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. -- Page 3

[amlomi]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 10:20am

Fenris, Though probably not the best EVER, one of the first sets of lyrics to come to mind is "Fine Line," from AveQ.

IMO, good lyrics sound like the character would talk, create some sort of image or emotion for the audience, and just happen to work with really good music. :)

Here's another question: are there any schools or programs cranking out good lyricists (or broadway composers, for that matter) nowadays?

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 10:21am

odd double post...sorry

Updated On: 8/12/04 at 10:21 AM

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 11:18am

"IMO, good lyrics sound like the character would talk, create some sort of image or emotion for the audience, and just happen to work with really good music."

EXCELLENT point!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 12:31pm

I love when we have these kinds of discussions!!

There are some great thoughts here. It sums up for me the great questions of musical theatre today--Tradition vs. (R)Evolution. I think we can find a balance between the two just as art always has in its evolution.

I think one of the keys is to choose stories (and music styles) that appeal to modern audiences. Where are the rap/hip hop musicals? Where are the rock/pop musicals that RENT was to inspire?

fenris is right on that theatre is more than just Broadway. And, Broadway's problems ARE it's high prices. Some of the best writing in musical theatre has happened Off-Broadway in recent years. Great musicals ARE being written--they just can't get produced on Broadway!

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 12:45pm

There never was a place that churned out good lyricists, though? Look, good lyricists in any style are rare but, honestly, I don't think the average audience is going to be judging a musical by the quality of the lyrics. I'm as big a lyric snob as anyone but I think the discussion about strong lyrics is a bit of a swerve to the bigger issues around a show working or not. Good lyrics, for better or for worse, won't make or break a show in any way.

I think the biggest issue surrounding new shows is current writers being unable to find material that is thematcially relevant to the audience. There's *too much* emphasis on just getting the story across and not enough real creative emphasis on what it's all supposed to mean to the people in the seats.

A great writer once said 'the plot is not what the story is about.' There are just too many musicals right now that aren't about anything more than their sequence of events.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 1:20pm

The article sounds like it was written about the state of musical theatre in the West End, but then goes on and on about Broadway without mentioning its recent successes. I love Frank Rich's comment about Assassins and how it would have run 20 years ago (he claims was told to him 10 years ago), which is total crap. Let's look at the musicals and their runs in 1974:

Lorelei - 10 months
Rainbow Jones - 1 days
Sextet - 1 weeks
Over Here! - 9 months
Candide (revival) - 1 year 6 months
Words and Music - 4 months
Ride the Winds - 3 days
The Magic Show - 4 years
Gypsy (revival) - 3 months
Mack and Mabel - 1 month
Where's Charley? (revival) - 2 months
Good News (revival) - 2 weeks

What in this list leads us to believe Assassins would have un longer? Is it the success of Candide? Not really. That was a result of the unique environmental staging more than its book and score. The Magic Show? That was a kitschey magic show for Doug Henning, popular illusionist of the time with a light score and a very weak and silly book more appropriate for children's theatre.

None of the Sondheim shows of the 70s made it to the two-year mark, so it really doesn't make sense to use him as a benchmark. It mentions how Bounce never made it to New York (as if it somehow deserved it), but doesn't mention the monumental financial flops of Anyone Can Whistle, Merrily We Roll Along, Pacific Overtures or Passion.

Then the article goes on about the film musicals of the 50s and how its popularity waned as rock music became more popular (without ever mentioning the multiple bleach blanket and Elvis films of the 60s).

While the article seems to be about how musical theatre is declining due to pop-catalogue shows, it may be true in the West End, it is far from true on Broadway. Currently, there is one musical and one ballet that are pop-catalogue shows that are showing signs of success. He failes to mention the recent non-pop show that are equally successful like Urinetown, The Producers, Hairspray, Wicked, Avenue Q, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast and Aida.

The article seems to be somewhat unfocused and veers off track. If it's about the West End, then why go on so much about Broadway? If it uses Broadway as a comparison (as with Assassins), then it should mention the success of Broadway shows with original scores.

I do agree that shows like Mama Mia, We Will Rock You and Tonight's the Night provide no original score and weak books, those original West End musicals like When Harry Met Sally and The Bad and Beautiful are hardly any better. If it's about rock/pop scores in general (as with more Sondheim quotes of how they cannot sustain a story for two hours), then it should stay on target and discuss Hair, Tommy, Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Les Miserables and Jekyll and Hyde; all of which have been describerd as having rock/pop scores. Instead, they author relies upon statements of Sondheim and Frank Rich and then tries to throw in his own words based more upon their opinions than his own. I think this pretty much summed up his knowledge of musical theatre:

"Aside from the odd one-off like Susan Stroman's forthcoming sensational staging of Mel Brooks's The Producers - a deliriously funny spoof of Broadway excess - and the few remaining classics like Guys and Dolls which Michael Grandage will revive in 2005, there's little from the past left to do."

