The musical is not a dying form, it's virtually extinct. As yet more rock pseudo-musicals flood the West End, David Benedict and Stephen Sondheim count the reasons why. -

[BellaBaci]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 10:34am

https://www.broadwayworld.com/l.cfm?id=40193

This article clearly points out how the material and performers of musicals is not as good as it used to be. I believe it is because of these poorly written musicals that we don't see strong talent on B'way anymore. There used to be a time when you would go to a B'way show and be blown away by the exceptional actors/singers on stage. Now, we see mediocre talent across the boards. Of course, there are a few exceptions, but for the most part we are seeing performers who are not well trained, powerful singers or actors. It is sad that these people are setting the tone for young aspiring actors. For example, you hear more about young musical theatre actresses aspiring to be like Idina Menzel (please, no offense to her fans) instead of like Elaine Paige, Mary Martin, Julie Andrews, Bernatdette Peters or Angela Lansbury. The bar has been lowered. To me, this is the saddest part to the dying musical. Young people do not know true talent unless they have someone in their lives to point them in the right direction. Watching the original version of musicals such as Kiss Me Kate, Showboat, Sweeney Todd and studying composers like Sondheim, Cole Porter, R&H, etc... can give you an idea of how powerful musical theatre is supossed to be. Of course, I could go on and on as the above mentioned musicals, performers and composers are only a tiny sample of exceptional talent but you get the idea. Please, I mean no offense to the many fans of the current hits or performers. It's just that in my opinion the majority of shows and their performers can't hold a candle to the material and performers of 10+ years ago. As a result, the bar has been lowered for aspiring composers and performers. Updated On: 8/11/04 at 10:34 AM

[Rob]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 11:15am

A great article, well worth reading...

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 11:26am

Brilliant and Breathtaking new shows still get made. They sell out at the Public and then run 136 performances on Broadway and close August 29th.

KC

Updated On: 8/11/04 at 11:26 AM

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 11:33am

this excellent article could have been written by MargoChanning... thank you for the link!

[MusicalDirector109]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 11:39am

Excellent article!! Thanks again.

[insomniak]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 11:54am

Times are a-changin'. People like Julie Andrews, though I love her to bits, aren't going to be the face of broadway forever. And that's a good thing. Change is good and it's healthy. If broadway's in a talent slump, it will get better, things always do.

The Rent OBCR didn't sell?

[NightLaughs]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 11:54am

It's such a generation thing, the public likes on Broadway what it likes on MTV, Disney Channel, so on. What was being pumped into the mainstream in the 50's was reflected on Broadway, the same goes for today. It's just that now the two do not emerge in the same way for record sales and things of that sort. It's just a different ground now... Great article, thanks for sharing it. Makes me a little sad, though.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 12:06pm

This article should be required reading for everyone who posts on this board. I fear it's length will keep the ones who most need to read it from doing so, but Rob and Craig should demand proof that a poster has read this before they are allowed to be a member of this board.

I have only one quibble with this article,

" Even the name Stephen Sondheim doesn't guarantee success."

When did Sondheim's name ever guarantee success?

Thanks for the link.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 12:08pm

the 2000s may be the decade of the pop music catalog shows, just like the 90s was the mega-musical decade...

[localonecrew]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 12:27pm

what is not mentioned is how AIDS has helped to decimate a huge portion of the creative community. this has also certainly made a difference in the quality and quantity of good shows.

[insomniak]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 12:28pm

These things happen whether people like it or not. And sometimes the megamusical helps the smaller, more thoughtful one. People may go for Aida and stay for Caroline. This is not always the case, but it happens. We all start somewhere.

I for one like the rock/pop musicals, for the most part. I want to see a show I can relate to, and CATS just isn't it. Broadway has to evolve to a certain extent in order to keep people interested. It is a buisness and it is about money as well as art, and shows like Wicked are certainly making money, so there will be more like it.

[jayem1968]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 12:53pm

It's an amazing article - and very sad. I was at the last performance of Assassins and I will never forget the look on Sondheim's face.

I have no idea if the "powers that be" are listening to this warning bell or, even, if the tides can be reversed. It's a tough call.

[Peter]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 1:18pm

I'd have to disagree with much of this article. IMO, times have changed, but musical theatre just hasn't kept up with the changing times. Unlike the golden age of broadway, theatre is now elitist. Critics are reluctant to praise anything with a pop sound, because like Sondheim they claim that pop can only tell two to three minute stories. I think Rent proves this theory wrong. Too many are clinging to the old broadway, without supporting the changing times.

I also disagree that Sondheim's shows would necessarily fare better in earlier days. IMO, Assassins may never even had made it to broadway then and if someone came up with something of the caliber of West Side Story now, I believe it would sell. There are musicals being produced now that are rooted in traditional theatre that do quite well...The Producers and Thoroughly Modern Millie are two examples. But, unlike the golden age, you'd never hear their music on the radio.

I think theatre is now is in desperate need for a composer to come in and bridge the gap betweeen the old traditional broadway and contemporary musical tastes. And critics and the theatre elitists need to be more open-minded when this happens. ALW was able to do this fairly well in the 80's, but he met stiff resistance from the critics and theatre elite. Wildhorn is able I believe to bring in a new theatre crowd, but can't seem to get the right collaborators to make his musicals work, and with Dracula, even he is showing signs of moving toward a traditional broadway sound, after the constant bashing he's faced from his pop sound.

So until attitudes change, the gap between broadway and the real world will continue to widen and yes, broadway will suffer as a result.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 1:51pm

I think the writer mentioned that Rent was an exception...

