Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net
 


       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club
Katie-chan

European Musicals vs. Broadway

I always knew there was a big difference between Broadway and European musicals, but I haven't really been able to put it into words - thanks, Michael Kunze, for doing it for me!

Quote:
"The dramamusical is a tool to make clear that this is not a typical Broadway-type musical, which is more a musical-comedy. In what I do, we do drama with music. The way I write the shows is that I basically write the drama, of course with the music in mind, but the music is something that comes next, like a movie. The music is a very important element, but the most important element of the drama is the story, so the music really serves the story, and the music doesn't really have a right in its own beside the story, like a number that is just made for the music and the dance. [...]
I just want to distinguish where theatre is more theatrical than in a classical Broadway musical which is based on the vaudeville tradition, on dance, on spectacular things happening, and this is not what I look for. I believe in drama as the key entertainment in theatre, and I think I'm not the only one who does. [...]
I just think it's more European because I think the tradition of opera with the highly dramatic stories lent more to that kind of art-form, and I think that also our audiences in Europe, and I really include here in England, are more interested in going to theatre and have a real theatrical experience, a real emotional experience at last, not just an entertaining evening, but something they can discuss after the show."

http://westend.broadwayworld.com/article/BWW_INTERVIEWS_Writer_And_Interpreter_Michael_Kunze_20091002


Discuss! Smile
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.

In other words, Europe traditionally favors darker stories, more intellectual and thought-provoking entertainment, and by comparison Broadway is. usually..well, less so inclined, to put it politely. This is not to say that either haven't ever gone the total opposite direction, but basically yeah, that's how it rolls.
Mistress

I have to agree. If you look at some of the biggest hits over there, that aren't translations of Broadway shpws, you have Elisabeth, Rebecca, and Tanz der Vampire, which are all darrk shows. Tanz is more dark humour than the others, but you only need to see the Broadway adaption to see that is, in fact, dark. And, ironically, it seems that Frank Wildhorn, that bane of Broadway, has in fact been quite successful in Germany (Fur Immur Jung from Dracula actually sounds rather pretty) with his darker shows like Dracula, and Rudolf (which I guess can be tacked on to Elisabeth, despite the different composers)

Elisabeth is a very interesting example as well. It bares many similarities to Evita, mainly the use of a cynical, adversarial narrarator. But I think Elisabeth has a dark eroticism that Evita lacks. Evita is realistic, Elisabeth is anything but, with it's romantic/erotic relationship between the title character and Death, which spans the entire show. We don't get too much of this here. Our Vampires are slapstick, are Romance clean and warm, and are musicals either funny, angsty or just simple fun (not that I don't like Broadway-I do-I'm just stating some of the recent trends, mainly the angst-of-life trend that has been most recent along with jukebox band musicals and movie adaptions that are getting increasingly ambitious and out there). We haven't quite warmed up to this German/European idea of the "dramamusical".
dolbinau

Quote:
In other words, Europe traditionally favors darker stories, more intellectual and thought-provoking entertainment, and by comparison Broadway is. usually..well, less so inclined, to put it politely. This is not to say that either haven't ever gone the total opposite direction, but basically yeah, that's how it rolls.


Really?

Ok, ignoring perhaps Shakespeare I believe the opposite. Broadway has all the thought-provoking, high quality shows....everything that comes from Europe in recent times (ALW shows, Chess, Tanz Der Vampire, Elton John etc..) are very expensive pop-orientated/mega-musical style shows.

I guess this ignores the shows that stay over in the west-end and don't come here, but since this guy is talking about/involved in such shows as ALW, AIda I don't think he is necessarily talking about spectacular unknown shows.

People have a perception of American movies as overproduced, very commercialised etc... while european the opposite, but in terms of Musicals I have an opposite perception of America.

Though of course Broadway certainly and in the last 10 years especially has had very commercialised/megamusical style shows. But I kind of get the impression this was imported from Europe.
Katie-chan

dolbinau wrote:
Quote:
In other words, Europe traditionally favors darker stories, more intellectual and thought-provoking entertainment, and by comparison Broadway is. usually..well, less so inclined, to put it politely. This is not to say that either haven't ever gone the total opposite direction, but basically yeah, that's how it rolls.


Really?

Ok, ignoring perhaps Shakespeare I believe the opposite. Broadway has all the thought-provoking, high quality shows....everything that comes from Europe in recent times (ALW shows, Chess, Tanz Der Vampire, Elton John etc..) are very expensive pop-orientated/mega-musical style shows.


Did you know Tanz der Vampire was butchered when it came to Broadway?

Quote:
The show was extensively rewritten for the New York/Broadway production, which starred Michael Crawford (the lead in Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera in the 1980s, which incidentally also starred Steve Barton, the original von Krolock) as von Krolock and was directed by Urinetown's John Rando (without Polanski). [...]
The producers of the show wanted a rewrite with a more comic angle instead of adapting the successful Austrian version, so they hired comic playwright David Ives to write what amounted to a new book, which was then revised and rearranged by Crawford, who had creative control. Crawford also agreed that the piece should be a comedy on the lines of Mel Brooks. The result was an altered version with a lot of campy humor that differed considerably from the original show.

The humor received some laughter and much criticism. After Steinman was fired from the show by his own manager (acting as lead producer) for protesting the direction the show had taken, the English version (of necessity) borrowed a lot of new material from Steinman's lyrics for the previous English versions of his songs. The show was critically lambasted, the work of lead performer Michael Crawford being reviewed particularly harshly.
Dance of the Vampires is one of the biggest financial flops in Broadway history, losing roughly $12 million, easily eclipsing the infamous musical Carrie. Steinman made a show of his disapproval of the project by not attending opening night. In his blog, Steinman described this show as "DOTV, which you guys know I hated & was disgusted by, & was FIRED by my manager, acting as producer!" The manager to whom he was referring was David Sonenberg, who was one of the producers of the show and Steinman's longtime manager. On his blog, Steinman wrote "DOTV as we know was UTTER SHIT!" in one post, and describes the production as a "shit pile" in another. He stated in other blog entries that his music was "wasted" on the show, and was careful to make a clear distinction between the Broadway 2002-2003 version (referred to as DOTV) and the successful European version (referred to as Tanz).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_the_Vampires#Broadway


This is a really good example for the difference between Broadway and European musicals, I think. "Oh, this musical was so successful in Europe, let's take it to Broadway - but wait, our American audience might not understand its dark humour and be bored by its seriousness, so let's just rewrite it as some kind of pathetic musical comedy. ... Oh, it flopped? Well, that's probably because the original musical sucked anyways."
Canadian Drama Geek

Yup, I'm going to put my own two cents in.

I agree with Dolbinau on a lot of counts.

I really don't think that there's a difference between the two. In fact, I think that European musicals are derivative of Broadway/West End musicals. This is why.

In the last forty/thirty years, musical theatre in the English speaking world started to change for the more operatic. I think this is due to the rock opera movement and Sondheim, closely followed by the stylings of Andrew Lloyd Webber. It's around this time (late seventies' to early eighties') that the music in Broadway/West End musicals really started serving the purpose of the book (as well as reflecting the style of the time, which, it could be argued, is what operas did at the tme of their inception).

I think that it was only later that the rest of Europe, apart from Britain, caught on. Claude-Michel Schonberg stated in an interview with Seth Rudetsky (I think it was that interview), that when he was writing Les Miserables, he drew heavily from the execution of Jesus Christ Superstar. It was also in this interview that he said if he had had the chance to write Les Mis again, he would have taken what's perceived as a very Lloyd Webber thing to do- He would have recycled his melodies a little more. (as if he didn't do it enough in Les Mis... Very Happy).

