I posted this thought on All That Chat, and no one seems to be interested in talking about it [I think there are other important theater matters going on, including Harry Potters private parts making their Bway debut last night] - so I figured I'd post it here, too, so that even if no one talks about it, it will remains googlable (is that a word?) on the innernet.
IIRC, 32 years ago, the theater community then was absolutely sure SO LONG 174TH ST was a terrible musical
And now, after its composer-lyricist Stan Daniels did not bless us with more fun scores but instead went back to Hollywood pretty much humiliated by his Broadway experience, it's being given a very promising chance at rediscovery.
I don't mean this as a poll, but it makes me wonder - should something like this be a sign that critics should comment on the shows in an interesting and (to their readers) entertaining way, but not set about eviscerating and maiming the talent of people whose work they're not liking.
I think of the many scores that we've been deprived of from people like the late Stan Daniels because the critics in the key outlets went after them with a machete rather than just finding a literate way of saying the piece just doesn't work.
SO LONG 174TH STREET got another chance as ENTER LAUGHING because the York Theater had the wisdom to do a Mufti series of Joseph Stein works. But how many talents were silenced ovr the years because the critics needed to be nasty for the sake of entertaining readers, rather just being advisors to their readers?