His musical theatre repetoire must be extremely limited. There is tons from the past left to do and many wonderful more recent shows that have NEVER been produced in the West End including Titanic, Parade, Urinetown and Dreamgirls. Only two of the pop-catalogue shows were actually "hits" in the West End (not counting Buddy, which ran for over ten years and he completely failed to mention). Hardly what I would call the end of musical theatre.

[eyeonbroadway]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 1:28pm

I agree. The point I was trying to make about Sondheim was simply that he "raised the bar" for lyricists that have come after him. That's a good thing, but I need more than just impressive lyrics. There needs to be a story that evokes some sort of emotional response in me and I just have to have something that speaks to me musically, too. Those three elements combine, with varying weight, to form how much I "like" a show.

[insomniak]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 1:51pm

"I think the biggest issue surrounding new shows is current writers being unable to find material that is thematcially relevant to the audience. There's *too much* emphasis on just getting the story across and not enough real creative emphasis on what it's all supposed to mean to the people in the seats.

A great writer once said 'the plot is not what the story is about.' There are just too many musicals right now that aren't about anything more than their sequence of events. "


Agreed. This is the upside and the downfall of the pop musical. The recognizable score makes it more accessible to the masses, but sometimes it ruins the show's ability to tell a story with multidimensional characters. It's rare that a show can convey realism and heart with pop/rock songs (Rent did this, as noted in the article) but then again, Jonathan Larson studied both traditional musical theatre and contemporary music in order to find a way to make them work together. Too often composers know only one or the other, but to make it work you need to take certain aspects of both generes and make them compliment, not compete with each other. You don't want and electric guitar solo covering up important lyrics, and you don't want the words to be set to a weakly blended score. Updated On: 8/12/04 at 01:51 PM

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 2:14pm

the problem is that many people (especially tourists) associate broadway with the era that the author of this artical calls "the golden age". they come to see songs and dances in that sort of stlye, that is why revivals are so popular nowadays. that is why young people love rent so much, it isnt nostalgic, it was written about people in the 90's (and is still running because it doesn't seem so far removed from today). a lot of fans of "the golden age" don't like rent (despite it's "classically- constructed score") BECAUSE of the issues it concerns- or because of the audience it apeals to. whether or not "rent" is flawed (and it is, it's author died while it was still dubbed a "work in progress", therefor it cannot be completely true to his vision) what people have to accept is that it was and IS the breakthrough musical of this past decade. it WAS our "chorus line". what people should be waiting for now is the musical which will do what "rent" did in 1996, for the new millenium. the truth is that there have always been only a few truely edgy musicals that have been embraced by the mainstreme ("rent" is the latest and before that was "a chorus line", "hair", "west side story" and maybe a few others, but those are the big ones). broadway basically lives in the past. most of our hit shows are either reproductions of past hits or reconstructions of old formulas made to poke fun at old-school musical comedy, and this is because producers realize that audiences what to see flashy costumes and bright lights, that is what they think of when someone says "broadway". it will take an awful lot to change that because it is the system by which hits shows are made- hit shows mean money- and as brian stokes mitchall said, this is a "buissness". lamentable, but true.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 2:16pm

"The recognizable score makes it more accessible to the masses, but sometimes it ruins the show's ability to tell a story with multidimensional characters."

But sometimes, that is exactly what the audience wants. In the case of Mamma Mia, I wanted a fun show that includes some of my favorite songs that I never get to hear performed live. I got what I wanted and had a great time. Musical theatre is not strictly about the book or the score, but about the theatrical experience. The Mamma Mia characterization is as thin as something like Anything Goes of 42nd Street, yet those shows are forgiven mainly because of their scores and production values, yet their songs were basically stock songs kept in a trunk and shoehorned into a book at a later date in a similar way as Mamma Mia's. The books for Gershwin shows were usually flimsy excuses for a bunch of people to get up dance and sing songs that were actually the "pop" style of the period, yet they avoid scrutiny. These musicals are considered "classics" by the same critics who consider something like Mamma Mia detrimental to the art simply because it is contemporary. This trend is really not that new, but like Michael Moore, musical theatre snobs prefer to ignore facts in order to strengthen their opinions rather than be objective and intelligent. Like Farenheit 9/11, the article succeeded in sparking an intelligent discussion, but fails in its attempt to lead all of its readers to its subjective conclusions.

[insomniak]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 2:17pm

Yes indeed. As I said before, us tourists want all kinds of razzle-dazzle to write home about. Stuff like Lion King definetly provides that, though the book is weak. As long as it's a tourist-supported industry, broadway will have lots of these kinds of things.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 2:46pm

That's not exactly true, Matt.

