Worst Worst Musical- Page 6

[whatacharacter]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 9:35am

I saw Blood Brothers in London, and it was PAINFUL to sit through. On broadway though, I would have to say Bombay Dreams with it's laughable acting and weak book, and Jane Eyre with it's utter lack of concern for some of the novel's biggest plot points and choice to not have one uptempo number in the entire show (I dozed off a couple times) are my votes. Didn't see GV or Brooklyn, but enjoyed Dance of the Vampires (saw it twice), and was intrigued by Dracula, if for nothing more then the effects, and being a sucker for Wildhorn's sometimes laughable scores.

[crazyfangirl]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:50am

JRB said:

"If the thread was Least Favorite Musical, then have at it. List The Music Man and Dreamgirls and Kiss Me Kate to all your heart's content. Because THAT would be ALL about opinion."

Yeah, I get what you mean, but really? THIS is all about opinion as well. Also, I don't think a single person in this thread has discussed what consitutes a poorly constructed musical and what constitutes a well constructed musical.

And it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell what, among the musicals out today, will make it into "revered musical canon." I think where we go wrong is where we put the classics and the contemporaries in the same category. And also, the fact that none of us are 100 years old and can remember what, in 1956, for example, was SO bad, SO INCREDIBLY AWFUL, that it closed 5 days after it opened. Of the 50's and 60's, all we know are the "classics" that get revived. And so we judge what based on we think, of THOSE MUSICALS, are so bad, that we think they are the worst of the classics. So again, our frame of reference here is just WAY too small. And sort of a mish-mosh.

JRB said:
"But as the thread was regarding what is the WORST musical, you just look absolutely foolish listing The Music Man when there are SOOOOOOOOO many HORRIBLE musicals out there in line ahead of it. This thread is where we should be delving into educated consensus to identify what are truly the worst musicals in history, just as the Best Best thread should be our attempt to qualify what the musical canon should truly consist of."

Again... what exactly is our well of knowledge here? Even the most musical-saavy of us has not seen enough musicals to constitute best and worst in history. And best and worst also falls into 2 categories: best classic and worst classic, and best contemporary and worst contemporary. You can't judge THE MUSIC MAN against WICKED, for instance, because they're completely different and from completely different eras. Furthermore, MUSIC MAN has had HOW many years to become a classic?

Also, you have yet to qualify WHY you think THE MUSIC MAN is SOOOOOOO great. You tell us to qualify our answers, but you have not qualified yours. And that is where this thread goes wrong. Because to me? THE MUSIC MAN is just another musical. It has a silly, easy story that allows people to burst into song and dance, and it has lyrics which are no more or less clever to me than those for GYPSY or CAROLINE OR CHANGE or RENT or FIDDLER. It is neither bad nor great to me. It is neither ground-breaking nor poor to me. If someone thought it was the worst of the "classic musicals," then I have to say, i would not disagree.

From what I can see, all musicals pretty much follow a formula, which allows for the actors to break out into song and dance for no reason. So what makes one formula better than another, or one grouping of rhymy story-like songs better than another?

CATS, for instance, is considered a classic. I think CATS is a piece of garbage. I think it's one of the worst things ever put on stage. I think it's a stupid idea with a ridiculous plot, and why so many people went to see it is beyond me, because all the people I know who have seen it have NO idea what happened or what it was about, besides the scene where that one cat sang MEMORIES. So CATS is like the Grapes of Wrath of Broadway; everyone calls it a classic, but nobody has really read it, and even if they have, nobody can tell you what it's really about, unless they're english teachers, because they either don't remember or blocked it out. To me, THAT is bad theater. REGARDLESS of whether it is considered a classic or a bomb. When it is completely unmemorable and you don't remember what happened in it at all, and can't remember how any of the songs went, THAT is bad musical theater.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 12:34pm

"Of the 50's and 60's, all we know are the "classics" that get revived."

This statement hints at why certain plays and musicals are regarded as classics and hold a place in the musical theatre/theatre canon--they stand the test of time. They keep being produced. They keep being discussed.

