On the Death of Broadway

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 4:05pm

Before, I start receiving the attacks I willingly accept, i want to say that this is a theory I have been developing in my four years of living in NYC and regularly attending theatre. It is a hypothetical series of events that lead to the end of Broadway as the home of the American musical. Ok, here goes...

Broadway houses nightly are being filled to the brim with more and more elderly, wealthy people. The theatre scene on Broadway is less a necessity for New Yorkers now than it is a tourist "event." In making Broadway a part of the expensive New York "experience," producers have essentially given a great big "Go f*** yourselves" to the general populace of NYC, and more importantly, the practitioners of the very artform inhabiting NYC. So why then, do we continue to see Broadway as "THE place" when it comes to theatre? Why do young kids in Iowa and Ohio still have the dream of "making it" on Broadway? The answer lies in prestige, which comes from tradition, which is also dying, sadly. And once that goes, say adios to the Great White Way. And so now, for your pleasure, and my own sanity which has been formulating this theory for upwards of four years now, I will lay out, in chronological order the possible events leading to and following the death of "the fabulous invalid"

--Tony Awards ratings sink further:
There is no question that the televising of these awards are on their final legs. Last year, approximately 7 million people viewed the Tonys. To give you a comparative measure, American Idol rakes in about 30-35 million every night it airs. Less and less viewership, coupled with the loss of interest by that all-important 18-40 viewer age range quota will ultimately lead to the awards still being held, but no longer on air, similar to England's theatre awards. The probable failure of shows like "You're the One that I Want" will act as fodder for the cancelation of the telecast by network executives. National interest in Broadway slides drastically. *And this doesn't even account for the possible death of network television, which very well could result from the combination of internet and TV with self-programming devices like Tivo or itunes.

--Tony Awards open doors to Off-Broadway:
The slide in viewership, coupled with the utter lack of new material on Broadway will naturally necessitate this move, which will ultimately come too late. As the trend seems to be taking it and with the escalating production costs, in about ten years, Broadway will be a compendium of well known title musical: guaranteed hit movie-turned-musicals and the jukebox musical that collects hit songs into a score will be prominantly featured. Maybe 1 or 2 original shows like Spring Awakening will make it through. But such a case will become unlikely as the opening of Tony Award doors to Off-Broadway will no longer necessitate the move. The awards, for what little (and less) press they actually garner for the show will prove less and less a motive for producers to up and move their shows from downtown theatres to the larger, broadway houses.

--The success of newer musicals elsewhere in the United States:
With the noticable lack of press NY musical theatre gets outside of tourist publications, new musicals start springing up in other parts of the country and staying put. Places like the Kennedy Center in DC, the Goodman Theatre in Chicago, the Guthrie, etc. begin to commision new musicals without the ultimate goal of a Broadway transfer. As Broadway has slowly become more of a Vegas-style collection of spectacle shows and music reviews, these other regional houses are able to commision newer works and take bigger risks without the fear of a massive Broadway failure, similar to what is going on in the Off-Broadway scene. With this, New York loses its stranglehold on new American musical theatre. This is not to mark the death of the American musical, only the end of Broadway, mind you.

--A National Theatre becomes necessary:
With new musicals springing up all over the country, the need to house and preserve them somehow will become apparent. A National Theare is then proposed. The question is raised as to where to locate such a place. What little theatre tradition is remaining causes NYC to be chosen to house such a place. Now it is up to the government. Supposing the such a theatre is granted, government subsidy will allow ticket prices to remain at a reasonable cost as the musical theatre is returned to the people. If, the government does not support such a decision, musicals continue to be produced sporatically, throughout the country without one definite center for their creation.

--The distant, distant future:
Cities have grown into worlds unto themselves. Just as the suburbs of America have grown homogenized, each with its own grocery story, retail malls, car dealerships, and cinema entertainment, so do the major cities of America start to resemble each other. Each has something of a theatre district, housing larger commercial shows (Just look at Chicago, which by 2010 may well have permanent, sit-down productions of Jersey Boys, Wicked, the Color Purple, and Spelling Bee all running with open-ended runs for locals and tourists) as well as smaller theatre companies for straight shows or experimental works. And New York, with its National Theatre, while perhaps no longer the starry place to see one's name in lights, once again reigns as the country's center for new plays and musicals...only this time, there's one more piece of allure--artistic integrity.


