RENT is not a "Watershed" musical...

Rent merged rock and musical theater in a way that hadn't been done in decades -- arguably since Hair. So I suppose you can argue that Rent itself didn't do anything that hadn't been done before; but if you're going to say that, you should at the very least acknowledge that it picked up on something that had been dropped for a while. In doing so, it opened the door for lots of smaller, less "traditional" shows to come to Broadway and be part of an ultimately highly commercial endeavor: things like Spring Awakening, Avenue Q, [title of show], In The Heights, Passing Strange... they're all direct descendants of Rent. If Rent hadn't come along, something else probably would have, at one point or another, opened that door. But it was Rent.

(But I know, not liking it translates into not being able to objectively see the historical importance.)

---

Updated On: 8/17/08 at 03:41 PM

see, I disagree.

firstly I can be objective... I used to be a huge RENT fan (not ashamed to admit). But once I passed this phase I was able to see the glaring flaws and mediocre value.

I understand what you're getting at Emcee - but RENT was not the first to merge rock and musical theatre. that's my point. it was HAIR. HAIR was a "watershed" musical because it was the first to do it.

There have been a lot of 'rock shows' between the time of HAIR and RENT. So I disagree on that end.

Also... you insist that RENT opened the gate for much smaller low-budget successful musicals. In my opinion, I believe it was the smaller commercial musicals (such as SMOKEY JOE'S CAFE in '95 and SHE LOVES ME in '94) that were responsible for this.

but RENT was not the first to merge rock and musical theatre. that's my point. it was HAIR. HAIR was a "watershed" musical because it was the first to do it.

Did you even read my post? What did I say? Did I say that Rent was the first? I said almost the same thing you did. I said Rent did something that, arguably, hadn't been done since Hair. I did not say it was the first. I mentioned Hair in my post. So why are you explaining to me something that I used to make my point?

There were rock shows between Hair of Rent, yes. But none of them took off to the phenomenal success that Rent did. It brought it back into the spotlight, and as I said, in doing so, paved the way for other shows to follow on its heels. Its success has allowed for many of the shows that came after it. Look at the kind of stuff that was dominant in the mid-to-late 80's and early 90's -- the big mega-musicals. And then look at Rent, and similar stuff that has (in many cases, put on by the same producers) come after it. Huge difference.

And I think you can see the flaws and still recognize it as an important piece in the canon. I do love it, but I certainly don't think it's perfect.

Also... you insist that RENT opened the gate for much smaller low-budget successful musicals. In my opinion, I believe it was the smaller commercial musicals (such as SMOKEY JOE'S CAFE in '95 and SHE LOVES ME in '94) that were responsible for this.

I'm sorry if I implied that I thought it was only Rent that's responsible. I think it'd be foolish to "insist," as you put it, that one thing, and one thing only, was behind a significant artistic and commercial shift. Trends come out of a combination of factors. I am not insisting that Rent was the only factor -- I am suggesting, in response to the question you posed, that it is one of them. A major one.

It seems you aren't used to interacting with educated Rent fans. Not all of us who like the show live and breathe the idea that Rent is the be all, end all, greatest thing on the planet and plug our ears to any inklings otherwise. If you want to have a productive discourse, it might help not to be quite so judgmental in your tone.

---

Updated On: 8/17/08 at 04:13 PM

Rent tapped into an audience that many thought unreachable. For the first time in years teenagers were seeing a show not because their parents were going or the chorus was having a class trip. They went because Rent was for them. It also surpassed the success of any rock musical before it even without the benefit of the radio play that Hair and Jesus Christ Superstar had. People were responding to what was happening on the stage, not a familiar tune. I understand the statement about Hair being the "watershed" rock musical, and I agree with that. But Rent changed Broadway itself.

RENT is watershed because of audience impact rather than the show itself. Wasn't it the first show to offer lotto, after dealing with people queueing up all night to buy cheap tickets?

---

I always thought Rent was very much like Rocky Horror Picture Show (the movie) Not very good, but managed to find a cult audience. Rent was lucky to in the right place at the right time . Having it's creator die after dress rehearsal, added to the romantic mythology of it. I have often wondered if Larsen hadn't died, would it still be running?

---

Hehe, not quite!

I don't feel like I'm having that done to me, if that's what you mean! (The reality of having that done to my hair actually makes me more squirmy than someone crucifying Rent!) I don't really take offense to people not liking the show, to each his own; I just think it's silly (and frustrating) when people allow their personal taste to stand in the way of historical objectivity.

---

OH! I thought you meant watching this thread was the equivalent of seeing someone having that done, hah. And I was like "... do I seem that upset?"

But yes, Bobby is on a brief hiatus. He will be back soon.

---

If you think RENT was the first show to have a drag queen, you have A LOT of research to do.

Hair did that... the "tribe" treats everyone the same regardless of race or sexuality. Free love.

RENT is just a direct descendant of Hair. RENT didn't do anything Hair didn't, except outrun it (though Hair's run is nothing to sneeze at, particularly for its time and the nature of the show). Hell, they BOTH even had mediocre movies adaptations!
RENT was the 90's answer to Hair.


But RENT isn't the first musical to deal with its subject matter. William Finn tackled AIDS years before with Falsettoland. And March of the Falsettos, written ten years before RENT, dealt with a more complicated facet of homosexuality. Despite being stylized, Finn's Falsettos is a lot more emotional and realistic than RENT.

RENT expanded on themes brought up in earlier shows- Hair, Falsettos, etc.

It revolutionized the marketing aspect of theatre. But the artistic aspect? Not so much.

---

"She Loves Me was not successful at all in 1994. How did that open any doors?"

In addition to what KJ said: If She Loves Me had not done well, Roundabout would not have done any more musicals (according to an interview on XM with someone who worked at Roundabout at the time. I'd give you a name, but I cannot remember for the life of me, I'm sorry). Considering all of the musicals Roundabout has produced since then, I would say it was extremely important for that reason.

"... firstly I can be objective... I used to be a huge RENT fan (not ashamed to admit)..."

There's nothing like a vocal reformed [fill in the blank, smoker, drinker, RENT fan, you name it] to plump up the ranks of insufferable zealots.

---