Musicals: Showing their age? Or timeless?- Page 3

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 6:35pm

There are a few that I would consider timeless without needing tweaks or rethinking... and they're mostly Sondheim shows. Perhaps because he doesn't write music (generally) in a pop genre. You can criticize him if you'd like for doing that, but it frees him up from being bound to "time" (actually only Company and Merrily We Roll Along come to mind as having popular-sounding scores, now a bit dated, but still damn good).

I would say Sweeney is timeless, so is A Little Night Music, Into the Woods, Passion and Sunday in the Park With George. (Although the last one is going to seem strange 50 years from now, when they jump to Act II. It won't be "the present" even remotely any more. But I don't think it needs to be to make its point. It's not really about art in the present time, it's about a generational connection to the past and the legacy that art give us all. It can remain 1984 in Act II, and still work.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 2:29pm

bump.

Ya know... for all the bitching that goes on around here about "God, can't we please talk about someting other than Rent or Wicked? or who's on for Ramirez tonight?"... We've had precious few responses from many of you posters on this. (Thanks goes to those who've weighed in so far!)

Sorry if the subject or discussion itself seems intimidating. It wasn't meant to be. Or maybe it's just not interesting enough to many of you...

...Maybe when it comes down to it, you'd rather post a comment on an "OMG IDIIIINNNNAAA" thread, good, bad or indifferent.

Maybe these threads really are for fun and not for thinking.

[musicalsaregreat]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:22am

Avenue Q is one of my favorite shows, but I remember the first time I saw it, I felt the creaters dated themselves in one aspect, the "Mix Tape" song. Today everyone is burning CDs. It's the one thing in the show I feel was already dated when it arrived on Broadway.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 2:53am

At least yours got comments on it. I spent a few hours writing something funny and then when I posted it nobody replied : Some people on lj thought it was funny so I guess I'm vindicated a little, but still. So much for original topics and material.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 10:00am

musicalsaregreat --- You're right about the "mix tape." I've heard that term used a couple of times recently but referring actually to a CD, but that just never sounds right. It's a CD, not a tape. Mix tapes are so very '90s. I think it's interesting when you catch stuff like that. There is much dialogue in A Chorus Line that sounded fresh "back in the day," and it seems so archaic now. Oh, well... Time marches on.

Roninjoey --- Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm not really that bitter about it, honestly. I just had fun "sounding" that way on my post. Poor me. But I would rather have a thread discussion with people who actually care about the topic than just have anybody weigh in for the hell of it. At least the poeople posting here are giving it some thought, which is good!

There's room enough for everybody on these here boards.

EDIT: Plus, I like posting on the Idina/Wicked threads myself, just as much as anybody else.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 10:00 AM

[nydirector2]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 11:21am

I've REALLY enjoyed reading this topic and I applaud the people who started it. Intelligent conversations about musical theatre...who would have thought it possible?

I think what is interesting is that a lot of the musicals that have been mentioned that are 40 years or older are considered by some not to be timeless. Wouldn't the fact that such young people as ourselves talking about it would make such works timeless? There have been a countless number of other musicals that have come out in the same era that people don't even talk about anymore. Hell...there have been musicals in the past 10 years that have openned and closed and they've been easily forgotten.

I think there are a few things to contribute to a long lasting musical or show. As suggested before, the universal themes of a piece will always engage any audience. The dramaturgical elements of the piece also contribute to the timeliness of a piece. Now...I also believe that the producers/marketing team of a musical have very much to do with how a musical will be preceived or how long it lasts. It's interesting that so many shows mentioned in this thread were by some of the same 3 or 4 producers including Cy Feuer and of course Joseph Papp. Much like D'Oyley-Carte with the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, I believe that Feuer and Papp knew how to produce their shows to make them timeless. Finally, I think a director has the ability to make a show timeless. There have been some horrible shows out there, but because it was in the hands of a great director, they came out to be brilliant. Proof of this comes when you see a revival of said musical with a different directorial vision and you wonder, "Why was this good?" It seems like every Fosse choreographed or directed revival I see leaves me scratching my head asking this question.