So you see, it's not an entirely bleak theory, but rather one that attempts to accomodate change. As I see it, the hinge point really will be the creation of an American National Theatre. Without that, whatever is known as the American musical will likely be washed away is a sea of greedy commercialism. Musical theatre and theatre itself can never die as long as people's inherrent passion for them exist. And as history has proved us, that passion is a very unwavering one. What is mercurial and subject to change, though, is the economic state and the artistic context in which these theatre pieces are presented. And so, what I really want to say in all this is to not fear the death of Broadway. As it dies, you can be sure that another form or place or context will take its place, because its lifeblood, musical theatre, WILL NOT DIE. Maybe you disagree. Maybe this is a waste of time. Perhaps none of it will come true. It is only a theory. But it is a theory I have wrestled with and thought it might be interesting as some food for thought. Here's to the future and seeing what transpires...

[PJMPirate]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 4:12pm

it's certainly possible, and to be honest it might even be good for theater as an art form. As of now, there isn't much place for true innovation on Broadway. Hopefully someday we can approach parity with Off-Broadway and regional theater as compared to Broadway, in terms of popularity.

[Julian2]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 4:24pm

I would love to hear Margo's opinion on this.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 4:31pm

Theatreboy, that was an excellent post. After being bored with "Little Mermaid" threads, I needed this.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 5:27pm

Your post was well written, and everything you said could possibly happen.

The only way many of your events will not transpire is if the economy goes into a huge bust and our artistic integrity begins to come back in (much as it did following the Great Depression, where shows like The Cradle Will Rock, were coming along).

Interestingly, Andrew Lloyd Webber said nearly the exact same thing in a 2 hr documentary/interview about him. He said something along the lines of shows opening in San Fransisco, for example, and staying put. Mind you, he said this about 16 years ago, when it was filmed. I forget the name of it, but you can view it if you go to the Museum of Radio and Television on 52nd. Just type his name into the archives, and it should pop up, it's in two parts, if you're interested in viewing it.

As it is a theory, there are ways to argue against your agreeable argument, but I'll leave that to others, because, well, it is a theory. Anything may happen, it all relies on if certain events, such as the ones you listed, occur.

Updated On: 1/18/07 at 05:27 PM

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 5:41pm

Thank you for an interesting post. The only reservation I have is the idea of a national theater. In the present political climate in which the arts are looked upon as extraneous, I think it unlikely that any major governmental funding will be forthcoming for theater or any of the performing arts. Since the arts are no longer taught in schools to the extent they used to be, the youngsters will not feel they are missing something because they did not "grow up" with it. I am sounding bleak - but the same problem is changing opera and ballet too - the audience is very grey, and (given the ticket prices) affluent. In twenty years, who will be filling our seats?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 6:00pm

Many reasons, including those listed in the start of this thread , contribute to this

Many have been discussed to death. I know that eventually it will become so expensive to go that many show will go by the boards with us

Unless it is a special occasion or unless we get an offering or TDF, we simply will not see it

Mrs R decided that after all is said & done we will not see Magical Thinking. To basically paying premium prices to see one person (9 as good as she is ) is not worth it. There are no other actors & thus no interaction between them

Many will pay to see it & more power to them. We are starting to be very selective

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 6:00pm

My frustrations toward the government and our education system are incredibly strong. It's actually difficult for me to describe it without speaking. Perhaps someday soon I'll sit down and write about it in full length.

But here's some short answer for you...

Our culture is so terribly meshed into a blob of gray. It has no real direction, no real substance, nor does it have any respect for artistic icons.

