"Original" Musicals

[S394206H]

Posted: 10/22/18 at 9:46pm

I seems to be a pretty common opinion nowadays to claim that everything on Broadway- at least in terms of musicals- is a cheap cash grab made solely for profit and that artistic integrity in musical theatre is dead. This isn't necessarily anything new, but with all the comments I've seen lately about how Broadway has "sold out," I decided to do some math.

Of the twenty-four musicals currently running on Broadway, eleven are based off of movies, two are based off of plays, four are based off of books, four are based off of true stories, and one is largely just a concert performance of existing material. That leaves just two shows (The Book of Mormon and Dear Evan Hansen) that can be argued as "original musicals." However, since the argument is that commercialization of Broadway is a recent trend, I also went back a bit further.

Of the twenty-eight Best Musical Tony winners since 1990, twenty-one are based off of existing works- ten from movies, one from a play, three from books, six from true stories, one from a musical, and one from an opera. Two were dance performances. That leaves just five musicals from nearly the past three decades that can be considered wholly "original"- City of Angels, Avenue Q, In the Heights, the Book of Mormon, and Dear Evan Hansen.

The point I try to make to people that complain about Broadway "selling out" in order to favor commercialization over original work is this- 100% original Broadway musicals are actually pretty hard to come by. If you go back further than 1990, you find a lot of musicals based off of plays, books, and other existing legends and stories. People love to tout the "death of the original musical," but the original musical barely even exists. Few people get upset when a book is adapted into a movie, so why do they get upset when a movie is made into a musical? No one gets mad when a play or a book is made into a musical! My point is this- rarely do audiences actually want to see a completely unknown story put to music onstage. There's a reason why many of the shows I named above were lauded as sensational, groundbreaking works in one way or another, and it's not that they had original stories- they had something that made them different. Avenue Q had puppets, In the Heights had rap and salsa music, The Book of Mormon had R-rated humor and religious blasphemy. No one is buying tickets for Dear Evan Hansen because it's an original musical, they're buying tickets to see Evan spill his heart onto the stage every night.

Broadway's bottom line has always been to sell tickets and put butts in seats- that's why you see so much more original work in regional and local theaters. I just wanted to point out that this has literally always been the case, and likely will be for the foreseeable future. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this concept, since I tend to see more actual debate here than on other platforms like Twitter.

*Before anyone comes for me in the comments, my criteria for categorizing these shows came from whether they pulled characters or plot lines from preexisting stories or media. Even though In the Heights is semi-autobiographical, the plot and characters are ultimately fictional. This differs from something like Hamilton, where the characters and plot are fictionalized, but are ultimately still based heavily off of their historical counterparts and are used to tell a true story.*

[BroadwayRox3588]

Posted: 10/22/18 at 10:10pm

I think this is just how Broadway is, Broadway is a business, and it needs to sell itself to thrive. We all love our favorite musicals, but we wouldn't have them on Broadway if not for the "cash grabs" people like to complain about. That being said, I would like some originality mixed in there as well (provided, of course, it's good).

"I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this concept, since I tend to see more actual debate here than on other platforms like Twitter."

I think you'd be more likely to find intelligent debate in a McDonalds play place, than you would on Twitter (specifically "stan Twitter"

[adamgreer]

Posted: 10/22/18 at 10:19pm

In a number of years, there was always one or two acclaimed original musicals that ended up not winning the Tony- next to normal, Spelling Bee, and Caroline or Change immediately come to my mind, and I’m sure there are others.

[S394206H]

Posted: 10/22/18 at 10:41pm

adamgreer said: "In a number of years, there was always one or two acclaimed original musicals that ended up not winning the Tony- next to normal, Spelling Bee, and Caroline or Change immediately come to my mind, and I’m sure there are others. "

Oh I agree- I just used Tony winners as an example, especially since people seem to fixate on the “Best Musical” title so much. 

[CedricOates]

Posted: 10/22/18 at 11:02pm

I do believe that much of this musical is based off of characters that are well known, i do consider “Something Rotten” to be an original musical. Shakespeare and all of his characters are used for the characters in the musical yes. But ultimately the characters in the show are completely the interpretation of the writers.

[S394206H]

Posted: 10/22/18 at 11:16pm

CedricOates said: "I do believe that much of this musical is based off of characters that are well known, i do consider “Something Rotten” to be an original musical. Shakespeare and all of his characters are used for the characters in the musical yes. But ultimately the characters in the show are completely the interpretation of the writers."

