Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net
 


       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club
Hanniel!

The death of Broadway?

So, over the last couple of years I've found myself thinking about this, and I just wanted to hear some other opinions. I constantly find myself asking, where is musical theatre headed? Where is Broadway headed? There are several types of shows which just keep popping up, and I wonder how long it will go on... The pop musical - not necessarily "pop music," but the show has a score that appeals to the general public, i.e. Wicked, Hairspray, etc. They're wonderful shows, but soon after they premiere every freshman girl in the chorus department says it's her new "favorite show, cause it's OMGZZ so amazingg." Then there are the angsty teen musicals... I almost blame Rent. It's such a wonderful show, but then came Spring Awakening, and bare keeps getting bigger... I honestly love the music, but you can only watch a show like that so many times. I just hope they stop and let those become defining shows, rather than the model for future ones. Then there's the Disney shows... Lion King is absolutley phenomenal, which I'm sure encouraged them to do the Little Mermaid, and Mary Poppins... And we all know how many movies are out there; which one will they dust off next to make a profit?

And now we have HSM and Shrek coming to Broadway?

Most of these shows have an excellent score and, yes, are entertaining. But it all just seems so washed up, just recylced material being used to make a quick buck. I'm headed to school this fall for musical theatre, and it really depresses me to think about what shows will actually be out there when I'm ready to work. I hate being so young, because I feel I really did miss that "golden age" for musical theatre.

I'd like to hear from some older and more experienced people, as well as younger people like myself. Do you remember the good times? Or are you depressed about what's to come? Is anyone optimistic about the future? ...because I would love to hear your thoughts.

And if anyone would like to talk about some ground-breaking modern musicals from the last several years, or ones that are coming out now, PLEASE feel free.

Sorry to be a negative Nancy, I'm just curious to hear what everyone has to say. Confused
Salome

Broadway hits lulls every decade or so..the real saviors of broadway musical theatre are the intellectual well written shows that also entertain ..works as varied as Grey Gardens,Dirty Rotten Scoundrels,Parade and anything Sondheim has written.

fads like Spring Awakening or Hairspray come and go..but well written mature shows make the world go 'round.
ConverseSneaker

Really, we will never return to zenith of Bway during the twenties before Hollywood took over.

Will Broadway die? Of course not. Will it change dramatically? Of course. But hasn't it changed since the Greeks and Shakespeare? Since the Jazz Age and The Follies? Broadway and theatre will always be adapting and changing.
jesuiscommejesuis

Get the eff over it. I am so sick of people ranting about how Broadway is dying. When the hell has Broadway ever been alive? Do you think Porter musicals are any more Broadway than Wicked? Why? Because you can tell that it was written nearly a century ago? Because the music is catchy but the plot sucks ass?

I just dont get it. There are stylistic differences that are obvious, but what makes one musical more BROADWAY than another musical?
Salome

Porter wrote masterpieces..schwartz write crap.

compare "everytime we say Goodbye" to "for Good" and you'll see.
ConverseSneaker

Maybe because back then people saw the shows and listened to the songs the way people watch movies and listen to cds today.
lesmisloony

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Get the eff over it. I am so sick of people ranting about how Broadway is dying. When the hell has Broadway ever been alive? Do you think Porter musicals are any more Broadway than Wicked? Why? Because you can tell that it was written nearly a century ago? Because the music is catchy but the plot sucks ass?

I just dont get it. There are stylistic differences that are obvious, but what makes one musical more BROADWAY than another musical?


Applause Applause Applause
jesuiscommejesuis

ConverseSneaker wrote:
Maybe because back then people saw the shows and listened to the songs the way people watch movies and listen to cds today.


This is true, too. Back in the thirties, people listened to music similar to the style that Broadway composers wrote in, similar (often times) to today.


I'm just sick of people bitching about it. Like, what the fxck ever. If you don't like contemporary musical theatre then you don't like contemporary musical theatre. That doesn't make it not musical theatre or not Broadway.

GTFOI.
Matthew

Los Angeles.

