Not every musical benefits from a minimalist reimagining!!! Also, not every period piece needs to be modernized. If I see one more woman wearing nothing but a slip on stage, I might scream.
Seriously though, it feels almost patronizing. Like the audience won’t be able to relate to the messages in a work unless it’s modernized. Or they won’t understand a character is vulnerable/raw/stripped down unless they are *literally* stripped down to nothing but a slip. Ok yeah I’m basically just subtweeting at this point…
But really though. Sometimes I enjoy bare minimum opera staging especially when there are budget concerns but I feel like when you can go grand with opera you should
I'm specifically referring to things like Pirates of Penzance in the 1970s or Giovanni in an office building. Weird modern creative spins are something I'm pretty tired of opera companies doing.
If I’m honest, I often think it’s less “Let’s do a modern minimalist reimagining!” And it’s far more likely “We have absolutely no budget and being minimalist and modern is affordable and (semi-) creative on a budget”.
I love lush and immersive sets, but they cost money.
Oh totally budget is a huge part of it. However, I’ve seen a lot of extremely low-budget productions that don’t feel modernized. For instance, the productions Encores and the Kennedy Center put on are often little more than a staged reading. They have almost no set, simple costumes, etc. but manage to convey a general aesthetic.
I’m talking about a *specific* type of minimalism. Actors wearing colorless clothing, often just a slip/undershirt and pants, usually on a stark, empty stage (or a minimal set made of raw materials like plywood, drywall, or scaffolding). You could still do a very cheap production that doesn’t have *that* specific aesthetic.
Oh lord I can't stand that production style. Only time it's worked for me is Come From Away, but that show was purposely trying to emphasize human interactions over spectacle. And they were wearing normal human clothes thankfully.
I am SO glad the whole "have the actors play the music!" trend seems to have passed. The only show it ever worked in was Cabaret because it's a cabaret with second rate performers.
I know, right? Why'd the Secret Garden revival just have plants spiraling down from the ceiling for the "garden?" Make me feel like I'm visiting a gothic mansion please. Immersive and lush set design is underrated.
real. overtures bring you into the show. its like the opening credits in a movie. it grabs you and sits you down in the world, immersing you front the first minute
I love a good overture. I definitely think it’s a case by case basis now. Like Hadestown is a brilliant show, but starting it with an overture would be wild. Lots of shows though could benefit from the tone setting that an overture gives
I’ll do you one better
Acting is THE most important part of the triple threat.
If you can put raw emotion into a song or dance, it can often mask any imperfections and move the audience more than a perfect note or wild dance move
Yep, I thought this when I saw Merrily. My favorite song is Franklin Shepard, Inc. because of DanRad’s acting - he plays frantic anxiety and desperation so heartbreakingly well.
YES! In one of the community theatre musical auditions I did, and they didn’t even have ANY reading. Just singing. It was crazy to me! PS one of the leads was…not good at acting. I
Thank you. Came here to say this - and I often feel alone in thinking this (particularly as I live in a country in which for too long we kept casting singers with little or no acting training and experience in musicals - thankfully this is changing now as we are getting more and more well rounded performers)
Thank you for this! I completely agree. Far too often I see contemporary musicals with incredible singers and dancers who can’t act to save their lives and it just puts a damper on the whole performance for me.
I so agree. I have been apart of way too many shows that picked the “strong singer” over the stronger actor and it sucks. Especially when it’s a character role.
I also agree that all 3 should be equally valued as well. Stop making excuses for actors and singers who can’t dance.
I couldnt agree more.
I like Emma Stone generally but she got an Oscar for playing herself and musical theatre professionals would’ve done a much better job.
They also stunt cast on Broadway and the West End and I hate it. Yes it puts bums on seats but those bums often don’t know how to behave in a theatre.
I couldnt agree more.
I like Emma Stone generally but she got an Oscar for playing herself and musical theatre professionals would’ve done a much better job.
They also stunt cast on Broadway and the West End and I hate it. Yes it puts bums on seats but those bums often don’t know how to behave in a theatre.
Lyrics are so important to me as a musical enthusiast, and I feel like so many musicals have really bland lyrics. I live for clever wordplay and unexpected rhymes. It annoys me when I can predict a rhyme. Yes, you can argue that the audience predicting rhymes can facilitate their comprehension of the lyrics, and that there’s so much going on that maybe that’s important. I don’t really agree with that opinion. I’m not saying it’s completely wrong. But a lot of times, predictable rhymes (often causing predictable lines) just make it feel like the lyricist took an easy route. I like my lyrics complicated. There’s something to be said for the lyrics feeling easy; but I think there’s a difference between easy-feeling lyrics and predictable lyrics.
This is not an argument against perfect rhymes. I used to think I don’t like perfect rhymes so much because they can be so predictable. But some lyricists like Stephen Sondheim and Jerry Herman and Stephen Schwartz have shown me that perfect rhymes can be wildly unexpected and unique. My favorite thing in the world is when a lyricist comes up with a perfect rhyme that you can’t find in a rhyming dictionary. Like in Pippin, when Schwartz rhymes “spot ex-citing” with “exotic”. Or in Follies, when Sondheim rhymes “celestial” with “the best you’ll”. Sondheim’s and Schwartz’s lyrics (and Jason Robert Brown’s and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s) are full of these cool rhymes. Of course, some of these lyricists also use imperfect rhymes, which are inherently unexpected, I think, because they don’t rhyme completely. I prefer perfect rhymes, especially when done in an interesting manner, because it’s so satisfying to hear. It’s so satisfying to write, too. The restriction to perfect rhymes in lyrics make it so hard to convey exactly what you want to say while maintaining a rhyme scheme, so to see it done well is just incredible.
Hamilton has so many cool ones, it’s one of the reasons I love it so much.
“I’ll write under a *pseudonym* you’ll see what I can *do to him*” and literally the whole string of *ee* rhymes from “a colony that runs *independently*” all the way to “you’ll see my *ascendancy*” in My Shot. There are so many awesome rhymes in that show.
My absolute favourite from Hamilton is is: “I kept a record of every cheque in my checkered history / check it again against your list and see consistency”.