It was with Les Mis (late eighties') that European musical theatre really began to happen. Before that, I think we'd have been hard-pressed to find a musical, excluding anything British or anything that involves chess pieces, that had its conception in Europe. Watch me be corrected soundly on this point...

However, I can trace this whole recycling of the melodies thing to Wagner, when he started a convention that is considered as a very Wagnerian thing to do- the leit motif, which is the act of using a musical phrase (or in some cases, a part of a song) repeatedly as a way to convey an emotion that a certain character is feeling. This can be found in operas even before Wagner's time, though. Recall Carmen and the 'fate motif'...

So, if you could follow me at all... I need to work n getting my thoughts wel-organized...

I think that Broadway had already started doing dark, thought-provoking musicals that were a little inspired by traditional opera at least ten years before Europe came into the picture (Sondheim in the sixties', people? Help me out!), and it was because of this that we have Elisabeth, Tanz Der Vampire, and Rebecca. Indeed, the fact that Frank Wildhorn is popular in Germany should be an indication of this.

I'm not going to get into mega-musicals, commercialization, or any of that. I think everyone, regardless of hemisphere, is equally guilty of the mega-movie-musical, though Broadway definitely attracts the most attention when it comes to that sort of thing.

And I think that we should all remember that the biggest atrocity ever to grace the stage for more than five years, Mamma Mia! is based on a Swedish group's music. Razz
dolbinau

(This is a response to Katie-Chan)

Well let's remove that counterexample then..we still have all the other examples. (I don't know much about that particular show so I won't make a strong claim that the original production sucked, even though from what I heard in terms of cast recordings that would be my initial impression).

Does that change anything though?


Would you guys really say that Les Miz, Phantom, JCS, Chess, Aida etc.. are 'darker' shows that are more intellectual and 'thought-provoking' than Broadway shows in general?

Quote:
- but wait, our American audience might not understand its dark humour and be bored by its seriousness, so let's just rewrite it as some kind of pathetic musical comedy


That's funny since the 'English audience' did not 'get' Sweeney Todd when it went over there.

BROADWAY has:

SONDHEIM- A Little Night Music, Sweeney Todd, Company, Follies etc..

Plus 'classic' musicals such as My Fair Lady, Gypsy, West Side Story..

'EUROPE' has:

ALW - Phantom, JCS, Evita, Cats etc..

Chess, Les Miz etc..

I'm not saying that European shows are 'bad' or anything, but come on look at the difference here. THe European shows are the relative fluff/cheese/low quality, not Broadway. The Legacy of Broadway shows are of higher quality, 'intellectual superiority' while European in comparison more commercial/fluffier/poppier/expensiver [Razz] /easier entertainment

Quote:
I'm not going to get into mega-musicals, commercialization, or any of that. I think everyone, regardless of hemisphere, is equally guilty of the mega-movie-musical, though Broadway definitely attracts the most attention when it comes to that sort of thing.


Mmm I don't want that to be the main part of what I'm trying to say, because all Broadway shows unless non for profit are commercial ventures. I'm just saying if we look at an overall 'impression' of a show, the shows that are generally associated with being mega-musical 'blockbusters', with pop/rock-orientated accessible scores etc.. is from the European scene.
Dvarg

That is some of the stupidest I've read.

The only thing dumber is using Frank Wildhorn's success in Europe to prove it Shocked

His shows are the most stupid shows there are.

I'm in general very critical towards glorifying the US, but:

dolbinau wrote:
BROADWAY has:

SONDHEIM- A Little Night Music, Sweeney Todd, Company, Follies etc..

Plus 'classic' musicals such as My Fair Lady, Gypsy, West Side Story.


Plus Rodgers and Hammerstein basically invented the serious musical.
Canadian Drama Geek

Definitely Europe seems to tend towards that a bit more, Dolbinau, but maybe we perceive it that way because Western audiences are only exposed to what European shows marketers think they'll enjoy and therefore pay to go see.

Shows written by Lloyd Webber and Elton John definitely would get priority over the shows that might be superior/more artistically genuine that get written, but aren't by anyone well-known. I'm sure the same thing happens in Europe in relation to Broadway shows.
Mama Rose

Wow, soooooo much misinformation on this thread. You'd think that some of the people here have never heard of a musical before Les Miz.



Quote:
Before that, I think we'd have been hard-pressed to find a musical, excluding anything British or anything that involves chess pieces, that had its conception in Europe. Watch me be corrected soundly on this point...



I suppose that the Threepenny Opera, The Boy Friend and countless works by Noel Coward and Weill & Brecht must be non-existent...

Quote:

It's around this time (late seventies' to early eighties') that the music in Broadway/West End musicals really started serving the purpose of the book (as well as reflecting the style of the time, which, it could be argued, is what operas did at the tme of their inception).




...musicals started serving the purpose of the book in the 1920s with Show Boat.



Quote:
In other words, Europe traditionally favors darker stories, more intellectual and thought-provoking entertainment, and by comparison Broadway is. usually..well, less so inclined, to put it politely. This is not to say that either haven't ever gone the total opposite direction, but basically yeah, that's how it rolls.






Les Miz and Miss Saigon "thouht-provoking"? Compared to Rogers & Hammerstein, Lerner & Loewe and Stephen Sondheim?


With the exception of Weill & Brecht and Noel Coward... the Europeans pretty much suck at musical theatre. at least in my opinion.
Canadian Drama Geek

Thanks Mama Rose. My history is a little shabby. Smile I suppose it was serving to my purpose to write that, wasn't it?

EDIT- Though I strongly disagree on the Europeans being bad at musical theatre. I personally love it. To each their own, no?
But, for lulz, here's a really good example on how bad the Europeans can get on this, just to counteract the Tanz der Vampire example of how badd the North Americans can be:

In 1958, Bernstein and Sondheim wrote one of the greatest musicals of all time, West Side Story.

In 2001, Gerard Presgurvic drew from the same material and wrote one of the most artistically barren adaptations of Shakespeare, ever. Romeo et Juliette. Catchy tunes, but still... definite wtfery.
Katie-chan

Mama Rose wrote:
the Europeans pretty much suck at musical theatre.


Shock!

Okay, I guess what I wrote in the first post is mainly true for 2009, not 1900 - 2009. Just look at the popular shows we have on Broadway right now: tons of movie adaptions, jukebox musicals...
Mama Rose

What's wrong with movie adaptations? Some of the best musicals in theatre were based on movies. A Little Night Music, Nine, The Light in the Piazza, Passion...




Quote:
Though I strongly disagree on the Europeans being bad at musical theatre. I personally love it. To each their own, no?




I didn't say that all European musicals are bad. Just the trashy pop ones.
dolbinau

Quote:
Just look at the popular shows we have on Broadway right now: tons of movie adaptions, jukebox musicals...


Yes, those terrible American Jukebox musicals such as Mamma Mia! Razz.
Canadian Drama Geek

They're not the only ones to make a trashy pop musical. Legally Blonde is pretty bad, as are Wicked and Tarzan (though the music is by Phil Collins...). And Frank Wildhorn, despite what he'd have us all believe, is definitely American, last I checked.

On a lighter note, I really think that if you're going to make a musical based on Bergman and Fellini's films, you're exempt from having to call it a movie-musical. Smile

EDIT @Dolbinau- and We Will Rock You! God, the humanity.
dolbinau

The thing is that I don't think the Legacy of Broadway musicals will be shows like Legally Blonde (well at least we know that at the moment it is certainly not what Broadway is known for). European musicals, at least as far as I'm aware are *known* for that style of show.


