Why do you think Broadway has lost its mainstream cultural appeal? — Page 2

I think it's more that everything in entertainment is less "mainstream". Top Forty radio is now divided into a hundred different Top Forty charts, with every conceivable narrow definition. As far as big acts, there aren't nearly as many and the vast majority are super-corporate (the Britneys, the Avrils, the Justins, etc.)

However, this has opened up a huge, thriving Indie music scene. Any "serious" music lover doesn't care so much about the charts, but can find A-level work under the radar. Recording has gotten so much cheaper and easier (just like film), so just about anybody with the knowhow, talent, and the gumption to put in the hard work can make a recording (or film) that holds up next to the #1's.

Theatre, however, has only gotten more expensive. And as audiences generally splinter (there used to be 3 television stations, remember, compared to the 1000 today) I think Broadway has fallen off to the same extent most everything else has. Problem is, there is no low-budget way to do theatre on an A-level the same way you can film or music. Theatre requires a lot of people - you need to pay all of those people a salary. It's gotten more expensive to produce when other art forms have gotten cheaper and more accessible.

What I'm trying to say is - an indie film that tears up Sundance, or a really great indie record, can set the industry ablaze. It's because they are finished products even as "Indie"s. A NYMF production or a Fringe production can never compete with Broadway, until they get the capital and the resources to become a multi-million dollar endeavor.

Too many shows based upon popular movies. This, in turn, implies that theatre is on its knees giving cinema a blowjob while cinema screams "I'M THE KING!".

These shows based upon movies imply that theatre is somehow "less" than cinema when, in reality, the two mediums should never be compared because they are completely different. Theatre is bowing to the needs of cinema and that just isn't koo.

This is a really interesting discussion.

I think there are a lot of factors, and I recently wrote about this in my blog (Give Them What They Want / Za Ba Zoovee).

In short, Broadway has lost touch with the times. RENT is such a big hit because it speaks to young people, even though it is now outdated. Musically, the typical theatre writer and critic doesn't "get" rock, hip hop, or pop music. When a rock show comes in (or pop), critics and people don't get it. If the critics don't get kudos to a show, it can be a real struggle for that show to survive and find an audience.

Both adults and kids do like fun, old-fashioned shows. Watch kids line up to audition for MUSIC MAN or WEST SIDE STORY or GREASE at their high schools. But I think there's little that connects to people on such a level as RENT did/does, either in musical style or what it has to say.
Broadway Blog: Confessions of a (Former) Stage Door Johnny

It's my personal opinion that people no longer like the idea of a musical. It's become a cheesy thing to them. Whenever you ask a non-fan why they don't like musicals, most will say "People don't just burst out into song and dance in everyday life!" Look at all of the successful modern musical movies: they incorporated the songs in a different way. When they did do it in the traditional musical transition style, the non-fans didn't like it: you should have seen comments I read on a review for Dreamgirls. Though I do agree those transitions were sloppy--sorry, I digress.

I can't comment on the tourist theory because I don't live in NYC. Heck, I've never even been a tourist there. Sigh. I do agree though that Broadway appears to have become a tourist attraction.

---

Updated On: 6/22/07 at 01:45 AM

It's easy to say Broadway is out of touch with current pop culture, but that wouldnt explain the success of the Metropolitan Opera, which has wildly succeeded at getting that elusive youth audience without lowering the quality of their productions. The Met has also figured out how to send its product out via DVD and TV broadcast (granted, with donor help in the latter), which, with very rare exceptions, seems to be something that eludes most Broadway producers. I mean, yes, it's expensive to record a show to DVD, but can you imagine the phenomenal sales that something like WICKED would have?

True, it's best seeing these live, but DVDs and broadcasts havent stopped the ticket sales by any stretch. And frankly I dont understand why more producers arent taking advantage of what could be a very lucrative income stream.

But then, we're also looking at a product that's aimed more and more at Boomers and the generation immediately afterwards. Ticket prices are absurdly high for shows that, to be bluntly honest, arent worth it. For CHORUS LINE to be charging as much as it is for a show that has such minimal physical requirements is ridiculous -- and please dont start with "well, the marketing and advertising!" -- WICKED has just as much of a second-level budget, but, according to some sources around here, it's repaid its investors and is now solidly operating in the black. CHORUS LINE has supposedly also recouped its investment. That being the case, there's no reason to not start bringing the ticket price down.

But once again, it's a matter of product. As delightful as CURTAINS and CHAPERONE may be, they're becoming a little too much of inside jokes for audience to want to flock to. And the "revolutionary" SPRING AWAKENING is just a walking joke that cant decide *what* it wants to be. The Disney shows are a little too prepackaged to be anything but theme park extraganzas, and that seems to be what audiences want more than anything -- after all, isnt that really what WICKED is? An over-produced theme park musical?

I dont rend my garments and tear my hair that Broadway aint what it used to be. It isnt, because popular culture has changed so much. But Broadway *is* more and more an anachornism, and I honestly have no idea what it can do to save itself from beocming more and more an overpriced curiosity piece.

---

Updated On: 6/22/07 at 09:33 AM

"In short, Broadway has lost touch with the times."

No more than it always has. Very few musicals which captured the essence of the period in which it originally ran have ever been successful. Spring Awakening has a modern sound/sensibility that is geared toward the exact same demographic as Rent was 10 years ago. And no, I'm not saying Spring Awakening is the next Rent, but that it's target audience is a similar teen/twenties crowd that obsessed over Rent in the mid-90s. And let's not forget the tween-girl phenomenon that is Wicked. If Broadway has lost touch with the times, then how do you explain the burst of younger audiences arriving in droves for years now to see a Broadway musical? No, I don't think Broadway has lost touch with the times any more than it ever has.