Our government sure doesn't help...Gerald B. Schoenfeld said on "Broadway: The American Musical" something about how each week, theatre brings in more money to NYC and the state itself than all of the sports events there COMBINED. Think of it...stadiums house thousands of people, theatres, individually, house one thousand plus. The government does not give one cent to support the arts. This is one reason why we don't see as many risks...I mean, if we had government support, it could help a little, don't you think?

Corporations aren't a big help either! Yes, corporations have done a lot to help the theatre district, but now it's getting out of complete control.

[BobPopa]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 6:12pm

"Broadway" has always reinvented itself, elvoved and changed since NY became the American Center for Theatre in the late 1700's early 1800's. Other then the fact that we now preserve theatres and that they don't burn down like they did yearly in the olden days, Broadway will always be somewhat different in every generation.

Broadway has ALWAYS pandered to what is Popular..from Drama, to Bar Concerts, to Vaudeville, Minstrel, Burlusque, Comedy, Musicals and more, what will be the mainstay of Broadway will be what sells.

Broadway has NEVER been intended as a club for the residents of New York City. NYC is the center of a hell of a lot of stuff, it also developed into the largest theatre center in the nation both with the Big Time Commercial (Broadway) and the smaller stuff.

As much as some people here hate Disney or hate Jukebox Musicals, or Movie Musicals, I am sure there were people saying "Not another freaking Rodgers and Hammerstein musical"

It is easier to develop shows in the regional theatre and/or off-broadway. But there is risk there too, just ask Charlotte Repetory Theatre...

It will always be the young person's dream to perform on Broadway. Just like it's a young person's dream to go to Hollywood

Broadway may change, but it will live on

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 6:18pm

The Metropolitian Opera is having a live broadcast of some of their operas this month at movie theatres across the country. That's right, LIVE and for the price of a movie ticket.

I think it would be QUITE interesting to broadcast the closing night of Disney's BEAUTY & THE BEAST to movie theatres and see what kind of response it gets. And also THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA for comparison.

I think it would do wonders to see what kind of interest there is for theatre across the country. Folks don't have to travel long distances, the price is right, and the producers of the respective Broadway shows make even MORE money.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 6:26pm

Capn Hook - I am becoming very ambivalent about the MET thing. It is an excellent attempt but it blurs the line between LIVE and mass events. The MET will benefit only if some significant proportion of the movie thetaer viewers are willing to put the effort and expense into seeing the LIVE performance. If not, everything will eventually be performed only for a recording device, and appear on everyone's iPod.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 6:40pm

keen on kean, that's the danger, yes, BUT it must be controlled. Songs on CD are easier to share than movies on DVD. Yes, there are DVD copying devices, but movie sharing is not in the mainstream (yet).

I think we can get interest in the theatre again by doing unique marketing ploys, such as the MET-in-movie-theatres scheme. And then when that interest is there, STOP. Let them come to Broadway again. No one is in the loop on Broadway anymore, so let's HELP them out a little.

No one is going to be "willing to put the effort and expense into seeing the LIVE performance" if there is no interest.

[Guillermo Ugarte]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 7:08pm

Before, I start receiving the attacks I willingly accept, i want to say that this is a theory I have been developing in my four years of living in NYC and regularly attending theatre. It is a hypothetical series of events that lead to the end of Broadway as the home of the American musical. Ok, here goes...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Before addressing your points, I should remind you that cries of "the theater is dead" have echoed through the Broadway alleys and byways for decades. As a professional, one learns to ignore these cries, lest they talk themselves into going back to Peoria to drive a cab. Those of us who have stayed on have found a way to make a living, with full knowledge that nothing is constant except change itself. I have responded to this post, not to disagree with your concerns, but to say that I do not think that we need to come up with a "solution". The best marketing minds have been working on how to keep musical theater alive and well attended in New York. It seems to me that they can screw it up well enough without our help.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Broadway houses nightly are being filled to the brim with more and more elderly, wealthy people. The theatre scene on Broadway is less a necessity for New Yorkers now than it is a tourist "event."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would have to disagree with the idea that only elderly, wealthy people sit in Broadway theater seats. I stand on the stage and see all ages looking up at me, including young couples, gay couples, groups of friends out for the evening, teens and yes, the elderly.