"Even the most musical-saavy of us has not seen enough musicals to constitute best and worst in history"

This is why, thank God, we have a collective theatre community that has for the last century cultivated this consensus. Advised us to see certain musicals and plays. Passed down information. This is the only reason we know anything about plays from ancient history.

"You can't judge THE MUSIC MAN against WICKED, for instance, because they're completely different and from completely different eras. Furthermore, MUSIC MAN has had HOW many years to become a classic?"

And here you touch on the belief that it takes 100 years to determine whether or not a play or musical is indeed ART. The farther away we are from something's genesis, the more objective we can be and the more the writing is tested. Who knows what musicals will be remembered in 1000 years? But the ones that are remembered are the ones that will matter. All these years later (even if not yet 100), certain musicals are thriving where others have disappeared. And, it isn't always about quality, as we all know. Many would say Grease is not a finely crafted musical, but it is one of the most produced musicals in the world. It has earned its place in the canon. We will certainly debate (as this thread was started for such) whether or not contemporary musicals and plays will or won't be added to the canon/survive 20, 50, 100 years. Do I think Wicked will be around then? Yes. Do I think it belongs in the canon for the criteria I have mentioned? Yes.

"And also, the fact that none of us are 100 years old and can remember what, in 1956,..."

By that logic, I have no right to claim that Hamlet is a classic because I wasn't alive when Shakespeare wrote it.

Clearly (as I mentioned above), we have hundreds of years of productions, critiques, and the script/productions in front of us to evaluate whether or not Hamlet is a classic. But, at some point (and the point I am trying to make about Oklahoma!, The Music Man, and Kiss Me Kate), the decision on whether or not a play or musical is a classic is a done deal. Hamlet just IS. And, The Music Man just IS.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:09pm

CATS
The Lion King

[amperage]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:22pm

For all of you who think In My Life is the worst musical, (which by the way I didn't like very much)
Do you know Scrambled Feet? It is the most dated, innane piece of you know what I have ever seen. It's just AWFUL!

[Forester]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:31pm

Worst show I've ever seen: Rocking Cinderella. It was just awful, though I do see potentials in the score. The lyric was awful, the book was non-existence (you think they could follow the Cinderella's storyline) and choreography had nothing to do with what was going on onstage. On top of that, the whole thing was around an hour long and they had intermission. I wanted to walk out, but my friend was in the musical. She asked how it was, I said "it was interesting".

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:36pm

I simply cannot compehend how any human being could dislike Kiss Me, Kate. While I understand that it may not be everybody's favorite, it is my favorite and is definitely not the wordt show ever.

I love Oklahoma!, and it is a great show. The recent production, which was overly dark and spare, simply did not do this magnificent show justice. I assure anybody that put it on their list that if they saw a good production of Oklahoma!, they would love it.

I also loved Dance of the Vampires, though I admit it is not a great show. It still cannot be the worst.

If I were to pick my least favorite musical, it would probably be a draw between Boy From Oz, Wonderful Town, and the OBC of Les Miz (don't kill me- just too dark for my taste, though I admit it is a very good show).

Anyway, judging by what I have read and heard, the worst musical in recent years is probably Brooklyn, despite its fine cast.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 2:42pm

To interject, The Music Man has one of Broadway's most brilliant scores. The book is a cleverly crafted adaptation of The Rainmaker set in the turn of the century, which allows for Wilson's incredible pastische scoring, and transforms Starbuck into a travelling band teacher, another clever device justifying the creation of a musical score into an already familiar story. The music and lyrics are superb examples of musical theatre songwriting. Everything from the pattern songs, to the barbershop quartets, to the Sousa-inspired Seventy-Six trombones, to the fusion of independent melodies is top-notch. The book is tight, funny, touching and engaging. I would easily classify it as one of the best classic musicals. But it demands a strong director and choreographer (but then, what musical doesn't?) as the recent television production woefully illustrated, otherwise it is slow, humorless and devoid of heart or charm.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 2:54pm

LOVED DOTV! But I walked out of Sweet Smell of Success.

