Why Does "9 to 5" Have More Credibility Than "Rock of Ages"?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:18pm

Everyone seems to be up in arms about the fact that "Rock of Ages" got nominated over "9 to 5." But so what? Ones a jukebox musical using previously recorded songs from the 80s, and another is based on a movie? So, who cares? Neither of them are original in anyway, and at least "Rock of Ages" took some creative chances and some nice marketing strategies (drinks at your seat = awesome). What did "9 to 5" do? Put some half-assed pop songs into a show?
Updated On: 5/6/09 at 11:18 PM

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:23pm

Drinks at your seat= F*cking stupid. What are these "creative chances" you speak of?

What did "9 to 5" do? Put some half-assed pop songs into a show?

There are NO pop songs in this & it certainly isn't half-assed. Dolly has spent the better part of over 2 years working on the music.

[lull89]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:23pm

9 to 5 has a lot more credibility in terms of the people involved, most of whom are tried and true stage veterans (with the exception of Dolly, whom everybody has heard of and is a very established songwriter).

Plus it's a lot different when the songs are forced to fit the plot than when the plot is forced to fit the songs.

At least that's my perception.

[GIZMO2]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:23pm

I believe the difference between the two is:

One surprised the hell out of us, because there was absolutely no way we thought it could be good, on any level, and it was;

The other should have delivered because of its fail-proof systems and strategies, and based on the results (reviews, that is), it did fail. Miserably.

Anyway, GO ROCK OF AGES!!! YOU ROCK!!!

(But don't beat NEXT TO NORMAL. That show gets MY vote!)

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:27pm

9-5 lets people take drinks back to their seats as well.
sooooooo

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:27pm

How about because the better all-around musical IS 9 TO 5. No one said 9 TO 5 is more original and deserved a nomination because ROCK OF AGES is a jukebox musical...at least not to my knowledge. People who are upset about it are upset because 9 TO 5 is just a better-crafted all-around show than ROCK OF AGES. Drinking at your seats and "half-assed pop songs" (which, by the way, makes ROCK OF AGES' "score" what?) don't make or break a musical to get a Best Musical Tony nomination.

The general consensus on BWW is that 9 TO 5 is just better than ROCK OF AGES. There are those who disagree though and that's their opinion...

But does it really matter? 9 TO 5 didn't get a nomination, ROCK OF AGES did. It won't win so who cares?

PS: You are opening up a big-ass can of worms, you do realize that, don't you?
Updated On: 5/5/09 at 11:27 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:28pm

9-to-5: Beloved source material, beloved songwriter, beloved leading ladies. Pedigree of those involved creatively hard to beat. Aims higher but misses.

Rock of Ages: Patrons encouraged to drink, beloved 80s songs, an intentionally "so bad it's good" script. It aims low and easily hits its target.

So what's more admirable- aiming low and hitting or aiming high and missing?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:32pm

And the attempt at making 9 TO 5's score sound weak is really a failure. You make it sound like 9 TO 5's score was written in five minutes and jammed into the book and that the producers of ROCK OF AGES took years to come up with the idea to have in-seat drink service when in actuality, it's the other way around.

How does a "creative chance" and "nice marketing" like getting wasted in your seat = Tony nomination? I mean you could have at least tried to defend the specific material in ROA...

Ah, whatever, this is stupid...

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:45pm

I could care less if I'm "opening a can of worms" - it's a Broadway message board. This isn't a big deal to anyone but us.

Now, let me explain myself:

"Rock of Ages" takes creative chances with throwing caution to the win. It's plot is pretty much borderline absurd. It's hilarious. It has more laughs-per-minute than "9 to 5" does. And I think it was directed with a very clever use of the space. I like when a show looks like it was built into a theater, and not just sort of throw into the theater. (I'm not discrediting 9 to 5 with that remark). I think referencing yourself in the show, and having a narrator and all of those different theatrical techniques could have been awful, but the show really works in that sense. I mean, the show knows it's low-brown. It's even built into the set, with the flimsy "car" set piece.

Where as "9 to 5" thinks its hilarious, and it really isn't. It has some funny parts, but the whole show isn't very well constructed. The show is uneven, and I'd say about 85% of the songs are throwaways. And yes, it has some great people involved, but were they successful? I don't think so. What is learned of Megan Hilty's character? That she is "a damn good book?" Where does her character go? Where is her character's arch? Where is Janey's arch? They pretty seem like the same people we're introduced to. The only difference is now they "get along?" Lame.

And another point: "Rock of Ages" didn't set out to be what it was. It was just trying to survive off-Broadway. It was suited for off-Broadway. "9 to 5" had money pumped into, and Dolly spent 2 years on the score? And "Always a Woman" and the song between Janey and her "boyfriend," those were the best she could come up with? Really? 2 years, and that's the best you got?