Subscription houses like the Viv tend to have an elderly base, but to say that only elderly, wealthy people attend the theater is not a true statement. It is true that tourists make up a large part of the theater audience in New York today but that is by necessity and many of them are not wealthy but have saved to see these shows for months.

I am well aware of the cash cow disease suffered by producers but the fact is that theater would not be alive if the producers did not recognize that tourism keeps New York afloat and that if tourists are not interested in coming to live theater, productions will no longer survive simply because the local audience is not large enough. So like it or not, tourists are here to stay.

There are many other things in competition for entertainment dollars. And even tickets to a box seat at a baseball game will cost you over $100 these days, so cost is not necessarily going to keep the audience away although it has always kept a certain number of people from buying seats. Still, those same people can't afford to go to a basketball game either.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In making Broadway a part of the expensive New York "experience," producers have essentially given a great big "Go f*** yourselves" to the general populace of NYC, and more importantly, the practitioners of the very artform inhabiting NYC.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you compare ticket prices to a Broadway show today to the prices of three or four decades ago, you will find that the low income and lower-middle income population could never afford theater tickets then either. Hearken back to the forties and remember that the theater audience was dressed to the nines and considered a night at the theater to be a society event. While we no longer dress up to the go the theater, it is still an event for which you pay dearly.

Some producers may, in fact, have a "f*** you" attitude, but in general the prospect of putting on a Broadway show has become one that takes millions in investment and must find an audience that will draw ticket holders away from the competition.

Tourists and New Yorkers alike will only see so many shows in a certain period of time, so if you are to survive you must find a way to attract the money to your production, and keep them away from the show down the street. It is a business, after all, as it has always been.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So why then, do we continue to see Broadway as "THE place" when it comes to theatre? Why do young kids in Iowa and Ohio still have the dream of "making it" on Broadway? The answer lies in prestige, which comes from tradition, which is also dying, sadly. And once that goes, say adios to the Great White Way.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The attraction of Broadway may still exist, but the days when a poor kid from Oklahoma might come to the city, live in a cold water flat, take voice, tap and acting lessons and wait for their turn...well, those days are over. Marketing is the name of the game and even the biggest stars on Broadway are nothing compared to the small and large screen icons, or even to video games and big sports franchises.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And so now, for your pleasure, and my own sanity which has been formulating this theory for upwards of four years now, I will lay out, in chronological order the possible events leading to and following the death of "the fabulous invalid"
Tony Awards ratings sink further:
There is no question that the televising of these awards are on their final legs. Last year, approximately 7 million people viewed the Tonys. To give you a comparative measure, American Idol rakes in about 30-35 million every night it airs. Less and less viewership, coupled with the loss of interest by that all-important 18-40 viewer age range quota will ultimately lead to the awards still being held, but no longer on air, similar to England's theatre awards. The probable failure of shows like "You're the One that I Want" will act as fodder for the cancelation of the telecast by network executives. National interest in Broadway slides drastically. *And this doesn't even account for the possible death of network television, which very well could result from the combination of internet and TV with self-programming devices like Tivo or itunes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Entertainment options and the competition for the entertainment dollar will increase. There is not doubt of that. But there IS a reason that the Tonys used to be a private, professional celebration. The Tonys have never attracted a large audience across the country...only professionals and theater advocates really care or ever cared very much. The idea that putting a movie star on the stage at the Tonys will make Joe Blow from Illinois watch for two hours has always seemed a bit silly to me. The Tonys do not attract the general public because they do not focus on what someone is wearing, who is drunk when they present, or which divorced couple is staring daggers across the room. Let those who care about the theater awards attend and watch and forget trying to make it a national TV event. It isn't suited for that. If "You're the One That I Want" is dying in the ratings, it isn't for lack of interest in live theater. This is a colossally stupid way to cast a Broadway show and the kids in Nebraska are not going to make it to NYC to see their favorite singer live on stage anyway, so why would they care?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tony Awards open doors to Off-Broadway:
The slide in viewership, coupled with the utter lack of new material on Broadway will naturally necessitate this move, which will ultimately come too late. As the trend seems to be taking it and with the escalating production costs, in about ten years, Broadway will be a compendium of well known title musical: guaranteed hit movie-turned-musicals and the jukebox musical that collects hit songs into a score will be prominantly featured. Maybe 1 or 2 original shows like Spring Awakening will make it through. But such a case will become unlikely as the opening of Tony Award doors to Off-Broadway will no longer necessitate the move. The awards, for what little (and less) press they actually garner for the show will prove less and less a motive for producers to up and move their shows from downtown theatres to the larger, broadway houses.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It has become more difficult to mount an original show because of the cost, and because every musical today has to have a lot of technical bells and whistles to satisfy the short attention span of the audience, and their need for glitz. As compared to special effects in movies, the stage will always be harder and more expensive to dress in that fashion. Producers want to make their money back and as large corporations invest in live theatrical productions, they are looking for "Q" value, and a sure thing. They are not going to put millions into the production unless it is a guaranteed hit. Gone are the theater angels who put their money in the arts because they loved the arts. We are now competing against other investments to get our venture capital. Hugh Jackman in Oklahoma will win nods every time over a small, unknown playwright trying to mount a new show against all odds. Do the tourists care who wrote the music or words? No. Only the faces and the bodies are important to the average tourist who goes to see a Broadway show these days.

