stuck in the past. So when I say that I don't care much for a lot of the musical world right now, it can be dismissed as the sour ranting of a codger. Still, I have always hated guitars, this is nothing new. It is not an interesting musical instrument. And the profundity of the lyrics that come out of Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen kind of escapes me. While I'm at it, I don't like a lot of today's theater. Some of it I actively dislike. Like Mamma Mia! It's a big hit and it's a big mess. A lot of American theater is influenced by the British musicals. It used to be the other way around. But Andrew Lloyd Webber, an excellent musician who's not big on story, took over. Cats, Phantom of the Opera. Not very deep. I didn't even liek Rent, a modern La Boheme. The audience wants sentimentality now, -- Les Miz -- and I hate sentimentality. As I say, I prefer Loesser or Porter.

"Of course the economics are different than when we began. Hard to take big chances with fresh material when it costs so much. Broadway almost has to depend on revivals and cheap sentiment.

"I know that people have said the same things about our shows. Where's Charley? seems touchingly dated now. Some things I have done stand up and some don't. You operate in the era in which you find yourself. But, still, at that time I thought everything we did was terrific. I saw the defects, too, but for the most part, I was blinded by the excitement of just doing it. I suppose I miss that part -- the effort."

There's no effort in musical theatre anymore. There are no bookwriters, no composers, no lyricists. There are no Broadway stars who don't need to run out to Hollywood to make a quick buck. We've got cheap sentiment and revivals as Cy put it. And contrary to what he says about himself this is perhaps the most respected living producer of the Golden Age next to Hal Prince.

The worst part is, and this is what kills me. We could still have it all. Nothing had to change. Sure some stuff did, times change, but that effort, that music, the lyrics, the theater, never had to change. But it did. You see Sanda, I don't care if you hate me or anyone else. But Broadway, ah, Broadway. Just look at the lights at the Shubert Theatre at about 7:55, just before curtain time, and you will know what I mean. How can a bulb that bright be slowly filckering out? The "fabulous invalid" as George S. Kaufman once said, needs help. And we can do that, but it takes, ahh, it takes -- effot.

So thanks Cy for telling your story. Go out and read it, Les Mis or Wicked or Guys and Dolls fan and rent Broadway: The Golden Age. Watch the old musical movies. Watch Judy Holliday in Bells are Ringing and Gwen Verdon in Damn Yankees and John Raitt in The Pajama Game and if you are not thrilled than go to the doctor cause there is something wrong!

Cause we can do it if we just give it that extra special -- effort.

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 4:55pm

Mister Matt --

I do not not like rock musicals -- I like Hair a lot. I just don't like those sentimental gushy rock operas. There's a difference.

And art does evolve. But it doesn't need to change it's standards.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 7:14pm

Margo, thanks for laying out all the specific statistics regarding Broadway tickets vs. movie tickets. Math, unfortunately, was never my strong suit, and I stand corrected.

That was a bit of a tangent, though, and gherbert, your new post still leaves me with questions. I honestly don't understand your statement that "There's no effort in musical theatre anymore. There are no bookwriters, no composers, no lyricists."

There are spectacular new composers, doing brilliant work. Michael John LaChiusa, Jason Robert Brown, Jeanine Tesori, David Yazbek, Ricky Ian Gordon, Adam Guettel and Larry O'Keefe all qualify. Bookwriters? Winnie Holzman wrote what is quite possibly the best adaptation of a novel ever last year with her book for WICKED. You want great lyricists? Try Craig Carnelia or David Zippel, both contemporary masters of an extremely difficult art form.

I love DAMN YANKEES, and BELLS ARE RINGING. But frankly, both of those shows are fun fluff. Neither show is a major artistic achievement from a writing standpoint. And you seem to be decrying fluff, on the one hand, and yet defending "classic" fluff, on the other.

I'm sorry, I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm enjoying this conversation. But this is an argument that I've heard over and over and over again, and it's never made any sense to me.

I did read Mr. Fueur's book, and I adored it. However, while reading it, I occasionally got this overwhelming feeling that what he was projecting was sour grapes.

Margo referenced "Broadway: The Golden Age," (which I also adored). But both of those works presented the same sentiment that I think you're trying to get at: It was better before. As Lynn Ahrens said so eloquently, "You can NEVER go back to before." I think that the taking the attitude that "Broadway was once great, and it will never be that way again," is not only defeatist, it's simply untrue. Broadway is evolving. You might not like where it's headed, but implying that nobody who works on Broadway today can hold a candle to their predecessors is pointless. It's saying, in effect, that no one could possibly live up to history. I just don't agree with that at all, and even if I did agree with it, I don't see where that attitude benefits the art form.

