Sad to see Honeymoon go...and this disturbing trend — Page 4

Maybe the reason for the difficulty of new American musicals to succeed is something as simple as this: the music now is greatly inferior to the music of the "Golden Age." (I guess the golden age ended about the time that they stopped making films out of musicals and began to make musicals out of films.)

A few years ago, a PBS Great Performances put forth the proposition that the unique confluence of talented composers who wound up together in a small area of a small island made the musicals so special. I'll quote a little from a review in a San Francisco paper.

http://www.sfgate.com/tv/article/Broadway-Musicals-A-Jewish-Legacy-review-4149422.php

Michael Kantor, the man behind the Emmy-winning PBS series "Broadway: The American Musical," revisits the subject with a narrower but even more detailed focus in "Broadway Musicals: A Jewish Legacy," airing on PBS' "Great Performances" on Tuesday. The 90-minute documentary argues that without Jewish composers, the Broadway musical as we know it today would not exist.

Virtually every great Broadway composer of the 20th century was Jewish. One major exception was Cole Porter, who once said that the secret to songwriting success was to adopt themes and style from Jewish music. Listen analytically to such Porter classics as "My Heart Belongs to Daddy" and you'll hear the signature musical sighs of minor chords that derive from traditional Jewish songs.

The other Broadway greats didn't have to adopt a Jewish sensibility in their music: They were born with it. Just a list of the best-known composers from Broadway's past and present attests to that fact: Lorenz Hart, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein II (raised Protestant but the grandson of a Jewish theater owner), George and Ira Gershwin, Sheldon Harnick, Jerry Bock, Jule Styne, Jerome Kern, Kurt Weill, Leonard Bernstein, Stephen Schwartz, Stephen Sondheim

It's interesting to see what Cole Porter thought. As the outsider of the group his opinion is very valuable.

"Maybe the reason for the difficulty of new American musicals to succeed is something as simple as this: the music now is greatly inferior to the music of the "Golden Age.""

Ain't that the truth.

But you'll hear people on this board proclaiming Jason Robert Brown a genius, the score for Marie Christine to be on a par with that of Porgy and Bess, and a child's whining her attraction to a delivery woman to sickly music a work of art.

Not to mention the accolades the critics lavish on this crap.

Out of touch much?

But we have no need of them, nor should pay them any heed. Our ears tell us all we need to know.

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 02:01 AM

well i actually think if people went to see the show, the crowd would be a lot better, and there would be more audience reaction, which would make it better. Ambience is a huge deal. I don't really care about the audience though, I saw it on a Sunday Matinee and the energy was droopy, but I still laughed cause it was funny. If the theatre was filled with young people, I'm sure i would have had an even better time

It closed because not nearly enough people wanted to see it. Sometimes, it's just that simple. It has zero to do with Brantley power, trends, demographics, golden ages or Elaine Stritch's death. Some shows people want to see, some people don't want to see. Welcome to Broadway.

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 06:40 AM

The moronic producers of HIV sure had tons of money to flush down the toilet. I was watching local NBC news last night after 11:00 pm......and there was a commercial for the show!!!!! The had plenty of time to cancel all ads. Unbelievable.

I also can't believe they didn't save their money and use it to buy a slot on the Tonys regardless if it gets nominated or not. Or save the money for the road. At least try to get some money out of licensing or the cast recording, which without a Tony performance I imagine this won't be that popular regionally. It's not exactly a "Bonnie & Clyde" famed-title.. How many regional productions have there been of "Leap of Faith"?

The argument that a young audience would make the show survive or the reaction to the show better is absurd. I'm 30, right in the middle of the 20-40 demographic mentioned. I had no interest in seeing this at all. I can't tell you a thing about the movie and I am okay with that. Like I would have only been 8 when the movie came out. It didn't become some classic that most people will see. Actually, I cannot even think of one friend who could speak fondly of the movie. That's not to say it isn't good. But, I think it is stretching to say that 20-40 would be the audience looking to see this. I also do like Tony Danza a bit from seeing reruns of "Who's The Boss?", but he does not scream "I need to see this show now" for me.

And while it was a revival my favorite show of the season so far is Side Show. It was disappointing to see it close so soon, but it also is an example of a show that got good reviews that could not find an audience. And didn't the same happen to the original production as well?

We also have shows like Wicked which didn't instant acclaim when it first debuted, but is still going strong financially to this day.

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 11:52 AM

Blue Eyes,

well, "maybe" was both my second and eighth words, so I think you should not have missed that I recognized that you used the word. On a happy note, we agree it is a complex subject.

I think the point about popular music is not circular or unimportant. Most musical theatre music since the so-called golden age is NOT popular, and the fact that a few songs have filtered through actually says more about the general state of the genre vis a vis popular music. The more important point is that most of the great songwriters today have not and are not inclined to write for musical theatre (at least not until their careers are in the waning stage). This is an enormous problem when the work is being presented in a popular commercial medium like Broadway . What we end up with are second or third rate writers whose work is, more often than not, mediocre, at least in terms of popularity, or (with limited exceptions) first rate songwriters phoning in music for a show.

newintown-

I don't think there is "no common ground" but I also don't think we are in full accord. When I say better, I mean it in terms of songs that appeal to popular rather than musical theatre tastes. Musical theatre, in its Broadway sense, is and needs to be a popular genre, and I think it is essential that it re-find that footing. A good deal of what we have now are songs written for an outdated popular sensibility and I think that has to change. I hope you are not right that we will not see them unified (and I see signs that contradict your pessimism).

As a side point, I also think that there can be a non-commercial form of musical theatre that does not seek popular acceptance, just as their is opera, classical music and dance that doesn't. But I think it is preposterous for a popular art form to eschew a backbone that is calculated to appeal to popular tastes.

ggersten-There are, as you point out, people working in musical theatre who write in a popular vein. But I think they mostly fall in the categories of people I don't think support the vitality of the popular art for for the reasons I mentioned-either being second or third rate songwriters (e.g., Wildhorn), being pop songwriters who have moved into musical theatre in their waning days (e.g., Lauper) or people who just phoned it in (e.g., Bono). Also, I think the best work by the Disney writers (kinda sui generis anyway) was written for the screen also. I agree the art of writing for the theatre is different than the art of writing a self-standing song, and there are certainly cases where the transition has not been especially well informed, but I also think there are skilled people who have shown an interest in writing for character and story without reverting to songs that sound like they were written for Ethyl Merman.

Hogan, I was replying to OlBlueEyes' bizarre statement that musical theatre songs would be "popular" (top 40?) if only theatre composers wrote "better" songs.

But I don't think musical theatre songs will be played on Top 40 radio or be as widely popular with the masses as they were in the early-mid 20th century. But I also don't see that as bad or a problem.

Musical theatre has taken on a more specific quality overall, I think, where the "theatre" matters as much as the "musical."

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 02:14 PM

No matter how "modern" a theatre songwriter tries to be, theatre songs are not what the public seems to be yearning for - witness how the songs from "pop" or "rock" oriented musicals from the last decade or so (In The Heights, Spring Awakening, Next To Normal, etc.) haven't found the kind of exposure or popularity one finds in the oeuvre of popular music artists like Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, Drake, Justin Bieber, Beyonce, Meghan Treanor, etc., etc., etc.

Very true...