That is, if I were to describe Broadway I'd be doing it in terms of Sondheim, Rodgers and Hammerstein etc.. but if I were to describe European Musicals I'd be doing it in terms of ALW, Time Rice and Elton John.

See, I'd claim that it was the introducing/success of these European musicals that has led these styles of shows to become common on Broadway today.

And RE: Frank Wildhorn, he is American yes. But the point was that it says something about the 'sophistication' of the Audiences in Europe if his shows are massively popular there, but unsuccessful here. (According to Dvarg I think it was who mentioned that). As someone was claiming that American audiences are 'dumb'.
Canadian Drama Geek

But all of the European creators you've named there are British. Maybe it isn't wise to try and compare one country's traditions to an entire continent's?

I think Frank Wildhorn's shows were probably as equally well-received wherever they are in the world. I mean, he had three shows running at the same time on Broadway at one point. I don't think that American audiences are dumb so much as when they reached the twenty-first century, they didn't want to hear any more nineties' style pop ballads.

That doesn't really explain why his shows are so popular right now in Germany... I've successfully confused myself...
dolbinau

I'll add Schonberg there too Razz, but I agree I have generalised to Britain/West End.
Canadian Drama Geek

Ne, don't forget ABBA. O.O

Really interesting debate. Wish I could stick around... Sad
Katie-chan

What I've noticed is that in Germany (not Britain) and Austria, they used to write beautiful serious musicals (Rebecca, Elisabeth etc.), or really funny ones that used dark humour (Tanz der Vampire etc.), but right now, all we see on stage are translated Broadway musicals or even jukebox musicals written in German Confused This is because of Stage Entertainment, the company that has all the money in musical theater and that puts on what they consider worthy. If they think it won't earn them tons of money, they won't put it on. Right now, they have:
Three jukebox musicals:
- Ich war noch niemals in New York
- Buddy (apparently, it's about Buddy Holly, and I don't even know who that is)
- We Will Rock You
Three Broadway shows:
- Wicked
- Tarzan
- Lion King
Two movie adaptions:
- Der Schuh des Manitu
- Dirty Dancing
and Tanz der Vampire.

In Vienna, they have Tanz der Vampire and Rudolf - der letzte Kuss.
[/end rant]

So what we see is a huge Broadway-ization. I'm not sure what to think of this.
Mistress

It's funny that all of the "European" musicals that have been mentioned are English language shows. It's a very limited assortment. I suggest taking a look at the likes of the German Elisabeth, Rebecca, etc. the ones NOT written for an English speaking audience. Like I said, in the most popular of them, there's some sort of "darkness" to them, whetehr it's about death, vampires, or spiritual oppression...
Patch

Katie-chan wrote:
What I've noticed is that in Germany (not Britain) and Austria, they used to write beautiful serious musicals (Rebecca, Elisabeth etc.), or really funny ones that used dark humour (Tanz der Vampire etc.), but right now, all we see on stage are translated Broadway musicals or even jukebox musicals written in German Confused This is because of Stage Entertainment, the company that has all the money in musical theater and that puts on what they consider worthy. If they think it won't earn them tons of money, they won't put it on. Right now, they have:
Three jukebox musicals:
- Ich war noch niemals in New York
- Buddy (apparently, it's about Buddy Holly, and I don't even know who that is)
- We Will Rock You
Three Broadway shows:
- Wicked
- Tarzan
- Lion King
Two movie adaptions:
- Der Schuh des Manitu
- Dirty Dancing
and Tanz der Vampire.

In Vienna, they have Tanz der Vampire and Rudolf - der letzte Kuss.
[/end rant]

So what we see is a huge Broadway-ization. I'm not sure what to think of this.


You...don't know who Buddy Holly is/was?
curlyhairedsoprano91

Patch wrote:
Katie-chan wrote:
What I've noticed is that in Germany (not Britain) and Austria, they used to write beautiful serious musicals (Rebecca, Elisabeth etc.), or really funny ones that used dark humour (Tanz der Vampire etc.), but right now, all we see on stage are translated Broadway musicals or even jukebox musicals written in German Confused This is because of Stage Entertainment, the company that has all the money in musical theater and that puts on what they consider worthy. If they think it won't earn them tons of money, they won't put it on. Right now, they have:
Three jukebox musicals:
- Ich war noch niemals in New York
- Buddy (apparently, it's about Buddy Holly, and I don't even know who that is)
- We Will Rock You
Three Broadway shows:
- Wicked
- Tarzan
- Lion King
Two movie adaptions:
- Der Schuh des Manitu
- Dirty Dancing
and Tanz der Vampire.

In Vienna, they have Tanz der Vampire and Rudolf - der letzte Kuss.
[/end rant]

So what we see is a huge Broadway-ization. I'm not sure what to think of this.


You...don't know who Buddy Holly is/was?


...What he said
Mama Rose

Quote:
They're not the only ones to make a trashy pop musical. Legally Blonde is pretty bad, as are Wicked and Tarzan (though the music is by Phil Collins...). And Frank Wildhorn, despite what he'd have us all believe, is definitely American, last I checked.



Yeah. But the trashy pop musical trend came from Europe originally. There was none of that shit on Broadway before Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Mistress

So don't blame all of Europe for it. Blame England/the U.K.
Mama Rose

It wasn't just Andrew Lloyd Webber... after him it was Schonberg, whose work built even further upon the European pop trash influence on Broadway. And then in rolled the other bad European musicals...




There's also a shitload of bad European musicals (not just from the UK) that never made it to Broadway. Thank goodness.
Mistress

Like...?

(Schonberg wasn't THAT bad...les Mis is actually a good show, although one could argue that it's because the source mmaterial was good...)
Canadian Drama Geek

Why are you blaming the entire continent of Europe for Andrew Lloyd Webber?
Mistress

Exactly my question Laughing

It's okay, Emma, we can go back to our "Euro Trash" threads, and obliviously enjoy the musicals that suck XD
Mama Rose

Quote:


Like...?



Kristina från Duvemåla, Elisabeth, Tanz Der Vampire (unfortunately that one arrived on Broadway even worse than the original), 3 Musketiers, to name a few


Quote:
Why are you blaming the entire continent of Europe for Andrew Lloyd Webber?



I wasn't blaming the whole continent of Europe for Webber. I was just saying that Webber was the one that started the European mega-musical pop trash trend. Others (from other European countries) followed his lead.
Mistress

Elisabeth is Euro Trash!!!!

I get that it may be magamusiacal-ee with some of the recent effects and proprs or whatever (the tilting stage for example), but it doesn't live off of them like Webber's shows. I firmly believe that Elisabeth could stand on it's own without the Mega. The story is interesting and thought-provoking in terms of our relationship to death, and of course the life of a tragic historical figure...and how is the original Tanz bad?
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.

I mean, aside from the artistic merit issue that comes from Jim Steinman recycling 70% of the score from his pop trunk, Tanz in its original form is a thrilling show.
Canadian Drama Geek

If European musicals are so bad, then why are American composers copying them, like you imply?

EDIT- and don't forget, Hair was on Broadway about four years before Jesus Christ Superstar premiered there. In my opinion, Hair is not in any way superior to JCS, and in fact is inferior to it in the lyrics department. There's no character development, the show itself is chock-full of gimmicks, and they even misuse Shakespeare in an attempt to get some sort of emotional reaction from the audience. One instant trashy pop musical.
dolbinau

Canadian Drama Geek wrote:
If European musicals are so bad, then why are American composers copying them, like you imply?


It's not just the composers, but other collaborators.

The answer is of course, that these shows appeal to popularity. So producers are more likely to send Wicked to Broadway than Road show.

