I MISS THE GOLDEN AGE of MUSICALS- Page 2

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:25am

When people say the "Golden age" of Broadway they refer to that period between OKLAHOMA! (1943) and FIDDLER ON THE ROOF (1964) when Broadway was a major contributor to radio, TV, film and records. There was pop culture awareness of what Broadway musicals were. The latest hits (and flops) were showcased weekly on programs like The Ed Sullivan Show. A hit show (ANNIE GET YOUR GUN for example) would be turned into a fairly faithful film not long after the Broadway run. Television versions of hit shows (PETER PAN, WONDERFUL TOWN) were regular and incredibly successful in ratings. And the cast albums often landed on the Billboard best-selling albums charts, frequently hitting the top spot. In the late 1950s/early 1960s it was not uncommon for OCR’s to lead the charts: SOUND OF MUSIC, CAMELOT, HELLO DOLLY! all reached the #1 spot. MY FAIR LADY was on the charts for 10 years!

Why is it that so many people have WICKED multiple times yet have not bothered to attend GREY GARDENS or the revival of COMPANY? It's because pop culture has absorbed WICKED and it has had at least some limited exposure on TV, will eventually be made into a film, and has a best-selling cast album.

The era from 1966 (CABARET) to 1979 (SWEENEY TODD) was for many of us a more important era since by then the shows were much more cohesive, experimental and stimulating. It was also a time when some of the most brilliant shows (COMPANY, CHICAGO) did not achieve anywhere near the popularity of "golden age" musicals. These were seldom showcased on TV (in excerpt form or complete), or filmed (CHICAGO took 25 years to reach the screen) and the cast albums rarely land in the top 200, let alone reach #1.


Broadway has become a dinausaur eating its own tail.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:31am

The Golden Age should be bronzed.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 5:42pm

ErinDillyFan and Fosse76: In my second post I mentioned that I loved GREY GARDENS and THE COLOR PURPLE which I saw in December. There are a large number of shows, including dramas, that I would love to see now, but I only get to see a few each year because I live 300 miles from NYC. The point of my first post was to give credit to musicals from the Golden Age (including the many flops) for their excellence in direction and choreography, acting and singing, and overall production values. Many of the flops from the Golden Age had book problems but still excelled in production values. Obviously there is excellence today also, but not in LEGALLY BLONDE, IMO.

[Paulyd]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 5:55pm

I miss the golden age of Broadway,but i also love the golden age of movies. Its a shame to say that times move on, and in a way we have to also.

I had a thought of what it would be like if Broadwayworld.com was around a few years ago. Would we be calling Carrie and Follies sure fire 10 year hits, or would we reckon that Sweneey Todd wouldnt last beyond its preview stage.

I think what makes a real hit is the test of time, and yet i love the all the standards over the last time, but we have audiences now who will be bought up on Wicked, Legally Blonde etc, and may not be that familiar with Gypsy, West Side Story, etc, but it's in their hands that the future of Broadway lies.

Long after i'm dead and buried there will be people saying that new Broadway shows are not a patch on the old time classics like Wicked or even Hairspray.

Scary, but true

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 6:03pm

The Golden Age was also the "golden age" because of the audience. Theatre was mainstream-popular back then. It was revered, respected and celebrated on TV, on the pop charts and in film. And I mean average folks, not a small, select few. And I'm not just talking musicals. Plays and playwrights were in fashion.

Now, we have a two or three shows per decade that manage to break out into a "circus spectacle" market. The ones that run for 15+ years and look more like halftime shows that Broadway shows.

The rest, most people haven't heard of, and don't find either good or interesting.

That says as much to me about modern audience's taste as it does about the quality of the work.

We still have "Golden Age" -worthy shows that come along each season or two. We just don't have a society at large that appreciates them, or can tell the difference between good and bad anymore.

Posted: 5/7/07 at 6:58pm

My point about prefering the 60s/70s for musicals was that that awas around the time (and abig change was of course when "pop music" and Broadway music started to quickly become very different beasts) when Broadway critics started bemoaning the state of Broadway itself--

I dunno. I don't think in any age Sondheim's Company woulda had, on Broadway a bigger run than the relatively successful run it had--or Sweeney or whatever--Of course more sophisticate adn integrated musical theatre scores also meant less chance that the radio would play them even if pop music still stayed the same. It's a lot of factors and some of the factors that made Broadway less mainstream are paradoxically factors that made me love Broadway all the more (and I hope and don't meant that to sound as elitist as it does :P )

[cat4554]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 8:59am

I just turned 53 in April and I think I know what you are referring to. My first Broadway plays were The Sound of Music and Camelot. The music, lyrics from the shows during the 50's, 60's and some 70's were original for the most part and very classic. I still know all the words to all the songs from those shows.
Although I loved Momma Mia and thought it was creative that they made a story to go with the songs, it isn't the same as Lerner & Lowe or Rodger's and Hammerstein or Andrew Lloyd Weber.
The plays now a days take songs already done by rock groups and turn them into a show. Although I love Billy Joel, I did not like MOVIN OUT or ALL SHOOK UP etc. Momma Mia is the exception in my opinion.