However, if it will make you feel any better I have talked to a number of tourists in the past few months who come to New York every few months to see shows because they love theater (not just musicals, but plays as well) and they are willing to spend the money to see pros do the work. They don't buy tickets to see the big names who have never set foot on the stage before. For those few, I will continue to do my work for as long as I am allowed to set foot on a stage. Frankly, the fact that the budget for the arts is being cut in schools around the country is going to hurt the population of theater patrons more than anything because these kids are not being raised with an appreciation for art. Only if a child comes to it naturally and by their own interest are they likely to seek out lessons and learn to play an intstrument or set foot on a stage or learn the basics of design or production.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The success of newer musicals elsewhere in the United States:
With the noticable lack of press NY musical theatre gets outside of tourist publications, new musicals start springing up in other parts of the country and staying put. Places like the Kennedy Center in DC, the Goodman Theatre in Chicago, the Guthrie, etc. begin to commision new musicals without the ultimate goal of a Broadway transfer. As Broadway has slowly become more of a Vegas-style collection of spectacle shows and music reviews, these other regional houses are able to commision newer works and take bigger risks without the fear of a massive Broadway failure, similar to what is going on in the Off-Broadway scene. With this, New York loses its stranglehold on new American musical theatre. This is not to mark the death of the American musical, only the end of Broadway, mind you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't see this as the end of Broadway. New York has never had a "stranglehold" on theater. Theater exists in every corner of the country if people want to seek it out and attend. I see what is happening now as a natural evolution brought about by marketing professionals, commercialization and tourism. The fact is that community and regional theater has always been the inspiration for many people who will never make it to New York to see theater here. Just because regional theater is taking more chances, does not mean that New York theater will die, nor does it mean that regional theater companies don't lose money on the chances they take or that they are any less in need of patrons and "angels" to support them.

The fact is that New York and London theater are evolving and while I may not like all the aspects of the evolution, I do not see this art form dying any more than it died in the fifties, seventies or nineties when doomsayers spoke the same words that are being spoken now. I think it is changing, and whether we like it or not, it WILL change.

