Please Tell Me That Not All Younger Musical Theatre Fans... — Page 2

uncageg, that is exactly right. What makes shows extremely popular, though, are movie adaptations. So many people (who aren't big theater geeks) who talk about Hairspray, Mamma Mia, and Chicago would know those shows if it weren't for the movies. Into the Woods is probably remembered most because of the filming. If Passion hadn't been filmed, I probably wouldn't know anything about the show.

I'm 19 and honestly, most "golden age" musicals bore me to tears. I love Sondheim, but there are few musicals written before Gypsy that I have any interest in. It's weird, because I like a lot of the music, and I'm interested in the history of it and the people who were there, but when I sit down to watch something from the 30s to 50s, I almost invariably feel like the characters are flat, the plot drags, and the book's just an excuse to bring out one song after the next. They're all so...cheerful and so often simplistic.

I recently saw Lincoln Center's South Pacific and I gotta say, I thought that the score was often lovely and the production could not have been topped, but the show itself is a dated, bloated, two-dimensional bore. I think musical theatre writing, the best musical theatre writing, has gotten better in the past few decades as people learn from what came before. There's obviously a ton of crap being produced for commercial reasons, but I think shows like Grey Gardens and Passing Strange and Ragtime are better art than just about any "golden age" show I've seen. And it's not because I'm an insulated, uncurious teenager.

Don't say older musicals have horrible voices. Simply accept that you dislike those voices, no need for bashing. I actually prefer an operatic quality in a singing voice.

I am 20 and a bass-baritone so obviously I've had to go back to before I was even an idea in my parents head to really find suitable material. But I joined the boards what 2 years ago? But had been watching/reading since about 2006 and it is thanks to people like Mildred and the other long-timers on here that chat about the shows that really have opened my eyes to a whole other side of musical theater. As snarky and stupid and catty and childish this board can get, it really is a great learning tool for people interested in musical theater.

"I hate when people make assumptions about younger generations."

You wont when you're older, sweetie.

Interesting discussion! And I'm glad it hasn't gotten ugly (for the most part).

The Internet has made such a huge difference in discussing theatre, sharing information, and video clips of shows long gone. You have access to a lot more "data" staring you in the face than any of us older folks did, growing up.

It took years for me to grow interested in theatre history as a youngster. Even with a mom who had been a Broadway actress. But I grew up in the Midwest, and my big exposure to a show "before my time" was its cast album. I really started to get into musical theatre around the time of "The Wiz." I was 13. Before that, it was my mom's original recordings of "Guys and Dolls" and "Hair." Two entirely different shows, but both considered "musical theatre." I remember thinking at the time that this wasn't a type of recording limited to a certain kind of music. I still didn't understand why those two shows could be so different and yet fall under the same umbrella of "cast album."

As I got older, I listened to more, as I'm sure some of you are doing now. I have to say, I always appreciated the older shows with great respect: Oklahoma!, The Music Man, Brigadoon, Show Boat, ...

I came to know them either through local productions or, in many cases, their film adaptations. Occasionally, a revival would be mounted as a national tour. Nothing like it is today with so many revivals. But I did get to see Yul Brynner in "The King and I" in college, when he played Kansas City in the early '80s.

I don't ever remember thinking they were stuffy or out of date or bad. I appreciated them exactly for what they were---masterpieces from a bygone era. I do remember being hugely aware of Sondheim as the "current" king. I also remember when "A Chorus Line" was the brand new show to end all shows.

In my eyes, I lived through a golden era myself that included A Chorus Line, Annie, Ain't Misbehavin', The Wiz, Sweeney Todd, Evita, Nine, Dreamgirls, Pacific Overtures, Merrily We Roll Along, etc. Each of these shows inspired me and affected me deeply, and they are shows that resonate with me to this day.

I wonder if today's "younger generation" is feeling the same way. Is this your golden era?

One difference I see is that many people today feel they have to choose. They have to decide which musical show or musical era they like better. Which one is the "winner," probably an influence from all the game shows on TV today that masquerade as "reality shows."

I never felt it was a contest, growing up. I could like A Chorus Line AND Brigadoon. It was an inclusive club not an exclusive one. I also didn't keep silent about liking "older stuff."

(I didn't keep silent if I hated it either. And not all old shows were and are good. Some of them stink, in fact.)

I feel lucky to have grown up at a time when I could learn about and appreciate all of them, old and new.

---

Updated On: 7/26/10 at 07:18 PM

ghostlight2: i do care for singers and the shows or films they perform in (i do not personally care for them, because i don't know the performers personally) because i'm a singer myself, just starting an HND course (which in the UK is pretty high place to start at college for music) on voice and piano. and like i said and will continue to say, these are my oppinions. i think they drag on too long, i think the opera voices are horrible.