I just want to clarify that it's not just a case of people just claiming that Euro musicals 'suck', but how wrong it is for someone to claim that Broadway is about musical-comedy and " Europe traditionally favors darker stories, more intellectual and thought-provoking entertainment, and by comparison Broadway is. usually..well, less so inclined, to put it politely".

When by the kind of shows that are now the 'legacy' of Broadway vs the 'legacy' of Europe, and the kind of shows that European audiences apparently 'favour' (e.g. Frank Wildhorn), it seems like the opposite case.

There may be very good European musicals, but the point is I think BROADWAY is the paramount of intellectual challenging musicals. [Is this sentence structured correctly? (Is the paramount of), if not I'm sure you get what I mean lol].
Mistress

Fair enough, opinions will differ Very Happy

thank you for being logical and actually backing up your opinions with things that make sense.

it makes me feel better to debate with pepole like you.
lovesinging

No matter how many musicals are presented as evidence, I don't think this arguement will get anywhere. I personally believe that that difference doesn't swing one way or the other (one area doesn't have an overriding amount of cheese as opposed to darker subjects). Every country/area will have both the "fluff" shows as well as the tragic, darker shows. Heck, that even goes back in a sense to the origin of theatre, the Greeks, who had the distinct tragedies vs. comedies.

dolbinau wrote:

'EUROPE' has:

ALW - Phantom, JCS, Evita, Cats etc..

Chess, Les Miz etc..

I'm not saying that European shows are 'bad' or anything, but come on look at the difference here. THe European shows are the relative fluff/cheese/low quality, not Broadway.


As many have already stated, we need to discern between East and West Europe.
dolbinau

Ok I'm going to start again, because of all the confusion.

It seems that within the context of the article the quote is not really talking about European vs Broadway musicals at all. Rather, it is talking about a certain style of musical vs another. "Traditional Broadway" vs "Dramamusical". Where a dramamusical is a musical with 'drama as the key entertaining feature', that he claims is European in style (because of the 'Opera tradition'.)

The reason it's not simply "Broadway vs European" is because, he considers WICKED a dramamusical, and Wicked is obviously not European.


What his real claim is that "Traditional Broadway Musicals" do not offer a "real theatrical experience", or a "real emotional experience". But shows such as WICKED, Jesus Christ Superstar and "other ALW stuff besides Cats" DO offer it.

But I cannot disagree more with this opinion. This is where I'd bring in the counterexamples of traditional Broadway musicals (See Gypsy, West Side Story, most of Sondheim, some Rodgers and Hammerstein etc..). These musicals have a "real emotional experience" that audience members can "Talk about after the show".

And he talks about music 'serving the story', but for example I think if anything these 'traditional Broadway musicals' have music that serves the story a lot more than his given examples of 'dramamusicals' ("Music of the Night - POTO" - does that really 'serve the story' more than Rose's Turn in Gypsy?)

[I'll also mention that it's not like he brings his opinion out of no where, there apparently was a time that 'traditional broadway musicals' did have song and dance for the sake of it, Jerome Robbins apparently wanted Gypsy to be more like a vaudeville show until Arthur kind of stopped him or steered away from that [according to his book]. But many of the recent Broadway 'classics' (e.g. from 40s-80s) are not quite shows that focus on " on dance, on spectacular things happening")


So my 'conclusion' is that.

1. I don't think that 'dramamusicals' written in a 'European style' (e.g. Wicked, ALW) offer a more 'emotional' or 'real' theatre experience than 'traditional Broadway musicals'

2. If anything, I think that the opposite is true. And Shows written in a dramatic 'European style' (e.g. Wicked) are the ones that focus on " on dance, on spectacular things happening"
looney-lovegood

Is it just me, or does it seem like Europe-fans believe that fluff appeals more on Broadway, and Broadway-fars believe that fluff has a bigger appeal in Europe?

And I agree with lovesinging. Both groups have dark, thought-provoking musicals, and both have light, happy, mindless popcorn.
lovesinging

dolbinau wrote:

It seems that within the context of the article the quote is not really talking about European vs Broadway musicals at all. Rather, it is talking about a certain style of musical vs another. "Traditional Broadway" vs "Dramamusical". Where a dramamusical is a musical with 'drama as the key entertaining feature', that he claims is European in style (because of the 'Opera tradition'.)


Ah, this is a topic much more interesting that that which it turned to.

Can you clarify something for me? I had honestly never heard the term "dramamusical" before. When the article states that it has 'drama as the key entertaining feature,' wouldn't that rule out spectacles such as Wicked where a great deal of the entertainment value is invested in such wonders as someone flying on stage, expensive sets and pieces, etc?

That's probably an idiotic question. Sorry, I'm tired.
dolbinau

lovesinging wrote:
dolbinau wrote:

It seems that within the context of the article the quote is not really talking about European vs Broadway musicals at all. Rather, it is talking about a certain style of musical vs another. "Traditional Broadway" vs "Dramamusical". Where a dramamusical is a musical with 'drama as the key entertaining feature', that he claims is European in style (because of the 'Opera tradition'.)


Ah, this is a topic much more interesting that that which it turned to.

Can you clarify something for me? I had honestly never heard the term "dramamusical" before. When the article states that it has 'drama as the key entertaining feature,' wouldn't that rule out spectacles such as Wicked where a great deal of the entertainment value is invested in such wonders as someone flying on stage, expensive sets and pieces, etc?

That's probably an idiotic question. Sorry, I'm tired.


You would think so, but the person who defines dramamusicals claims Wicked is one.

This is the whole point I'm trying to make, he is claiming that musicals such as Wicked are dramatic with emotional value, but 'traditional broadway' musicals don't have any real emotional value, and focus on dance and 'spectacular things'. If anything, it seems like the opposite is true.
High-baritonne

Canadian Drama Geek wrote:
But all of the European creators you've named there are British. Maybe it isn't wise to try and compare one country's traditions to an entire continent's?

I think Frank Wildhorn's shows were probably as equally well-received wherever they are in the world. I mean, he had three shows running at the same time on Broadway at one point. I don't think that American audiences are dumb so much as when they reached the twenty-first century, they didn't want to hear any more nineties' style pop ballads.

That doesn't really explain why his shows are so popular right now in Germany... I've successfully confused myself...


Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the German lyrics are of quality? The English lyrics are horrible for every show he's ever written. But the actors he cast in Germany and Austria are brilliant, and so are some of the lyrics. The music is still too popish for a musical, but the lyrics are not. He also tend to rewrite the books and fix their many flaws. I just saw a video of Dracula the other day in German, and it was better than many musicals I've seen, mostly because of the improved lyrics, book and some editing on the orchestration.
Dvarg

I didn't have the time to read that article until now. I'm amazed at the lack of history knowledge and insight.

Everyone KNOWS that the music has served the story in American musicals since Show Boat. How humble of Michael Kunze to admit it wasn't he who invented this Rolling Eyes

I am interested in hearing what he thinks of shows like Carousel, South Pacific, Dear World, Fiddler On The Roof, Cabaret, Chicago, The King And I, Gypsy, West Side Story, Company, Follies and Sweeney Todd, just to name a few.

Jeeze.
Mungojerrie_rt

It does seem mildly inaccurate to me to say "Broadway had Sondheim" as showing they were more sophisticated, since it seemed the Broadway audience in general didn't want them, since most were bordering on flops, and completely forgotten by the general public.

It seems to me as well, for all of the touting of Rogers and Hammerstein (European name Wink ), no one mentions Gilbert and Sullivan, whose work often seems much closer to more recent musicals that R&H.
shakalakababy

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
It does seem mildly inaccurate to me to say "Broadway had Sondheim" as showing they were more sophisticated, since it seemed the Broadway audience in general didn't want them, since most were bordering on flops, and completely forgotten by the general public.


