WSJ: What’s Wrong With The Broadway Musical?

[Big Apple2]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 1:29pm

“Once a universal cultural touchstone, Broadway musicals have now become a revolving door of unchallenging confections and straight-from-Hollywood adaptations.” Agree or disagree?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-wrong-with-the-broadway-musical-1525894408

Updated On: 5/10/18 at 01:29 PM

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 1:42pm

Great piece. He's not wrong.

[Big Apple2]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 1:47pm

Full text of article without signing in.

By Terry Teachout

Each May, the New York Drama Critics’ Circle votes on the best play, foreign play and musical of the season. This year it chose not to give a best-musical award. What’s more, the NYDCC (of which I am a member) made the same call in 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2010. To be sure, nearly all of the 19 members loved “The Band’s Visit,” but it won last year’s best-musical award after opening off Broadway in 2016. As for this year’s shows, only two Broadway musicals got any support, “Mean Girls” (one vote) and “SpongeBob SquarePants” (two votes). Every other member either picked off-Broadway shows or abstained.

Does this mean that the Broadway musical is dying off? Not exactly. In addition to “The Band’s Visit,” my 15-year tenure as the Journal’s drama critic has seen the arrival on Broadway of such memorable shows as “Avenue Q,” “Dear Evan Hansen, ” “Fun Home,” “Hamilton,” “The Light in the Piazza” and “The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee.” But all of them, even “Hamilton,” are small-to-smallish-scale musicals that either originated off Broadway or were developed at regional theaters elsewhere in America. What I’m not seeing are any considerable number of first-rate large-scale Broadway musicals, the modern-day counterparts of such beloved golden-age shows as “Oklahoma!” and “Guys and Dolls.” Instead, we’re getting more and more of what I call “commodity musicals,” unchallenging confections like “Mean Girls,” “Frozen” and “School of Rock” that are more or less slavishly adapted from Hollywood hits of the past in the hope of luring fans of those films to Broadway.

When I last wrote about the decline of the Broadway musical in this space nine years ago, I cited the growing dominance of the commodity musical as the No. 1 problem facing the genre. I still see these shows as roadblocks that stand in the way of fresh creative thinking. But I now regard them as a symptom, not a cause. The real problem goes deeper.

Broadway musicals were central to American pop culture well into the ’60s. Their songs were played on the radio and performed on top-rated TV variety shows, and in due course the best of these shows were turned into hit movies. But their popularity was contingent on the existence of what could broadly be described as a common culture shared by Americans of all kinds. Back then, everybody from Frank Sinatra to Elvis Presley to Ray Charles sang show tunes. Their musical language was universal: They spoke for us all.

Once our common culture started cracking up, it was inevitable that the Broadway musical would lose its creative footing. “Fiddler on the Roof,” the last indisputably great golden-age musical, opened in 1964, six months after the Beatles made their fateful appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” Within a couple of years, show tunes had vanished from Top-40 stations, never to return. The last such single to top the pop charts was a medley from “Hair,” which opened in 1967 and drove a deep wedge of taste between the children of the Depression and their sons and daughters, who thereafter had no use for the old-fashioned Broadway musicals their parents loved.

A half-century later, Broadway is still trying—and failing—to catch up with the Beatles. With the heartening exceptions of “The Band’s Visit” and “Hamilton,” the scores of most of the new shows that do well there nowadays are written in one of two artificial musical styles, the insipid Disneypop of “Frozen” or the equally synthetic pop-rock of “Mean Girls.” In the meantime, America’s common culture has disintegrated: No particular style of music appeals strongly to more than a fraction of the public at large. As a result, there is no longer a universal language in which artistically ambitious musicals can be written, meaning that the chances of writing a show that will appeal to a mass audience have plummeted. That’s why producers embrace the commodity musical, with its built-in audience of fans: It’s the safest way to draw a crowd big enough to turn a profit.

I continue to believe in the creative promise of the large-scale musical. It remains as potentially fertile a theatrical genre today as it was in 1964. But the cultural obstacles that stand in the way of the commercial production of such musicals have grown daunting. And wonderful though it has been to witness the well-deserved successes of “Hamilton” and “The Band’s Visit,” I won’t feel good about the American musical again until Broadway figures out new ways to produce really big shows that are equally appealing to a rising generation of serious-minded theatergoers. Otherwise, we’ll be trapped in Disneyland—forever.

