Marc Shaiman responds to Michael John La Chiusa- Page 8

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 1:16pm

I couldn't resist weighing in on this one. I bought the recording of "Marie Christine" because of Audra and have to admit that I never listened to the whole thing. On the other hand, my "Hairspray" OBCR is in constant rotation in my CD player. There is an art to writing something that is both clever and catchy. How many of you hum songs from "Marie Christine?" "You Can't Stop the Beat" ranks up there with the best "11 O'Clock" numbers ever written. FINALLY the tourning show is making a stop in Louisville and I can't wait to see it. If you read this Mr. Shaiman, keep on doin' what you're doin!

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 1:21pm

...ok, now where was I?

He's established that HAIRSPRAY, PRODUCERS, DIRTY ROUNDED SCOUNDRELS, LITTLE WOMEN (Little Women?) and BROOKLYN are "faux-musicals" except that I'm not sure what he means by that, or what is the alternative is. I would have liked to have known what other shows he thinks are "faux" over the past fifty years or so. Very odd.

OK, he likes RENT, CAROLINE, MOVIN' OUT and AVENUE Q. But except for Q, (yay) all these shows have "Yes, but" qualifications - RENT is "unfinished", Larson's death preventing him from "Fine-tuning" his creation, and he thinks Kushner's words don't QUITE fit Tesori's music. Interestingly, he praises Guettel for his lyrics to PIAZZA, yet says nothing about the music.

Though he goes on about the glut of jukebox musicals,he surprisingly has good things to say about MAMMA MIA! noting that the ABBA songs are inserted into the narrative "with a modicum of sly wit" and inferring that unless one does a jukebox musical as well as MAMMA MIA! "the result can be disaterous".

Then he goes on a lot about the expensivce economics of Broadway, blah blah blah...that audiences don't want to sit through "cerebral", "emotional" or "earnest" works for the cost of a Broadway ticket, so Broadway always plays it safe, etc. etc. etc. ...bemoaning the fact that a live pit orchestra may soon be a thing of the past...but that lively theatre is being done outside of Broadway, in regiounal houses.

It's a strange and meandering piece. He makes some good points, but he needed a good editor who could prod him to explain his points more. Even so, he could said as much in half the words.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 1:58pm

How many people read this article? Show of hands? After reading it, I didn't come away with ANY of the conclusions you guys are drawing.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 2:15pm

I read it and saw his point. However, I felt that he took the creators too much to task for creating something that our culture will support. I don't think Urinetown, Hairspray, or the Producers are guilty of pandering to their audiences as much as delivering a product of our times. The self-referential style is present in every medium presently (Seinfeld is perhaps the greatest example yet, but The Simpsons isn't far behind). We live in a postmodern society that alternates between a suspension of disbelief and knowing glances at the facade of drama in any form. I don't think the above-mentioned shows are mere spoofs of previous styles; rather, they are amalgams of those styles and evolutionary advances that merge the traditions of the past and the culture of the present.

Is that forward-thinking (I hear "trend forward" is the buzzword for this) enough? Perhaps not, but even if it doesn't advance the art form, it still creates works of art. The sculptor Frederick Hart (see http://www.frederickhart.com/ )was often taken to task for sculpting in a naturalistic, Renaissance style rather than following the lead of his more "modern" contemporaries. So he didn't create a new style, but does that in any way diminish the fact that his sculptures are amazing in their composition and execution? I think not, and regardless of whether Shaiman and Whitman's work on Hairspray is pastiche or derivative, it is GOOD.

For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of LaChiusa's work. I hope he continues to write for Broadway and eventually finds success doing so. But I hope he also realizes that as a composer he needs an audience, and he isn't doing himself much of a service if he writes articles in Opera magazines disparaging musical theater, especially as he has repeatedly asserted that he writes "musicals, not operas."