Movie producers, TV networks and other tape and film professionals are equally as afraid of "man on the street" movies and internet video sites. However, the fact is that if you want to become a pro you still have to go work with other pros. It will be a very long time before New York will lose that identity, and by then you will be watching holograms of virtual theater performed by live artists in a studio and beamed around the world into your living room...next generation live theater, friends!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A National Theatre becomes necessary:
With new musicals springing up all over the country, the need to house and preserve them somehow will become apparent. A National Theare is then proposed. The question is raised as to where to locate such a place. What little theatre tradition is remaining causes NYC to be chosen to house such a place. Now it is up to the government. Supposing the such a theatre is granted, government subsidy will allow ticket prices to remain at a reasonable cost as the musical theatre is returned to the people. If, the government does not support such a decision, musicals continue to be produced sporatically, throughout the country without one definite center for their creation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The U.S. government has never, and WILL never provide a subsidy for live theater, any more than they subsidize their olympiads, painters or other artists. We are a country of free enterprise. A National Theater might seem a great idea but in some ways it would serve to further commercialize what many of us feel is already too commercial. It would become a commodity. To support a National Theater you would need a cadre of national playwrights, actors, directors and other professionals, all talented and professional enough to provide a satisfying evening out for any audience member in any city. If you have been to see a community or regional production in some houses you will know that it would be difficult at best to find enough people to populate these stages and produce these shows. As for one "definite center" for the creation of new musicals, in spite of any attempt to organize art, the best artistic creations and discussions have always taken place wherever artists naturally gather to work and communicate...not by any dictate of a government or announcement of a formal place and time where art will be created or housed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The distant, distant future:
Cities have grown into worlds unto themselves. Just as the suburbs of America have grown homogenized, each with its own grocery story, retail malls, car dealerships, and cinema entertainment, so do the major cities of America start to resemble each other. Each has something of a theatre district, housing larger commercial shows (Just look at Chicago, which by 2010 may well have permanent, sit-down productions of Jersey Boys, Wicked, the Color Purple, and Spelling Bee all running with open-ended runs for locals and tourists) as well as smaller theatre companies for straight shows or experimental works. And New York, with its National Theatre, while perhaps no longer the starry place to see one's name in lights, once again reigns as the country's center for new plays and musicals...only this time, there's one more piece of allure--artistic integrity.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is unlikely that every American city, community or populace will want or support an artistic center of the scope and focus you propose, and it is hard for me to believe that all American cities (or cities in any country for that matter) will be homogenous. Each city and region (and its residents) has a unique character. Yes, there are things they have in common, but there are always differences. Just because you build it, that does not mean people will come. When we travel for pleasure, we go to different cities because they hold the promise of different sights, sounds and entertainment. While I agree that the future of the American theater in New York City seems uncertain, and only time will tell how it may evolve, I do not agree that the creation of a National Theater is a sensible solution or even that the marvelous way in which our society evolves would ALLOW us to anticipate and dictate how to keep theater or any other tradition alive. Only the generations to come and our own creativity and willingness to be flexible and evolve will tell the tale. You might build a national theater in every town but to have enough target audience members in each town might be another thing. Do those who come to New York from other cities to see OUR theater amount to enough numbers to keep a national theater alive in every city?

And my final question: Why is that you feel the need to predict the future and conclude what we must do to save theater and the Western world as we know it? As you said yourself, live theater has been in existence for a long time...since before the Greeks first put on masks and stood on a stage to entertain their cities. No one has ever been able to predict its future or how it might evolve to suit the needs and tastes of our society. I do not think we should give up New York and the grand theatrical tradition that is our legacy. Let us look ahead with hope and anticipation and see where we can take this tradition in the future.

There is a reason I am still here plying my craft. It isn't because I am a masochist. I do not believe we should stick our heads in the ground and ignore the changes we have seen, but rather that we use the very creative streak that brought us to the stage to come up with new and interesting ways to attract an audience and to touch them as nothing other than live theater can.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So you see, it's not an entirely bleak theory, but rather one that attempts to accomodate change. As I see it, the hinge point really will be the creation of an American National Theatre. Without that, whatever is known as the American musical will likely be washed away is a sea of greedy commercialism. Musical theatre and theatre itself can never die as long as people's inherrent passion for them exist. And as history has proved us, that passion is a very unwavering one. What is mercurial and subject to change, though, is the economic state and the artistic context in which these theatre pieces are presented. And so, what I really want to say in all this is to not fear the death of Broadway. As it dies, you can be sure that another form or place or context will take its place, because its lifeblood, musical theatre, WILL NOT DIE. Maybe you disagree. Maybe this is a waste of time. Perhaps none of it will come true. It is only a theory. But it is a theory I have wrestled with and thought it might be interesting as some food for thought. Here's to the future and seeing what transpires...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here, here! Forget about theories of government subsidy and National Theater. Do you really want the government controlling our creative process? Live theater is live theater and there is nothing else like it. If it ever dies, there will always be the legends and stories from those who remember the good old days. In the meantime, let's enjoy it while we can. If I could choose the hour of my death, it would be to die after delivering a great performance...coming off the stage with the sound of an appreciative audience still ringing in my ears. How about you?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 7:23pm