—Mr. Teachout, the Journal’s drama critic, writes “Sightings,” a column about the arts, every other week. Write to him at [e-mail].

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 2:12pm

I've never liked Terry Teachout. He has always come across as a stuck-up, arrogant man who doesn't like anything, and just seems to be stuck covering a topic that he no longer finds interesting, but does it for some reason that I can't fathom other than money.

However, reading the article, I have to agree with BroadwayConcierge when they say "he's not wrong". I do agree with him on points. Although, don't articles like this come out every few years when Broadway is losing grip? I mean, there are seasons where there is nothing or very few shows I would buy tickets for in advanced for trips to the city. Other years, I buy everything  months ahead because I know I shouldn't pass up the opportunity. I feel like, as with a lot of things in life, the pendulum will swing back soon, and then back again and we will have someone else writing an article about something being wring with the musical.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 2:17pm

Several things about this: 

 

1) It's interesting to me that he cites an ever-dividing culture, and subsequent loss of a "universal language" as the cause of the problem. In a way, I feel like it's a blessing as well as a curse. Part of the beauty of art is that it can come in such wildly different forms, and thereby speak to different people in different ways. What he calls the loss of a universal language in music could also be called a de-homogenization of musical theatre. Since the Golden Age, musicals have begun to utilize a huge array of musical genres, and though that may make it difficult to appeal to the masses, it adds variety and flavor to the cannon, and it allows for more pliability in terms of finding a genre to best fit a particular story. 

2) Everyone these days is complaining about the avalanche of brand-musicals this season (and next season) as a sign that Broadway is going down the drain. Personally, I'm not concerned. I think this is a temporary problem. This influx of jukebox musicals and brand-based shows has already begun to backfire (as this piece in the NYPost pointed out last month), and I predict in the 2019-2020 season we'll be on a better track. 

3) I don't like the way he dismisses the recent musicals that originated off-Broadway or in regional theatre. Those shows don't have a right to be considered "Broadway musicals"? I know he's talking specifically about the kind of large-scale fare from the Golden Age, but I don't see why the conversation about the trajectory of the Broadway musical should be limited in that way, when we have had so many great smaller-scale shows taking Broadway by storm. Why do we need to have "counterparts" to those old-school shows when the art-form has changed so much? 

4) I would argue that the problem with the modern musical has very little to do with the branding issue, but rather the drastic decline in the musical theatre libretto. Think about it: almost every bad-to-mediocre musical written this decade has been bad mainly because of its book and/or lyrics. Think about how often we hear people say "the score was great, but the book sucked," or "the music was good, but the lyrics sucked." I would even go so far as to say that the last 8 Tony winners for Best Book have each been the only serious contender in that category that year. When was the last time we had a real toss-up between two nominees for Best Book? Maybe 2009? These days most MT writers seem to put all their work into the music, and then lazily toss in the book to get from song to song. 

[Kad]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 2:23pm

When it's 2018 and you are still defining something by the standards of 1968, I think the problem is you and not the medium.

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 2:38pm

Kad said: "When it's 2018 and you are still defining something by the standards of 1968, I think the problem is you and not the medium."

THIS. We get it, the standards back in the day were good. But we now have new standards that mirror our ever changing time and culture (Hamilton, Fun Home, Dear Evan Hansen, Come From Away, to name a few). Sure this season isn't great, and next season may not be either, but there will always be musical stories to tell that will continue to evolve and change with the times. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 2:45pm

Zzzzzzz...nothing new to see here.  Just the same old conservative nostalgic hand-wringing bemoaning the good-old-days.  The "Golden Age" was a relatively brief period of a couple of decades in the history and evolution of both Broadway and musical theatre that spans over a century.  The idea that musical theatre should remain fixed in its style in order to survive is against the very nature of art and criticizing "commodity musicals" is against the very nature of Broadway itself, which is a commercial enterprise (never mind the fact that he fails to mention how "commodity musicals" tend to pass or fail at approximately the same rate as non-"commodity musicals".  The "language of musical theatre" that he speaks of has increased in diversity, which is precisely how every genre of art (including music) has continued to survive.  If musical theatre remained spinning its wheels in the mud as popular music continued to evolve and diversify, it would most likely be struggling a LOT more than he believes it is now or even more likely, would have a plot adjoining Vaudeville and Operetta in the theatrical cemetery.

the scores of most of the new shows that do well there nowadays are written in one of two artificial musical styles, the insipid Disneypop of “Frozen” or the equally synthetic pop-rock of “Mean Girls.”

