The Current State of Broadway...

I meant to add this link in too: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/03/PK255611.DTL which goes along the same lines.

Thank You Macbeth for a subject thread with teeth.

Every season has its share of stinkers. Still, lets take one calendar year, 1957, for example. If one had the good fortune to see Broadway musical fare throughout the year here are the choices from the shows that opened that year and their stars:

ZIEGFELD FOLLIES, Harold Lang, Carol Lawrence, Beatrice Lillie
SHINBONE ALLEY, Ertha Kitt, Eddie Bracken
NEW GIRL IN TOWN, Gwen Verdon, Cameron Prud'homme, Thelma Ritter
City Center Series:
THE BEGGAR'S OPERA, Jack Cassidy, Shirley Jones
BRIGADOON, Helen Gallagher, Robert Rounseville
THE MERRY WIDOW, Marta Eggerth, Jan AKeipura
SOUTH PACIFIC, Robert Wright, Mindy Carson
Later in the year, City Center presented:
CAROUSEL, Barbara Cook, Howard Keel, Victor Moore
ANNIE GET YOUR GUN
WONDERFUL TOWN, Nancy Walker
OKLAHOMA
Then came:
WEST SIDE STORY, Carol Lawrence, Larry Kert, Chita Rivera
JAMAICA, Lena Horne, Ricardo Montalban
THE MUSIC MAN, Babara Cook, Robert Preston

Oh, and just 3 shows which opened since November 1956 were still on the boards furing the first 6 months of 1957:
L'IL ABNER
BELLS ARE RINGING
CANDIDE

None of the creative talent behind these shows were identified. If I had "there wouldn't be lights bright enough!"
LOL. Today's current crop simply pales.

The last 20 years has evidenced a noticable drop in the quality of legitimate musical theatre. In my opinion I can pinpoint a time and a cause, but I'll save that for later. Have to keep these threads interesting.

Your for a better Broadway!

Updated On: 8/3/03 at 07:05 PM

There is no way anyone can say that that IS the "Golden Age" of theatre. Everyone has their own opinioins of the Golden Age. Many think that the 40's, 50's, and 60's were when the best shows came out. And our parents thought it was the 20's. And their parents thought it was with the original La Boheme. And our children and grandchildren will think differently. I DO agree that more spectacle is put in shows nowadays. There is no doubt about it. But look at other genres of music, literature, film, and television as well. Goldfinger compared with Goldeneye. They are both James Bond, but as you might well know more spectacle now is thrown into the movie. Instead of fighting men with deadly flying hats, he now fights entire armies single-handedly with submachine guns and jet planes. I define my own golden age of theatre. Just as you define yours and the next person his/hers. Just my humble opinion folks. No throwing of rotten fruit please!

I totally agree with Broadway Bulldog. One thing that I do notice with the shows that Bulldog has listed is that the artists associated with them were all wonderful personalities in themselves. We don't seem to have that anymore.

I do agree that except in rare cases a la Nathan Lane that the theater world doesn't have the same crop of "Larger than Life" personas that it used to. I agree that TV and film could be part of the cause of that. In an earlier generation one might expect someone like Al Pacino for example to have spent more time on stage than in film instead of the other way around.

I certainly agree with a number of you (MusicMan, AlterEgo, the ever charming Sueleen, to name a few).

Mass media and television have been the biggest factors in the shamefull lack of stage personalities. Not that the talent doesn't exist--it does and NYC is crawling with very talent performers. And, yes, everyday "another hundred people got offa the bus..." The media however has depleted the live theatre opportunities for talent to hone stage craft. One of the reasons the there were "stars" before was because they had places to act on stage, both in NYC and out. The media has swallowed up talent and if one doesn't make in a sound byte, forget it.

Another factor is the shamefully inadequate deminishing educational standards. Before the 70's theatre talent grew up being exposed to the classics--in arts, in literature, in music...even if they didn't particularly like it, there was exposure. Unfortunately today the reality is that the frame of reference for most artists creating live theatre, musical or not, is television or movies or God help us, the Internet.

I've got order my Chinese food, so I'll stop for now.

Yours for a better Broadway!