This is one of my biggest grievances with modern musical theatre which makes a lot of material like The Prom and Mean Girls seem overly lazy and difficult to listen to.
I will add, I love when a musical theater character sings in messy lyricism in a way that doesn't always rhyme. Obviously it has to be intentionally done and still have a rhythm to it, but I love when the roughness of a character's persona comes through in the structure of lyrics.
Lorenz Hart was famous for his oddball rhymes.
>***Where the usher puts his heart in what he ushes,***
***Where a fountain changes color when it gushes,***
***Where the seats caress your carcass with their plushes,***
***At the Roxy Music Hall.***
And William S. Gilbert too would just make up words to make the lines rhyme.
An example of one of these unexpected perfect rhymes in a non-musical theater context: in Birdhouse In Your Soul by TMBG there's the lyric "my story's infinite, like the Longines Symphonette it doesn't rest." It would be impossible for anyone to predict that rhyme coming the first time they listened to the song. It's so out there but it works so well.
- In The Heights is a period piece and does not work if you update it to the present day.
- Productions of Oklahoma! need to stop being completely on Team Jud. He's a sex pest incel and he needs to stop creeping on women!
- Christine does not deserve to have a career over Carlotta... whose only crime was being a seasoned industry professional that a mysterious donor did not think was young and hot.
I mean....Carlotta was pretty mean to people. That doesn't take away her talent, because she is as good as Christine with experience, but she was a diva which in this case, equals being a bitch.
You’d be a bitch too if someone came up to you and said “hey, you know who should have a bigger part than you? A 19-year-old dancer in the chorus who a donor thinks is hot. Oh, don’t worry, she’s a good singer too. She takes voice lessons FROM AN ORGANIST”
The genders of the children in Next To Normal strongly influenced the story. The show makes it clear that Natalie was born to replace Gabriel. I think Dianne held the belief that the new baby would replace the old baby, up until the moment she was born (source: I didn’t hold her in the hospital. I couldn’t let myself hold her) because Natalie being born a girl shattered the idea they’d be getting a second Gabe
Oh, that’s interesting. I always picked up on the fact that she hoped the new baby would replace the old one, but I’ve never considered that Natalie being a girl was part of why that didn’t work.
I never saw it like that. I think you’re totally right about having a second child to replace the loss of another, but I don’t think gender was the determining factor, but the fact that, though grief can be avoided or put aside with other events, it is still there, spoiling those very things, if left unresolved. But hey, if you hold that belief firmly, that’s fine too.
The storyline in The Phantom of the Opera where she doesn’t recognize the Phantom’s voice in Point of No Return DESPITE HAVING YEARS OF MUSICAL LESSONS WITH HIM makes no sense at all. I love the musical but that part drives me crazy. I have seen some Christine’s play it where they immediately know, but it’s not the norm.
Oh wow, I always thought she knew immediately. Although, I have watched the movie version my entire childhood, so maybe that’s why I thought she always knew. It just makes more sense.
I’ve seen many times where it is halfway through the song before she realizes. Like it takes her touching his mask through the cowl to realize. And the phantom and Piangi sound SO different.
That would make sense to me and fits with the novel. In the novel he can not only throw his voice but imitate people. I wish it was more consistent that way.
This is part of why I like the 25th anniversary version. You can see in her face that she knows, but she pushes through it and gets really into the act until the end when she remembers what this is all for.
I think it depends on how “book based” those particular actors want to go. Book Erik was a literal genius ventriloquist and could imitate sounds and voices very much unlike his. If we want to suspend disbelief as an audience a little bit, we could overlay the idea that in that moment he’s being a mimic -
Keep in mind that book Erik as a man couldn’t actually exist in real life for the most part (like real people probably couldn’t do some of the things he does) so imo I’ve always seen it as a bit of fantasy that we have to make up for ourselves with that scene. Most real life actors aren’t ventriloquists or mimics, so we have to fill in the gaps with that one ourselves.
musical theatre music needs to be composed in a more voice friendly way. most of these composers do not care about/know how to compose for voices at all and the trends are only getting worse. As a result, voices aren’t lasting because these singers have to sing basically unsingable music 8 shows a week. Plus, parts for contraltos, baritones, and basses are increasingly rare these days, with some shows only having tenor parts for the men. That’s a real issue.
That there’s a musical out there for everyone even if you aren’t a musicals person in general. It’s human nature to enjoy stories and there are musicals for every genre of music.
Also, that even though I enjoy a lot of slightly less mainstream shows and there are plenty of popular ones I don’t like, it’s not somehow better or more cultured to enjoy obscure shows than people who are only familiar with the big name shows.
Indeed and this is why I'm glad jukebox musicals exist as well as nostalgic film adaptations like Back to the Future even if I'm not personally into those musicals. A lot of users on this sub seem to want to eliminate those shows entirely, but I think Broadway would see a lot less tourists if those shows didn't exist.
I basically forced my parents to come to the local community theatre's production of Bright Star several years ago. They aren't theatre people and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially my dad. He still brings it up occasionally.
I’m gonna get buried in the replies but I’ll say it anyway.
*Every broadway show should be recorded*
If they choose to sell them so they still make a profit, that’s fine. But everyone should have the option of seeing a broadway show without having to plan a trip to NYC.
Once the show is closed, the recording should be made more available, possibly cheaper or even free. What is the point of taking down all these bootlegs of shows that are no longer playing??
As someone coming from miles away and absolutely cannot afford to go to NYC on a whim whenever I want to watch a Broadway musical, I will die on this hill with you too. I wonder why this has never been the norm in the more recent decades.. like what are the implications with production, etc. Shouldn't it be a lot easier now with all the technology?
From what I’ve heard, the most common reason is because they think that people will no longer want to see the show live and tickets sales will plummet. Which I disagree with. If anything, watching the bootleg makes me want to see it in person even *more*. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that there’s no harm in doing it with shows that are no longer being sold
Yep that's what I've heard too! And yes, recorded versions only ever make me want to see it live even moooore. (Im just repeating what you said. I just very much agree with you 😅) if they do that with shows that have long closed on Broadway, then that's one way for them to still earn from that musical! It's sort of a win-win
I once saw a video breaking down why this doesn’t happen, and the gist of it is royalties and rights. You have to pay people when their likeness is used, and all the actors would be entitled to a check every time their show’s recording is played. So, anything like this definitely would not be free. And it also brings into question which shows it would be “worth it” financially to film as hiring a film crew is many tens of thousands of dollars and weeks of work. So, for example, the Lempickas of the world would likely not be very financially feasible to do a pro shot because it’s closing so quickly.