Who knows what he means by "do well"?  Why does his taste dictate the legitimacy or "artificiality" of any score?  Regardless, he ignores numerous hits with a variety of score stylings in the last decade:

Come From Away
Waitress
School of Rock
Fun Home
Gentleman's Guide
Matilda
Kinky Boots
Once
Book of Mormon
Memphis
Next to Normal
Billy Elliot
In the Heights

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 2:50pm

Genuine question - during the "Golden Age" of musicals, was every musical produced truly a gem? Because I find it hard to believe that every single show to open was amazing. There had to be outliers. Or, perhaps, the shows that we so revere were the outliers. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 2:56pm

Some quite good analysis in the last group of posts above. I don't have time to respond in depth, but I'd suggest that it is nostalgia for the good ol' days is what got us in the pickle we're in. Not enough quality people creating musicals (books, music, lyrics) and mediocrity filling the void. Folks want to see anything that's good, but they don't want to see stuff that's just fair. (And the people I refer to are not the denizens of this place; I mean the larger (and needed) audience.) Branded musicals sell. Good musicals sell better. But you gotta have people making them. 

[Kad]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 2:58pm

HenryTDobson said: "Genuine question - during the "Golden Age" of musicals, was every musical produced truly a gem? Because I find it hard to believe that every single show to open was amazing. There had to be outliers. Or, perhaps, the shows that we so revere were the outliers."

Of course they weren't!

Since Teachout referenced Fiddler on the Roof, let's see what it was up against for Best Musical in 1965...

Oh, What a Lovely War!, Golden Boy, and Half a Sixpence.

The only person in the world who would be excited about that lineup is After Eight.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 3:13pm

There are better years and worse years, but Broadway has always played host to a good number of shows that are little more than tired clichés wrapped in shiny paper, with which mass audiences are most comfortable. Perhaps the ratio of clichéd to fresh has been growing, who can say?

It's a good point, though, that to compare musical theatre today to that of the 1960s is specious; back then, musicals were light popular entertainment, and songs from the scores often became Top 10 hits. That situation will probably never come around again. And I don't think it should. Today's musical theatre can, at its best, be an amalgamation of the old state and opera and serious plays - thoughtful, exciting, inspiring. We've learned from some great writers that theatre scores can be much better than pop music, more interesting, more complex.

This year, we have The Band's Visit representing what musical theater can be. And for those who like the shiny-wrapped clichés, there's Spongebob and Margaritaville. I think it may be a good sign that the latter two are doing less than stellar business.

Updated On: 5/10/18 at 03:13 PM

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 3:21pm

I mean, I agree that the big commercial musical are poisoning Broadway, but I disagree that the likes of Fun Home, Hamilton, The Light in the Piazza, Spelling Bee, Avenue Q, Dear Evan Hansen, and The Band's Visit are not the modern day counterparts to the old school golden age shows. The broadway musical hasn't really declined in quality, it's just declined in size. Shows are more intimate these days. "Big musicals" aren't really the thing right now.

[BeNice]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 3:27pm

I only read the excerpt posted (thank you for posting that) but did he even mention the ever rising ticket prices?
I think the change is multi-dimensional. I agree with his points but the average person who CAN affor a $1.29 song on itunes can NOT afford a $70-240 Broadway ticket.
Ticket prices, IMO, are what is driving producers and creators to pick Spongebobs over new work. That’s why (again only IMO) off Bway has been FAR more interesting these days.

[SweetLips]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 3:40pm

It's like waiting for another Mozart--it ain't gonna happen.

Open your ears to today and beyond and be thankful for what went before.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 5/10/18 at 4:12pm

Face it , folks, the musical is a dead art form. Enjoy the corpses littering midtown.

[Lot666]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 1:52pm

Mister Matt said: "Why does his taste dictate the legitimacy or 'artificiality' of any score?"

This is my problem with almost every "theatre critic" out there.

[raddersons]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 2:04pm

BeNice said: "Ticket prices, IMO, are what is driving producers and creators to pick Spongebobs over new work. That’s why (again only IMO) off Bway has been FAR more interesting these days."

I really struggle with this point, because a lot of why ticket prices have gone up have to do with crew union rates going up. I agree everyone should have a living wage, but it's also reflected in our ticket prices. Most shows don't recoup, even at the crazy ticket prices offered. The other option would be to lower ticket prices and pray a show runs for 5 years to recoup... I'm not sure if that's any more realistic. 

