What is the most "looked down upon" Broadway show?- Page 2

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:44pm

The older I get, the more I come to realize that Stoppard's 'cricket bat' speech is just bullSH*T.

I can argue for GYPSY's brilliance (or SITP) and against WICKED all I want. Fact is, it's just my best guess at what is good. It's still an argument...not actually a fact.

I saw CATS with a friend well over a decade into its run. It was an absolute mess. Everything was sloppy. But I do find it intersting to think on what was actually happening on opening night that made a connection with people.

I find it very, very difficult to argue that something that is so wildly successful is 'bad'. I mean...I hated it. I own that...but I just don't know how I can assert in the face of all the people who loved it or were moved by it that it is, in fact, 'not good'. I mean...who the F*CK am I?

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:48pm

Add Phantom of the Opera to the discussion as well.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:50pm

"Insane" is a touch melodramatic.

Things I think can be found in a good musical:
1. (As I said before) Carefully thought-out lyrics appropriate to the character and situation.
2. Similarly, music that fits the mood or tone and the character in question.
3. (Again repeating myself) Anachronism and incongruity are fine if they're deliberate and done for effect. Unfortunately, you can often spot slapdash work.
4. Choreography that helps in some way to tell the story and isn't just there to be there.
5. Donna Murphy

This could probably be put more succinctly: I think that, in a good musical, the music, lyrics and everything else are there to serve the story. They should be used to illustrate the emotion of the piece and carry the narrative. Not gratuitous, not unnecessarily showy or fancy, but needed. In Aida, 'Another Pyramid' is inexplicably a reggae number. For no identifiable reason other than Elton John wanted to write a reggae song.
On the other hand, the music of Ragtime reflects the period and is wholly apt for the characters.

And I just love me some Donna Murphy.

Updated On: 9/22/10 at 03:50 PM

[philly03]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:57pm

Anything that has the name FRANK WILDHORN attached.

Also, in recent years: A Tale of Two Cities got a lot of backlash for being compared to Les Mis, which while there were a few scenes (due to the horrid directing), it really wasn't Les Mis at all (minus the entire song of "Until Tomorrow" which was "One Day More.")

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:01pm

OK. Let's get to work.

West Side Story is empirically a bad musical. Sondheim himself has said several times his lyrics are completely inappropriate to the show.

Hair is certainly a bad musical. The songs often seem assigned to a character randomly and can be removed or rearranged without changing the show. I guess you'd have to include Cabaret in that category too as every production I've seen changes the tune stack.

As for Choreography- I'd put every show with a dream ballet in the "Bad" category: Oklahoma and Carousel particularly are Bad Musicals.

And Donna Murphy? I've never seen her give a performance I didn't think could be handled with more nuance and grace by a trained chimp so I'll just pass on that one.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:04pm

And Gypsy is a Bad Musical too I guess: There's two completely unnecessary moments of choreography (All I Need is the Girl and You Gotta Get a Gimmick).

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:06pm

A show can have good and bad aspects.
As you say, Sondheim is not a fan of his own lyrics for West Side Story. However, the choreography is outstanding and the music very effective.

I agree with you - much as I enjoy Hair, I think it's a complete mess.
Cabaret, is a harder one. I think a lot of productions get it wrong, but that doesn't mean the material is inherently terrible. If done right, it can be great.

As I said above, just because a musical as one or two dodgy moments doesn't make the whole bushel rotten, as it were.

By the way, your snarky delineation into just good and just bad is extremist. Of course there are some decent shows, some mediocre ones, some incredible ones and some appalling ones. To go black or white is simplistic.

EDIT: 'All I Need is the Girl' is, as I'm sure you know, divisive in its way. There are many who say it slows the narrative and is completely unnecessary. I disagree, but even the fact that this can be discussed is interesting. It's almost (dare I say something so odd) a subjective take on objectivity. It's two different views on whether something should be there for the objective benefit of the piece.
Updated On: 9/22/10 at 04:06 PM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:13pm

And Gypsy is a Bad Musical too I guess: There's two completely unnecessary moments of choreography (All I Need is the Girl and You Gotta Get a Gimmick).

Those two pieces of choreography are anything but unneccessary. "All I Need is the Girl" is where we see that Louise has deep feelings for Tulsa, which makes his marriage to June that much more heartbreaking. In "You Gotta Get a Gimmick," the choreography (along with the lyrics) makes the point that all of these aging strippers have exactly the same act, just with a different prop. The song is necessary because this is where Louise learns that she will need a gimmick to be successful, which turns out to be her verbal repartee.

I will say, though, that History Boy's criteria really only applies to the book musical that existed post-Oklahoma. Before, many musicals had completely disconnected books and scores, only because that's what musical theatre was then.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:15pm

>I will say, though, that History Boy's criteria really only applies to the book musical that existed post-Oklahoma. Before, many musicals had completely disconnected books and scores, only because that's what musical theatre was then. <
This is a very good point. What's come to be expected from a musical has changed greatly over time.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:15pm

Exactly. Isn't your point that some shows are empirically good and some shows are empirically bad? You've just agreed that that is certainly not true. A "bad" show can connect with an audience in a way a "good" show doesn't. If a show is "good" (not just my opinion, but "good") then how an there be any argument about it? We can argue that George Bush was an awful president or that Xanadu was a delightful show (Opinions) but we can't argue that George Bush was president or that Xanadu played at the Helen Hayes (facts).