There's a future.
DontDoSadnessxx

Maybe because the only thing that matters in this world is money. It doesn't matter about what show is good anymore. It's about what will sell. And if that means the teenyboppers in freshman year obsessing with wicked, so be it. If it means disney will come up with something that will make five year olds (and the occasional sixteen year old *guilty*) smile then fine. Complaining about it and feuding about Porter vs. Schwartz won't change it.

Sorry Im bitter tonight.
ActingDude17

These so called "pop" musicals (which I'm not saying they aren't), in my opinion, are introducing many to not only the joy of musical theatre, but also theatre in general.

Have they done any serious harm yet (besides the fangirls)? No.

Will they in the future? I don't think so. They aren't stopping brilliant composers from making brilliant musicals. Has Spring Awakening stopped brilliant recent works from being written? No.

There will ALWAYS be "pop/fad" musicals, get over it! Realize they won't stop good shows from being written.

To sum it all up, pop musicals aren't hurting anyone (nor their movie counterparts).
Matthew

lol 2 this thread already
The Very Angry Woman

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Get the eff over it. I am so sick of people ranting about how Broadway is dying. When the hell has Broadway ever been alive? Do you think Porter musicals are any more Broadway than Wicked? Why? Because you can tell that it was written nearly a century ago? Because the music is catchy but the plot sucks ass?

I just dont get it. There are stylistic differences that are obvious, but what makes one musical more BROADWAY than another musical?


You rule.
jcstar

Salome wrote:
Porter wrote masterpieces..schwartz write crap.

compare "everytime we say Goodbye" to "for Good" and you'll see.


GODSPELL is Schwartz's masterpiece.

Andy.
jcstar

Don't forget... people were throwing hissy-fits when HAIR, GODSPELL, EVITA and JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR opened on Broadway. People weren't thrilled with electric guitars in musical-theatre or the subject matter of these shows.

I never cease to wonder why they would be so upset about these shows and not go and see them? It's illogical.

Then, people complained about the ALW takeover of Broadway. CATS, PHANTOM, STARLIGHT, ASPECTS. For that matter, how many shows did he have on the West End at any given time?

Then, the era of the so-called mega-musical happened.

People will always have something to complain about. But really, it all comes down to what sells and what material is popular.

Andy.
Salome

jcstar wrote:
Salome wrote:
Porter wrote masterpieces..schwartz write crap.

compare "everytime we say Goodbye" to "for Good" and you'll see.


GODSPELL is Schwartz's masterpiece.

Andy.


No Godspell pretty much sucks. th eonly good show Schwartz wrote was Pippin.
Salome

jcstar wrote:
Don't forget... people were throwing hissy-fits when HAIR, GODSPELL, EVITA and JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR opened on Broadway. People weren't thrilled with electric guitars in musical-theatre or the subject matter of these shows.

I never cease to wonder why they would be so upset about these shows and not go and see them? It's illogical.

Then, people complained about the ALW takeover of Broadway. CATS, PHANTOM, STARLIGHT, ASPECTS. For that matter, how many shows did he have on the West End at any given time?

Then, the era of the so-called mega-musical happened.

People will always have something to complain about. But really, it all comes down to what sells and what material is popular.

Andy.


Popular doesnt equal Good. apart from Aspects of love..all theWebber shows you mentioned in the 2nd paragraph are examples of the worst broadway has to offer. mindless droning entertainment with no substance.
MusicalGal1194

I now interrupt this little bit of dialouge to bring you my personal opinion on the initial question:

I think that if things like HSM are coming to Broadway (and I'll admit it here and now, I do like HSM, don't shoot me.) then we should let it come. Now, a Shrek musical, that seems insane to me. Cartoon movies should not become musicals, in my opinion, much less on Broadway. But we should let things come, cause everything happens for a reason. Who knows? We could be pleasantly surprised! Besides, even if Broadway does go to crap in the next few years, there will always be a time where a breakout musical comes (Hairspray, Wicked, Beauty and the Beast, etc. I realize some people have issues with Wicked and all but you have to admit it's a huge draw and if it brings people to the theater to enjoy the arts I don't see how I can object.) comes and dominates Broadway. There will always be quality musical theater on Broadway, at least we can hope. Stay positive, guys. Although, still, a Shrek musical? Shoot me now. Laughing
Roger's Chica

^ *shrug* Shrek's not the first. There's a Superman musical.