[crazyfangirl]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 4:00pm

"To interject, The Music Man has one of Broadway's most brilliant scores. The book is a cleverly crafted adaptation of The Rainmaker set in the turn of the century, which allows for Wilson's incredible pastische scoring, and transforms Starbuck into a travelling band teacher, another clever device justifying the creation of a musical score into an already familiar story. The music and lyrics are superb examples of musical theatre songwriting. Everything from the pattern songs, to the barbershop quartets, to the Sousa-inspired Seventy-Six trombones, to the fusion of independent melodies is top-notch. The book is tight, funny, touching and engaging. I would easily classify it as one of the best classic musicals. But it demands a strong director and choreographer (but then, what musical doesn't?) as the recent television production woefully illustrated, otherwise it is slow, humorless and devoid of heart or charm."

Thank you. That is a good explanation. Certainly it is better than, "The Music Man is a classic. Because it just IS. And I like it." I can see that point of view. It doesn't make me like THE MUSIC MAN any more than I do, unfortunately, but I can see the reasoning for others enjoying it.

And I'm sorry, but I still hate OKLAHOMA. To me, it's just completely unappealing. I have yet to make through ANY production of it, in its entirety.

But I think, also, that you can pull good things from even the worst musical, and for that reason, perhaps NO musical venture is a bad one. Just look at CANDIDE, for example, which was a gigantic flop, and a HUGE disaster, but is often revived in concert form, and boasts this amazingly beautiful score. And yeah, BKLYN was godawful, but I definitely enjoyed the renditions of ONCE UPON A TIME and RAVEN that I heard when i went to Broadway in Bryant Park. And isn't that what theater should be about? (Although, really. CATS? Why, God, why? Someone name just ONE other song in CATS besides MEMORIES--I'll give you a cookie.)

Also, sometimes, the musicals that become classics and get revived (as i think JRB said earlier) aren't necessarily great, or the most critically acclaimed musicals, but the ones that are most popular. Hense why MAMMA MIA will probably see a thousand tours and revivals in the next 40 years. So it's hard to judge, what is empirically good or bad, because we're basing our opinions on classics that are classics either because they were good and people liked them, or because they were bad but people STILL liked them.

[Love4Cheno]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 4:08pm

Good Vibrations was unwatchable. From what I hear about Dracula, as bad as it was, at least it provided some (unintentional) laughs.

GV was just painful and irritating to sit through. I actually got mad at myself for not leaving.

[BreakingTheCircle07]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 4:13pm

Blood Brothers

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 4:14pm

crazyfangirl, while Matt did eloquently express why TMM is a well written musical, I decided (in note of my comment that not all classics have to be flawless) that quality wasn't completely a factor and, thus, I went into detail over why some plays and musicals are considered classics. I felt that was more relevant. You can't quibble that Hamlet is a classic and from that same logic, I argue that you can't quibble TMM as being a classic. I would further argue that a classic can not be considered the worst worst musical and that anyone who lists a classic as a worst worst musical looks foolish.

Now, if you don't care about any of the things I said in my last post, fine. But they are indeed the way it works and if you decide to major in theatre, you will study these concepts at that time.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 4:40pm

Some of you deserve to be haunted by the ghosts of Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein, Cole Porter, and Meredith Wilson in life and damned to listen "Oklahoma!" "The Music Man" "The Sound of Music" and "Kiss Me Kate" for all eternity.