Another interesting point was the use of satire and topical humor. Oddly enough, I don't think comedy has changed that much in the past 2500 years or however long theatre has been around. Aristophanes is hilarious...so are the writers of comedia del' arte, Molliere, Shakespeare, Gilbert and Sullivan, etc. Sure. I have no idea what it was like to live in any of these writers times, and they were all very blatant in writing for their specific times and audiences..much like say, Wilson or Runyon. The thing that makes their works funny then is the ability to see or understand the jokes.

Which brings me to my final point. A director and actor's job is to bring the life of the play so that the audience understands or "gets it." Let's face it, there aren't that many intelligent actors and directors out there who actually understand comedy, much less Satire...especially in the Broadway world. The same goes with dramatic content. You have to be able to udnerstand it in some campacity before you can present it. If you don't then the work will not endure, whether it is timeless or not. That's why so many people hate such wonderful shows as Oklahoma, the Music Man, etc. It's not that they, the audience didn't get it, but instead they were presented in the production by someone who didn't understand it. Does that make them any less timeless because a few people don't get it? No. I don't get the whole Olympics thing...but they're still timeless, right?

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 12:41pm

I really enjoyed your assessment, nydirector, and I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that our ability to understand the jokes is the key to enduring comedy. Real humor, I think, translates to understanding the elements of absurdity in the human condition. It doesn't change over time, really, which is why Aristophanes, Moliere, Shakespeare etc. can still make us laugh. Human nature doesn't really change that much. However, I still contend that truly topical humor, which relies on specific historical or political situations to get a laugh, may not fare so well in the long run. For example, a person can watch a "Carol Burnett Show" from the 1960's, and because it's based on character-humor, it's still funny. However, if you watch something like an old, "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," where the humor was rooted in picking out the absurdities of that particular time in US history,(without applying it to the situations in 2005 America), the humor is dated and a bit stale.
The funny thing is, when those shows were new, I was fonder of the Smothers Brothers than I was of Carol Burnett, but however broad the humor was, it was character-driven, and thus, has held up better. I think this is also true of Broadway shows. Those that rely on a particular, cultural phenomena to relate to the audience, rather than to character development, won't be here in the far future. Of course, I won't be here to know about it.
As you've said, how the collection of characters is presented to the audience is in the hands of the directer, producers and cast. Any show will only be as good (or as bad) as they are. If they don't have a clear vision of their characters, neither will the audience, no matter how "timeless" the story. Even more-or-less current theatre bases itself on older tales. West Side Story is a reworking of the Romeo and Juliet story. Everyone knows this. Rent is a reworking of La Boheme. Even the current, Woman In White is based on a Nineteenth Century, Wilkie Collins mystery. These stories weren't new when Shakespeare, Puccini and Collins constructed their current versions. I believe if you look back at the musicals we've been discussing, those that are 40 or 50 years old, they are based on a tale that is older, still; some version of life that is recognized in virtually everyone's collective consciousness.
I know this is long-winded, and for that I apologize, just wanted to put in another quarter's worth to the discussion, which I'm enjoying immensely.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 2:32pm

From one "long wind" to another... Thanks, grizzabella. That was a great post.

Likewise, nydirector2. Some wonderful points made!

I think I'm realizing more and more how ART (musicals, in this particular case) is "behaved upon" rather than behaving, itself. It sounds so obvious, but I think it has to do with the way we speak about shows as audience members and critics. A musical isn't "smart" or "sad" or "moving." They are what they are, as written and performed. It's how an audience REACTS that give us the perception of the art. WE are moved by the piece (or not), rather than the piece itself being "moving." WE are saddened by it, etc. Rather than the piece being sad. The piece is not a living emotional thing. Different audiences of different eras and backgrounds are going to react differently to any show, based on their own personal experiences and frames of reference. Ultimately, how many people continue to find elements to relate to, over a period of time, gives us a sense of timelessness.