[EveHarrington]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:46pm

Because Rock of Ages is ****ty and 9 to 5 isn't.

"Dolly spent 2 years on the score? And "Always a Woman" and the song between Janey and her "boyfriend," those were the best she could come up with? Really? 2 years, and that's the best you got?"

I'd rather hear those songs on repeat all day than listen to a mediocre cast sing a Jukebox score. Updated On: 5/5/09 at 11:46 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:48pm

And the fact that people will deliver drinks to your seat? That's brilliant. It's got the totally vibe of a rock concert the same way Hair has the right hippie vibe.

"9 to 5" just seems so "by-the-book."

More than half of you knew going into it that you were going to love the show because you all would stand in line for hours to meet the "stars" in the show. it's hard for me to value your opinions when you constantly gush over how "AMAZING" the performers were. Yes, the three ladies are good in the show, but the show itself isn't great.

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:48pm

"There are NO pop songs in this & it certainly isn't half-assed."

Wrong and wrong. You Must be kidding. First off, the opening #, you know, "9 to 5" reached #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.

Secondly, the critics did think it was pretty halfassed. ROA received much better reviews. These aren't 80's groupies - but people who do what you all try to do here - only these people get paid to do it.

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:50pm

9 to 5 does not have any more credibility than Rock of Ages. Its source material is not beloved. It is nasty and mean. It is only because of the cast that the movie is remembered at all. The music is weak, but I am not a DP fan anyway, so whatever. To say this dreck aims high is laughable. WTF is high-minded about such mean-spirited, dated material?

ROA pays homage to a beloved era, place, time and genre of music still getting heavy play on the airwaves because nothing as good in popular rock music has come along to take its place. ROA of Ages succeeds on every level in being exactly what it set out to be. No small feat.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:58pm

9 to 5 has an original score.

Posted: 5/5/09 at 11:59pm

It's too bad original doesn't equal good.

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:01am

"9 to 5" reached #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.

And the song was written for what again? That's right, THE MOVIE. It isn't like Dolly just pulled the song from her playlist.
Updated On: 5/6/09 at 12:01 AM

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:04am

Honestly, it's one, lame, old pop song...

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:08am

It was a pop song, period. It's in the show. You were wrong.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:08am

9 to 5 does not have any more or less credibility than Rock of Ages. It was a crappy season and they had to pick one of the two seemingly disappointing shows to fill the nomination slot. It really doesn't matter because neither one will win. Billy Elliot or Next to Normal will walk away with the big prize, 9 to 5 will fade into regional and community theatre land within two years, and I make no prediction for Rock of Ages because jukebox musicals often last longer than they should.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:09am

No one is arguing where the song "9 to 5" came from. If you read the whole thread it was in reference to the fact that these aren't "pop" songs which is stupid. "Backwoods Barbie" is the only true country song in the bunch. The rest are just normal, standard Broadway Pop songs.

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:13am

The rest are just normal, standard Broadway Pop songs.

Really? So ROA has more credibilty than 9to5 because they break out of this "Broadway Pop" mold you think that there is & use other people's songs?

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:18am

ROA masterfully interweaves story with the iconic songs of the era. It is beautifully directed and very well cast. Everybody can sing, that's for sure! This is boring now. Bye.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:19am

"9 to 5 does not have any more credibility than Rock of Ages. Its source material is not beloved. It is nasty and mean. It is only because of the cast that the movie is remembered at all. The music is weak, but I am not a DP fan anyway, so whatever. To say this dreck aims high is laughable. WTF is high-minded about such mean-spirited, dated material?

ROA pays homage to a beloved era, place, time and genre of music still getting heavy play on the airwaves because nothing as good in popular rock music has come along to take its place. ROA of Ages succeeds on every level in being exactly what it set out to be. No small feat. "


You can like whatever you like, but you're borderline delusional. Because you don't like 9-to-5, the movie, it's not beloved, and mean and nasty? Because you don't like Dolly Parton, the score is dreck? Sorry boyo, but you're doing exactly what the RoA haters are doing.

Last I checked, a lot of eras get heavy play on the radio. It's not like the 80s are singled out. I love 80s songs, but come on. You're making it seem like RoA is a temple to rock.

[Popular]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:21am

Where as "9 to 5" thinks its hilarious, and it really isn't.

Really? I guess I need to be taught what's TRULY funny then since I was laughing out loud throughout most of the play.

Damn, I feel so used. How dare they trick me into laughing when something isn't hilarious!

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:23am

Well, Rock of Ages had a very good critical response, that accounts for something.