Why the hate for 'Jukebox' musicals

Because those musicals have plots. Shows like "Mamma Mia" have insanely weak plots.

Im looking forward to 'We Will Rock You', the reviews are pretty good. Does anyone know if it will transfer to Broadway, I know there is probally going to be a National tour this coming season.

It's harder than people think to write the book for a musical.

PennyLou's point is somewhat flawed. None of the musicals she is citing as being "unoriginal" are jukebox musicals. They're adaptations and previously existing material has been adapted into musicals since well, air. So it's nothing new. But they all have original songs and music written for them, which is more than can be said for jukebox musicals.

---

What do you mean there isn't a show that doesn't have original music?

---

They ARE unoriginal, but I'll snake my way out of that by saying that it's a different sort of originality. But they just end up being weak - the plots are made based on what music the show happens to have to work with, and they come out contrived, corny and stupid. Seeing these shows is more like going to see a fluffed-up rock concert than a Broadway show, and they're all about commerciality. That's not what theatre should be.

---

I didn't mean that the music in the others aren't origanal.. my point was I don't get the diffence between having a story thats new with music thats old compaired to having musice thats new with having a story thats old..

---

I think I wouldn't have a problem if they weren't dominating Broadway and they were put in their place...make a nice story or don't...

I think Movin' Out (never saw it) is just dancing to the music...maybe it works...

I could actually a combo of Patti Labelle and Aretha franklin songs to make a musical...I actually have a really awesome idea for it....

The uproar about Jukebox musicals is the fact that there is no original score to go along with the original book. A new musical, at least in my mind, constitutes a brand new (and original) book and score. A jukebox show is simply a new book (which is usually full of holes and bad dialogue) with old songs attached. It's totally a cop-out. Granted, there are good jukebox shows like Crazy For You (although that is highly based on a previous Gershwin show, Girl Crazy), but then there are awful jukebox shows like Good Vibrations. If there were more good JB shows than bad, we probably wouldn't be complaining. The other factor is that most JB shows are using non-theatre songs for their score. Most pop songs don't relate well to the stage because they don't tell a story.

To me, jukebox musicals are simply plays with music. You need an original score to constitute as a new musical.

---

First, I'd like to say this: hardly any musicals are TRULY original - most are at least loosely based on something else, whether it be a play, an opera a true-life story or a book. Cabaret: based on I Am a Camera, based on The Berlin Stories. Oklahoma!: Based on a play whose name I can't remember right now. AIDA: based on Verdi's opera. RENT: based on La Boheme. The Sound of Music: based on the actual story of the Von Trapp Family. Wicked: based on a novel. Man of La Mancha: based on Don Quixote. Phantom, Les Mis: based on novels. I think I've made my point.

That said, I'd also like to add this -I'd also like to add this - to compare the unoriginality of jukebox musicals to that of a REVIVAL is absolutely absurd. That's like saying a jukebox musical is the same as a tour, or a regional production, or an international production, or some other alternate incarnation of an already existing show. At least with a revival, we're bringing back something that is at least more original at its core. That's really not a valid comparison - they're two totally different things. With a revival, it's not taking already existing material and thrusting it into an illegitimate context to try and make money - it's about bringing back something of artistic relevance, usually. And, quite often, revivals do exactly the opposite; they don't last, and they *don't* make the money that this *true* unoriginality manages to make.

---

Updated On: 2/18/05 at 03:01 PM

I know you weren't outwardly comparing them, but you were saying that Brooklyn was the only truly original show this season, by virtue of the fact that some of this season's shows are revivals, hence not being original. No, these productions are not original, but it's a completey different kind of unoriginality than musicals like ASU, GV and Mamma Mia! There's a difference between taking music that's already written and employing it to make money and reviving something that hasn't been touched in a while and deserves to be seen. Taking something that already exists and molding it in almost exactly its original form to fit something else is not creativity in the same capacity that other musicals are. I just think that the point of musical theatre isn't to just stick already-existing pop music on a stage. That's what rock concerts are for. There is also a difference between new and original.

---

Updated On: 2/18/05 at 03:21 PM

I hate jukebox musicals because they drip with creative laziness and because if they proliferate too much, they'll be harmful to the musical theater form because they discourage the creation of new and original scores. The book is the spine of the musical, but music is its flesh. Who will even want to bother with writing scores for musical theater when producers only want to invest in shows that use pop catalogues? They'll damage the art form for the sake of (possibly) some money over the short term.