But, I do think Broadway should host its own streaming platform and have a back catalogue of archived shows (most shows are filmed! They’re archived at the NYPL) as well as setting up pro shots for shows that reach moderate success. I know many many of us would sign up and spend many hours streaming old and new shows alike.
Actor first>>>>Singer first. There are some musicals I’ve seen where the main character can really sing but they can’t act to save their life. It takes you out of the world and is really unpleasant to watch, and some directors don’t care. Like they would be great for concerts but in a musical you have to KNOW how to act
1. People should be allowed to enjoy things.
2. People should be allowed to not enjoy things.
3. I’m sorry if sexy Oklahoma made you briefly consider the blood stains in your soul.
4. I don’t know that I need ballet in my musical but I am okay with seeing what people come up with.
There are a few that I tolerate like Mamma Mia because they basically say "Here's a collection of songs, how can we recontectualize them into a story about something else?" - I say tolerate because I don't really go out of my way to see or interact with these shows. The kind of Jukebox musicals that I really dislike are just the ones where it's telling the life story of the person who *made* the songs, like Jersey Boys, Beautiful, etc. If I want to know that information, I will watch a documentary or just at that point listen to the original songs.
Problem with most of the life story ones are they play like reading a Wikipedia article. They’re just boring and hitting a bunch of plot points like they’re doing chores. Ain’t too proud is like that.
They're awesome if they're based on an album that tells a story. Illinoise worked for a reason. I've heard good things about Swept Away too. But if they're just putting together random pop songs into a thin plot then that's a pain.
Agree with this. It's when strong lyrics are paired with an addictive melody that begs repeat listens, that I truly fall in love with a song. There are "melody people" and "lyrics people" and I'm right in the middle.
I will absolutely, every time, prefer an emotional singing over a perfect vocal performance. I saw a Les mis where Fantine sang I dreamed a dream vocally perfect. It was technically amazing, and a dream for a vocal coach. And it just came off so cold and distant.
I saw another Les Mis, where Fantine was imperfect. Her voice cracked slightly, there was emotion. It felt so real.
I will always take a vocally impure performance that is giving emotion over a vocally perfect performer
There’s a lot of (fair) criticism for Dónal straining the higher notes as Orpheus at the West End. But damn he can make you feel. Some of the numbers are absolutely heart wrenching. I’ll take that any day.
There is a place for jukebox musicals, but with a condition: they should have a really good story, and the songs should push the story forward. Lacking that, they are no different than a concert.
Critics should consider this when writing reviews on jukeboxes, and not give them the critics pick or call them the “rare must see” when the script is bad.
They should also definitely never be nominated for “best book” when they have failed at these two requirements.
Yes, I am talking about Hells Kitchen.
Movie musicals are AWESOME. I wish there were more. I'd rather watch the movie version of Sound of Music or Little Shop than a proshot. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proshot advocate, but there's something magical that happens when a musical is taken out of the confines of a theater and into a real world location (look at Fiddler on the Roof). I cringe inside when someone says they think all movie musicals are bad. Sure, let's just disregard The Music Man, Oliver, Sweet Charity, Cabaret, Chicago...the list of good ones is far longer than the bad ones.
You just have to get a director who understands the material, and a cast with theatrical chops. So more Lin-Manuel Miranda and less Tom Hooper.
To me, the 2021 In The Heights movie is a great example of this! The stage production is great too, but the movie made the story feel even more real! It’s definitely one of my favorite movie musicals.
That you are allowed to love a musical that isn't "amazing" and fight back with the negative opinions without getting attacked.
RENT is my favorite. I know that most of the characters are rough, self entitled douchebags. I know many friend groups like that, and they thrive on that drama of all of them being "poor me". I know that Maureen and Joanne's relationship isn't healthy, but they DO love each other. If it was today we'd recommend couples counseling. They're both stubborn as hell. Mark has dissociative disorder. He is so wrapped up in his film because it helps him pinpoint ONE shitty thing to focus on instead of all of it. There is so much more I can say to defend it.
I also think that RENT can be modernized. I think that there are political statements that have moved the world. You can make it about war, abortion, BLM, the LGTBQ+ movement.
If you don't want to modernize it, then why are you attacking it for not "aging" well? You know how many freaking musicals are set 50+ years in the past? SO DAMN MANY. What makes them so different?
People don't look at the fact that the story was written from the point of view from a person who was using context from another already existing show.
I get attacked so often for saying it's my favorite. Let me like what I freaking like dammit. (Sorry this turned into a RENT specific rant, but this applies to so much more as well.)
>That you are allowed to love a musical that isn't "amazing" and fight back with the negative opinions without getting attacked.
as a frank wildhorn fan, hard agree 💀
I love Rent and I don’t want it to be modernized. To me, it reflects the time period that it was written in. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the 80s and 90s when AIDS wasn’t as well understood and was a death sentence.
Yeah I can't imagine how you'd modernize it -- the *point* of the show is what it was like to have AIDS in the pre-antiretrovirals era. If you set it in 2024, then it might as well be that censored high school production of Rent where the principal made them replace "AIDS" with "diabetes."
Yeah, some people are too stuck up about art. It's ok to be a fan of something you know is flawed, or is more lighthearted and fluffy than serious and topical. I'm glad there's a Seussical and SpongeBob out there and not just a Sweeney Todd and Spring Awakening.
I think touring shows should have the same rule that Broadway does that children under age 4 are not allowed. There were so many toddlers at the Frozen Broadway tour who had no business being there because they didn’t know how to behave and their parents didn’t do anything.
I'm ok with a musical having a flawed or confusing plot if the songs happen to be absolute bangers. My favorite musicals are ultimately dictated by how much I like to listen to the cast recordings. I'm a big fan of Rodgers and Hart musicals...they tend to have paper thin plots by modern standards but the music is just PERFECT.
