Why the hate for 'Jukebox' musicals

[PennyLou]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:25pm

Ok before anyone starts throwing thing at me or yells or is rude I seriously want to know why people are so against them.. The only argument I ever hear it there not original.. But if we are going to use that as our only argument then I would like to point out that the only new show out this season that is a musical and original is Brooklyn... Everything else that is out this season has been a movie or a book for years, or is a revival
i.e.
Little Women ~ Book and 2 movies
Spamolot ~ movie
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels ~ movie
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ~ Movie
La cage ~ revival.. and it wasn't 100% original the first time around either its based on a French movie I believe.
Sweet Charity ~ revival.. (why is it pink?)

I'm not trying to cause wars or fright I truly am looking for kind, valid points of view as to why a show like Spam-o-lot based of an insane movie is the hottest thing around and its so amazing ect but a show like 'All Shook Up' isn't getting a good amount of respect because it's Elvis.. I really don't understand what the huge difference is.. Good Vibrations I get it.. but in All Shook Up I feel the music actually fits the story just as much as any other show..

I guess I am young and naive but I really don't understand.. If everyone wants original then why singel out 'Jukebox' musicals?

Updated On: 2/18/05 at 01:25 PM

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:26pm

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

[Justice]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:32pm

Jukebox musicals are a copout. It's as if the only way to get people to the theatre is to see a show with songs they know. These same people who go to these shows are not true "theatre" fans. The majority are tourists who like the Beach Boys, so they will see a musical with all the Beach Boys songs they know.

As for movie turned to musical - it is way more original - someone has to write the music and come up with lyrics, hoping to carry the show. With JB Musicals, someone has to write a plot, and it very rarely (repeat VERY RARELY) works.

This is why I cannot wait for Dolly Parton to come to Broadway. Same thing with Elton John. I'm not a fan of his, (and I LOVE Dolly) But they write original music for the Broadway stage.

[loganp37]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:32pm

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.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:33pm

I'm not gonna say anything about plots because 42nd Street has a weak plot, but....

It is not only that it isn't original but it's that they are famous songs that I'd rather hear the original sing!

Secondly, the fact that other shows are based on books, movies, etc. does not mean it is not original. Save a few songs, Spamalot is original. Little Woman, there has never been music for it, so only the story is not original.

There are more shows based on books, movies, etc. than original new work, I'm sure...

Broadway is not the place for copy-cat concerts of old songs. No one can redo Elvis - why even try?

[Jamie Hat]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:39pm

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

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:42pm

Who said it was easy?

That's what makes originals, etc, better...

And so far, Jukebox musicals haven't had very good books anyway...

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:45pm

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.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:46pm

Well, there isn't a show that doesn't have original music...hence the term "jukebox musical."

And REVIVALS are shows brought back to stage -

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:48pm

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

[ElTico68]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:48pm

Personally... I have nothing against "jukebox" musicals. The can be fun... yes, they're fluff, but why is it so wrong to have fluff in the theater? Not all theater has to be serious and deep and award worthy. And hell, if all those "not true theater fans" keep on coming and keep actors and musicians employed, is it so wrong? Now... it can't, and shouldn't, all be fluff. And maybe, just maybe, 10% of those "not true fans" that see one of these fluff musicals will be intrigued enough to check out other shows. And of those, maybe 5% will become true theater fans. It has to start by offering something accessible to the masses. And from a business standpoint, it makes sense. The fill up the houses, recoup their costs, why wouldn't a producer be into them? It's like movies... you have the big, dumb action movies that make money for the studios and actors, and then the wonderful independent films that challenge the actors and audience, but don't make that much money.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:51pm

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.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:53pm

Right, I understand your point, and it's very valid. We have a hit jukebox musical with MAMMA MIA, and even some would consider MOVIN' OUT - there is absolutely NO need for musical upon musical based on the music of every succesful singer/songrwiter/band in the history of the world's music. It's getting old and very tired, and I hope people realize soon that they're a bad idea. I'm planning on seeing both BAD VIBRATIONS and ALL SHOOK UP this weekend, so I will report back then...

[PennyLou]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 1:54pm

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..

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 2:00pm

That's just it - THE MUSIC IS NOT ORIGINAL. It's music that most of us have known our entire lives. Also, when you try to string together a bunch of songs into a "plot," it's very very hard, and that's why I hate them. I do not like mindless, pointless fluffy crap. Despite that, as I said, I am going to see GV and ASU this weekend.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 2:02pm

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....

[TGIF]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 2:12pm

It is, like Munk said, very hard to make the music work within a plot, so in attempt to make the songs work the book suffers. So you end up with a weak book and a bunch of songs that are loosely related. Plus, its the score that sets musicals apart from straight plays, TV shows, movies, books etc. Inserting an unoriginal score can seem like a cop-out.

As for making movies/books/etc into shows, I think it was Shakespeare who said that there are only 7 unique(original?) ideas and the rest are all reinventions of those ideas.

From the looks of if on the broadway.com video of All Shook Up it seems to be headed in the right direction (hopefully). There was alot of work put into doing it so the score works with the plot - and having it be a strong plot. Anyway, we can only wait and see.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 2:24pm

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.

[Justice]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 2:27pm

BSo - as per Movin' Out...

You're not missing much.
It is basically dancing around Twyla style to Billy Joel music, with a cliched weak story.
Act 11 - Drug addict turns around and sees the light through God. It doesn't get more cliche' then that...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 3:01pm

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

[PennyLou]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 3:18pm

NO NO, I wasn't comparing Jukebox to revival's I was just adding to the fact that Brooklyn is the only new original show out there.. revival's are revivals so therefor they might have been new the first time they where open but they aren't now.. that's all I meant buy it I thought if I left them out people would point them out.. I really am more so about unoriginal music vs unoriginal story.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 3:21pm

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

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 3:28pm

The reason I hate them is that they are practically only concerts who get put onto stage with the title "The Musical" just for the purpose of reaching people who think "I always wanted to attend musical" but don't know what it is. It's just an economic fraud. In a couple of years people will think "musical?! wasn't that something like Mamma mia?!"

[Plum]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 4:55pm

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.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/18/05 at 5:38pm

Plum, I think I love you almost as much as you love me.