Confused wait what?

company, sweeney todd, into the woods, Forum, ALNM, Sunday, Assassins? Flops? I don't think so. They all did quite well for themselves. And are revived and done by schools and community theaters.

really your point couldn't be further from the truth.
dolbinau

Well Flop=not returning investment. Many Sondheim shows are by definition 'flops'.

But my 'stronger claim' was that Broadway produces better shows than the West End, not that Broadway audiences were necessarily 'more sophisticated'.
Dvarg

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
It does seem mildly inaccurate to me to say "Broadway had Sondheim" as showing they were more sophisticated, since it seemed the Broadway audience in general didn't want them, since most were bordering on flops, and completely forgotten by the general public.


It seems mildly irrelevant to me wether Sondheim shows have been financial successes or not, as what we are discussing is the differences in the American and European tradition of musicals.

Based on this interview with Micheal Kunze, he seems to have a totally wrong understanding of the American tradition of musicals.
Mungojerrie_rt

Dvarg wrote:
Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
It does seem mildly inaccurate to me to say "Broadway had Sondheim" as showing they were more sophisticated, since it seemed the Broadway audience in general didn't want them, since most were bordering on flops, and completely forgotten by the general public.


It seems mildly irrelevant to me wether Sondheim shows have been financial successes or not, as what we are discussing is the differences in the American and European tradition of musicals.

Based on this interview with Micheal Kunze, he seems to have a totally wrong understanding of the American tradition of musicals.


Some are saying that Wildhorn's shows are successful in Germany, so that seems to make it count as European. By the same logic, Sondheim is not American, because he is not successful there.
Dvarg

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
Some are saying that Wildhorn's shows are successful in Germany, so that seems to make it count as European. By the same logic, Sondheim is not American, because he is not successful there.


What are you talking about, really?

If you refer to how Wildhorn was brought into this discussion, this was how:

Mistress wrote:
And, ironically, it seems that Frank Wildhorn, that bane of Broadway, has in fact been quite successful in Germany with his darker shows like Dracula.


Which again was a response to this:

Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote:
Europe traditionally favors darker stories, more intellectual and thought-provoking entertainment, and by comparison Broadway is. usually..well, less so inclined, to put it politely.


I interpret this to be an argument for how darker and thus more intellectual shows find better resonnance in Europe.

Which is gibberish, because dark does not equal intellectual - and Wildhorn shows are rubbish at any rate.
Beagle On Stage

I see a lot of down-looking on "fluff" happening in this thread as though it were a matter of course. Dark, thought-provoking, complex material is not in any way inherently superior to lighter material. There are both crappy and excellent examples of both serious and light shows. Examples of respectable "fluff" include Anything Goes, Kiss Me Kate, Once Upon a Mattress, and Annie Get Your Gun, to name just a few. A show's likelihood to change lives and shatter earth is not an indicator of its quality.
Dvarg

Beagle On Stage wrote:
Dark, thought-provoking, complex material is not in any way inherently superior to lighter material. There are both crappy and excellent examples of both serious and light shows.


True.
Mungojerrie_rt

I don't think Kunze was saying anything against either style of show. He just said their are general trends of difference, which I think there are.

Look at some of the 'traditional' shows of Broadway (although is is hard to define traditional): My Fair Lady, King and I etc. For all purposes, musical comedy, and simply 'lighter' music, for lack of a better word, while European shows have 'heavier' music.

One trend I have noticed is the scored through shows are mostly European. I personally like this style as it blends the singing and talking better than the stop-start method.
Mistress

Just to clear up one thing. I said it was IRONIC (or at leats a little funny) that Wildhorn has success in Europe. Maybe it is, as High-Baritone said, that the German productions are generally better done than the American one (the casts for Dracula have some of the Europe's bests actors, if have any knowledge on European stage actors, othherwise the names understndably mean nothing to you. But if you do have at leats some knowledge, you'd probbaly recognize at leats one or two names for the bajillion other shows they've done. Not that it means they're good, but that's the best I can say XD It's all up your opinion who's good and who isn't.) or it may just be that Germans/Europeans do indeed have bad taste in Musicals. I couldn't really say, as I've lived in Canada all my life.

I am very willing to excepting the middle ground here. Both have good musicals, and both have bad. Opinions will differ as what those may be, but opinions always will.

One thing I like to try, is to se which of the Mega-Musicals could function without the glitz-the Mega so to speak. I now this is probably also opinion, but I think shows like Elisabeth, Rebecca, even Evita could probably stand well on their own if you stripped them bare of the glitz. Hell, most of the high-tech spashy stuff in kuntze/Levay's shows are unnecessary at times (we don't NEED the pyro in Rebecca, but it sure as hell looks good. Same with the tilting flooor in Elisabeth in the Nightmare sequence. Unneeded, but it helps visualize the metaphors in the song-the sinking ship/sinking empire, etc.)

I show like POTO, however, relies on it's glitz, and wouldn't work otherwise. Cats even, might, if you have a clever, and probably twisted director (I actually really like the asylum setting someone came up with here a while back-I feel the Eliot's poems/the lyrics would really work well in this setting). I feel that if you can strip a show bare, and it will still work well, than it has some other substance besides the Mega, the glitz factor. If you don't NEED the Glitz, than it's at leats an okay show. Do I make sense?
Dvarg

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
Look at some of the 'traditional' shows of Broadway (although is is hard to define traditional): My Fair Lady, King and I etc. For all purposes, musical comedy, and simply 'lighter' music, for lack of a better word, while European shows have 'heavier' music.


Your posts make no sense.

My Fair Lady is an intellectual show about language, social stratification and gender differences. The King And I are about culture clashes, prejudice, mutual respect and death.

If these are "light" themes, what do you consider "heavier" themes?

---

Mistress wrote:
Just to clear up one thing. I said it was IRONIC (or at leats a little funny) that Wildhorn has success in Europe.


Ok... Maybe I misinterpreted you?

Mistress wrote:
Both have good musicals, and both have bad. Opinions will differ as what those may be, but opinions always will.


But what we are discussing here, isn't OUR opinions, it's the opinions expressed in the interview with Michael Kunze.

---

Mistress wrote:
I now this is probably also opinion, but I think [...] even Evita could probably stand well on their own if you stripped them bare of the glitz.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original production of Evita very bare?
Mistress

Yes, the themes are heavy, but the shows themselves are genrally light comic fodder. You don't see the seriousness coming through. It's coated in Broadway fun (I still enjoy both shows-the former more-and Am not criticising either, just trying clear things up). I think that's what Mungojerrie was trying to say, no?

We may be arguing Kuntze here, but got into a clash of opinions a while ago. I was just trying to keep myself from getting mad unnecesarily, because of radically different opinions. I can't get everyone to agree with me or anyone else, and I have to live with that. I can calm myself down and realize that my opinion is only one of many, I have to respect them all, even ones I don't like, and I have to work out a good middle ground to keep myself sane. ANyway, that's how I keep my brain from exploding XD
Dvarg

Mistress wrote:
Yes, the themes are heavy, but the shows themselves are genrally light comic fodder. You don't see the seriousness coming through.


I think that is just wrong.

But then again I've only seen the movies.
Mistress

Maybe. I did see both onstage and the MFL movie. To me, the serious matters felt very much in the back, behind the comedy and the music. Maybe it was the productions I saw? I don't know. I'm sorry I can't say anything definite, but all I have to go one is my opinion and conjecture. I saw both in my early days before I truly got into theatre, so maybe I just didn't pay enough attention.