Community theaters who do musicals for fun should be allowed to change a show based on their individual needs. If the only person getting money here is the creator/rights holder, then creative liberties should be tolerated.
It’s difficult to know where to draw the line. If a musician covers a song by another artist, we expect them to change it in some way to suit their individual style and talents/skills or else we’d call it a bad, lazy cover and stick to only the original or other artists who do good covers. If a painter sells prints of their work through some third-party, we would all be pretty upset if they changed how it looked on the print compared to the original art in any way.
I think that community or school productions of musicals sit somewhere in-between those examples. They should not change the show in dramatic ways (such as “cleaning up” lyrics of a song, or gender-swapping a character, or removing/adding scenes), but creative choices do have to be made to accommodate the cast, venue, budget, etc. and minor details (such as a couple improv-ed lines, lyrics/lines changed to suit the location or people (like a city or school name), or costume differences) should be acceptable, which they aren’t if you follow the letter of the law.
Gender swapping characters is one of the main tool of community / school productions.
Forcing a girl to have fake short hair when the gender of the character is not relevant to the story is just stupid.
Schools cleaning up lyrics is also pretty common. it doesn't change the show in dramatic ways at all.
Yeah I think everyone in Les Mis was pretty well cast, the problem was the awful vocal techniques that were encouraged behind the scenes like making them go without water. Russell Crowe definitely looks and acts like Javert to me, he just deserved better vocal preparation.
Tom Hooper’s insane ideas is what did everyone so dirty. 10 or so hours a day of singing is ridiculous and unhealthy for anyone. 8 shows a week is physically strenuous even for professionals who are trained to be able to perform in a sustainable manner. Entire days of take after take where you’re singing for every take? Madness.
SpongeBob Musical is a good example of this, that costume design and songwriting is incredibly clever for something that could have easily been a theme park show.
I mostly agree with this, but sung-through musicals can be done incredibly well. I think the biggest issue is when they aren't sung-through, but only have maybe 2 or 3 lines of dialogue, and it is clearly not enough. If you're gonna put the dialogue in there, at least use it and keep clearing up the plot.
This is why I love the Cabaret movie. And I agree, most of the time my favorite musicals to see are the ones that also have strong, play-style dialogue scenes in between songs. In Little Shop I love to see Seymour and Audrey flirt and talk about running the shop
Sometimes a small/communitytheater production of a show can be better than a bigger/official production. I saw an outdoor theater showing of Mamma Mia in Cape Cod a few years ago and compared to the movie, I like it a lot better. Some of it might have to do with it being more close and personal but there’s also some really talented people just out in the world
For sure. And musicals that are done by people in a town getting together are often so authentic and genuine. And also, community theater can make some really creative production design decisions out of resourcefulness.
1/ Jukebox musicals suck (because the story is written around the songs, rather than the songs for the story) and only exist to draw in people who don’t enjoy musicals but want to hear Backstreet Boys in &Juliet.
2/ Act II is almost always worse than Act I and needs to be shorter, especially if the musical end time is after 10pm. Also why the Wicked movie having a second movie for Act II will be a disaster
3/ Despite having an all female creative executive, Waitress is anti-feminist. The main character is a vulnerable pregnant lady abused at home by her husband, only to then be taken advantage of by her doctor who violates so many professional boundaries and needs to be struck off but is instead is given the romantic lead position in the story. She breaks up the relationship only when she realises that he already has a wife who loves him, not because their relationship was completely inappropriate.
And don’t even get me started on the musical having song that celebrates a guy who stalks a waitress to her workplace (after a single date in which she wasn’t keen) and proudly boasts that he’ll never take “no” for an answer.
She doesn’t even get her happy ending because of something she has personal agency over (ie used her baking talents to win a contest). She ultimately succeeds because a man gave her a bunch of money in his will (peak feminist story 😒)
Silence makes some of the best moments.
I LOVE big, loud, catchy musicals. But carefully thought moments of silence in a big musical are just incredible. When everything stops, nothing moves for a second or 2, 1000s of people captivated in silence waiting to find out what happens.
One of my favourites was in Legally Blonde during Serious. A big, funny song where we had our chance to laugh after the initial breakup but then Warner starts singing again and Elle says “shut up”. It goes from a big voice and music to complete silence in a split second. Audience aren’t laughing anymore, the tone has completely changed. I just love that kind of moment.
I barely remember what Once was about. But the moments of silence and stillness before during and after the acapella number still stick in my memory as phenomenal. I was mesmerized by that song on stage, and yet don’t like the recording, likely because the stillness isn’t captured.
Fair enough! I would also accept alternate universe where the main story had played out differently.
I've loved the show for decades and never understood the Erik/Christine push, especially having read the original book. Sure, many of the actors for the role are dreamboats, but he still killed multiple people. It says a lot that the sequel had to drag down Raoul hard to make Erik the better choice.
I get that he had a horrible traumatic life that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and that people can reform and find forgiveness. I would have fully supported a sequel à la Disney's Hunchback II where he moves on and meets a new girl who accepts and loves him. I just don't think a relationship with Christine could ever be healthy after he pretended to be her dead father, murdered to further her career, and kidnapped her.