Great job, Guillermo!

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 7:43pm

I have merely theorized a possible future for the changing landscape of musical theatre. I have not asked you to give up your passion or masochistically beat yourself for pursuing it. And I do not agree with you that subsidy would ruin live theatre any worse than corporations like Disney or Clearchanner are currently ruining it. It is just my hope that musical theare avoids the same fate as opera of becoming these museum pieces for the wealthy.

While my idea may seem absurd and pessimistic to you, I certainly don't want to take my last breath coming off the stage after performing a Beach Boys cover to the rousing applause of the supremely wealthy.

[Lauren_T]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 7:54pm

As stated before, the end of broadway has been talked about forever. And it is still here going strong. And as far as other cities having Broadway shows, I don't think it will have a huge impact on Broadway. There is just something amazing about seeing a Broadway show in NYC. The passion, the lights of times sqaure, the energy of the city, all the people, and just all of the many other things Manhattan has to offer that other cities can't even touch. If a family has a choice to take a trip and see Jersey Boys in Chicago or on Broadway in NYC, I know they would def. take the trip to NYC. Broadway is the top and always wil be. There is a magical thing about it that no one can ever take away. A history that no other place has. Most people dream of being on Broadway and seeing a Broadway show, not a "broadway" show in Chicago or Vegas! Even with national tours, I still here people say "It was good when I saw it in Philadelphia, but I still want to see it on Broadway!" "I saw Wicked in London, but I can't wait to see it in New York!".........I just dont think there is anything to worry about. I mean you can say the same thing about Television. Are TV shows dead due to Reality Television? No. Things have changed with reality TV being around, but great shows are still doing well.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 9:33pm

TheatreBoy: If you read Ugarte's comments carefully you will see that he/she agrees there is uncertainty. What Ugarte says is that she/he does not feel National Theater is the answer. As Ugarte and others have said here people have been predicting the downfall of live theater in NY for a long time. Ugarte simply said he opts to be flexible and wait and see.

I didn't see anything in the post that said he/she wanted to draw a last breath singing in something stupid or overly commercialized. I doubt anyone here would vote for that. I think we are all here on this message board because we DO love live theater and we are all anxious to see how things will work out in the future.

[Dibbledl01]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 9:59pm

I completely agree with Ugarte and LaurenT on this one. Although your points are very valid TheaterBoy the topic of Broadway dying is basically just a dead. What LaurenT said is completely true, no matter where you go in the WORLD there is no place like Broadway. The Great White Way will always be what it has become, the center of theater around the world. There is nothing like Broadway. It's pure magic no matter how commercial or stupidious (like the word?) it may get. Even actors I've talked to from the West End compliment Broadway for being something no where else has. Broadway is the heart and soul of New York. Without Broadway the New York economy would suffer if not collapse. Broadway is a dream and will always be supported. The English has been around for centuries from the early days of Shakespeare and even before him, and Broadway will remain just as strong. And I agree, the Disney commercialism and all that can get ridiculous, but a good writer and a good composer with a good show will always find support in New York. Not everyone will ever get to Broadway, but people always will. Look at Phantom, the longest show on Broadway, I was worried Beauty and the Beast would pass it but it's closing to make way for Mermaind, but it's not the longest.

