#51
Posted: 6/24/05 at 9:55am
The 'theatre people' had better get over the idea that shows that appeal to the masses are basically lousy and only those that are artistically challenging are worth anything.
I'm sorry - but you only see this conceit on boards that are primarily attended by theatre professionals. And Theatre (capital T) cannot be sustained by only those. You BETTER appeal to the masses or the whole business is going to die away.
I think you're misframing the argument. First of all, this board is mostly, as far as I can see aspiring theater professionals in their teens, and older fans, with some actual professionals mixed in. I think that the simplistic view that any show that's popular is automatically bad is mostly held by the former demographic.
The way this board's membership tends to differ from the general Broadway-viewing population is that it sees more shows. When you've seen and listened to a lot of shows, it's harder to get taken in by those that are simple and/or formulaic. Formulas only work so many times before they become cliches. You look for things that are challenging, different, and new so you don't get bored. That doesn't mean you can no longer appreciate well-executed fluff, just that you won't fall in love with mediocrity as easily as someone who hasn't seen mediocrity 65 times before.
A distinction should be made between true snobbery, which is characterized by such inane statements as "if it's popular, it's bad," and the selectiveness that is a natural result of having a lot of theater exposure.
And no, I'm not saying that hatred of ALW is an inevitable consequence of seeing a lot of shows. A quick look around here (and even at the professional reviews of some of his shows) shows that that's patently untrue.
I'm sorry - but you only see this conceit on boards that are primarily attended by theatre professionals. And Theatre (capital T) cannot be sustained by only those. You BETTER appeal to the masses or the whole business is going to die away.
I think you're misframing the argument. First of all, this board is mostly, as far as I can see aspiring theater professionals in their teens, and older fans, with some actual professionals mixed in. I think that the simplistic view that any show that's popular is automatically bad is mostly held by the former demographic.
The way this board's membership tends to differ from the general Broadway-viewing population is that it sees more shows. When you've seen and listened to a lot of shows, it's harder to get taken in by those that are simple and/or formulaic. Formulas only work so many times before they become cliches. You look for things that are challenging, different, and new so you don't get bored. That doesn't mean you can no longer appreciate well-executed fluff, just that you won't fall in love with mediocrity as easily as someone who hasn't seen mediocrity 65 times before.
A distinction should be made between true snobbery, which is characterized by such inane statements as "if it's popular, it's bad," and the selectiveness that is a natural result of having a lot of theater exposure.
And no, I'm not saying that hatred of ALW is an inevitable consequence of seeing a lot of shows. A quick look around here (and even at the professional reviews of some of his shows) shows that that's patently untrue.