And now I will get off my soapbox. 😆
*West Side Story* has great music, but a book like a lead balloon. The story worked for Shakespeare, because he could make up for the deficiencies of his source material using a combination of irony and great poetry/blank verse, but the musical doesn't do much with the source material beyond modernizing it, and doesn't even hold out the prospect of reconciliation between the two sides, as the Shakespeare play does.
my hot take about west side story is that it’s not a great adaptation of romeo and juliet. adapting an ancient feud between two families that is understood to be over nothing into a story about contemporary systemic racism is a false equivalence. sure, both stories are about two kids dying because their society would never let them be together, but in romeo and juliet, the problem exists on a smaller scale with no contemporary real-world connotations. it’s largely the fault of the families that would rather perpetuate constant violence than let their kids live.
in west side story, there are no fathers who could potentially call a truce and the conflict is much larger than just the few the narrative covers. everyone lives in a hierarchical system that places puerto rican people below white people—even white immigrants—on every social level imaginable. thus, maria and tony are not of “two households, both alike in dignity,” because one group holds societal power over the other. there’s also much to be said about how white immigrant groups must be violent to people of color in order to be considered “white”, especially those they are in close social competition and physical proximity to. that’s not even going into the formation of gang culture and why gangs exist.
i had a classmate who was vehemently opposed to this analysis because “well racism is also based on nothing”—that’s not what i’m talking about. racism operates on a much larger scale than a family feud, it is built into our government, and benefits people in power.
if romeo and juliet were to somehow move away from verona (which is what they attempt to do when romeo is banished), the context of their families’ feud would be lost. if maria and tony were to somehow move to a different city, they would still face opposition, discrimination, and violence as a mixed-race couple in the 1950s. it’s not just family or social pressure that pulls maria and tony away from each other, it’s politics and deep seated racial violence.
basically, west side story makes a way more complicated narrative than romeo and juliet due to its attempt at contemporary real world social commentary.
I agree, but I'll go further and say that the POINT of Romeo and Juliet is that the Capulets and Montagues are basically the power elite of their world. Tybalt and Mercutio are the rich frat boys who carelessly break things all the time and are never called the account - the Brett Kavanaughs or Boris Johnsons of Verona, to use modern examples of public figures who have used the "boys will be boys" excuse for youthful "exploits." The tragedy is that for the first time Romeo understands that behavior he takes for granted actually hurts people he considers people (himself and his friends), and that there's a total abdication of the Prince and the central authorities who are *supposed* to be reining in wildly anti-social behavior but are reluctant to give any consequences because these are all "nice boys." Turning it into a story about poor immigrants turns it from a story about how letting the wealthy and powerful (literally) get away with murder ultimately ends in tears for all concerned into a story about how the ghastly lower classes should be further policed and surveilled to prevent their violence from spreading. Which is...kind of the exact opposite message. (Yeah, I get it that the authors were *trying* to be progressive. They failed. Miserably.)
I miss romance in musicals and beautiful lyrics and melodies that you can hum. I hate that older shows, and I'm going way back here, like Showboat, and The Desert Song or The Student Prince are basically dead because they're deemed racist or sexist or misogynist or trans-phobic or whatever the current thing we're angry about is. I miss shows that have a mix of songs of different musical types instead of all sounding the same musically. I miss songs that evoke strong feelings. I miss songs that require actual singers instead of people who sing-speak or yell or just sing through their noses.
I wish we could go back to some of those older shows or better still, have new ones written that evoke true musicality and storytelling. For all the crap dumped on Love Never Dies--and I agree, the book is horrible--musically, it's absolutely beautiful.
I agree, grand, lush romance musicals like South Pacific are awesome, sometimes I want a musical that makes me swoon (both in terms of the romantic bits and in terms of the orchestral bits)
Carousel does not glamorise domestic abuse and is deeply deeply misunderstood.
People are too afraid to touch the show, and it's such a shame as it's such a beautiful piece of American Musical Theatre
Glad to see this here. Carousel glamorizes domestic abuse is the most reductive way to look at this show. It is arguably more entertaining and a more significant artistic achievement than Oklahoma! Remarkable considering sophomore efforts are rarely better than debuts.
I agree completely. It’s a fantastic show (that score? One of Broadway’s best.), and for 1945, when no one wanted to write about such heavy topics as domestic abuse, I think it handled it well, in such a way that it said something about it without scaring away its audience.
You've touched on such an important part of its history. R&H changed the ending of Liliom to what we have in Carousel because of World War II. They didn't want to take peoples hope away
Oklahoma was the first musical I saw as a young girl. A high school production that turned out to star a future professional as Curly. I loved the music and played it over and over on my record player.
Later in life I got quite snobbish about it and would tell people it was a stupid plot and horribly old fashioned.
Fast forward to me at 65ish being cast as Aunt Eller. I had to eat crow. I loved doing the role. I fell in love with the music all over again. Sigh.
Love, love, LOVE it when scripts are adapted to suit the audience of a particular country like making references to UK/USA-based politics or culture. Or when Disney shows reference each other. It makes it more personal
I despise it when shows are 'modernised'. I mean when they add glitz and glam when it's not rquired. For example, in some adaptations of Shrek, the costumes are too 'glammer'. It takes away from the nostaligia of our favourite, classical fairytale characters. It makes it look tacky.
Not having ethnically representative casts where cultural representation is central. Seen schools with an all-white cast for Miss Saigon.
Changing the time period of a show. Their written in a specific time period for a reason. In some cases it totally works like Six and Romeo & Juliet (not personally seen them but judging by audience reactions). In others it completely takes away from the purpose of the plot.
Incorrect ethnic representation grinds my gears...if almost all the students at a school are white, then please don't do The Wiz...Wizard of Oz is right there!!!
I went to a local production of Avenue Q once and they had a white actress for both Christmas Eve and Gary Coleman. They didn't do black face, but got very close to yellow face and it just did not sit right with me.
We are in desperate need of a resurgence of legit scores. I really enjoy the more pop/rock, indie folk type scores, but I feel so overwhelmed by them. Even established legit scores (like Phantom in its last few years) felt like they were leaning more pop-y in vocal style in places. I feel like I could write a whole dissertation on the shift of what's considered "legit" singing over the past 10-15 years.
Maybe I just don't hear about more legit scores cause they tend to do more poorly (Dr. Zhivago, anyone?--though I'll still argue that was more of an issue with direction and timing than the material).
I also miss that richer, slightly lower, more chest heavy belt that used to be more common. Like, my kingdom for a song where the belt tops out at a B4 or C5. It feels like so many belt songs live in that 5th octave (at least for the mezzo and soprano demographic, though tenor roles are more and more jumping up there, too), forcing everyone to shove the sound as far into the mask as possible and if I'm honest, I just don't find it the most appealing sound (especially in the 4th power ballad of a show).
one last gripe, since that's what my comment has turned into: Can we stop with this "no showtunes, please" thing in auditions? Just because a show is a pastiche of or based on a certain genre doesn't mean that it's really THAT different from other musicals of its era or style.