And about theater in other cities, it has, and probably will continue, to remain the pre-Broadway stops. I am aware many shows enter a pre-Broadway destinationa and remain there, but there are many factors we do not know about entirely that keep it there. And a show remaining in those pre-Broadway destinations is not a bad thing at all! If they are well-liked but do not feel it's worth the money to move to New York, oh well! The cast, crew, and management have still created a wonderful piece of theater people seem to like. That's not a factor that would contribute to the theory of the death of Broadway

..interesting post though

[ashbash1990]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 10:27pm

Located in Chicago, I prey that so many permanent shows wouldn't come. I am, however, feeling the slipping theatre scene as more and more people go see tours and not local company's productions. For example, I saw am excellent production of tick...tick..Boom! last summer, located in a relativly sketchy neiborhood, in an auditorium rented from a collage. If this is what theatre in CHicago, and other will continue to come to, I am so sad... On the topic of the death of Broadway, I think Jukebox, and musicals based on movies are contributing. New Yorkers simply don't want to go see a show designed for hick tourists.

[BobPopa]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 11:40pm

We should not subsidize theatre...pure and simple, Once you subsidize you invite oversight which invites a whole world of problems.

There are several theatres and venues across the country that because of the funding of the venue or the fact that the property is on some municipalities property that they have to "approve" or have control of what goes on that stage.

The theatre does not want this on a large scale...again

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 1/19/07 at 1:42am

If my little "experiment" succeeds, it will open up a new form of AT LEAST previewing new works. But if it gets somewhere, the whole industry - in a domino-effect - could change enormously. And I emphasize "could".

Thanks for the post

Updated On: 1/19/07 at 01:42 AM

[Lauren_T]

Posted: 1/19/07 at 1:09pm

and from the actors point of view, I have friends in Wicked in Chicago and the Producers tour and they all say they still want to get to Broadway! Broadway is the top and will never die! Sorry this is just a touchy subject for me! Everytime it surfaces!

[markymatt]

Posted: 1/19/07 at 5:31pm

A lot of theatre people tend to take a pessimistic view on this subject. As many on this thread have pointed out, the same argument that Broadway audiences are made up of elderly and wealthy people and that Broadway is fading has been made for years. Well, either Broadway is attracting new audiences or those people are REALLY old.

As for new works on Broadway...they are there. There are, always have been and always will be trends that cycle on Broadway. You have the jukebox musical. Well, most have lost millions of dollars and they are quickly dying off. Are there any that are scheduled for Broadway in the near future? The same will/is happening with movie to musical transfers. Aside from Disney, when was the last time one of these has made money, Hairspray? You could argue The Color Purple, but it is based as much on the book as the movie--but when talking about "take a movie script, add music and stick it onstage", the trend is for them to flop (Wedding Singer, Hi Fi, DRS). They will soon be gone, too.

People also argue that you need a "star" to open a new musical these days. Again, where are the examples? Of the 27 shows running on Broadway right now, I count six that have used people known outside of the theatre world as stars to sell tickets (and Chicago was running for what, six years before they started star casting?)

The point is, crap will always come and go, but good shows will be there. It's up to audiences to really not take a stand and only put money where they want money to go. It's all fine and dandy to complain that there is no art on Broadway, but I look on this board and one of the first topics I see is "What movie should be made into a musical next?"

As for a "National Theatre". Well, I'm all for government subsidizing art, but I don't want too much gov't control over what I see. There is a National Park for the Performing Arts (Wolf Trap). It's used as a touring house, has concerts, original shows, opera and more. And, tickets are VERY affordable. Now, people have to go there and see shows.

Finally, Broadway is the highest form of commercial theater in America (arguably the world). That doesn't mean they will always have the best theatre any more than Hollywood blockbusters will always be the best movies. There is nothing more rewarding (to me) than doing great theatre, but I dream of being on Broadway one day. Just like there are people who fly little puddle-jumper planes who live out all of their fantasies doing that and there are people who dream of one day flying a huge commercial airline. (I wanted a better analogy than that, but it's 5:23 on Friday).

There has always been crap on Broadway and there always will. Don't worry about it...just enjoy as much theatre as possible!