Aside from Porgy and Bess, it is incredibly difficult to revive a Gershwin show in its original form. Even Girl Crazy had to become Crazy for You, with an entirely new book.

Same with most of Rogers & Hart shows. The songs may be classics, the but shows are not. And to compare the songs from Mamma Mia to those from Gershwin or R&H is a difficult leap because the older songs, for the most part, were written for the theatre.

As for what musical theatre is, the theatrical experience must include the book, score and movement in space in real time, live to tell a story. Otherwise, what is it?

And if, like Mama Mia, you do decide to string the songs together with a plot, then its the job of the creators to make it one seemless story. If that is not achieved, then it's not a very good musical. It could be a fun night and you might enjoy the songs (I had fun), but that doesn't make it a good musical.

[eyeonbroadway]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 2:58pm

Hmmm...robbiej, there's a twist I hadn't really considered before. Can it be a "bad" musical if I had a good time watching it and enjoyed the music? I guess it could just be a reflection of my taste, or the mood I was in at the time, but "good" and "bad" are kind of subjective and, as this board can affirm, not universally agreed upon!

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 3:06pm

But you can seperate the parts and judge them according to a standard. Actually...you must do that so that people understand what a 'good' musical is.

You simply must hold a show like Mama Mia up to something like Gypsy (a standard-bearer of craft as far as musicals go). Mama Mia's score is made up of pre-existing pop songs that do not fit seemlessly in the book. The book has implausible moments and sketchily drawn characters.

All of this being said, there's nothing wrong with a person liking MAMA MIA (I really did have fun) or WICKED (a show that I would argue is not great). But those of us who do this for a living (or are trying to) are charged with the task of producing good work. And to do that, we must understand what good work is...and isn't.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 3:51pm

robbiej - While what you say about the Gershwin and Rodgers and Hart shows is true (though the book for Crazy For You was not that much more , I think it is safe to say they are much more highly regarded in their original form than Mamma Mia or We Will Rock You simply based on the reputations of the authors.

But honestly, musicals without implausible moments or sketchily drawn characters are more common than not. Realistic musicals (an oxymoron), or those musicals with realistic situations and characters are the rarest of musicals. Perhaps it is why Sondheim fails to be financially successful. I do believe most of his characters are too human for an audience to swallow. I don't think they pay $100 to be reminded of their flaws, but to be distracted from them.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 4:04pm

Matt,

When I said 'implausible moments' and 'sketchily drawn characters', I left out some very important words: 'for a musical.'

I agree that most musicals have those. But when it crosses over into the point of where I want to scream 'OH COME ON!' is kinda what I'm talking about.

In Caroline or Change, there are MANY implausible moments. But, for me, the show created such a strongly defined world that I was able to accept those moments.

Something like, say, The Life, had me flippin' my wig cause I just couldn't buy it.

[timote316]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 4:15pm

Musical theatre is different today than it was years ago. However, its not because of the quality or show or whatever, its because there are lots of different factors affecting success these days. Today, there are 28 different shows on Broadway, all calling the audience to come see them, all with big name stars in the cast or on the writing team, or having something to do with the show. Add this to the outside competition, competition with the big screen, the little screen, and various other sources of entertainment. Nowadays, shows travel to you if you live in a major- to semi-major city. High Schools and Colleges everywhere put on musicals every year, and the bigger schools often have shows that can rival an Broadway show. Now, I don't know about previous decades for sure, but I can't see all this competition back then. Before WWII, your choices were theatre, the radio, or some movies. Now, its so much more. Add this to the fact that your average theatre fan did not have to break the bank just to see a show.

Yes, there are a lot flops nowadays on Broadway. However, weren't there flops in year's past? Yes, the flops cost more today, but that is up the the producers: if they want to invest heavily, thats their choice.

Broadway is different nowadays. But the musical is not dead, its just different. Would a 1950s musical succeed today? Not likely. If the show were revamped to today's standards, it might last. Today people go to the theatre to see flashy costumes, great music, and wonderful acting. Yes, theatre-goers did the same throughout Broadway's history. However, today's tastes are different. Times are different. You really have to give Broadway credit for adapting to the change.

BTW, sorry for the long post lol, I kept thinking of other things to say.

[eyeonbroadway]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 4:27pm

Don't apologize for a lengthy response! This discussion is GREAT compared to a lot of what hits the boards!

I appreciate the insight of someone like robbiej who operates within the art form rather than as a spectator like me. There's a different perspective when you're "responsible" for the creation rather than just being responsible for observing (and criticizing)and I'm thoroughly enjoying all of the responses.