Exactly- I consider Something Rotten an original work as well. Unlike a show such as Hamilton, the "real" characters aren't meant to be accurate representations, but are purposefully silly and outlandish. You're not supposed to believe William Shakespeare ever said or did the things he does in the musical, but in Hamilton you are. 

[CedricOates]

Posted: 10/22/18 at 11:33pm

S394206H said: "CedricOates said: "I do believe that much of this musical is based off of characters that are well known, i do consider “Something Rotten” to be an original musical. Shakespeare and all of his characters are used for the characters in the musical yes. But ultimately the characters in the show are completely the interpretation of the writers."

Exactly- I consider Something Rotten an original work as well. Unlike a show such as Hamilton, the "real" characters aren't meant to be accurate representations, but are purposefully silly and outlandish. You're not supposed to believe William Shakespeare ever said or did the things he does in the musical, but in Hamilton you are."

Glad you see it too! 

But yes I also see the point that could be made that basically the show is a big reference to musicals. Some of Shakespeare’s actual work are referenced in the show, and basically all of Nostradamus’ funny moments are him seeing into the future of musical theatre. So i see that at the very core of the Something Rotten, it couldn’t actually exist if all of the musicals that it references about didn’t exist.

..... Its still original to me though

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 10/23/18 at 9:20am

I don't mind if a musical is based off a true story (exp. Come From Away) because the music and the book is original. It does not bother me if a book is adapted for a musical either because once again the music will be original. I am just not a fan of jukebox musicals and it seems to me at times every rock/pop star is getting their own Broadway musical - lol. I know it is the way of Broadway now to do a show based on popular movie or music artists because they get a built in audience who remember the movie or music artist. Personally, I root extra hard for original musicals to have success so maybe producers will take a chance more often on bringing original show to Broadway.

[j.garcia]

Posted: 10/23/18 at 12:00pm

I have no problem with a show being based on a movie or pre-existing property as long as the show can justify its existence as a separate entity from the original.  Don't take the movie/play/book and reproduce it word for word, add something that makes it distinctly different. Something like School of Rock doesn't need to exist outside of the movie. If I wanted to see a Jack Black impression, I could watch the real thing. Most of the Disney musicals make the same mistake (not that its hurting their bottom line). 

 

[barcelona20]

Posted: 10/23/18 at 1:07pm

This is the dumbest topic ever.  If a show is good, who cares if it's not "original"?

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 10/23/18 at 1:53pm

I don’t think a lot of people have problems with “movies becoming musicals” in and of itself so much as they have a problem with the fact that so many of these adaptations make no attempt to create a unique theatregoing experience and instead are lazy in putting a carbon copy of the film onstage, just with songs. Like j.garcia said, the show needs to justify its existence as an adaptation.

[Rainah]

Posted: 10/23/18 at 2:01pm

I think it's a good way to point out that when people complain about wanting "original musicals" what they really want is originality.  We want shows that have something new to say.

Hamilton is based off historical events/a biography, but the show has something new to say and is not comparable to the experience of reading the biography. Great Comet is based off a book - in fact includes a significant amount of the show being exact quotes from the book - yet I think everyone can agree it is one of the most novel and original experiences on broadway (like it or hate it)

Pretty woman is just the movie, on stage.

Really, just look at the difference between how people treat Frozen vs Lion King, both close adaptions of a huge commercial property. But one reinvents the design of the show in a unique way and one does not. 

 

I say it again and again. People can pick things out to complain about X types of shows sucking (commercial, adaption, jukebox, teen-oriented, etc) but at the end of the day? It's just gotta be good. It's just got to be a good show. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/23/18 at 2:10pm

Rainah said: "People can pick things out to complain about X types of shows sucking (commercial, adaption, jukebox, teen-oriented, etc) but at the end of the day? It's just gotta be good. It's just got to be a good show."

Exactly. If all of these adaptations brought fresh, new life to their source material, no one would care.

Also, original is hard to pin down. Summer had music to start with and no story, Bridges of Madison County had a story and no music. So, every adaptation needs some original component to become a Broadway musical. The only thing adaptation gets you is some brand recognition, but beyond that, the show has to work. Otherwise, word will eventually get out.