"The style may be fine for stories lasting three or four minutes, but that music isn't suited to variety or development of character. Occasionally, a work like Rent appears which bridges the worlds of pop and theatre."

[JakeB]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 2:00pm

The fact is, pop-group shows can generate big bucks but there's practically nothing on the artistic scale. The biggest problem in the West End right now is a guy called Ben Elton. He's a comedy writer (his book Inconceivable sits amongst my favourites, as does his film Maybe Baby which is equally enjoyable), but as a musical writer he just lacks any kind of creativity when putting a book to previously existing songs. Sadly nobody seems to have told him this. As a result, he has written We Will Rock You, Tonight's the Night and the upcoming Tina Turner musical. He's killing the West End's musical scene.

[beachie]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 4:03pm

Hasn't the same thing been said about every art form? The critics waxed nostalgic about the 'Golden Age of Television' until a new golden age was ushered in with Seinfield, Frazier and Friends. Art genres always goe in cycles as public tastes change and right now, showtunes are low on the list. What the author ignores in trashing 'rock musicals,' which I presume is everything from 'Tommy' to the upcoming 'Good Vibrations', is that these plays have damn good music that continues to resonate in your brain long after curtain call.

[eyeonbroadway]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 4:39pm

Great article and I agree that everyone should read it! It makes a lot of the points that Margo Channing was insightfully making several weeks ago regarding Broadway as a business and the changing face of the audience. I think extinction is too dire of a characterization, but there's no question that Broadway will be, and probably always has been, reflective of the tastes of its market.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 7:30pm

Maybe Broadway is just in a down period right now, until people find new ways to make musicals relate to today's audiences while still having more substance than a marshmellow.

As much as I like musicals like Urinetown, I don't think irony is the solution. It's nice for a show or two, as a change of pace, but in the end it's like an ouroboros- a snake eating it's own tail. If all musicals start making fun of the genre, they'll destroy the base they're standing on.

But I'm an optimist at heart. I don't think musicals will stay down for long.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 7:46pm

Ok.......problems with this article. It glorified Sondheim WAY TOO MUCH. It is completely biased. I mean, the only person that really had anything to say was Sondheim. While Sondheim is great, he is not the be all/end all of musical theatre. They barely touched on older, classical musicals. And RENT OBC recording did not sell? Um, yes it did. Granted, it did reach number one, but I believe it was on Billboard and it is a constant seller on amazon.com. Also, there are good "rock" musicals: JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, TOMMY, RENT, TICK TICK BOOM (off broadway, but still). I mean, they mentioned RENT and TOMMY once but what what about JCS? They spent too much time Damning rock musicals then trying to show that they are good ones out there. Granted, I do agree that there are too many musicals based on a pop singer's songs. But, still. Does anyone else agree?

[Plum]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 7:50pm

Rent may have sold pretty nicely for an OBC, but it probably didn't sell much in terms of the overall charts. And I'm afraid that I really don't like most rock musicals. Hair is all right, and I can't judge Tommy because I've never seen or heard it, but I don't particularly like Rent or Jesus Christ Superstar.

But I don't think the article really damned rock musicals so much as it damned jukebox musicals. There is a crucial difference there.

[insomniak]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 7:50pm

I do entirely. It was a one-sided article. And yes, broadway has a lot more pop/rock musicals than it did, but that's evolution. It can't stay what it was fifty years ago forever and survive as both an industry and an art form.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 7:51pm

HAIR.........I forgot that one. Great musical.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 7:54pm

I agree, insomniak. And if you think about it, the music that was in classic musicals as "south pacific," "My Fair Lady," etc. was played on the radio and was accepted as normal music. That is the kind of music people listen to. Hello.......GREASE anyone? Anyway, of course Broadway has to change like you said. Stupid. And with any other kind of art form, it is down one moment and then alive the next.

[LadyGuenevere]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 7:56pm

I just read the article, and I loved it.

Spidey, I think that they're saying that Rent didn't sell- compared to West Side Story's and My Fair Lady's incredible number of sales. And as for TTB, I think that its biggest following comes from Rent fans. I like Rent okay, but I found the music in TTB to be flat.

As for the article, it's very true that the tourists get lazy, and want to see a known show- possibly already a movie or a band that they are familiar with (ex. Lion King, Mamma Mia).

And more people like the types of musicals that cater to today's MTV crowd- pop and rock tunes that will be stuck in our heads. Substance in the musical doesn't account for much anymore- some of the worse shows (in terms of plot) are loved by many people because of the music.

And sometimes it's hard to go and find a good, touching, and in-depth story that will satisfy us as well as the music does. And it's going to be harder if the musicals that should be drawing in the bigger crowds don't, simply because audiences want that 'rock/pop high' from a musical.

And many a person has told me "I don't like (insert musical here) because it was too serious. I don't like to think when watching a musical." There's a sad statement, right there. I love to think when watching plays and musicals- forget the music, a brilliant story is what attracts me to it. Updated On: 8/11/04 at 07:56 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 8/11/04 at 8:01pm

I agree Lady, but they are called "showtunes" for a reason. Taht is one of the reasons that I am not a BIG fan of Sondheim (although I still like him). I mean, when you listen to classical musicals, the songs get stuck in your head. I mean, EVERYONE knows some music of WEST SIDE STORY even if they don't know where it came from......same as MY FAIR LADY and other classics. These songs get stuck in your head and you want to listen to them over and over. Sondheim musicals don't do that as much. You have to listen multiple times before just one song is memorable (there are major exceptions of course). I am just saying...........I don't know.