Replies: 9 Unseemly Comments
What a question. What a question indeed. Part of me wants to blame rock music. Damn all rock music to hell, everyone, because it Sucks. Now the only shows that are successful are those yucky "rock operas" or musicals with some rock music incorporated into them. Blah, I say, Blah.
But part of me wants to blame television. Weren't the golden ages of the musical when you could see tidbits on television? Of course I wasn't around then, so I really have no idea.
Part of it has to do with the brainwashing of the general public. Musicals are seen as something to be mocked, something that only Jack on Will & Grace enjoys. Even most of the so-called "theatre people" I meet are not enthusiastic about musicals. They think that they are Silly. Poo on them, they are silly for thinking so, in my opinion.
I think that's enough out of me. Please someone, post an actual answer to this question, because I'm very interested.
Posted by Lolita @ 02/21/2002 09:55 AM PST
Just an outsider's opinion (and I'm sure people more in the know will have something to say about it):
I think much of it has to do with money. The price of producing a musical has soared, and the price of theater tickets have soared, and basically everybody is now scared to death to commit to either producing or purchasing tickets for a show that doesn't seem to be a "sure thing" (ie: a formulaic retread of something that has already been successful in another medium).
So "The Lion King: The Musical" and "Beauty and the Beast: The Musical" and "Titanic: The Musical" (etc., etc.) are produced, because the people who are providing financing feel that audiences at large are more comfortable with material that is already, shall we say, "familiar."
And, to a certain extent (sadly), they are correct.
From what I've read, there used to be a time when you could make a show a success by getting the hardcore theater enthusiasts (and, yes, the theater party ladies) to buy tickets. Now, with costs spiralling, it seems as though they have to reach out to people who ordinarily would never dream of setting foot inside a theater. And what those people seem to want is not anything original or groundbreaking, but more of what they are already getting at the movies and on TV.
Posted by Lulu @ 02/21/2002 10:22 AM PST
Why do I think the state of the original Broadway musical in so perilous? Costs. Basically everything comes back to that one factor. You can lose $10,000,000 overnight on Broadway, so it's no longer really feasible to mount projects there unless they hav some kind of built-in audience appeal. This means that the more marginal material gets, well, marginalised - produced (if it's produced at all) by regionals and nonprofits, who often don't have the resources to produce things on the sort of scale you'd see on Broadway. That $10,000,000 price tag for a new Broadway musical is the reason for the process of workshopping over and over again (which I'm not entirely convinced is of much use - a bare-bones presentation can give very different signals than a full production). It's the reason why the 16-performance (or less) flop has more or less disappeared from Broadway.
At the same time, because of spiralling production costs, ticket costs have got higher and higher, until they're hitting the $100 barrier (which they actually passed some time ago here in Toronto). There's a core audience which goes to everything - and I'm not a part of it, even in Toronto, because I just can't afford it. If I was to take, say, my brother, my nephew and my parents to see "The Lion King" on Broadway, the cost of the *tickets* for all of us, assuming no discounts, could easily equal what I pay for one month's rent! It's no longer a viable entertainment option for families - at least, not on any kind of regular basis, unless the family is rather wealthy. Higher ticket costs mean a shift in the kind of shows being produced, as well - it seems harder to get less audience-friendly material produced commercially. That doesn't mean that the tougher shows don't get produced - but, again, they don't get produced (much) on Broadway (and they don't tend to succeed there when they do).
It's not that interesting new musicals aren't happening - but it does seem as if they're happening less and less on Broadway, and more and more in other (usually smaller) venues.
Posted by Stephen Farrow @ 02/21/2002 11:41 AM PST
Good to see you here, Stephen Farrow. Bring those other ratm folks with you (well, the three or four interesing ones). All the posts so far make good points. The money issue is paramount - when shows can run two years (Titanic) and STILL lose the bulk of their investment, then why do people produce at all? The Life ran over a year and lost everything. The Will Rogers Follies, a seeming hit, lost money. The recent revival of The Music Man lost money. And yes, the day of the instant floperoo is gone - although, that said, Tom Sawyer closed rather fast. Those producers, I thought, were at lease responsible to their investors - they didn't go back and get them to try to lose even more money (remember the many incarnations of The Scarlet Pimpernel, all for naught). The Dodgers would rather die than close a show quickly (Once Upon A Mattress, reviled by mostly everyone, was allowed to stay open over four months). As to workshops, I agree with Stephen - very wrong signals get sent, hence the amazing incredible buzz that greeted the workshops of Seussical and Sweet Smell of Success, both of which opened out of town to troubling reviews and problems. Their answer, of course, is that that's what out-of-town tryouts are for. My point is, what were they doing with the three years of workshops? Would they have been better off forgoing the workshops, honing their material like the pros they are, and then going out of town? Certainly they would have saved some dough. Certainly, given the troubled out of town openings, the work of fixing whatever was wrong would have to be done anyway. Workshops seem to have evolved into a very strange thing - Sondheim professed that the Wise Guys workshop was a joke -basically something open to the public (let's face it, lots of non-industry people seem to somehow find their way in to these workshops) and subject to all the bitchiness inherent in that sort of run. In the old days, real producers like David Merrick, would have a show written (usually that process would take six months), then he'd take it out of town and if there were problems they would either be fixed successfully or not. The shows would come in and be hits or misses. It didn't take ten years of readings and workshops. My goodness, I do seem to be going on, don't I? Let's hear from others.