Not every musical breaks ground and gets remembered. Sometimes they just happen.

Anyway, people need to get over it. People have ALWAYS been saying that Broadway is dying, just like at every single high school people assume the drama department is going to fold/get so much worse when the current seniors graduate. Whatever.
jcstar

Salome wrote:
jcstar wrote:
Don't forget... people were throwing hissy-fits when HAIR, GODSPELL, EVITA and JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR opened on Broadway. People weren't thrilled with electric guitars in musical-theatre or the subject matter of these shows.

I never cease to wonder why they would be so upset about these shows and not go and see them? It's illogical.

Then, people complained about the ALW takeover of Broadway. CATS, PHANTOM, STARLIGHT, ASPECTS. For that matter, how many shows did he have on the West End at any given time?

Then, the era of the so-called mega-musical happened.

People will always have something to complain about. But really, it all comes down to what sells and what material is popular.

Andy.


Popular doesnt equal Good. apart from Aspects of love..all theWebber shows you mentioned in the 2nd paragraph are examples of the worst broadway has to offer. mindless droning entertainment with no substance.


You sound like one of those people throwing hissy-fits.

Andy.
home

i wonder if you guys can just be a bit more dramatic Question
MusicalGal1194

In my mind, it's a bit like: Yes, we should worry slightly about the future of Broadway shows. But aren't we doing our part to invest in the good future of Broadway by being performers and doing what we do well; striving to make our mark on Broadway some day? If we, as performers and theater fanatics alike, keep our standards high, then we should never have to worry about the future of Broadway. The future of Broadway is us afterall, isn't it? Wink
Pannic

I'll admit Broadway is dead when the next revival of The Music Man casts G-Unit as the traveling salesmen at the beginning...
Monsieur D'Arque

Salome wrote:
jcstar wrote:
Salome wrote:
Porter wrote masterpieces..schwartz write crap.

compare "everytime we say Goodbye" to "for Good" and you'll see.


GODSPELL is Schwartz's masterpiece.

Andy.


No Godspell pretty much sucks. th eonly good show Schwartz wrote was Pippin.


I'm gonna say his masterpiece was Glockner, but that's just me. And he was working with the king of pop-Broadway there, Alan Menken.
Salome

Adams and Strouse's "Superman" is a really fun show. if you havent heard it you should.
Matthew

There are many good audition songs from that show.
What Is This Feeling?

Broadway wont ever go away, until our country falls. Or the world takes a horrible turn for the worst. It is The Great White Way. It is so magial and beautiful. Every aspect of Broadway is art. Even if it is mindless entertainment.It is expressive. Some shows educate, some shows just entertain. The shows that do both are the masterpieces. (IMPO) I wont ever give up on Broadway musicals or musica ltheatre. Times and styles change. Better or for worse is in your opinion. I just love the concept of entertaining people and educating them through a book and song. It is beautiful. I can't give up on tha art form I hold so dear to my heart.
Hanniel!

MusicalGal1194 wrote:
In my mind, it's a bit like: Yes, we should worry slightly about the future of Broadway shows. But aren't we doing our part to invest in the good future of Broadway by being performers and doing what we do well; striving to make our mark on Broadway some day? If we, as performers and theater fanatics alike, keep our standards high, then we should never have to worry about the future of Broadway. The future of Broadway is us afterall, isn't it? Wink


This made me Smile.
DaddyDiesel

If the musical theatre industry didnt try new things and go with fads Broadway would be dead. So people who complain broadway wasn't what isn't what it use to be are right. It has never been the same. Who ever posted the differant trends broadway went through is exactly correct.

