What Exactly Defines a "Jukebox Musical?"

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 10/15/14 at 10:51am

Hey, I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but please hear me out. We're all aware of shows such as WE WILL ROCK YOU and MAMMA MIA and ROCK OF AGES, where the entire score is a bunch of past hits jumbled together into a musical, which is what we typically refer to as a "jukebox musical." However, what about shows that use /mostly/ old material in their work? For example, the score for TANZ DER VAMPIRE uses roughly 70% of Jim Steinman's older songs and tunes, just with mostly different lyrics to fit with the story and German language. Would that be considered a jukebox musical in technicality, especially since a couple of hits ("Total Eclipse of the Heart" comes to mind) are thrown in there, as well? Again, I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, I'm just trying to familiarize myself with the technicalities of musical theatre.

Updated On: 10/15/14 at 10:51 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/15/14 at 10:54am

A jukebox musical is any time an audience member can sing more than 50% of the score in their first viewing of the show. (Without having experienced the cast recording beforehand of course).

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 10/15/14 at 2:32pm

Wasn't FELA a recent show that blurred the lines? It incorporated new material in addition to the music of Fela himself? (I don't know much about that show so I'm not sure)

It's also interesting to note that the steady stream of Gershwin compilation shows are usually NOT seen as Jukebox shows although they often use the same structure as shows like MAMMA MIA. They just tend to exude more style because of the music used.

Updated On: 10/15/14 at 02:32 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/16/14 at 1:23pm

The definition has changed over time. It used to mean a musical using pre-existing popular music (as opposed to music written for the stage) with the lyrics incorporated into the plot much in the way a standard book musical is structured (i.e. Mamma Mia, Rock of Ages, We Will Rock You, Return to the Forbidden Planet). It has since become a catch-all term for any book musical featuring a score of pre-existing popular music (i.e. Jersey Boys, Buddy).

There is a Wikipedia page that has thankfully been edited for some laughable inaccuracies, but it's still rather shaky on the subject (such as expanding the "catch-all" of the phrase to include revues) and provides a rather sparse and uneven list of shows (such as the inclusion of Ain't Misbehavin' but the exclusion of Play On!).

Updated On: 10/16/14 at 01:23 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 10/16/14 at 3:12pm

50% seems like a made up statistic being passed off as fact. Who thought up that rule?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/16/14 at 3:46pm

The only 50% rule is in respect to the eligibility of a score for the Tony. It has nothing to do with the definition of a jukebox musical.

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 10/16/14 at 4:29pm

Mister Matt, thank you, that makes a bit more sense. :)

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 7:04am

"Jukebox musical" is a derogatory term that is used to describe a show with a score compose of pre-existing music and lyrics. People here LOVE to refer to Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys, All Shook Up, etc with this phrase, occasionally even Smokey Joe's Cafe - which is really a revue, not not a book musical.. However, people use this phrase with surprising rarity when referring to shows such as Crazy For You and its bastard little sister Nice Work If You Can Get It, Putting it Together or Sondheim on Sondheim...
So, yes, I make the distinction and argument that "jukebox musical" is more a derogatory term used to seem "above" / "better than" certain shows that are structured around pre-existing music.

(I think one can argue CATS as a jukebox musical even. Though the music is original, the vast bulk of the text is almost exclusively pre-existing...)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 10:11am

I do think the term is often used by critics and academics as a derogatory term, but the reason "jukebox" was used to coin the term was to refer to the use of popular music not written for the stage in a book musical and not for recycled showtunes. But as I said earlier, much like the use of the word "literally", people just started using the term liberally with no regard to its meaning, altering the definition. All Shook Up is an excellent example of a jukebox musical, but Crazy for You, Nice Work, Putting It Together and Sondheim on Sondheim are not. I don't think you can argue Cats is either because the term refers to the music that is more commonly known to the general public, not the lyrics of poems adapted to original melodies unfamiliar to the public before the original production. For the same reason Wild Party or Loving Repeating are not jukebox musicals.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 10:12am

"However, people use this phrase with surprising rarity when referring to shows such as Crazy For You and its bastard little sister Nice Work If You Can Get It"

Were the songs from these shows in the public consciousness before they were put into their original shows or were they written for the shows?

When a song is taken from another musical, I don't consider that a jukebox musical.

The reason people call them jukebox musicals is because the music is known to the public before the show and songs are shoehorned into the show. The songs had a life of their own before they went into the show.

[darquegk]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 10:57am

There are complicated examples of exceptions, like the Gershwin jukeboxes and "American Idiot." I'll make a hypothetical example to illustrate further.

Let's say an Alice Cooper musical is proposed. Based on that, you would think "jukebox musical." Now let's say the scope was, at least substantially, limited to his two concept albums on madness following delineated characters, "Welcome to my Nightmare" and "From the Inside." Since these albums were based on characters and a plot already, the jukebox nature gets fuzzier. Now let's say The Coop himself agrees to write a few new songs for the score, and points the writers to "No Tricks," an unreleased plot-advancing musical number in which the protagonist argues with a nurse, counterpointed by the other characters. This song and a few other previously unheard pieces are in the show.

At what point does it stop being a jukebox piece?

[Pootie2]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 11:12am

I always had a fuzzy understanding of "jukebox" musical being mostly composed of those songs you can find in actual jukeboxes in every diner across the country. But since we don't have jukeboxes anymore, popular radio? But since there are thousands of radio stations now including streaming, Billboard 100? Just publicly known songs that have stood on their own, I guess...