I apologize about Evita. I don't really know much about it's original presentation. You could be right. I just listed it as a Webber show, definitely one of his best/better ones.

But yes, if it was bare to begin with, than that does show just how good it is/can be. Even Webber can churn out a decent show every once-in-awhile.
Dvarg

Mistress wrote:
To me, the serious matters felt very much in the back, behind the comedy and the music.


But the comedy and the music are parts of the serious themes. They aren't separate things. Comedy doesn't neccessarily mean not serious.
Beagle On Stage

Mistress wrote:
I show like POTO, however, relies on it's glitz, and wouldn't work otherwise.


I think I could stage the hell out of Phantom of the Opera, glitz-free. Just the very idea put a few awesome images in my mind.
Mistress

Cool! Care to share?

To Dvarg-that's plausible, but it's just not what I felt. I saw the Comedy first, the serious stuff later. But like I said, it was before I really got into theatre and actually starting paying any attention to it. What I saw was probably pretty superficial.
Dvarg

Mistress wrote:
But like I said, it was before I really got into theatre and actually starting paying any attention to it. What I saw was probably pretty superficial.


That's ok - one grows and gets more experienced, which makes one dicover new layers in art Wink

I just have a feeling Michael Kunze didn't.
Yakko

Beagle On Stage wrote:
Mistress wrote:
I show like POTO, however, relies on it's glitz, and wouldn't work otherwise.


I think I could stage the hell out of Phantom of the Opera, glitz-free. Just the very idea put a few awesome images in my mind.



How could it work that way Beagle......it'll look damn near impossible!
Pounce

Mistress wrote:
JI show like POTO, however, relies on it's glitz, and wouldn't work otherwise. Cats even, might, if you have a clever, and probably twisted director (I actually really like the asylum setting someone came up with here a while back-I feel the Eliot's poems/the lyrics would really work well in this setting). I feel that if you can strip a show bare, and it will still work well, than it has some other substance besides the Mega, the glitz factor. If you don't NEED the Glitz, than it's at leats an okay show. Do I make sense?

Oh wow. Interesting idea for CATS. I recall Dvarg asking if CATS could survive the "stripped down" test. I think a stripped down CATS set in an insane asylum with the cast believing they were cats would work.
Beagle On Stage

No, people, it would be hella. I see a black box dressed with veneers and red velour curtains to look like a corner of the proscenium at the opera. Modern light for most scenes, but live flame stage lighting for the scenes in performance, as would have been used at the time. God, it would be great.
Yakko

Beagle On Stage wrote:
No, people, it would be hella. I see a black box dressed with veneers and red velour curtains to look like a corner of the proscenium at the opera. Modern light for most scenes, but live flame stage lighting for the scenes in performance, as would have been used at the time. God, it would be great.




Well your idea sound better then what they did for the Poland production.....they had a copy of the crappy movie version..........spew............
Mungojerrie_rt

Mistress wrote:
Yes, the themes are heavy, but the shows themselves are genrally light comic fodder. You don't see the seriousness coming through. It's coated in Broadway fun (I still enjoy both shows-the former more-and Am not criticising either, just trying clear things up). I think that's what Mungojerrie was trying to say, no?


Exactly. At least the movies of the two are light entertainment. My Fair Lady is even listed as comedy in the TV guide. Whereas the European shows are lighter on the comedy, more on the dark themes. They contain the same themes, just with different emphasis.

As for scaled down, I think POTO (and Wicked) would be better scaled down. (And total re-direction. Especially in Wicked there are so many decent character moments in the lyrics that are thrown away.)

Tanz could be done with a chorus of five in addition to the main characters, and three small sets (tables for the inn, beds and door frames for the bedrooms, bottom of a staircase and some candelabras for the castle, with a blank stage for outside). The only real difference is that Krolock, Sarah and Alfred would have to be dancers as well.
Beagle On Stage

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
As for scaled down, I think POTO (and Wicked) would be better scaled down. (And total re-direction. Especially in Wicked there are so many decent character moments in the lyrics that are thrown away.)


A production of Wicked under my authoritah would be kickass. Defying Gravity as staged by me would be much more exhilerating, despite Elphaba never being seen physically airborne.

I was trained by old school theatre people whose glory days pre-dated mega musicals, and as a result I learned to be creative and use the stage and its conventions conservatively and economically. Anyone can design a production with fireworks and set pieces that function like Transformers, but it takes an artist to stage something a little less superficial. A single look staged well can outdo a hundred flashing lights.
Mungojerrie_rt

Although I think that lighting is very important. It is the basic special effect and mood enhancer.
Beagle On Stage

Well sure lighting is important. I was just using "flashing lights" as a symbol for spectacle. Sorry if that was unclear.
Mungojerrie_rt

No, I was just saying.

Although I suddenly have this image of the Phantom's lair under a blacklight. Just his mask and Christine's nightie glowing out in the gloom. Laughing
Quique

Mama Rose wrote:
It wasn't just Andrew Lloyd Webber... after him it was Schonberg, whose work built even further upon the European pop trash influence on Broadway. And then in rolled the other bad European musicals...




Nah. Les Miserables isn't Euro trash. I don't care what anyone says. It's one thing to not be totally enamored with the show. It's another to lump it together with so-called trash just because it happens to come from Europe. Les Miserables has been a critical, financial, as well as popular success even in its bare-bones concert form. If Euro trash relies on visual spectacle, then the overwhelming success of the concerts and the proliferation of scaled-down community productions have proven its staying power is clearly rooted in the material itself and is not driven by mindless visual excesses.

So far what I'm getting from this thread is A.) A musical is better if it's 'dark' and serious. B.) Musicals must be thought provoking or they are trash; If you're not reaching into the bowels of your mind, analyzing, and scrutinizing a show's material, then you're being short-changed. D.) ALW has successfully entertained millions of people with his musicals...and that's a bad, bad thing. E.) The American musical is light comedy fluff because T.V. Guide says so.

Phooey.
Beagle On Stage

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
Although I suddenly have this image of the Phantom's lair under a blacklight. Just his mask and Christine's nightie glowing out in the gloom. Laughing


See, wouldn't that be hardcore?

Although I would choose to have Christine wearing a white culotte and camisole ensemble instead of the traditional nightie. Just to be a little sexier. Cool
Yakko

Quique wrote:
Mama Rose wrote:
It wasn't just Andrew Lloyd Webber... after him it was Schonberg, whose work built even further upon the European pop trash influence on Broadway. And then in rolled the other bad European musicals...




Nah. Les Miserables isn't Euro trash. I don't care what anyone says. It's one thing to not be totally enamored with the show. It's another to lump it together with so-called trash just because it happens to come from Europe. Les Miserables has been a critical, financial, as well as popular success even in its bare-bones concert form. If Euro trash relies on visual spectacle, then the overwhelming success of the concerts and the proliferation of scaled-down community productions have proven its staying power is clearly rooted in the material itself and is not driven by mindless visual excesses.

So far what I'm getting from this thread is A.) A musical is better if it's 'dark' and serious. B.) Musicals must be thought provoking or they are trash; If you're not reaching into the bowels of your mind, analyzing, and scrutinizing a show's material, then you're being short-changed. D.) ALW has successfully entertained millions of people with his musicals...and that's a bad, bad thing. E.) The American musical is light comedy fluff because T.V. Guide says so.

Phooey.




I actually laughed at this! Applause Bravo you rock!
Mungojerrie_rt

Beagle On Stage wrote:
Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
Although I suddenly have this image of the Phantom's lair under a blacklight. Just his mask and Christine's nightie glowing out in the gloom. Laughing


See, wouldn't that be hardcore?