Granted, productions will vary when you're talking about "live theatre." As opposed to a film musical, which is locked forever on celluloid, as is. Theatre can be re-envisioned, re-interpreted... line readings can be altered or approached a different way, etc. Acting styles, singing styles, etc., change over the years. These can all add to the "connection" an audience has with an older show.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 02:32 PM

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 4:23pm

I'm blown away by your definition of what creates the feeling of "timelessness" for an audience. That's about the most coherent and concise description I've heard, best12bars. You're absolutely right that a piece is "behaved upon." We all know that, but never really think about how its the perceiver who actually gives any piece of art, performance or otherwise, its meaning. And fashions, and trends in the theatre are as valid as they are in any other aspect of life.
As someone already pointed out, in the 50's, show tunes were on the radio and part of the popular music scene. Broadway stars were constantly heard on the radio, too. They had hit records. It took a comparatively long time for musicals to connect with the rest of popular music once rock came along. I think this has created some of the dichotemy between the Broadway culture and the rest of pop culture. It could also be why some of the shows that were around 40 years ago fall flat with a much younger audience raised on rock. I'm speaking here in generalities. There are a number of young people on this board who profess to love some of the classics.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/6/05 at 7:59pm

Ok, I shall attempt to chime in now. I have really enjoyed the depth of conversation so far, and think do believe that many of the ideas already mentioned are essential elements in a show being timeless.

I think the seperation of broadway from popular culture has gone a long way toward making Broadway shows more capable of "timelessness." Shows now that use elements from popculture usually do so to enhance the art. RENT and HAIR being prime examples, the music may have been popular but the sensibility for both moves far beyond that. I think the current "Movie Musicals" have a hard time being timeless because they are created to tie directly to our popular perceptions, they really don't exist as seperate enities. It may be the case though, that if someone like Sondheim uses the medium to create but does it for the purpose of art, a timeless piece could result.

They shows that I can recognize from before my birth are almost certainly all timeless, the ones that are not are lost. There may be some exceptions, but for the most part those shows we still debate and discuss have some aspect which is timeless. Although the show as a whole may not be.

Sweeney Todd, with its emphasis on universal concepts of human nature, nearly Shakespearian dialogue, and unassailable score, is an example of an entirely timeless score. At any point in the future in any setting or staging, the show will resonate with real meaning.

As Best12 said, the audience acting upon the show is imprtant in making it timeless. Yet I add the ability of the show to exist as universal and eternal art, is also essential.

Which makes SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE, not only timeless but also the means by which we can assertain the timelessness of other shows.

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 07:59 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 11:28am

smartpenguin78 --- I agree with you about Sunday in the Park. It's almost too early to predict what people will think 50 years from now, but 20 have already passed, and it's still every bit as effective. The score is not locked into a period, neither is the dialogue or subject matter.

The fact that Act II is "so very '80s" will only help it in time. George is so wrapped up in his trendy, cutting edge Chromolume, that years from now when we see those laser beams shooting out into the audience, we're likely to giggle. And that works for the show and that scene.

I wonder how Webber will fare in half a century. I think some of his shows will still be around for sure, and others will end up as curiosities and "antiques." Time will tell on all.

Updated On: 12/7/05 at 11:28 AM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 11:55am

As someone who was only about 5 when the original production opened, I can say I did giggle a bit, and I agree it was very, very good for the show.

I watched the DVD after our other discussion on religious imagery in the show and I see it in many ways. The entire idea of reincarnation and redemption flows throughout. Along with the abilty of art to be trancendant and sacred. (Although it is also very clear that this is not always the case with art.)

As much as I personally dislike it, I think The Phantom of the Opera will be around in a half century, and when the rip away the more ridiculous elements of spectacle, it may even be remotely enjoyable. Other Webber shows keep popping to mind but the cons and pros for each keep equaling each other.

[twogaab2]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 11:59am

Threads such as this just piss me off. I shows a lot of immaturity. Some people get older and their opinions never develop. (I frankly would be embaressed to read in print some of the opinions I stated-rather loudly-in my early 20s. Some people grow out of these-some do not.