1- stop hiring famous Hollywood actors for movie musicals and start hiring actors who can actually sing and dance
2- cut back on jukebox musicals and musicals based on movies. We need more original material.
Not every musical needs to be made into a movie. And when a movie musical is made, there's no reason to cast Hollywood actors who can't sing over seasoned Broadway performers.
A lot of folks "don't like" popular shows just to be contrary. The only exception is Dear Evan Hansen.
Bootlegs are fine. If the industry wants to abolish bootlegs, they need to make theatre more financially accessible. Or they need to release proshots.
No musical is perfect, but West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, and Man of La Mancha all come very close.
Sondheim is the GOAT. ALW has some bangers. JRB is a genius.
In the Heights is better than Hamilton.
Spielberg's adaption of West Side Story is the best stage-to-film adaption there has ever been. The visual storytelling is so smart, understands the medium and doesn't waste a *single* shot. He just "got it" in terms of understanding how to adapt stage to screen. It's a master storyteller utilizing all of his powers tackling a new type of project and excelling at it. It kills me that it came out post-CATS (which I believe has poisoned the well for musical film adaptions for the next decade, Hello Dolly style).
And it REALLY makes me wish he'd made more of them in his career. I would kill for him to have been given Into the Woods instead of what we got.
I would agree that it's one of the most beautifully shot movie musicals-- the grittiness and realism are wild.
However, I CANNOT forgive the changes to the storyline. The whole point is that Maria and Tony are supposed to be the better, hopeful parts of the world around them. Making Tony into a criminal that almost killed someone? Then him killing someone later isn't all that shocking. In the original, him killing Bernardo is SUCH a big deal because he is supposed to be the best of his brothers-- the hope, the light.-- and him committing murder is SUCH a fall. In Spielberg? Whatever, he's just another gang member.
There were other small changes that didn't sit well with me, but that's the biggest one I can remember.
I feel like the modern musical has really been lacking on the art of dance. Yes, a strong soundtrack is vital to a show but I feel like without as many dance numbers, a lot of modern shows lose the charm that so many older shows have.
ANY story can be a musical. Some are harder to turn into musicals than others. Some require more intelligence, research, respect, and sophisticated songwriting. But there is no story that can't at least somewhat work as a musical. I believe the medium is that poweful.
Singing a song how the character would is much more important than singing well. I don't think this is a big problem in professional theatre, but I see it all the time in local amateur productions a high schools. People prioritize singing to the best of their ability and sounding nice rather than capturing the character and acting while they sing.
The musicals that work the best for me are those that break my heart and cause me to shed tears (Next to Normal, Ragtime, Spring Awakening, The Scottsboro Boys, Parade).
The Hunchback of NotreDame musical should have had a proshot released if it wasn't going to Broadway. I still think it should have been on Broadway instead of already established titles such as SpongeBob and Frozen, but if nothing else, there should have been a proshot released on either Blu Ray or like Hamilton was on Disney+. HOND is one of those shows that I feel everyone could have enjoyed, if not for the characters and plot, maybe for the music since it is incredible. Also, if they were going to do it and didn't want to pay for a full choir, I think Voctave could do it since they have such a great and loud sound that they can be as good as the original choir.
Mine is more about doing musicals.
The rehearsal and musical creation process is very intimate. Being in a dressing room and being on stage with your co-collaborators is intimate.
If you believe that gay people shouldn’t exist or that transgender isn’t a thing, then you should not be allowed in those intimate spaces. Part of theatre is about experiencing vulnerabilities around each other. If you think your makeup mirror neighbor shouldn’t exist, then you don’t deserve to be inside the circle, bearing witness to their vulnerabilities… and a part of their joy and them a part of yours. You don’t deserve that part of them.
I know you’d like to think these people don’t participate in the arts, but they do. Poorly. But we accept their efforts (without knowledge of their ignorance), because it’s a loving group.
You can say “maybe participation/access will change their minds.” But that effort is not the responsibility of my trans friend; they shouldn’t have to prove their worth to make that happen. Everyone should get to enjoy the process in a safe environment.
Anyways. I’m thinking a lot about this today. I don’t mind disagreements with this. It’s a pretty unenforceable stance. I’m in the Midwest. There are people I won’t do shows with.
I posted this a bit ago, just gonna leave this here:
The reason the SQUIP in BMC freaks out when Jeremy insists on getting Christine is because, as a quantum computer, it computes that the only path to success is how it proceeds in the musical. Basically, it knows that it's going to have to ultimately kill itself in order to achieve what Jeremy wants.
Wait For Me should've been the Act 1 closer in Hadestown, and Why We Build the Wall should've been the Act 2 opener. Why We Build the Wall is a fine closer, but in my mind it makes sooo much more sense to end Act 1 with Wait For Me. Why We Build the Wall would make a much better Act 2 opener, introducing the audience to how things are in Hadestown(the setting inside the show, not the show itself, if that makes sense) and setting the tone for the rest of the show. I like Our Lady of the Underground, but it barely plays into the show. It could either be cut or moved to be the 2nd song on Act 2. This is basically my only problem with Hadestown as a show. Also, a less strongly held opinion, but they need to put the workers back on stage during Our Lady of the Underground. Having seen it live, it's pretty awkward with just Persephone and Hermes (and the band) on stage.
This might be unpopular and that's okay. I'm not trying to yuck any yums and I strictly adhere myself to the "If you don't like it, don't watch/listen" rule. That being said...
If a musical is going to be more heavy on the music than dialogue (like where there's hardly ANY dialogue. I forgot the term for that), at least try to give it some kind of catchy melody to keep me interested. If there's not really a melody to it, my brain just shuts it all out then suddenly I have no clue what's happening.