If broadway didnt follow trends and fads broadway would of died already. The reason Broadway is still very alive today is because artists and writers continue to experiment and make differant kinds of shows. Oh whoever said broadway is only about making money now. Your right and wrong. Youneed to make money to survive on braodway. It has always been like that. Even in the twentys. The thing about the twentys was, besides radio, people had to go see theatre to see live entertainment. It was easier.

I could start a whole new argument on my issue with people telling other people that the musical they love is a piece of shit, is completely idiotic. But frankly I dont give a sh*t anymore. I like what I like sue me!
Maniacbob

The question isnt whether or not its dying, its where is it heading? Something like Broadway doesnt just die, its the same with Hollywood. Things like that dont die. They may spin farther and farther down the hole to oblivion tossing out pure garbage to try and clean back out but in the end keep digging themselves further until everyone ignores it and something new replaces it but it doesnt die.
The question is where is it going? And that is something we may or may not have to worry about. Like all things Broadway has to set and follow trends otherwise no one will pay attention to it. Broadway musicals thrive on audiences, without audiences there are no shows and without shows theres no Broadway, so it has to adapt to bring new audiences. We've seen the first attempts at targeting new audiences and some have failed miserably and some have achieved some success and while these appear mostly to be temporary successes eventually they may land a true hit. But we will always have playwrights and composers creating musicals in a more traditional sense and format and music style.
And the questions then becomes where do we want Broadway to go, and with that in mind we have to decide what each of us supports. Whatever succeeds on Broadway is what will be created, because thats what audiences will want.
Sweeney Hyde

home wrote:
i wonder if you guys can just be a bit more dramatic Question
You were obviously not here last summer.
Pounce

We have to remember that what drives Broadway in the past 30 years or so is the tourists. Air travel wasn't as common or cheap as it is today. So the flow of tourists can keep shows running much longer than they used to run. And shows are still not cheap so the 'pop' shows are what the tourists are willing to spend their money on. But this is not a bad thing as it keeps actors, musicians, and everyone else connected with theater employed and able to make a living at it. Such an environment can allow a theater niche with experimental and "quality" theater having to be supported by the New York theater snobs.

As for the future, near term, theater seems to be seeking films to be recast as shows that the tourists will recognize and feel comfortable seeing. Hairspray wasn't a well-known film but selling the idea of a 1960s show to people who may have been kids then should be easy. Audiences not as old can be sold on the 'retro-thing'. Broadway also uses familiar TV and film stars like John Lithgow to bring people in.

Right now in the US we are in an economic slow down so that may hurt tourism and consequently Broadway. Unless of course the weak dollar might bring in more foreign tourists and that can prop Broadway back up again.

Longer term, I think Broadway is influenced by the older generation so getting rock on Broadway initially lagged the cultural trend. I think the same was true of Disco. Likewise rap and hip-hop in general seems to be outside Broadway but as the younger generation gains affluence, it will probably find its way on stage. But I'm of the opinion of (I think it was) Stephen Schwartz who said that personally I like music with a melody. If rap and hip-hop dominate Broadway, it will push me out of the theater. Then I'll be waiting to see those revivals of such quaint old shows like Les Miz. Razz
Salome

a) John Lithgow was always a theatre star first and a film and t.v. star 2nd. His roots are in theatre and he never went more than 4 years without doing a show.


b) Hairspray was an enormously famous film before it became a musical.
Monsieur D'Arque

Ironic that Schwartz would say that- the upcoming revival of his Pippin will include a modern influenced sound with aspects of hip-hop.

Though, on Broadway, that's probably not so much "mainstream" hip-hop as the "Legally Blonde/High School Musical" sound.
Pounce

Salome wrote:
a) John Lithgow was always a theatre star first and a film and t.v. star 2nd. His roots are in theatre and he never went more than 4 years without doing a show.

Yes, but now he has a "name and face" that people across the country know which is very useful when marketing a show. Sutton Foster for instance isn't a recognized name to most Americans not savvy about theater.