Although I would choose to have Christine wearing a white culotte and camisole ensemble instead of the traditional nightie. Just to be a little sexier. Cool


A nightie is more realistic though. Anna Marina spent the entire time bursting out the top of her Think of Me corset under the nightie anyway.

I'm thinking about the Chandelier. The story requires it to drop, but the full thing would be out of place. If it is a small theatre, not even seeing the chandelier might work. The drop could be a flash and blackout or something with some screaming.
mezzo_soprano

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
Beagle On Stage wrote:
Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
Although I suddenly have this image of the Phantom's lair under a blacklight. Just his mask and Christine's nightie glowing out in the gloom. Laughing


See, wouldn't that be hardcore?

Although I would choose to have Christine wearing a white culotte and camisole ensemble instead of the traditional nightie. Just to be a little sexier. Cool


A nightie is more realistic though. Anna Marina spent the entire time bursting out the top of her Think of Me corset under the nightie anyway.

I'm thinking about the Chandelier. The story requires it to drop, but the full thing would be out of place. If it is a small theatre, not even seeing the chandelier might work. The drop could be a flash and blackout or something with some screaming.


I really like that idea!
Dvarg

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
At least the movies of [My Fair Lady and The King And I] are light entertainment. My Fair Lady is even listed as comedy in the TV guide.


Well, as I said:

Dvarg wrote:
But the comedy and the music are parts of the serious themes. They aren't separate things. Comedy doesn't neccessarily mean not serious.


Quique wrote:
So far what I'm getting from this thread is [...] E.) The American musical is light comedy fluff because T.V. Guide says so.[/color]


Mr. Green
Mungojerrie_rt

Dvarg wrote:
Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
At least the movies of [My Fair Lady and The King And I] are light entertainment. My Fair Lady is even listed as comedy in the TV guide.


Well, as I said:

Dvarg wrote:
But the comedy and the music are parts of the serious themes. They aren't separate things. Comedy doesn't neccessarily mean not serious.


Quique wrote:
So far what I'm getting from this thread is [...] E.) The American musical is light comedy fluff because T.V. Guide says so.[/color]


Mr. Green


As I said; The themes are the same, delivered in a different style. The TV guide comment was sarcasm.
Dvarg

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
As I said; The themes are the same, delivered in a different style. The TV guide comment was sarcasm.


We agree, then, that this Michael Kunze is a dork?
Mungojerrie_rt

Dvarg wrote:
Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
As I said; The themes are the same, delivered in a different style. The TV guide comment was sarcasm.


We agree, then, that this Michael Kunze is a dork?


No, I think he's right, there is a general difference in styles. There are always exceptions to anything though.
Dvarg

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
No, I think he's right, there is a general difference in styles.


Can you please take a look at what the man is saying about the European musical versus the Broadway tradition?

Michael Kunze wrote:
The music is a very important element, but the most important element of the drama is the story, so the music really serves the story, and the music doesn't really have a right in its own beside the story, like a number that is just made for the music and the dance [as opposed to the Broadway musical].


It’s a fact that this was developed by Hammerstein with the writing of Show Boat and perfected in Oklahoma!. All subsequent good musicals in the Rodgers/Hammerstein tradition follow this principle. This includes the likes of South Pacific, Annie Get Your Gun, Kiss Me Kate, My Fair Lady, Camelot, Fiddler On The Roof, Cabaret, A Chorus Line as well as all Sondheim musicals.

Michael Kunze’s suggestion that his principle is different from the Broadway one is wrong.

And these examples aren't exceptions to the rule, fyi. These are the best and most representatiove examples of the Broadway tradition.

Michael Kunze wrote:
I just want to distinguish where theatre is more theatrical than in a classical Broadway musical which is based on […] spectacular things happening, and this is not what I look for. I believe in drama as the key entertainment in theatre, and I think I'm not the only one who does.


The Broadway musicals like Carousel, the King And I, Allegro, My Fair Lady, Fiorello, Porgy And Bess, A Chorus Line, Cabaret, Company, A Little Night Music, Pacific Overtures, Falsettos and Passion based on spectacular things happening and NOT drama?

Again, Michael Kunze, you have obviously no idea what you are talking about.

Michael Kunze wrote:
I think that also our audiences in Europe, and I really include here in England, are more interested in going to theatre and have a real theatrical experience, a real emotional experience at last, not just an entertaining evening, but something they can discuss after the show [as opposed to the Broadway audience].


Oh, really? Carousel, Cabaret and Assassins give you nothing to talk about and no real emotional experience, but Miss Saigon, Martin Guerre and The Woman In White do?

Give me a break. This is just insulting.
Disney-Bway27

Uhh...what Dvarg said.
RainbowJude

Re: European Musicals vs. Broadway Musicals

Katie-chan wrote:
I always knew there was a big difference between Broadway and European musicals, but I haven't really been able to put it into words - thanks, Michael Kunze, for doing it for me!

This is a pretty long thread, but I'm starting at the top and working my way through. Reading through this article leaves me completely unsure as to whether Michael Kunze is speaking from a position of ignorance or self-importance. He doesn't seem to be aware of the complete context of the musical theatre tradition by any means, his argument is contradictory and his choice of examples to justify his points is simply inadequate. In fact, his arguments and examples seem to offer a viewpoint that is almost the complete opposite of what he is saying about "dramamusicals" when taking into account the parts of musical theatre history he seems to conveniently exclude in his responses. I've worked through each of his points on my blog, so I'm not going to reproduce that all here although I certainly might use some of it later in response to other comments on this article.

Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote:
In other words, Europe traditionally favors darker stories, more intellectual and thought-provoking entertainment, and by comparison Broadway is... less so inclined... This is not to say that either haven't ever gone the total opposite direction, but basically yeah, that's how it rolls.

That's not "how it rolls" at all, not unless you're going to exclude every serious American musical from Show Boat onwards. Certainly, the idea of musical comedy from which Kunze seeks to move away is almost synonymous with the definition of musical theatre until the 1940s. At that time, American musicals - with a few notable exceptions - prized entertainment over enlightenment. But with Oklahoma! popularizing the ideals of what we refer to most commonly as the musical play, a form of American musical theatre in which music was most certainly in the service of the drama was born and became the dominant form within the genre for the next quarter of a century. The same goes for the various forms of what we refer to as the concept musical, in which the music is related most clearly to the ideas that are being communicated in the show from the very moment of its inception. Furthermore, even if we look at musical comedies that have appeared after the Rodgers and Hammerstein revolution, most are far more integrated than their counterparts in the 1920s and 1930s. So there are most certainly numerous examples of 'darker stories' (Marie Christine, Carousel, Sweeney Todd) and musicals that are 'intellectual and thought-provoking' (Assassins, Follies, South Pacific), and these are not the exceptions to the rule. To rule these shows out as a vital and central part of American musical theatre either reflects a blatant or willful ignorance on the part of the part of the person who's putting forward an argument regarding musicals, in this case Michael Kunze and what he refers to as his "dramamusicals".

Later days
David
Mistress

I read on your blog that you're taking a look at some of his shows. I don't know if it was serious, but regardless, I just wanted to wish you luck and I truly hope you like them, especially Elisbaeth as it's a favourite my mine. I'm not sure if any of them will be to your taste, but's it good to know that you'll give them a try Very Happy

If you're intrested, there are a bunch of threads for his shows in the Other Show section. If you have any questions, asks us, we'll probably know the answer like good little nerds XD
Dvarg

Mistress wrote:
If you have any questions, asks us, we'll probably know the answer like good little nerds XD


I have never heard any musicals of Michael Kunze's. What do you fans of his think of this interview?
Mistress

Personally, I originally liked it well enough, but you bring up very good points. I'd hate to think Kuntze's is being a pompous ass though. I think he's just maybe generalizing too much, a mistake evreyone makes once in a while.