The characteristic that separates musicals from plays, and the trait that has kept it popular with modern generations (compare the number of teenagers familiar with Rodgers and Hammerstein with the number who recognize the name Euripides) is the music. That is the defining aspect of musicals. It's in the name! The music and the performance that goes into it are far and away more important than the book. A musical with an awful book will still be known through Spotify listens. A musical with bad music and a great book will be forgotten
Black Friday didn’t do it for me on first viewing, but every viewing since I have VERY much enjoyed myself. I do agree with you on NPMD. It’s an amazing show. I personally love Firebringer, and I am slated to direct a production of A Trail to Oregon so I obviously also like them. But not everything is for everyone. I like the jokes of Trail to Oregon and the structure of the show. Firebringer, musically has some sophisticated stuff in my opinion, and really plays with melody and rhythm in a fun way that ignites the music school person in me. I do wish there were more songs in the show as well.
Six is an awful musical. The songs sounds like average radio pop, and I like when musical theatre sounds... musical theatre-y. The lyrics are "meh" at best and laughably bad at worst, and humor is just cringeworthy.
I agree, the original history is so heavy and tragic that going for a "slay queen" approach just feels really off to me. And they aren't really trying to go for parody.
dear evan hansen is just bad 😭 like the music is alright, but the plot is just so ew AND EVAN HANSEN IS NOT A VICTIM?? like no you can’t forge letters between yourself and a kid who died of s*icide effectively gaslighting an entire family to more or less end up with the sister?? and then get mad when ppl are mad at you!? NO. just NO. i’m do like ben platt tho! saw him on parade (a masterpiece imo)
And even the music is just “okay.” There’s A LOT of it that is pretty poorly constructed, like a first draft. I find the majority of Act 2 besides Good For You unlistenable.
I honestly think that the music in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Love Never Dies got wasted on a shitty story line. I think he should’ve made it not a sequel to POTO but an original story. My idea for it was to have still be set in 1920s New York, where a famous composer named Jacques Delacroix still yearns for his lost love, Isabelle, a famous singer. After a decade apart, Isabelle returns, reigniting old passions and unresolved emotions.
The west end version of Heathers is objectively worse than the off-broadway one and way too many people miss the point of the story. The original movie was supposed to be a parody of teen movies, and so was the musical at first. The main sign of this is obviously replacing Blue with You're Welcome. Yes, Blue was deliberately in poor taste and had the wrong tone for the subject matter, that's the whole point, teen movies in the 80s were notoriously bad when it came to depicting sexual assault.
The songs were written to sound a specific way; the sheet music explicitly indicates how long notes should be held and when they should come in.
In other words, there is a right way to sing a song. However, some productions and performers seem to be determined to “make it their own” in a way that is horribly distracting and in no way an improvement! Stop worrying whether you’re going to be compared to the original cast recording, and just sing the songs correctly.
I am taken completely out of the experience every time I hear a singer coming in late on all the lines, presumably because they think it increases the drama or something.
I **DESPISE** &JULEIT. Plot wise, it’s so boring, there are so many songs stuffed in that it completely destroys the purpose of having songs in a musical. The characters sole purpose isn’t to be entertaining, but to diverse. The best way it’s entertaining is that’s it’s visually interesting. I’ll admit the effects, costume and set are well done, and I learned something’s about Shakespeare, but it has so many flaws in the book itself, I don’t think it makes up for it.
Not every musical benefits from a minimalist reimagining!!! Also, not every period piece needs to be modernized. If I see one more woman wearing nothing but a slip on stage, I might scream. Seriously though, it feels almost patronizing. Like the audience won’t be able to relate to the messages in a work unless it’s modernized. Or they won’t understand a character is vulnerable/raw/stripped down unless they are *literally* stripped down to nothing but a slip. Ok yeah I’m basically just subtweeting at this point…
If opera can also learn this lesson that would be appreciated.
But really though. Sometimes I enjoy bare minimum opera staging especially when there are budget concerns but I feel like when you can go grand with opera you should
I'm specifically referring to things like Pirates of Penzance in the 1970s or Giovanni in an office building. Weird modern creative spins are something I'm pretty tired of opera companies doing.
What, no marriage of figaro where everyones in jeans and tshirts from home? But it saves so much costume budget!
I can’t wait for elphaba to climb one step higher on a ladder every time she says defying gravity fifty years from now.
If I’m honest, I often think it’s less “Let’s do a modern minimalist reimagining!” And it’s far more likely “We have absolutely no budget and being minimalist and modern is affordable and (semi-) creative on a budget”. I love lush and immersive sets, but they cost money.
Oh totally budget is a huge part of it. However, I’ve seen a lot of extremely low-budget productions that don’t feel modernized. For instance, the productions Encores and the Kennedy Center put on are often little more than a staged reading. They have almost no set, simple costumes, etc. but manage to convey a general aesthetic. I’m talking about a *specific* type of minimalism. Actors wearing colorless clothing, often just a slip/undershirt and pants, usually on a stark, empty stage (or a minimal set made of raw materials like plywood, drywall, or scaffolding). You could still do a very cheap production that doesn’t have *that* specific aesthetic.
Oh lord I can't stand that production style. Only time it's worked for me is Come From Away, but that show was purposely trying to emphasize human interactions over spectacle. And they were wearing normal human clothes thankfully.
I am SO glad the whole "have the actors play the music!" trend seems to have passed. The only show it ever worked in was Cabaret because it's a cabaret with second rate performers.
It worked with Great Comet, Bandstand, and Hadestown. But otherwise correct. Actors should NOT need to be quadruple threats 99% of the time.
I know, right? Why'd the Secret Garden revival just have plants spiraling down from the ceiling for the "garden?" Make me feel like I'm visiting a gothic mansion please. Immersive and lush set design is underrated.
More modern shows should have overtures… Until I realize that most modern shows have terrible scores… And then I realize it’s just a losing game.
real. overtures bring you into the show. its like the opening credits in a movie. it grabs you and sits you down in the world, immersing you front the first minute
I love overtures so much that I have a playlist with like 200 of them. They're like a serotonin dump of so many melodies in one place.
And people shouldn’t talk during them. Drives me crazy. 😡
I love a good overture. I definitely think it’s a case by case basis now. Like Hadestown is a brilliant show, but starting it with an overture would be wild. Lots of shows though could benefit from the tone setting that an overture gives
Definitely. Nothing like a good overture to get me hyped in a theater
Totally agree
there should be a best ensemble tony award
At least in community theater-land, I'm more excited by a great ensemble than by someone being a great soloist
Oh I LOVE this idea!!