---

I've always thought it interesting that people will call musicals "so fake," but they have no problem seeing some fantastic action movie or outrageous horror film.

People don't realize that the musical is a form of artistic expression. It's not intended to be real.
Broadway Blog: If They Could See You Now (the understudy debate)

I would say that we have still to settle the question of what we consider to be the definition of "mainstream". I think that part of the issue with live theater today is that they have tried too hard to appeal to mainstream audiences with retrofit themes from movies, juke box musicals and safe revivals.

Technology has improved sound and lighting and sets, but sometimes that gets carried away as well. Regional theater and touring companies still exist and people in Peoria still go to see live theater so I would not say that theater is dead. I would say that London, NYC and all other theatrical markets are now catering to the mainstream and to the youth demographic and that is the way they are able to survive. As an old timer I do not like the transition ("progress" if you want to call it that) but it is a reality.

All in all I think that all entertainment has become more mainstream. Mainstream in the 50s meant whatever choices they gave you and it attempted to appeal to the largest audience. Marketing today splits demographics and targets tweens, teens, 20 somethings, etc. The niches may be smaller but they are still considered "mainstream". Fringe theater and experiments that allow new playwrights and actors to spread their wings are far in the past. We now have huge financial machines investing in theater and they are not philanthropic. They want to make a big profit.

As for the new audience disliking musicals, I have to disagree. High School Musical and the recent soap opera presentation of the prom musical prove, if nothing else, that young people are interested in musicals that THEY can relate to.

Welcome to the new world!

---

I think it's a combination of reasons, some of which have been discussed on this thread and some of which haven't.

Some of the reasons are similar to the reasons that baseball seems to hve lost its primacy among American sports. Both have a pace that doesn't match with the frenetic pace that is promoted in the popular culture. They require a slower, mor deliberative pace and temprement.

Also, both are BADLY marketed. It took until the 1970s for Broadway to get the idea of "free sample." (Pippin was the first to put a few seconds of the show in the ad and it revolutionized Broadway advertising. Before that it was "Come see our show. It's at the Shubert. The Times, Post, News, and Journal American love it. The World Telegram says that the leading lady gives the best performance on Broadway thsi season. Come see it. Here's our phone number.")

What's the next wave in promotion and advertising? Why aren't there morebanner ads for Broadway shows on the Net or more active advertising? Why doesn't the League or the Wing, perhaps in combination with the Shuberts, the Nederlanders, or someone of that ilk, putting real theatre on TV, on Bravo or A&E or somewhere? Why not put snippets of Broadway shows on YouTube?

Why don't theatre producers arrange more interviews with the media?

The fact that the media chooses to promote the movie and TV businesses and not live theatre only exacerbates the problem.

The ticket prices are too high. Even TKTS is getting a bit expensive. Part of that is the expense of making everything a superspectacular, part of it is undoubtedly the demands of Equity (it is a labor union, after all), part of it is New York's prohibitive tax structure, and part of it is simply that there is still a market for it at these exorbitant prices. (Another way in which Broadway and Major League Baseball resemble each other, BTW.) If I were a producer, I'd try to find every way I could to reduce my costs so I could reduce ticket prices. You'll never undercut the price of a movie, but if you could get prices into the $20-60 range, they would be reasonable "special event" prices for a family, rather than an elitist pleasure.

Also, if I were a producer, I'd find a way to get discount tickets to schoolchildren. You could mke it a "cultral education" field trip.

The fact that most movies and TV shows are made in Hoillywood and not New York only makes this problem worse. To many people, Hollywood is perceived as the cultural capital. There isn't a song calld "Oh, to Be A Broadway Star," after all.

The dumbing down of education has made live theatre less accessible. People just don't get it.

We also just don't hvae as many good Broadway composers as we once did. That is why we have to "assemble" musicals around selected songs by this or that person or group.

A few things that can be learned from politics. The point about Broadway music is well taken, but any politician can tell you that when you try to expand your because you lose part of it. The core Broadway audience expects a certain kind of experience. When you depart too far from that, you may bring in new people, but the people Broadway has been relying on may not come. Then where are you?

More touring shows would be useful too.

I'm sure there are even more reasons, but these are several of the key ones, IMO.

But I'm not sure being outside the mainstream is a bad thing these days. I am concerned, however, about attracting teh younger audience so that there will still be a Great White Way 40-50 years from now.

It has been more than 50 years now since rock & roll became the mainstream in music. The music of broadway didn't follow the fans. That kept the music of broadway off the radio. But, it continues to sell more theater tickets than ever before.

You have to pick your battles. The days of being "It" with a majority of people are gone for any type of entertainment. Market to your niche and find a way to keep enough happy to stay in business. Even the best blockbuster films reach less than 20% of the people.

Updated On: 6/22/07 at 05:35 PM

Whenever you ask a non-fan why they don't like musicals, most will say "People don't just burst out into song and dance in everyday life!"

Sometimes people do. I have a son going most of the time, even whne I'm doign dishes. Sometimes I make up lyrics to amuse my cats or whoever else happens to be around.

"I am far more likely to burst into song and dance as part of my everyday life than I am to get caught up in a car chase or bank heist..."

Good point, but you're clearly out of touch with "realism." Thsi kind of frenetic hyperaction is all that you can sell to some folks. They hve no understanding of anything finer, other than perhaps sports. They want constant excitement. (Ugh.)

what else is new

---