Yes, i don't write correctly. so? any person can read my posts and understand what i mean...you did. just because i miss capitals, use a comma in the wrong place, put an E before and I and much much more does not mean others will not take my opinion seriously. it shouldn't matter. and it doesn't matter. their are plenty of grammer errors, everywhere on these boards, and i as well as many other still take the posts in the way they are inteded, wehter that be serious, joking, sad etc. and Mildred wasn't talking about grammer, Mildred was talking about shows. whether Mildred (or anyone else) wants to take my post serious, it's up to them.

yes, there are plenty of grammer errors in this one too...i'll live with it.

Errors every now and then are excusable: by anyone. Posts riddled with them are not. This IS the way you present yourself. Your post is your face. It's like showing up for a job interview in wrinkled, dirty clothes -- not likely you are going to get the job. I don't continue to read posts that have so many, and yes, I DO think less of the poster.

Also, charging against respected posters when you are pretty new: not good form, either.

---

best12bars I've bee thinking about your question and I have mixed responses. My taste in musical theatre is extremely varied. I love classics from Rodgers and Hammerstein and Lerner and Lowe and love the works of Sodheim, Kander and Ebb, Loesser, Lloyd Webber and many others. I don't feel this generation to be a "golden era" as it is far to inconsistent. I think what made the 40's 50's and 60's known as the golden era is so many classics were born in this time but whose to say there weren't as many klunkers then as there are now. It is totally subjective. For me there are masterpieces in every generation and you can't pin point a certain era. I think another contributing factor to the so called Golden Era is that in that time it was the like the birth of these new talents and the 40s- 60s were a time where musical theatre was taken to a whole new level and had landmarks and performers who were bigger then the theatre. It was such a rise and barriers kept being broken. That still happens but it happens very slowly. These days we have a shows that reinvent and then for many years we have second rate versions of that. The Culture evolves much quicker and so does art which means we can't have such a long era where the same formula formula for a musical is just topped.

---

"any person can read my posts and understand what i mean"

I do usually understand what you mean to say, but it takes posts like your posts nearly twice as long for me to read than posts that have few errors. As others have said, this is how you are presenting yourself, and you are presenting yourself in a bad way. It's not that hard to hold down the "shift" key while typing the first letter of each sentence, nor is it that hard to read what you wrote before posting your message.

Not being rude, I mean it in a nice way (if you can take it that way, then please do) but your metaphor made me laugh, I don't mean that to be rude.

well think of me what you will, if it be a person with wrinkled clothes, so be it. i just do not care, i'm never going to meet any of the members on this message board in person. and even if i did, why would i change the way i write so they can think better of me? if they think less of me because i'm bad at english, they're just judging me over something that shouldn't define a person. (granted on here it does, but still, i am not going to change the way i write to please anyone. anyone.)

if you think less of a person just because of the way they write, you are very quick to judge, which is sad to see really and makes me pitty you.

And a respected poster? oh, please. Yes i'm pretty new, and don't know how to spell incredibly well, or know how to punctuate properly, doesn't mean i can't talk to someone about them bashing me in the first place about my already known bad grammer, i don't care who they are, or who they think they are.

hahaha thanks JOak your very kind.

---

Look, TheKandyLife, I'll just say this, and leave it alone after that. I was never bashing you. I don't think anyone is, and I am very sorry if you thought that I was -but - do you really not see how the manner in which you express yourself matters? Quite simply, it is harder to understand what you're trying to say. If you truly do have difficulties with spelling and grammar, that's understandable. Possibly English isn't your first language. I'm dyslexic myself, and it was a long hard struggle to learn to better express myself through writing so that I was more easily understood. These roadblocks can be gotten around.

If, however, as seems the case, you just don't want to do things properly, expect people to take you as you are, and don't respect their opinions simply because you'll never going to meet them, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Also, if you don't respect the opinions of others, it makes it much harder for others to respect you. I can assure you that this will eventually matter in your life, whether you'd like it to or not.

Moving on and on topic: I was fortunate to grow up around theatrical people, so I was exposed to a huge range of live events very early on. I am pleased to see so many youngsters interested in theater, and really don't care what brings them to it to begin with in the first place. Often, a Wicked or a Rent will eventually lead to a Caroline, Or Change, or to the discovery, as Best12 says, of older shows through youtube, bluegobo, or OBC albums. As I'd said before, I think Mildred might be getting a skewed view of the younger theater-goers because the more immature ones stand out, and you miss the AwesomeDannys, the esparzas, and the huskcharmers in the process.