The state of Broadway musicals- Page 2

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:36pm

Broadway has "been dying" for at least the past forty seasons.

In ten years, posters will share how they wish their current season was just a bit like this one.

In reality, most works of art have their value determined over time. You'll never get an accurate perspective until it is all gone or changed.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:38pm

Why is workshop in quotes?

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:44pm

Because the whole idea of the "workshop" no longer works to the advantage that it did on A Chorus Line or Sunday In The Park With George.

The idea was that you could fine tune a work in front of industry professionals without having to deal with audience reaction, word of mouth, and reviews all associated with an out-of-town tryout. Not to mention the cost. You can pay actors pennies to workshop (there are financial benefits to workshopping though such as origination clauses) and you don't have to put up the money of a full production. It's much cheaper.

This process helped create some masterpieces in the 70s and 80s but the whole idea has become tainted.

Famously, Leap of Faith had an EXTREMELY successful workshop right before its Broadway bow. Everyone in the room swore it would be a hit, the response was ecstatic. Alan Menken tweeted about how amazing the workshop went. And the show came to Broadway a steaming pile of crap.

I say "workshop" because the industry people involved in these things don't know how to critically shape a piece of musical theatre. There is no longer any benefit to the process.



Updated On: 5/8/12 at 03:44 PM

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 6:24pm

Thank you Idiot! Well said. Mister Matt... sorry if I was being overly sensitive. I work in the business so I am very aware that there are plenty of historical periods where things ebb and flow. I wasn't trying to invoke some sort of sky-is-falling vibe with this thread. I am employed and have no bone to pick with the business. I was just having an interesting conversation with a colleague the other night and it got me thinking about how the situation today is somewhat unusual for a number of reasons... like the Internet, like revenue management ticket selling (market driven "VIP" pricing), like a number of shows from 10 or more years ago (Phantom, The Lion King, Mamma Mia! etc.) which became hits in another period on Broadway. Would they become hits if they came out today? The grandiose scenery of Phantom, Wicked and Spider Man is almost a thing of the past. Shows are leaner due to cost cutting. Does this effect the desire to see shows when they are done so cheaply?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 6:38pm

"IMO, the 'average American's taste in entertainment has become so bland that it's disheartening. It's not like the seventies when different, unusual and new were considered selling points. Reality TV and all kinds of short form entertainment on YouTube and the like have contributed to the erosion of intellect. Intellect is where curiosity lives. Without curiosity, there's no audience for untested work."

Have you checked out the top movies of a given year (money wise, not award wise) or the weekly TV lineup from, say, 1959? While there's perhaps some truth about what's considered mainstream being dumbed down, there also are far more, highly original if not great pieces of film, theatre and yes TV out there in many respects. It's just that it's become more fragmented, but I have no idea how to go back from that--nor am I sure I want to. I love Broadway and particularly Broadway musical theatre, but it's also basically the theatre equivalent of the Hollywood blockbuster.

Sure we can say, I dunno, that in the late 50s there were classic TV dramas broadcasting live every week and now everyone is watching Jersey Shore. But that doesn't even tell half the story.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 7:21pm

"Broadway has "been dying" for at least the past forty seasons."

Alas.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 7:41pm

""New theater is just as likely to be created in San Diego, Chicago, Seattle or Los Angeles, and only move to New York when the product is well-tested and less of a risk."

You mean like how most older shows before the invention of the "workshop" (thanks Chorus Line) all had out-of-town try-outs as well? Oklahoma comes to mind as well as hundreds of others.

Read more: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1045129&boardid=1&page=1#ixzz1uKAPpXoo"New theater is just as likely to be created in San Diego, Chicago, Seattle or Los Angeles, and only move to New York when the product is well-tested and less of a risk."

You mean like how most older shows before the invention of the "workshop" (thanks Chorus Line) all had out-of-town try-outs as well? Oklahoma comes to mind as well as hundreds of others."

I can't speak for Gaveston personally, but that wasn't the impression I got from what he said. I think--and at least I feel this way--that, while any theatre people behind a major new production that opens in Chicago or wherever are probably lying when they say, as they often do, that they have no desire or thoughts of Broadway, New York isn't the be all end all goal of many of these commercial shows, the way it was in the past. It's just a very different situation and people who don't live in New York are arguably able to see more top quality theatre, of every form, closer to where they do live than they could 40+ years back.

Someone mentioned that theatre has always been expensive, but I would take some issue with that. Yes it has to some extent, and Iagree that with major Broadway productions it's hard to think of a way of cutting the often prohibitive modern prices. But in the 50s, for example, getting a cheap ticket to see a Broadway show was not all that much more than getting a ticket to see a first run movie. The seperation has become more extreme and that undoubtedly plays some part for the average person to consider theatre as a spur of the moment choice when looking for an evening's entertainment.