The American Musical. New broadway vs. old broadway

That was a really interesting article. The author made some really good points. I don't really agree that new musicals are homogeneuos. I think that many new musicals today definitely have a specific sound to them and are easily identifiable as being from this time period, but I think that's true of musicals from any time period as composers cater to the audiences they are writing for and incorporate trends of the time.

I do agree with the author's assessment of the voices produced by American Idol. As much as I love that show (I'm slightly obsessed) there isn't very much value placed on originality. And it drives me crazy when Simon calls performances "too broadway" as if that's an insult! Although American Idol is a huge part of pop culture and there are many Idol alumni performing on broadway, I don't think it's fair to blame Idol for this trend.

Thanks for linking us to page 3 of the interview.

Here's the link for those who want to read it from the beginning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/theater/newsandfeatures/27bran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&oref=slogin

---

This article was written in March of 2005, before Diana, Fantasia, Clay, Constantine, to name a few, even set their foot on Broadway. For one thing, nobody ever accused Fantasia of lack of originality, because she's as unique as they come, and critics acknowledged that in their glowing reviews.

As for Clay's performance, it was bland compared to what? The deadpan delivery of David Hyde Pierce?

---

Intereting article, but why is a 2005 article being linked now?

Cartwheel. I don't know who you are but people around here don't seem to like you too much, and I can understand why.

Did you even bother to read the article? My bet is "no" because if you had, you would know that the article is praising Fantasia for her orginality. And for that matter it's not just American Idol that encourages uniformity. Uniqueness is not encouraged and for new musicians to be accepted they must find their niche and develop a very distinct sound and a strong following and then hope that their following accepts their new found diversity.

And for the love of god, get off the Clay Aiken bandwagon. One person's ordinary is another's extraordinary. Clearly you and Gary Indiana have different tastes. Suck it up and deal with it. And feel free to make an informed commentary on the article. Feed back is always welcome.

---

One good point: "But a great Broadway voice doesn't have to be pretty."

As Sutton Foster proves over and over and over....

I agree with the sentiments of this article, but there are many contributing factors.

Singers today are taught that style is more important than content. They're hired because they can belt a high E and riff on it, not because they're outstanding, unique, individual personalities on stage. It's all about the high E.

To me, this is the "Cinderella Syndrome" (which I've been calling it lately). We go around desperately seeking a lovely girl who will fit a shoe, rather than finding someone genuinely interesting and special to fall in love with. The shoe in this case is the high E (or F or G, for that matter). So, we get a lot of cookie-cutter belters. The riffs may be slightly different, but when it boils down to it, that's about it.

We have to remember, these girls (or guys too!) aren't hiring themselves. It's the producers of the shows that are basing their talent choices on high E's.

I remember a chorus friend of mine was called back endlessly for the original run of "42nd Street." In the end, there were three guys left for one replacement slot. They all had Broadway credits, and they all were good dancers. So the guy that got it was the one that fit the costumes for the dancer who was leaving. In a show like "42nd Street," where each chorus member wears several very expensive costumes, it makes sense. They're also CHORUS dancers.

What I'm finding today is that leading players are being cast with the same mentality. We don't care if you stand out, only if you can get through the part, say the lines, and when it comes time for it, belt the high E. This is the creative, artistic equivalent of "fitting the costumes."

The biggest point I'd like to make in this post is that shows today aren't being tailored for stars anymore. They're being produced with the hope that they can create a franchise... a 10-year-plus run, spawning outlet stores all over the world. Back in the Golden Era, shows were written specifically for the talents of Mary Martin, Ethel Merman, Gertrude Lawrence, Helen Hayes, Katherine Cornell, etc. Their personalities were as much a part of the fabric of the show as the plot and the songs. Those personalities were celebrated, promoted and integrated into every aspect of "selling" the show to audiences.

For modern Broadway producers, that's not being "financially wise" these days. They would rather sell "The Lion King," "Wicked" or "Jersey Boys" as commodities. Most people have no idea who the leads were or are in those shows. "The play's the thing," true... but somewhere along the way, we lost the people on stage.

---

No, no please, Broadway, don't become contemporary or relevant. Anything but that!
Broadway Mouth: 20 Great Broadway Songs of the Past 10 Years: “People Like Us”

I definately agree with this article. I love an amazing belt and amazing riffs but even now i've found myself bored with them. I feel that broadway is losing whats most important about a show, the characters. people are being rewarded because they have a amazing voices when the person they are portraying can hardly be called a character! I find this even in my college. We have some really great voices but when I go to shows or performances all i am seeing/hearing is someone trying to sing a song with the correct technique and breath support. Where is the character!!! Casters now adays are mainly looking at the voice and not what the person behind the voice can actually do with a role and it kills me alittle inside everytime i hear an amazing performance, but am not experiencing and feeling the performance at all.

Maybe, I am naive, but when was Broadway NOT commercial? It is, was and always has been commercial.

---

"Pit Pro your post sickens me.

I'll just point out one thing: Madanna paid zero dues. She was lucky enough to get her video on a TV station (MTV) and that is what made her a star."

Um...who's Madanna?

Gee, a theater redneck, who would have thought it?

---

"Oh I am so sorry Pitpro I made a typo! I bow to your far superior intellect and slink off into the muck."

Superior intellect...oh please, far from it!

And what does Madonna have to do with this, we are talking about American Idol contestants?? (Madonna already made a Broadway debut and got less than spectacular reviews for it, but then again we all knew she couldn't act). Regardless, she earned her success (with tons of help from MTV of course), she didn't appear on a GAME SHOW to get it, virtually overnight (or if you want to get anal, in the course of a season). She didn't take a day off from McDonald's to go stand in line for 5 hours and win a prize and suddenly develop an entourage and make a scene like Taylor Hicks did when he didn't get a table he wanted at a fancy restaurant with 8 of his friends. She didn't get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for only being around a few years as opposed to Carrie Underwood who was into the Grand Ole Opry. What the hell has Carrie Underwood contributed, she's only been around for 5 minutes compared to the likes of Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash and countless others who have been around for decades.

If you want to bring Madonna into this, we can discuss her vocal talents, or lack thereof.... but that's a whole 'nother thread...

---