I guess the other OTHER option would be to find a way to prevent price gauging of the insanely popular shows (Hamilton, DEH). Good luck with that. 

[darquegk]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 3:18pm

The large-scale, Broadway-original musical is an insiders club. You don't get to write one of those unless you've come up through the regionals and had your show done countless places elsewhere.

And you know what "countless places elsewhere" aren't interested in? Large-scale, expensive original musicals with big casts and orchestras. I've been lucky enough to get to do a new musical with a 15-piece orchestra and a cast of over 50 once or twice, but they've never really transferred because the economics of it are all wrong. Producers are looking for compact, not expansive.

[Pan_Am_L-1011]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 3:22pm

Great article. I agree. It doesn't seem like there's much originality on Broadway. I'm tired to jukebox musicals and musicals with boring pop/rock scores. Granted, two of my favorite shows of all time premiered recently on Broadway (Hamilton and The Great Comet). When I say, recently I am going back 5 years. It's too bad The Great Comet didn't last long. I love Dear Evan Hansen, but I was surprised it's mostly boring pop/rock score beat the score of The Great Comet. I don't even watch the Tonys anymore because it's more about politics than merit.

[dearalanaaaa]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 3:34pm

Beautiful article, but this is so true. So many shows are competing to be the next teenage hit like Hamilton or Hansen. I hope it does out within the next two years. SpongeBob is about as generic as Hansen, and I believe Comet had been alot more innovative (probably even more than Hamilton) and was swept under the rug. I hope Broadway can pull up the bar a bit before most theatre goers decide it's not worth it anymore.

[kasim]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 3:45pm

 

I don't think they are competing to be the next teen age hit like Hamilton; I think they are looking for sustaining power since these are quite the investments.

I loved Next to Normal but unfortunately as an investor what are you going to put money in the next Next to Normal or Mean Girls ... its a no brainier . As far as regional theaters I love that it also gives people not in NYC a chance to see shows before they are big which his special. 

 

At the same time I don't think there is anything wrong with things like Frozen and Mean Girls, eh I am gonna see them. Fast food is always fun at times. But I also love to go see something interesting, unfortunately I think its all In the revivals But oh well Carousel will be a blast and am soo looking for ward to the ABT inspired choreography in it.

[darquegk]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 4:16pm

As demographics change, Broadway finds new niches and mass consumption groups to target. Right now, teens and tweens are becoming big musical consumers, so just like the YA boom in publishing, there's a YA boom in major musical programming, targeting high schoolers and college students. This is analogous to the years of "bored businessman" shows targeting men of middle age with lots of dancing girls and catchy tunes set to the dance rhythms of the era, or the two decades' worth of small Broadway and Off-Broadway shows aimed solidly at Generation X gay men with tastes for drag and deconstructive parody.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 4:47pm

I mean, it's frankly a joke to suggest that there's "no money" to be daring on Broadway. Being beholden to (and supportive of) shareholders who demand constant, assured growth (because, let's face it, most of these shows are the accidental byproduct of what's essentially mammoth-scale gambling) means that anything that doesn't seem surefire is functionally a no-go. Great Comet, Fun Home, and Band's Visit are errors.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 5/11/18 at 6:29pm

Not to be ageist, but Terry Teachout is 62. Of course he longs for the "good old days" of Fiddler on the Roof. However, people like him are not Broadway's concern at the moment - in fact, even regional theaters should no longer care about what retirement age people think is good.

I am optimistic about the future of musical theater, as musicals are being written and produced that young people would actually want to go see. Things like The Band's Visit are mostly for "theater people," and that's fine. Give it the Tony, sure. But shows that appeal to people in their teens and twenties like Dear Evan Hansen and Mean Girls - whether they are based on a movie or not - are what will keep people going to the theatre. Theater snobs complain about the pop scores, but it's a mirror of the so-called "golden age": musicals are employing popular music styles. Cole Porter used to be pop music. They may not play the scores to Broadway musicals on the radio anymore, but instead, musicals are being written with the kind of music people like to listen to on the radio. Tastes in music have changed, and Broadway is rolling with it. And for audience members who want a more traditional pseudo-Sondheim or R&H musical, we still have plenty of those.

Musical theatre is doing just fine. Now if you want to talk about an art form that is in serious trouble, let's talk about realism-based straight plays that don't have movie stars in them.