Quote:
b) Hairspray was an enormously famous film before it became a musical.

No, it did poor box office grossing only $8 million in 1988 but luckily, it was a cheap film to make so it made a profit. It had a sort of cult following in video afterward.
Salome

Merman was a stage star...she didnt need film to get recognition.

Lithgow would be cast on Braodway regardless if he did t.v. or film or not.

you still are so ignorant of the businiess its either frightening or sad.


hairspray was the BIG film everyone was seeing when I was 15 years old. you werent even walking.
Mademoiselle Lanoire

Salome wrote:
hairspray was the BIG film everyone was seeing when I was 15 years old. you werent even walking.


Quote:
Hairspray was only a moderate success upon its initial theatrical release, receiving a modest gross of $8 million.
(Wikipedia)
broadwaybirdie

Pannic wrote:
I'll admit Broadway is dead when the next revival of The Music Man casts G-Unit as the traveling salesmen at the beginning...


Hahahahah, my thoughts exactly.
Salome

[quote="Mademoiselle Lanoire"]
Salome wrote:
hairspray was the BIG film everyone was seeing when I was 15 years old. you werent even walking.


Quote:
Hairspray was only a moderate success upon its initial theatrical release, receiving a modest gross of $8 million.
(Wikipedia)[/quote


doesnt mean it wasnt a hit and a very famous film before it hit the stage.
8 million is nothing to sneeze at in the mid 80s either.
The Drama Queen

Salome wrote:
Merman was a stage star...she didnt need film to get recognition.


But she really never made a mark in history the way film stars did from her time... Ask any high schooler in America who Ethel Merman was, and probably 97% would get it wrong. Ask them who Marilyn Monroe was and probably 97% would get it right. The same could be said for Sutton Foster vs. Reese Witherspoon.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing- I personally wouldn't feel as driven towards being a proffesional musical theatre actor if they had all of the publicity hype that movie stars and pop singers do. But the facts are, movie, television, and singing stars are much more recognized in the public eye then stage actors.

I share the same opinon as many others in this thread that Broadway is not dying, just changing. If dopey teeny-bopper shows are what it will take to get people to see shows, then so be it, because the true art will never stop cease to exist.
qpidsangel

Salome wrote:
a) John Lithgow was always a theatre star first and a film and t.v. star 2nd. His roots are in theatre and he never went more than 4 years without doing a show.


b) Hairspray was an enormously famous film before it became a musical.


Just because he does theatre, and is known to us as a theatre star, doesn't mean the general public recognizes him as one. People are going to look at John Lithgow and see 3rd Rock from the Sun, or Hugh Jackman and see X-Men, they don't realize these people have their roots in theatre.

And no Hairspray is not enormously famous. When the movie came out NONE of my friends had seen the original, hell, I hadn't even seen the original (though I did know that it existed).
Salome

qpidsangel wrote:
Salome wrote:
a) John Lithgow was always a theatre star first and a film and t.v. star 2nd. His roots are in theatre and he never went more than 4 years without doing a show.


b) Hairspray was an enormously famous film before it became a musical.


Just because he does theatre, and is known to us as a theatre star, doesn't mean the general public recognizes him as one. People are going to look at John Lithgow and see 3rd Rock from the Sun, or Hugh Jackman and see X-Men, they don't realize these people have their roots in theatre.

And no Hairspray is not enormously famous. When the movie came out NONE of my friends had seen the original, hell, I hadn't even seen the original (though I did know that it existed).


Bbeth your freinds were what... 2 when Hairspray came out?? come on.
qpidsangel

Salome wrote:
qpidsangel wrote:
Salome wrote:
a) John Lithgow was always a theatre star first and a film and t.v. star 2nd. His roots are in theatre and he never went more than 4 years without doing a show.


b) Hairspray was an enormously famous film before it became a musical.


Just because he does theatre, and is known to us as a theatre star, doesn't mean the general public recognizes him as one. People are going to look at John Lithgow and see 3rd Rock from the Sun, or Hugh Jackman and see X-Men, they don't realize these people have their roots in theatre.