[insomniak]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 4:42pm

From the point of view of a tourist, I want to see something I KNOW I will like. So when I get online and read the reviews, I go with the fun shows that were well-recieved. If I'm gonna drop a hundred bucks, I do not want to be disapointed.

The state of the art and industry is very different today because of this. Megamusicals will suceed because they are sure things, but smaller ones aren't as much of a draw for vacationers.

[eyeonbroadway]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 4:50pm

As another tourist, I have to, regretfully, agree. When we were in NYC the last week of December I drooled over all of the opportunities, but we dropped over $1000 in theatre tickets and I didn't "sample" anything that I didn't already know about. Granted, I think I know more than the "average" tourist about what was available to see, but I didn't take any risks, either. I'd like to believe that if I lived there, I'd have a different perspective...just because of the easy access.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 11:26pm

Your views as tourists are incredibly vital to this conversation. It is with these concerns that writers and producers must meet the challenge.

Updated On: 8/12/04 at 11:26 PM

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 8/12/04 at 11:56pm

Just as an observation, Sondheim is increasingly being pushed into the "opera" category, solely with the frequency of "A Little Night Music" and "Sweeney Todd" productions by noted opera companies (NYC Opera, Lyric Opera, etc.). Opera as we know it, was once musical theatre for the masses with unwieldy librettos but astounding music.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/13/04 at 2:27am

Actually, opera originated as an aristocratic art form in the Renaissance courts of Milan in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

Timote, in 1930, Variety reported the Broadway openings of 187 shows, of which 130 were new plays. These figures, however, represented a 20% drop in production from the previous year, thanks to the Depression.

I agree with you, JohnPopa---the contemporary musical that has been successfully thought through and amounts to something or has an idea to impart is virtually non-existent.

MisterMatt, Titanic and Parade can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered classics.

The following is a replication of a post of mine from another thread on the same subject:
Economic considerations aside (and they are considerable), the practitioners of musical theatre, as is true in many other areas of the arts, have essentially suffered a crisis of self-confidence.
The musical has taken enormous strides during the last thirty years, advancing the range of its subject matter, stagecraft and narrative techniques. Many exciting innovations resulted from the pioneering efforts of the concept/modern musical.
But somewhere along the line, its creators succumbed to the self-conscious, postmodern cliche that plagues so much of twentieth century art: only ambivalence, cynicism, despair, irony, emotional aridity, textual/musical difficulty, inaccessibility, grotesqueries, etc. have meaning or validity, thus robbing the musical of its joy, poetry, pathos, romance, humor and VARIETY. Sondheim, a polemicist who argued the seriousness of his craft as much as Richard Wagner did his, spawned a whole generation of wanna-bes who, though ambitious, had little of the craft, talent, authentic world-view, and theatre smarts (not to mention collaborators) of the Master and took up a weighty, nouveau-arty approach to writing shows, mostly with grim results.
Whereas the best musicals of the past, those that combined entertainment with an idea, were created with the middlebrow (I use the term affirmatively) audience in mind, the newer shows placed a greater value on the overintellectualized idea and the writers' own 'self-expression' at the expense of audience identification and enjoyment. The notion that the serious musical was 'too good for the average man' began appearing in newspaper interviews with musical theatre writers (usually following their latest flop) and the audience was suddenly demonized as the uncomprehending enemy, a stunning irony, considering the democratic underpinnings of the musical, and a perversion of the writer/audience dynamic. Is it any wonder that audiences have blithely sought their pleasures in confections such as CRAZY FOR YOU, MAMMA MIA, THE PRODUCERS or the DISNEY shows, while the serious musical has, at least temporarily, reached a dead end?
Broadway has always been a populist market. I truly believe there will always be a demand for shows that celebrate our humanity with feeling and intelligence, that acknowledge the darker side of life AND its beauty and joy as well. But given the absence of such shows (and nature abhorring a vacuum), audiences, for $100 a pop, will flock to the familiar, i.e., anthology shows.
The following quote of Fellini's may be specifically referring to movies but can apply to musicals as well:
"To make an interesting picture for a few people is relatively easy. To make a bad picture for a lot of people is very easy. The great thing, the great problem, and the most interesting and new approach in art, is to try and make great things for the greatest amount of people. That's the solution Chaplin found, and I would like to see a new Chaplin today. And not new, young directors who just want to be interesting for critics."
Amen, Federico.


Updated On: 8/13/04 at 02:27 AM

[Mattio98]

Posted: 8/13/04 at 3:59am

What is a "serious musical" in your opinion MusicMan?

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/13/04 at 4:06am

A musical of entertainment AND ideas. THE KING AND I, CAROUSEL, FIDDLER, CABARET, URINETOWN, etc.
Updated On: 8/13/04 at 04:06 AM