Just my opinion, I may be wrong.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 12:06pm

"Threads such as this just piss me off. I shows a lot of immaturity. Some people get older and their opinions never develop. (I frankly would be embaressed to read in print some of the opinions I stated-rather loudly-in my early 20s. Some people grow out of these-some do not.

Just my opinion, I may be wrong."

What?
Where is this immaturity?
This thread has been about mannered measured discussion, including a great attempt to open our own eyes to new possibilities about shows.

[twogaab2]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 12:25pm

Immaturity, in the sense, that to see anything (in this case a theatrical piece) beyond the sense of ones narrow experience of time and place-not being able to see quality for the sake of fashion. These opinions are also quite transitory. For instance when I was in my teens "Guys and Dolls" was also being criticised for being "dated". Some years later when it once again a hit on Broadway, it was the general consensus that the show was "timeless" and "brilliant".

Remember the song "Everything Old is New Again"

Just my opinion, I may be wrong.

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 12:36pm

Smartpenguin78, I tend to agree about Phantom as it's already had a ridiculously long run. Again, this may be because it's basically a character-driven story, dealing with enduring themes. The story has had a number of reworkings since the original novel was published, so it's presence in the culture make it somewhat iconic.
I'm curious. How do you think Jesus Christ Superstar will fare? I was deeply impressed with it when it came out in '70 or '71, but it was the first "rock opera" I'd ever heard. I believe "rock opera" was the way it was billed at the time, as well. I've seen it since to mixed feelings. (I'm discussing this, of course, solely in its context as theatre, not its subject matter.) Is this one of those shows that depend on the strength of its cast, director, designers etc?

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 12:50pm

Twogaab2, I take your point. However, the discussion has been more about what makes any show, with some speculative comments regarding individual shows, enduring. Of course theatre tastes change, as do our own tastes, over time. We're just playing with speculative ideas, and as Smartpenguin has said, "opening our own eyes." In my experience, this is what good discussion does.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 1:01pm

I believe you're misusing the word immaturity, twogaab. What I gather from your muddy prose is that you are trying to say (in the former post you allude to our ages) that we have not lived long enough to judge how timeless these shows are. And/or we have not matured to an age that would give us credit for our judgements. I'm not sure that you ever actually bothered to read the thread or if you read the topic line and jumped in, but along the way we have constantly acknowledged that the only measure of how timeless a musical can be is time. We've branched off from this topic along the way, perhaps about things we're too immature to fully be able to contemplate, but who gets anywhere in their thinking if they don't speculate beyond their scope.

Also, I don't see how anybody could get older and not develop an opinion. You are apparently much older than I am so you have more experience in this I guess. Maybe some people get older and never learn to spell check and grammar check their posts :P

But just for the future's sake, I think it would actually be a measure of our advanced maturity if we're able to give these topics serious and intricate thought. But I personally associate one sign of maturity with the ability to at least try to see outside of one's narrow experience (to think outside the box).

I don't mean to be offensive. I just think my feathers are easily ruffled.

PS What is quality for the sake of fashion?
PPS Is it just me or has internet short hand and smileys made punctuation passe?

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 1:39pm

Twogaab, I think if you took the time to look back you would see that the discussion had been very mature, and infact leans toward considering MORE shows as timeless than the narrow definition you seem to be imposing. Also, I may be in my late twenties (and I have serious issues with the contention that age in and of itself conotes immature thought) but Best12bars and others that have been major contirbutors to this thread are quite a bit older. Part of this thread has been dicussing how our perceptions change, it is anything but immature. Discussion enables us to see something beyond our own perceptive, I have learned from Best12 and Grizzabella, who are older than I, and also from Ronin who is younger. I hope I have given them food for thought as well.

Back on topic,
Jesus Christ Superstar was the second Webber to pop into my head as "timeless," but I reamin unsure. The songs themselves are so connected to the times I just can't decide. The subject matter does move it more into "timelessness" in my head though, as "Passion Plays" no matter how we personally feel about them from as far back as the 5th Century are still performed.