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 2:19pm

Ourtime, well put.
However, go back and read his original opening paragraph. I don't think he's disparaging the death of musical theatre, he's really highlighting the shift in the nurturing of musical theatre away from NYC. THat he focuses the rest of the paper on New York and what's going on here only serves to highlight what all these other people (I believe he mentions, among others, books by Ethan Mordden) are bemoaning as the death of Broadway.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 2:23pm

bwaysinger, well put. I think I mixed together about four different arguments that had been lingering in my mind while reading this thread. I do think the real issue at hand here is how and if writers get nurtured and produced, which is a real problem in the commerical theater today.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 2:34pm

Getting laid is definitely a perk to carry my ASS all the way down to the Neil Simon.

Updated On: 8/9/05 at 02:34 PM

[sweetiedarlinmia]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:00pm

bwaysinger & Ourtime992:

I think you two have contributed some great posts that aren't just knee-jerk reactions, but rather well thought out responses and something that has made my headache from reading this thread lessen.
Updated On: 8/9/05 at 03:00 PM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:08pm

No problem, Mia.
I love Marc Shaiman (I will never forgive him for making me laugh as hard as I did the first time I saw South Park in the theatre). I also love Michael John LaChiusa (I will reiterate my belief that The Wild Party is one of the great unsung shows of the last 20 years).
I think that Marc had reason to take issue with some of what LC said, and he did so. I just think everyone had a knee-jerk reaction here to kiss up to Marc (sorry, Marc, but I do think you're great!) and bash LC. I don't think it's going to cause Marc to hand out free tickets to Hairspray or anything, so...

But that said, I don't think most of the people here really read the article or put on their critical thinking caps to listen to what he was trying to say. As a soon-to-be English teacher (I hope), it's a missing talent I could also bemoan in a very similar fashion to LC's treatise on the demise of varying forms of theatre existing on Broadway.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:12pm

Does that mean no more mud wrestling?

Honestly, some of you are siding with Marc, some of us are siding with LaChiusa.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:17pm

I don't think it's a matter of my taking sides. Again, I totally see why Marc would be upset at, and take LC to task for, his comments re: Hairspray.
But, it's an opinion piece, as these things always are. So Marc's entitled to a rebuttal. And, to his credit, he confined his comments to those things specifically regarding his own "baby." You have to respect that above all else, or even if nothing else.
However, I think a lot of people who jumped on the Bravo, Marc, bandwagon didn't bother to read the article and are jumping to conclusions. LaChiusa didn't write a "Marc bashing article."

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:17pm

so anyone who doesn't agree with mjlc is only kissing up to marc shaiman? i think for myself -- i can only believe la chuisa wrote those words to be provocative -- and i think he is a self-aggrandizing asshole.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:19pm

"i think he is a self-aggrandizing asshole."

Oh, do you know him?

'Cause, see, his work is great. He writes shows that will be, in years to come, masterpieces, highly revered.

I judge what he does for theatre, not what he's like personally.

Updated On: 8/9/05 at 03:19 PM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:21pm

Did I specifically choose you, Garland? Nope.
I do, however, notice you haven't admitted whether or not you read the entire article.
A lot of things can sound self-aggrandizing if you take them out of context.
And he doesn't use the article once to say his works are better at the expense of others, which would be self-aggrandizing.
In fact, when he mentions the failure of shows like Caroline, he could have easily puffed up his own self-worth by including The Wild Party or Marie Christine. Yet he did not.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:22pm

So...I've finally gotten the chance to read the article in depth (instead of just glancing through). I must say I certainly can understand Marc's reaction and apprectiate Marc's viewpoint.

What I don't understand is everyone else's reaction. I mean...in the end, it's not a war between Marc and MJL. It's a serious discussion about musicals and their future (and present) on Broadway. MJL never said the Broadway musical is dead. He's simply responding to those who are sounding the death knell...using specific examples. Now...whether we agree with those examples or not is another thing.

My one big problem with the article is not the word 'faux', but the word 'theatre'. MJL doesn't ever define theatre for us. Now...that may seem unnecessary, but it's actually not. I remember getting in an argument with someone in college over a production of THE BALD SOPRANO. I thought it was thrilling; my friend thought it was decidedly not theatre. We simply had different ideas of what theatre is or could be. Knowing MJL's personal definition of theatre, I would then understand his use of the word 'faux'.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:23pm

Bway, I read the article! I did NOT post what I posted to kiss up to Marc Shaiman, and I find your accusation dismissive and insulting.