But I'm completely unclear as to what a revue is.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 11:23am

Jersey Boys, Beautiful and Motown are biomusicals rather than jukebox musicals because they are telling the story of a singer or band and it wouldn't make sense to have original music.

42nd Street also uses pre existing music that isn't from the original film but it isn't considered a jukebox musical either.

[ggersten]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 11:29am

So do people consider Singing in the Rain - the movie - a jukebox musical? Arthur Freed told Comden and Green to write a movie using his unrelated songs.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 11:45am

There are always exceptions. The "concept musical" is an interesting one because of the cases of Tommy and American Idiot. It's understandable why they could easily be argued either way. 42nd Street is another odd exception. The majority of the songs came from a variety of musical films (including the source film) and songs from musicals were often the popular music of the day as well.

Jersey Boys, Beautiful and Motown are biomusicals rather than jukebox musicals because they are telling the story of a singer or band and it wouldn't make sense to have original music.

And the lyrics of the songs are not (or rarely) incorporated into the plot of the book. That's really why the term was coined stemming from the huge popularity of Mamma Mia and distinguishing it stylistically. It really wasn't a new device in constructing a musical, but it had never really succeeded on such a massive international scale before, prompting a popular new trend in musical theatre style (though succeeding far more rarely than their detractors would like to acknowledge).

But I'm completely unclear as to what a revue is.

Revues generally feature the music catalogue of an artist or genre, but have little-to-no-dialogue. There's no plot and therefore, no characters. Sometimes they may feature a bit of historical narration, but the cast do not actually act out a story.

Updated On: 10/17/14 at 11:45 AM

[Pootie2]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 12:04pm

Thanks, Mister Matt. Threads like this are interesting; I thought a category like "jukebox" musical would be pretty basic, but never thought the edges could be squishy.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 12:51pm

And then there's the rare dance revue, which focuses on the work of a choreographer as seen in Fosse and Jerome Robbins' Broadway. I'd love to see revues based on the works of Agnes De Mille, Michael Kidd, Gower Champion, Joe Layton, Onna White and/or Michael Bennett (but without the dull design and orchestrations of Fosse).

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 1:42pm

To me a revue is not a jukebox musical. It's exactly that -- a revue. Sondheim sort of cheekily called Putting it Together a musical "review" and it did have a bit of a loose plot but to me it wasn't a jukebox musical.

I do agree that Crazy For You and Nice Work If You Can Get it have the ingredients of a jukebox musical, but Crazy For You was largely a reworking of Girl Crazy and featured the majority of the score from that show as well as the the same basic plot but with a new book by Ken Ledwig and some additional songs. To me that reads as more of a revival or a "revisal" than a jukebox musical. I don't see Cats as a jukebox musical either. The poems existed prior but the songs did not.

I also don't think the term "jukebox musical" is derogatory unless the author means it to be. To me it's a perfectly valid and popular form of musical entertainment today. The backlash likely comes from the seemingly endless parade of jukebox musicals that we see today and the fact that they are largely geared toward tourists. They are often not as artistically satisfying as original work, but even that is subject to interpretation and an exception because there are jukebox musicals that are very good. They're just rare, but probably no more rare than the arrival of a truly exceptional new musical.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 2:45pm

Jukebox musical is not a derogatory term. Fela!, one of my favorite musicals of the past five years, was a jukebox musical and it was not only masterfully artistic, but a critical success too. Jukebox is a category type, just like revue, original musical and adapted musical. It speaks nothing to the quality of the a show.

Revues like Smokey Joe's Cafe, Ain't Misbehavin', Fosse, After Midnight and Come Fly Away are not jukebox musicals. They are revues and have no pretense of connected story or book. It can be just as difficult to craft a good revue as it is to create a book show, but these shows should not be considered "jukebox musicals."

For me a jukebox musical must use pre-existing songs (both music and lyrics) that comprise a majority of the score.

Cats is not a jukebox musical because the music is original. The Happiest Girl In the World and Kismet are not jukebox musicals because the lyrics are original, not to mention the music was heavily arranged and often augmented.

Aladdin is not a jukebox musical because although much of the music was pre-existing, it came directly from the source material that was being adapted and not an unrelated outside source.

Beautiful, Jersey Boys and other bio-musicals are jukebox musicals IMO. You can write an original score about a singer/performer if you like (e.g. Funny Girl) and even incorporate a few hits that the singer performs in context, but if you only use the song catalog to tell a story then it becomes a jukebox musical.

I consider the Gershwin/Berlin shows to be jukebox musicals. Some verge on "revisal," but when each Gershwin show has the same tune stack of "I Got Rhythm," "But Not For Me," and "Someone to Watch Over Me," then you start to tread into jukeboxland. As we saw from the recent Encores presentation of Girl Crazy, it really is a different show from Crazy For You.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 3:35pm

It should be noted that the term "revue" does not refer exclusively to new plotless shows based on an artist's or choreographer's work, but also a style of show consisting of new and original songs or comedy sketches with maybe a connecting theme but no plot to tell.

Things like the ZIEGFELD FOLLIES or the NEW FACES shows fall into this category, and those are certainly NOT what would be called "jukebox musicals" because the material was usually entirely new. That type of show simply isn't done anymore. The closest thing would be "song cycles" like SONGS FOR A NEW WORLD.

Many modern revues may be jukebox musicals, but all revues are not and the terms shouldn't be used interchangeably.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 7:46pm

I think Whizzer nailed the definition.