And no Hairspray is not enormously famous. When the movie came out NONE of my friends had seen the original, hell, I hadn't even seen the original (though I did know that it existed).


Bbeth your freinds were what... 2 when Hairspray came out?? come on.


Most of my friends are actually much older than me, due to the age difference between my gf and I. They are actually about your age, maybe a few years younger.
Pounce

[quote="Salome"]
Mademoiselle Lanoire wrote:
Salome wrote:
hairspray was the BIG film everyone was seeing when I was 15 years old. you werent even walking.


Quote:
Hairspray was only a moderate success upon its initial theatrical release, receiving a modest gross of $8 million.
(Wikipedia)[/quote


doesnt mean it wasnt a hit and a very famous film before it hit the stage.
8 million is nothing to sneeze at in the mid 80s either.

It doesn't matter if a person was living then to know. All the data is on our side. $8 million was not much of a gross, even for a 1988 film. boxofficemojo lists its take as even lower, $6.7 million. And according to the Federal Reserve

Federal Reserve Dollar Converter

$6.7 million back in 1988 is like $12.2 million today. A $12.2 million take is not good by today's standards unless the film was some low budget documentary. And to put it in further perspective 1988 films such as Rain Man and Who Framed Roger Rabbit took in $173 million and $156 million respectively. (1988)Hairspray's subsequent success is more as a cult film.
Pounce

qpidsangel wrote:
Salome wrote:
a) John Lithgow was always a theatre star first and a film and t.v. star 2nd. His roots are in theatre and he never went more than 4 years without doing a show.


b) Hairspray was an enormously famous film before it became a musical.


Just because he does theatre, and is known to us as a theatre star, doesn't mean the general public recognizes him as one. People are going to look at John Lithgow and see 3rd Rock from the Sun, or Hugh Jackman and see X-Men, they don't realize these people have their roots in theatre.

And no Hairspray is not enormously famous. When the movie came out NONE of my friends had seen the original, hell, I hadn't even seen the original (though I did know that it existed).

That's pretty much my position as well. I'm sure Lithgow would have been a Broadway success even if that is all he did. My point is that because of his television and film appearances, he is much better known and therefore and even more valuable commodity on Broadway. Broadway can throw up advertisements showing his name and face with the full knowledge that tourists will recognize him. His Broadway pedigree is not as valuable in selling tickets for a show as is his television and film credits.
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "future" a number of ways. The one thing they can agree on is that it's a noun. The blanket definition basically says that the future is the indefinite time yet to come, or something that will happen during that time. And it's a good one.

To me, and no doubt to many people, the future is a constantly changing animal. There's always hope that there will be mostly good things and less bad things, but that's the other thing about the future: it's a constantly changing animal that is far beyond our control (at this point I'm not going to argue whether anything or anyone controls it; that's a whole different debate). I don't know what tomorrow will bring, or the next day, or the day after. And call me crazy, but I'm comfortable with that. Sometimes the picture's blurry, but at least there's a picture at all. And I find comfort in the fact that Broadway's changing just like all of us. We don't keep up with the times, we just live through them, and so does Broadway.

In the end, would it matter whether Broadway died or not? Here's the answer, and it may shock you: no. No, it wouldn't matter at all if tomorrow the Broadway industry as we know it were to dry up completely and leave no trace of its presence. Why? Because Broadway is only temporary, and always has been. Theater itself, however, dates back to 2000 BC, maybe even earlier, and you can't pin it down to a location, a timeframe, or anything like that. As long as there are people who want to perform, who want to produce, who want to create, there will be theater.

Broadway's just a neighborhood in New York, and a fairly pricy one at that. If the playhouses were to empty tomorrow, the only ones to suffer would be those who make money from art. As long as one or more persons, isolated in time and/or space, present themselves to another or others, no matter where they are, theater will live on always and eternally.

The king is dead. Long live the king.
       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club
Page 1 of 1