I posted because I was felt the article was sloppy thinking and facile negativity. (As a future English teacher, you should learn to spot those faults!)

The fact that it was written by a composer who seems to embody none of the qualities he extolls made the article seem hypocritical too, as if he might have written it merely to create this very "buzz."

Not only did I read the article, I have also seen--and been bored by--four of his musicals! (Not three, as I stated previously--I forgot completely about "Hello Again.")

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:31pm

Pal, did I accuse you, though? Don't have a knee-jerk reaction to something I didn't say. I'm not dismissing people who read the article and attempt to comprehend it. I'm dismissing people who come out of the woodwork to applaud the working professionals who frequent these boards (ever wonder why we don't hear from Anthony Rapp anymore?).

I also don't think he's necessarily employing sloppy thinking. He brings up specific points in his opening over what other people have written about the death of Broadway (in which, by the way, they cite the same examples LaChiusa uses to sound the death knell themselves).
So, he then proceeds to write, in his own opinion, why those shows are this death knell. He also says he doesn't necessarily believe it to be true.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:32pm

PalJoey - not everyone was bored by his musicals. Just because you were, does not mean it is fact and in no way makes him a hypocrite.

I think I know plenty of people who were bored by Hairspray, wanted to walk out on it, etc. But again, this was not the point of the article.

The point is, spectacle over meaning. Many shows are written to appeal to the tourists. Sadly, tourists want big flashy shows. They don't want more serious works of art.

And by art, I mean something that can both entertain and enlighten.

The only thing that brought me back to Hairspray was "I Know Where I've Been."

I mean, I enjoyed it. But sometimes I want to be challenged. I want to leave the theatre and say, "hm, what does that mean? What does this mean?"

I think that's what LaChiusa is trying to say - we have tipped the scales in favor of entertainment over enlightenment.

Now, that's what I got from the article. But I may be off completely.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:36pm

yes, i have read the article. i would not be offering my comments if i did not. of course he's not going to mention himself, but it seems inferred. he's definitely tossing down some sort of gauntlet. i don't care for his pronouncements and generalities. i found it specious, sloppy and misguided at best.

he is a big bore, imo.

Updated On: 8/9/05 at 03:36 PM

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:37pm

*Yes, he's also not the first person to say this...and to use those examples.

[sweetiedarlinmia]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:37pm

bwaysinger, as an English major, I too bemoan the lack of critical thinking and reading skills in today's society.

I stayed away from posting on this thread during this soap opera because people relegated potentially meaningful discourse to a popularity contest of the worst kind(a la Mean Girls).

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:38pm

Oh, this is sort of a sidenote and probably belongs on another thread but I'd like to point it out: I think it's a HUGE misconception (or fallacy or somesuch) that Broadway is the home of the advancing art form of musical theatre.
I'd have to counter that it's never really been. The logistics of commercial theatre pretty much forever exempt it from nurturing the form.
It's true it really found its creation here, but I think we only have to blame those rare, truly artful, pieces of musical theatre (from masters like Gershwin to Rodgers to Bernstein to Sondheim) for the idea that Broadway is a place to meld all of the things that make theatre. The craft is always different depending upon intent.
To say that the creators of HAirspray didn't endeavor to create Hamlet is kind of - well, specious, I suppose - because their intent was to create something aesthetically pleasing if not genre-altering.
NOt all theatre has to be all things. Thank god we get a variety (I wouldn't want to have my choices of Broadway to be only Hairspray - we also get Piazza and Avenue Q and the so on) of choices on Broadway and also in our regional theatres.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:39pm

OK...I've stated why I had a problem with the article (lack of a definition of 'theatre', therefore not knowing what 'faux' means in this case).

But calling something 'specious' and 'sloppy' and 'misguided' without explaining why you think those things does nothing the further this argument.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:40pm

bwaysinger - this is also a very good point.

Hence, Off-off and plain old off-broadway

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 8/9/05 at 3:42pm

i don't think that's a side note. it's very well put and precisely why i object to mjlc's words.

Updated On: 8/9/05 at 03:42 PM