However, if you see any of his works, they are very drama heavy as opposed to a lot of Broadway works that deal in serious topics but do so in a lighter manner, a la King and I or Oklahoma. They have their seriousness, but there's still lots of fun singing and dancing so to speak. Not so if you look at the likes of Elisabeth or Rebecca (mostly-Rebecca does have "I'm an American Woman" which is lighter fodder in another wise very dramatic show). It's almost all drama and angst or very dark humour. Not that I think one is better than the other, or that one is exclusive to one area and the other exclusive to another. Broadway has plenty of drama and angst, just as Europe has plenty of fun and fluff (I mean good fluff).

I think if Kuntze had written King and I, for example, it would have been a lot more serious, darker even, like the the Foster/Fat Anna and the King film, if you've seen it. I think maybe that was what he was trying to say, although he didn't say it well, I guess.

Do I make sense?
Mademoiselle Lanoire

Dvarg wrote:
Mistress wrote:
If you have any questions, asks us, we'll probably know the answer like good little nerds XD


I have never heard any musicals of Michael Kunze's. What do you fans of his think of this interview?


I often don't care about the creators of a piece so much as the work itself, so this doesn't really affect my enjoyment or interest, such as it is, in his shows.
Mungojerrie_rt

Mistress wrote:
Personally, I originally liked it well enough, but you bring up very good points. I'd hate to think Kuntze's is being a pompous ass though. I think he's just maybe generalizing too much, a mistake evreyone makes once in a while.


He's being treated too harshly. He was trying to form an answer after being put on the spot by a reporter. He didn't have time to think and discuss properly.
Quique

Meh. People usually fumble their words, bastardize the language, or display a host of speech impediments when they're put "on the spot."

I doubt voicing a long winded pseudo analysis on something directly related to your profession qualifies as such.
Dvarg

Why did this thread die?

After having read David's/RainbowJude's brilliant analysis of Elisabeth in the Other Shows sections, I have even less confidence in Kunze having any idea what he is talking about.
Mademoiselle Lanoire

It died, I think, because people didn't feel they had any more to add. I don't know what's left to say that wasn't said already.
Mungojerrie_rt

RainbowJude said:
Quote:
Also, to consider this point in the wider context of the article, isn’t putting “a smart lyric in the mouth of a stick figure” precisely what lyricists like Hart, Gershwin and Porter did in many of their shows, musical comedies which were much slighter dramatically – much great “theatrical nothings” as Lahr might put it – than almost any of the concept musicals named in the little definitions list above.


Is this not exactly what Michael Kunze said?
RainbowJude

RainbowJude wrote:
Also, to consider this point in the wider context of the article, isn’t putting “a smart lyric in the mouth of a stick figure” precisely what lyricists like Hart, Gershwin and Porter did in many of their shows, musical comedies which were much slighter dramatically – much great “theatrical nothings” as Lahr might put it – than almost any of the concept musicals named in the little definitions list above.

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
Is this not exactly what Michael Kunze said?

Well, if you're going to take my words from other threads or other posts on my blog post them out of context, thereby essentially misrepresenting what I've said in the process, you could make it seem that way.



So - to provide an answer to your question - no, this is not at all what Michael Kunze is saying, because he is not distinguishing in any way between the musical comedies of the 1920s and 1930s and any other kind of musical that has appeared since. His argument is based on his assumption that all musicals are like the slight musical comedies prior to the appearance of Oklahoma! - let's not even mention Show Boat, which happened in the midst of the heyday of that particular form of musical theatre - and he is very clearly mistaken in this regard.

Later days
David
Mungojerrie_rt

But isn't it those very writers who have been cited in this thread as writing the dramas, but in that post you referred to them as writing the comedies, which is what Kunze said; Broadway tradition is based on musical-comedy, while Europe's is based on Opera.
RainbowJude

Musical Theatre 101

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
But isn't it those very writers who have been cited in this thread as writing the dramas, but in that post you referred to them as writing the comedies, which is what Kunze said; Broadway tradition is based on musical-comedy, while Europe's is based on Opera.

No, nobody has mentioned any of these writers in this thread at all! There is also a difference between musical comedy when it is used interchangeably with the term musical theater (as opposed to opera or other kinds of music theatre) and when it is used to talk about a specific form of musical theatre (as opposed to the musical play or the concept musical and so on). Kunze is clearly using the term in the former context to refer to the tradition of the Broadway musical as a whole.

Later days
David
Mungojerrie_rt

Re: Musical Theatre 101

RainbowJude wrote:
Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
But isn't it those very writers who have been cited in this thread as writing the dramas, but in that post you referred to them as writing the comedies, which is what Kunze said; Broadway tradition is based on musical-comedy, while Europe's is based on Opera.

No, nobody has mentioned any of these writers in this thread at all! There is also a difference between musical comedy when it is used interchangeably with the term musical theater (as opposed to opera or other kinds of music theatre) and when it is used to talk about a specific form of musical theatre (as opposed to the musical play or the concept musical and so on). Kunze is clearly using the term in the former context to refer to the tradition of the Broadway musical as a whole.

Later days
David


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Musical comedy does not refer to Musical comedy?

Looking at the shows that have been mentioned in the thread, there does appear to be a trend that, while the basic premise and themes are the same, the Broadway musicals on the whole lean more to comedy than the European ones.
Mistress

That makes sense. Like I said before. A show on Broadway would probably be completely different in Europe, if artisitc license were allowed. Look what happened to Tanz. If, say, Wicked wasn't a Broadway replica production in Germnay, and, Kuntz/Levay or someone else wrote it in the way they liked, you can be sure that it woukd be alot more dramatic, less comedic, maybe even closer to Maguire's Novel. I believe I said something similar about King and I a couple pages back...
Dvarg

Mademoiselle Lanoire wrote:
It died, I think, because people didn't feel they had any more to add. I don't know what's left to say that wasn't said already.


Too bad. This has been one of the uttermost fascinating debates og late.

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
Looking at the shows that have been mentioned in the thread, there does appear to be a trend that, while the basic premise and themes are the same, the Broadway musicals on the whole lean more to comedy than the European ones.


Mungojerrie, it is very difficult to follow your train of thoughts.

In the interview Michael Kunze claims that he's comparing the "serious" European musical to the "light" Broadway musical.

When reading what he says, it becomes apparent that what he actually does, is comparing what is generally known as the integrated musical to the Broadway musicals of the era prior to Show Boat and Oklahoma!.

His entire analysis is thus based on a completely false premise, and makes no sense.
Mungojerrie_rt

Dvarg wrote:

Mungojerrie, it is very difficult to follow your train of thoughts.

Possibly because I am making this up as a go along...

The only true way to judge would be to find a way to quantitatively judge the comedy level of every musical, then average from Broadway and Europe. This cannot be done.
Dvarg

Mungojerrie_rt wrote:
The only true way to judge would be to find a way to quantitatively judge the comedy level of every musical, then average from Broadway and Europe. This cannot be done.


But it's not the amount of comedy in European musicals vs American musicals Kunze ultimately talks about. It's the degree of "integratedness", which he explains by the comedy roots vs opera roots.

The error he makes, is failing to distinghuish between the Broadway musical as it was beforwe and after the development of the integrated musical.

The reason it's difficult following your thoughts, is that they don't logically follow what's already established.
       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club
Page 1 of 1