"A good show can have no extraneous choreography" is an opinion. "Gypsy is a good show despite it's flaws" is an opinion.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:17pm

I don't understand your post, sorry. Where did I contradict myself?

[Dollypop]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:19pm

PHANTOM OF THE OUTHOUSE

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:35pm

"Cabaret, is a harder one. I think a lot of productions get it wrong, but that doesn't mean the material is inherently terrible. If done right, it can be great.

As I said above, just because a musical as one or two dodgy moments doesn't make the whole bushel rotten, as it were.

By the way, your snarky delineation into just good and just bad is extremist. Of course there are some decent shows, some mediocre ones, some incredible ones and some appalling ones. To go black or white is simplistic."

Do you understand what a fact is? Do you understand what an opinion is? So what is the definition for a "mediocre" show? How do we determine what choreography is unnecessary?

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:44pm

No need for sarcasm, let's be civil.

If a Eponine were randomly to start doing the splits during 'On My Own', I would deem that unnecessary. Likewise, if Velma were to stand stock-still during 'All That Jazz', I would see that as a poor choice.

A medicore show can be one that does nothing wrong and nothing fantastically. There are no horrible moments but nothing to make it really stand out. I don't understand the problem with this.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:49pm

"1. (As I said before) Carefully thought-out lyrics appropriate to the character and situation.
2. Similarly, music that fits the mood or tone and the character in question."

But according to whom? Who is deciding what is carefully-thought out? Or what fits the mood? It's still utterly subjective. Perhaps Sondheim no longer thinks his lyrics for West Side Story are 'good'. I'd be glad to argue with him face to face otherwise.

Do I believe that there are good, great, bad, awful or whatever else musicals? Absolutely. And I can argue that to high heaven. But, I'll always be aware that it's just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:52pm

I would like the think the playwright puts due care and attention to what he's writing and doesn't just scribble something down to fill a rhyme.

Having said all this though, it's rather academic. While I believe one can say whether or not a show is good, it's the emotional effect on each individual audience member that I think to be paramount. That's the point, for me.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:53pm

Joe! You say "if it was so easy to write a book as popular as "the DaVinci code" Gore would have done it years ago!"

Come now - you must know that to some people, their art is much more important than behemoth-style popular success. Look at novelists like Louis Auchincloss, Dawn Powell, Julian Barnes - they write/wrote stunning books that are appreciated by a fraction of the number of the crowd who read books with Oprah's imprimatur.

If you don't like Gore, just say so; but the man and his quote are brilliant.
Updated On: 9/22/10 at 04:53 PM

[brightasyellow]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:56pm

HistoryBoy - Are you a theater scholar? Because I honestly want to know what, academically, makes a good or bad show. There are standards in most genres, but I don't know what they are here.

I also think there's a difference between a good and bad musical and a good and bad performance of it. I feel like the performance itself is easier to critique (sometimes) - this person acted the part spectacularly, etc.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 4:56pm

"they write/wrote stunning books that are appreciated by a fraction of the number of the crowd who read books with Oprah's imprimatur."

You mean like Jason Robert Brown's PARADE?

And of course someone can (and should) say a show is good. Just be ready to argue it, because there will ALWAYS be someone who will tell you you're wrong.

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 5:01pm

Sono, I thought the same thing about "CATS". I finally saw it last year and people went nuts over it. I just didn't get it. The production I saw was a bit sloppy and the set was scaled down. It was a touring production. I don't know if there was an orchestra in the pit for the Broadway run but it seemed evident that there was no orchestra in the theater where I saw it. The music sounded very canned. it was, in my opinion, just an awful show. Even if it was a better production I still would not have enjoyed it.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 5:06pm

Parade I can take or leave. I like some parts of it, and got bored a lot of the evening.

I don't know if I would compare the novelists I mentioned (or Vidal), each of whom have created a much larger body of examined work than Brown has, to JRB at this early stage in his career. Maybe when he has come closer to the scope of their achievements.

Is there a musical theatre creator who had - let's say - 20 separate pieces produced in his/her lifetime, none of which were a huge hit? that would be a valid comparison.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 5:10pm

Yellow - sadly I'm no scholar. I'm actually a law student, but I'm genuinely fascinated by this sort of thing.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 5:17pm

Art is purely subjective. What makes a good show or a bad show will differ from person to person. It is all a matter of opinion. I believe this is the first and only time I have ever agreed with JoeKv99. He has hit the nail on the head. History Boy is trying to argue opinions as facts, and it simply does not work in an argument.
There are many musicals that very esteemed theatre people find to be very good, that I think are terrible. West Side Story, for example; I find it to be long, rather dull, far too dance heavy, and a bit pretentious. I am also intelligent enough to understand that this is just my own opinion about a piece of art, and that many others find it to be amazing, and that the choreography quickly moves the piece along.
The Seagull is often regarded as the perfect play by theatre scholars, but there are still many scholars who will argue that point. There are volumes in libraries that are devoted just to that topic.
The same goes for Gypsy, often said to be the perfectly written musical. Just because people say it is, does not make it true. This does not make it true, it cannot be proven, as it is only a matter of opinion.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 5:23pm

I'm trying to separate fact from opinion, not masquerade one as the other.

I think everyone has the right to enjoy whatever shows they please - it varies person to person. That said, I still think one can make that separation of the pleasure derived from something and its merits as a piece of theatre.

Clearly I'm not doing a very persuasive job! :P Updated On: 9/22/10 at 05:23 PM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 5:33pm

Well, it doesn't seem like a case you are winning, but a bit more of that law school there and you may persuade us.