Updated On: 11/11/05 at 04:40 PM

[crazyfangirl]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 9:33pm

JRB, I never said I didn't care. Or that you are wrong. Neither of us is right or wrong. All I am saying is that classics may be considered classics for various reasons; it doesn't mean we ALL have to agree that they are classics. CATS is the example I am going to stick with, because that is considered a classic, and i absolutely positively cannot fathom it as one. I hold the same opinion for books as well. I think A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is the biggest piece of dreck I have ever read, but it is considered, empirically, to be a classic and taught in schools...why? I don't know. There are so many wonderful, amazing, incredible authors who will never make canon (and it's the same for playwrights and composers as well) because their material will not be read by enough people to make it popular. Professors and laymen can debate this to death, I suppose. But my point is that, in my opinion, something doesn't have to be great to be a classic. It just has to become popular enough. In 40 years, I have no doubt that WICKED will be considered classic. And I know for a fact that 90% of this board would dispute its right to be listed next to classic musicals like THE MUSIC MAN. But it will. When you come down to it, EVERYTHING is a matter of opinion, and unless you do not have any sort of valuable, well-thought-out opinion, nobody here looks foolish by expressing what they think. No matter what that may be.

I assure you, though, that when I went to college (and it was awhile ago) I took a class in theater appreciation, although my major was nothing related to theater. Neither was my masters related. But I was (and have been) exposed to all types of theater, and like I said, I think all of these opinions are valid.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 9:40pm

Well, when you have taken a graduate class in Dramatic Theory and Criticism, come chat with me about this more. Because, I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about how people through the ages have been able to deem plays as classics. And, one can hate Hamlet, but that hate and debate will never change the FACT that Hamlet has been deemed a classic. And, if we had a thread called worst worst plays and someone said Hamlet, they would look FOOLISH.

Again, if ya want to put Hamlet as your least favorite play in the Least Favorite Play thread or in the Unpopular Opinion thread, knock your lights out.

Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:09pm

Damn Yankees- I know its kind of a classic, but its very shallow and kind of silly.

[fsuchris]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:28pm

Have to say the show I had the worst time with was Wicked, I was just so bored, and so happy when it was over. Thankful the tickets where free.

[Chris32NY1]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 12:16am

I've seen a whole bunch of dogs on Broadway, but I have to say Dance of the Vampires took the cake as the worst -- totally terrible in every regard. I should have known that it was bad when "Total Eclipse of the Heart" actually made it in the show (and what was the deal with the human skulls hanging all over the curtain)?!? I guess those were from the people who showed up the night before I did.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 12:26am

This is an interesting discussion... I think that there's a reason that some musicals stick around and are continually revived, the reason being that they're probably great (or at least, beloved by a lot of people). But how do we know that those are the best? Some musicals that fade into obscurity are probably very good and just for some reason or other didn't have long or productive runs on Broadway. I can see this happening... I mean, RAGTIME, which I consider to be the best musical that I've ever seen live, only had a run of two years. Of course, a lot of people loved it and will acknowledge its greatness, and we have a fantastic cast recording to preserve it, but I'm sure that similar things have happened to other musicals...

So maybe, "classic" = having longevity, but does not necessarily equate to being the best musical?

(I don't really know where I'm going with this, sorry. It's been a long week.)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 4:06am

Well, you have a point about how the run of a Bway play or musical is no indicator of how good it is. Ragtime will hopefully be done by regional theatres, community theatres, and schools from highschool to college for decades to come. And, if that is the case, then it will come to stand the test of time.

[cserannie]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 9:04am

Hey, I loved Sweet Smell of Success!!!

I thought it was better than Millie.

[w_tanoto]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 9:07am

Saturday night fever

[roquat]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 2:38pm

I am more than a little tired of the argument that because something is popular and/or acclaimed, it is automatically good. Cecil B. DeMille's "The Greatest Show on Earth", about a madman run amok at a circus, was incredibly popular and won the Best Picture Oscar. Try to watch it today without laughing (or groaning). "Citizen Kane" was a terrible flop when it came out, but its status as one of the greatest movies of all time is pretty much assured. And "Basic Instinct" broke financial records when it came out. You know what? It's still dreck.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/12/05 at 3:02pm

I've said it before and I will probably say it till the day I die, the worst musical I ever saw was Dance With Me. I saw it in 1975 and NOTHING has ever been as bad.

To add insult to injury, it ran for over a year on Broadway and was nominated for Tony awards!!!! UGH. (And I've seen some pretty bad stuff in the last 30 years, including Home Sweet Homer, Bounce, ThreePenny Opera with Sting and Napoleon!)