Theater is never supposed to be part of nostalgia, it's supposed to be a progressive form, like Berlin and Rogers and Hammerstein. They were mainstream songwriters as well as voices of populist America. Sondheim lacks a connection to the core of America, he's closer to Woody Allen, writing niche material best suited to neurotic New Yorkers but meaningless to anyone else.

This is neither a golden age nor a dark age. Theater lost its relevance in the 60's when the strong populist writers from the progressive social movements claimed the heart of the songwriting world. Meanwhile, theater writers became completely obsessed with servicing story and lost the ability to service the audience. Meanwhile the rock legends, Dylan, Springsteen and the like were writing better stories in 5 minute songs than theater writers were doing in 2 hours.

Remember, while the American social culture was being reinvented, Broadway was rolling out '1776,' and 'Promises, Promises' and a bunch of other safe, conservative works that appealed almost exclusively to the 40 and over crowd. We wonder why the wild and passionate kids, who were the MOST HEAVILY INTO MUSIC, didn't care? Why would they? By the time theater decided to sing for the youth audience, they had to play catch up and weren' in a position to change the rules, they had to try and look like the kids, instead of bringing the kids to them.

Theater's problems are their own. They blew it because they stayed with the safe adult money when they could've gone after the passionate youth money in the 60's and 70's.

Updated On: 8/5/03 at 10:48 AM

Here here, nyctopone!

An empty space, young, balls-to-the-wall actors and barely a dime to aid (or taint) the creative process. $10 million budgets don't corner the market on talent or ideas. Come down to the Fringe. Whether it's my show (PRINCIPIA) or another, come support the artists that will be shaping the world of theatre in the future!

---

John Poppa, will you marry me!!

LOL!!

I no longer feel like the only person on my soap box and high horse...

I think we are blurring the line between the business aspect and the quality. Of course the producers will do anything to put the butts in the seats, even casting inappropriate “names’ for marquee value. That has always been the case. But it seems easier to do these days and part of that is because we can amplify voices that would never have carried beyond the second row without any help.

But the quality usually suffers because of it. I don’t begrudge the producers for pulling all the stops to get people into the theatre, but if people leave the theatre saying “Hey, I just saw Melanie Griffith/Susan Lucci/Jon Stamos in person!” instead of saying “Wow, I just saw CHICAGO/ANNIE GET YOUR GUN/CABARET and it was fantastic! Oh, by the way, that person from WORKING GIRL/ALL MY CHILDREN/FULL HOUSE was in it, too”, there is a problem.

---

JohnPopa, the pop writers you mention wouldn't have the first idea how to craft songs for the theater. The degradation of pop music to its "beat" or rhythm and reliance on formulaic "hooks" rather than melody severely limits its dramatic vocabulary and ability to characterize a person, place or time, the primary goal of theatre writing. A Dylan or Springsteen song might be a fine listening experience when one is stoned at a concert but would be a monotonous bore onstage. In addition, these writers know NOTHING of the magnificent legacy and heritage of the American musical theatre and, worse, don't care. Finally, after decades of people like yourself decrying the lack of pop songwriters in the musical theater, writers like Paul Simon, Randy Newman, Jim Steinman, Elton John, etc have finally been given opportunities to write musicals. And what is the result? The most pedestrian, banal and undistinguished scores in the history of the musical.

Your argument was that the musical theater establishment of the 60's and 70's did not maintain its populist standing and relevance to the culture by not catering to the burgeoning youth market and its musical tastes and political concerns (frankly, there were plenty of shows that spoke to their times: AIN'T SUPPOSED TO DIE A NATURAL DEATH, THE LIEUTENANT, SALVATION, I'M GETTING MY ACT TOGETHER AND TAKING IT ON THE ROAD, NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN, OH, WHAT A LOVELY WAR! DON'T BOTHER ME,I CAN'T COPE, DON'T PLAY US CHEAP, THE SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT, etc., NONE of which are revivable today, compared to 1776 which is performed constantly). My post commented on that statement and drew a conclusion of contemporary relevance as well. 'Nuff said.

Updated On: 8/5/03 at 06:32 PM