Posted by bk @ 02/21/2002 12:59 PM PST
Obviously money is an issue. But I think there's more at work here. There's a great line in the recent Criterion release of Children of Paradise where the commentator mentions that at one time "theater was the only source of entertainment for the masses, and their only visual culture." And, really until movies superceded theater probably somewhere in the 20s and 30s, that continued to be true. Then, when tv came along and everything was FREE, though the motion picture industry took the brunt of the apocalyptic prophecies, I think the writing on the wall was there for live theater as well. Add to this the relatively recent phenomenon of the music video (where, in direct contrast to a musical, the SONG determines the SCENE, as it were, instead of vice versa), and, frankly, you have an audience that is neither culturally prepared/educated nor sadly even interested in this art form. That is why I firmly believe (self-serving as it may be, since I am at least partially employed this way) that regional theater is going to be the hotbed of creativity for new music theater in the coming decades. Indeed I think it already HAS become that--I can think of several regional musicals that strike me as equal to or better than the bloated beasts that tend to inhabit Broadway these days.
Posted by JMK @ 02/21/2002 02:26 PM PST
Oh, let's go with blaming rock music for the demise (or near-demise) of the Broadway musical. Broadway music was what you heard on the radio, on TV, on every singer's cover of the songs form hit shows. It was the music of the masses and could keep a show running by bringing the masses to the show. Broadway music, for the most part, is not the music you hear on the radio. Barbara Streisand and Johnny Mathis screeching their way through "Memory" for CATS was about the last time you heard Broadway standards on the radio.
Posted by scott @ 02/21/2002 04:48 PM PST
I have to politely disagree with blaming rock music, though I understand the sentiment. First of all, one of the biggest hits in Broadway history was Hair. And, since Hair, several mainstream Broadway hits have at the very least incorporated rock elements into their scores. And, though rare, singles from Broadway still make it to the charts--witness "Seasons of Love" from Rent, as just one example. But, essentially, you're right--tastes have changed, and popular "music" (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely, believe me) is just not the stuff of Broadway scores anymore.
Posted by JMK @ 02/21/2002 05:29 PM PST
Has MTV ruined the musical as we used to know it? If calling the film MOULIN ROUGE a musical, then the answer is "yes."
Attention spans have shortened thanks to the three minute rock video, the seven minute scenes between commercials on television, and the pandering to an audiences lack of intelligence. Whenever I approached material, either in college or in the real world, I was taught to NEVER underestimate the intelligence of an audience; but today it seems that directors & writers (with rare exception) go out of their way to "dumb things down." This of course is TD's (my) DTD Theory.
I'll take CARRIE as a fine example of DTD syndrome. Larry Cohen's book did its best to create a chamber-like operatic piece on which to string the musical numbers. The composers in turn, did turn out some marvelous, emotionally wrought material for the Margaret + Carrie White scenes, then Dumbed Things Down by creating less than Partridge Family quality songs for the teenagers. Out for Blood, indeed!
I would say that there have been a few, though hardly successful, intelligent musicals since then: MARIE CHRISTINE, THE WILD PARTY, FLOYD COLLINS are the three that pop to the top of my head. Not one of that trio pandered to the lowest brain cell, rather they each worked hard to intellectualize their stories and scores.
The musical form we all know and love is not dead yet, merely suffering a serious bout of DTD.
Posted by Anthony Dale @ 02/21/2002 09:41 PM PST
As minstrel shows and operetta had their vogue, the musical as we know it is just about to expire. It's been on life support for quite some time. I've collected cast albums for over 40 years, and of late, the contents have been for the most part recycled ideas and altered melodies. Perhaps we are in a transition period when the people who define music as we know it are fading out and new sounds are emerging that have nothing to do with what was once known as musical theatre. (e.g. Rap) I don't care what anyone says, "Rent" is pure crap. It's just the cycle of life! This is not necessarily depressing, just the natural transition from one era to another. I hope that I die wearing headphones while Ethel is singing "Rose's Turn" and that future generations find an equally as satisfying finale.
Posted by Scot Morehouse @ 02/22/2002 05:44 AM PST