I also think that revisionist history is BUL-SH--T, as Margo said. There's a moment in "Broadway: The Golden Age" where Chita Rivera talks about the bare bones sets in the revival of Chicago, and how that distressed her. (I agree). But then she said "Where's the imagination?" I don't get that comment at all. Imagination is the obvious byproduct of a lack of sets and costumes, isn't it?

Other "Golden Age" interviewees bemoaned the fact that Broadway shows are produced by dozens of people, instead of a singular producer. I think this is a ridiculous thing to take issue with, as well. It's oddly hypocritical. Everyone claims to have loathed David Merrick, and yet they also prefer a singular producer in charge of a show, as opposed to today's nameless, faceless corporations. This makes no sense. If a despot is in charge, he has a vision. Right or wrong. He may be a good producer, he may be a bad one. But the simple fact that a number of people are billed above the title doesn't really, in and of itself, affect the show. What these interviewees (and I think you, as well) are saying, was "It was terrific, and it will never be the same again." Well, sure, it will never be the same. But that doesn't mean that it won't be better. Call me an eternal optimist, but in my 20+ years of attending Broadway shows, I can honestly say that Broadway today IS better than it was 20 years ago. Yes, the truly brilliant shows never run. And the crap sells tickets. But I think that more brilliance is emerging today than ever happened during the "Golden Age." The art form has evolved. In a good way, if you ask me.
Updated On: 12/17/04 at 07:14 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 7:35pm

I'm leaving for the weekend, but I simply must say this.

Fluff can be absolutely wonderful! Although I like serious musicals, I also adore what others would call fluff. Thing is, a lot of that fluff from the 'golden age' is incredibly well crafted, unlike, say, MILLIE.

HAIRSPRAY is a modern version of that wonderful, frothy entertainment that was well written. We do not have many HAIRSPRAYS today!

[MusicMan]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 7:55pm

Sorry, VeuveCliquot, but there is more joy, wit, melody, originality, variety, cleverness, humor, musicianship, emotional payoff and communicative artistry to be found in the score of DAMN YANKEES than in the entire canon of the "spectacular composers" you reel off.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/17/04 at 8:13pm

musicman, I respect your opinion. And I agree with you that DAMN YANKEES is full of "joy, wit, melody, originality, variety, cleverness, humor, [and] musicianship." I draw the line at "emotional payoff," because there is none. DAMN YANKEES has a ghastly denouement, one of the most unsatisfying endings in musical theatre history. Lola, who we have been conditioned to adore, gets turned into an ugly hag, in a last second George Abbott payoff that is utterly unsatisfying. (They fortunately changed this a bit in the revisal, for the better. But Lola still remains an odd star character in a musical.) And Joe Hardy is an AS-SHO-E, even by 1950's standards. He abandons his wife to fulfill his selfish (and ultimately empty) desires. The book of DAMN YANKEES asks an audience not only to accept this repulsive behavior, but to root for it. It's completely misogynistic, and while other classic musicals carry a lot of misogyny (HOW TO SUCCEED and PROMISES, PROMISES, for example), none of them are quite as blatant as DAMN YANKEES. I can't think of another musical that celebrates the hatred of women in such a fashion. And it's odd, because their previous collaboration, THE PAJAMA GAME, was exceptionally progressive in its attitudes about women (for the time, anyway.) The lead character in that musical runs a company. In DAMN YANKEES, Meg simply pines for her absent (and rather abusively distant) husband, while Lola is a sex object whose only purpose is fulfill the out-of-town businessmen's prurient desires, and whose ultimate fate is to lose her beauty, as if that's the most important thing for a person that's been dead for 200 years. It's really kind of disgusting, as I see it, as well as nonsensical.

It's a great score. But it's a terrible show in a lot of ways.

Compare DAMN YANKEES to FIRST LADY SUITE, a musical which celebrates women in powerful positions. Sure, there's no "big song" to compare with "Heart" or "Whatever Lola Wants" in that piece. But from a human standpoint, LaChiusa's tale tells an important story, and one that is not, as its base, inherently morally repulsive. Updated On: 12/17/04 at 08:13 PM

[MusicMan]

Posted: 12/18/04 at 12:34am

As the topic was composers, I was referring only to the emotional payoff of the songs, not the inherent morality (or lack of it) of the narrative. Whether it's the sheer animal excitement of SHOELESS JOE FROM HANNIBAL MO., WHO'S GOT THE PAIN? or SIX MONTHS OUT OF EVERY YEAR, the goosebump-raising theatricality of Joe Hardy's transformation and farewell in GOODBYE, OLD GIRL, the playful sexuality of A LITTLE BRAINS-A LITTLE TALENT and WHATEVER LOLA WANTS, the sheer goofy glee of HEART, etc., DAMN YANKEES' score connects with its audiences and pays off in ways that LaChiusa can only dream of.