I saw a wonderful production of JCS a few years ago, but the movie leaves me very flat. I would say that it is one that needs to be handled with utmost care and the creative team needs to have a clear and evident vision for the piece.

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 2:59pm

My thinking is very similar to yours, Smartpenguin. I think the musical styles Webber employed are indicative of the '70's, but in the right directorial hands, and with a well-chosen cast, it can be outstanding.
I think there is a real disconnect between the movie and the original, concept album. I can listen to the album, and it doesn't really feel dated at all to me, which I admit, might just be me showing my age, but if I try to watch the movie, it positively creaks. It was filmed in a style that, in my opinion, dates it terribly. The surreal sets and the quirky camera work are absolutely characteristic of a type of cinema which was happening back then, and hasn't really happened since, which is arguably a good thing. Still, it does the score and performances an injustice, I think.
A thought: the original album of JCS was released at least a year before I ever heard of a full stage production. Was there a full stage production in London prior to its release as an album?
At the moment, I don't have the time to do an adequate search and the thought just occurred to me, but I don't think so. I believe the concept album came first.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 3:04pm

I immediately think of Les Miz where it is a timeless show (to me) except during the first few years of the show where those not wearing wigs had 80's hair. It cracks me up.

[Nothatsmrt]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 3:10pm

To me, Guys and Dolls is one of those timeless musicals. I know that people either love it or hate it, and that many of the references are dated. Despite this, the love stories and the music will never be old or outdated to me. It's vintage, not outdated.

[sidwich]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 5:15pm

I think it's rare that any pre-Oklahoma! musical feels NOT dated to modern audiences no matter how timeless the themes and music, blah, blah, blah. There have been too many changes in the way that musicals have been written, since that time, and the old way of writing book, with stopping the scene to perform a song, just won't fly with modern audiences. "Show Boat" is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that holds up pretty well. "The Boys from Syracuse" probably has some of the most amazing music ever written for Broadway, but the George Abbott book does not hold up at all.

I think on a basic level the quality of writing determines the timelessness of a piece, whether it can show some basic truths about the characters, human situations, etc., but the how gracefully it is shown is also a factor in how well it holds up. As someone said, "Finnian's Rainbow" does have universal themes, as well as an outstanding score, but it clonks you over the head so hard, it's nearly impossible to revive.

Bringing up "The Music Man," I think it's a vastly underrated show, and one that I think holds up very well, probably better than its contemporary "West Side Story" whose Arthur Laurents book also tends to be a bit clonky. That's just my opinion, though.

And while, I'm a huge Sondheim fan, I'm not certain that some of his shows won't seem dated 50 years from now.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/7/05 at 5:28pm

Threads such as this just piss me off. I shows a lot of immaturity. Some people get older and their opinions never develop. (I frankly would be embaressed to read in print some of the opinions I stated-rather loudly-in my early 20s. Some people grow out of these-some do not.

Just my opinion, I may be wrong. --- twogaab2

Wow. Seems like some people would rather attack other posters' opinions rather than to state one of their own with clarity. S'okay by me.

As far as "timeless" or "dated"... we all don't have to be Methuselah to have an opinion about the lasting impact of art. It's not a case of “I've been there, so I know firsthand.” Personally, I'm just as interested in the opinions of people younger than I am, as in somebody older. I can learn from everyone. We all have different experiences here on this board, be it age, race, location, religion, academic education, "life experiences" street smarts, etc. We all see things differently, and I'm glad for that. It's one of the reasons I decided to post regularly on this message board. I enjoy all of it.

But to discount or even insult a person's opinion because of their "perceived" age or experience is not only narrow-minded, it is limiting yourself to new ideas and fresh attitudes about art. You lose touch with what people are actually thinking.

Updated On: 12/7/05 at 05:28 PM

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/8/05 at 12:17pm

Re: my own earlier JCS question. I just did a search and the album came roughly a year before the stage version, which opened on Broadway before it opened in the West End.