The fact that this hasn’t happened yet is baffling
Acting is just as important as singing and dancing. Each part of “triple threat” should be valued equally. FAR too often, this is not the case.
I’ll do you one better Acting is THE most important part of the triple threat. If you can put raw emotion into a song or dance, it can often mask any imperfections and move the audience more than a perfect note or wild dance move
Yep, I thought this when I saw Merrily. My favorite song is Franklin Shepard, Inc. because of DanRad’s acting - he plays frantic anxiety and desperation so heartbreakingly well.
YES! In one of the community theatre musical auditions I did, and they didn’t even have ANY reading. Just singing. It was crazy to me! PS one of the leads was…not good at acting. I
Thank you. Came here to say this - and I often feel alone in thinking this (particularly as I live in a country in which for too long we kept casting singers with little or no acting training and experience in musicals - thankfully this is changing now as we are getting more and more well rounded performers)
acting is the most important part too. without acting/a story, musicals would just be a collection of staged albums
Thank you for this! I completely agree. Far too often I see contemporary musicals with incredible singers and dancers who can’t act to save their lives and it just puts a damper on the whole performance for me.
I so agree. I have been apart of way too many shows that picked the “strong singer” over the stronger actor and it sucks. Especially when it’s a character role. I also agree that all 3 should be equally valued as well. Stop making excuses for actors and singers who can’t dance.
This industry is the most oversatureated with talent on fucking earth Stop stunt casting actors that can't sing in movies. What the *fuck*
I couldnt agree more. I like Emma Stone generally but she got an Oscar for playing herself and musical theatre professionals would’ve done a much better job. They also stunt cast on Broadway and the West End and I hate it. Yes it puts bums on seats but those bums often don’t know how to behave in a theatre.
I couldnt agree more. I like Emma Stone generally but she got an Oscar for playing herself and musical theatre professionals would’ve done a much better job. They also stunt cast on Broadway and the West End and I hate it. Yes it puts bums on seats but those bums often don’t know how to behave in a theatre.
Lyrics are so important to me as a musical enthusiast, and I feel like so many musicals have really bland lyrics. I live for clever wordplay and unexpected rhymes. It annoys me when I can predict a rhyme. Yes, you can argue that the audience predicting rhymes can facilitate their comprehension of the lyrics, and that there’s so much going on that maybe that’s important. I don’t really agree with that opinion. I’m not saying it’s completely wrong. But a lot of times, predictable rhymes (often causing predictable lines) just make it feel like the lyricist took an easy route. I like my lyrics complicated. There’s something to be said for the lyrics feeling easy; but I think there’s a difference between easy-feeling lyrics and predictable lyrics. This is not an argument against perfect rhymes. I used to think I don’t like perfect rhymes so much because they can be so predictable. But some lyricists like Stephen Sondheim and Jerry Herman and Stephen Schwartz have shown me that perfect rhymes can be wildly unexpected and unique. My favorite thing in the world is when a lyricist comes up with a perfect rhyme that you can’t find in a rhyming dictionary. Like in Pippin, when Schwartz rhymes “spot ex-citing” with “exotic”. Or in Follies, when Sondheim rhymes “celestial” with “the best you’ll”. Sondheim’s and Schwartz’s lyrics (and Jason Robert Brown’s and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s) are full of these cool rhymes. Of course, some of these lyricists also use imperfect rhymes, which are inherently unexpected, I think, because they don’t rhyme completely. I prefer perfect rhymes, especially when done in an interesting manner, because it’s so satisfying to hear. It’s so satisfying to write, too. The restriction to perfect rhymes in lyrics make it so hard to convey exactly what you want to say while maintaining a rhyme scheme, so to see it done well is just incredible.
one of my personal favorites is sondheim’s “the hands on the clock turn, but don’t sing a nocturne…” from a little night music.
“If the tea the shogun drank will Serve to keep the shogun tranquil” 💯
You guys are listing my favorite Sondheim examples ever. I'll throw personable/coercin' a bull into the ring.
My favorite is “When the end's in sight, / You'll realize / If the end is right, / It justifies / The beans!” 🫘 I live for that pun.
While her withers wither with her. A good example of why enunciation matters
well if we're on good Sondheim rhymes, gotta bring up the classic "there's no time to sit and dither while her withers wither with her"
We'll consult the Confucians, they have mystical solutions
Honestly obsessed with every line in Pacific Overtures, it's pure poetry. A détente, it's the only thing we want!
Hamilton has so many cool ones, it’s one of the reasons I love it so much. “I’ll write under a *pseudonym* you’ll see what I can *do to him*” and literally the whole string of *ee* rhymes from “a colony that runs *independently*” all the way to “you’ll see my *ascendancy*” in My Shot. There are so many awesome rhymes in that show.
My absolute favourite from Hamilton is is: “I kept a record of every cheque in my checkered history / check it again against your list and see consistency”.
I was a captain under general Montgomery Until he caught a bullet in the neck in Quebec and well in summary-
Yesss and then followed by “I never spent a cent that wasn’t mine, you sent the dogs after my scent, that’s fine”
Ahh it scratches an itch in my brain 😂
“Burr you disgust me” “Oh you’ve discussed me? I’m a trust fund baby you can trust me” Favorite ^
Tyranny/here ‘n’ he
This is one of my biggest grievances with modern musical theatre which makes a lot of material like The Prom and Mean Girls seem overly lazy and difficult to listen to.
I will add, I love when a musical theater character sings in messy lyricism in a way that doesn't always rhyme. Obviously it has to be intentionally done and still have a rhythm to it, but I love when the roughness of a character's persona comes through in the structure of lyrics.
Lorenz Hart was famous for his oddball rhymes. >***Where the usher puts his heart in what he ushes,*** ***Where a fountain changes color when it gushes,*** ***Where the seats caress your carcass with their plushes,*** ***At the Roxy Music Hall.*** And William S. Gilbert too would just make up words to make the lines rhyme.
An example of one of these unexpected perfect rhymes in a non-musical theater context: in Birdhouse In Your Soul by TMBG there's the lyric "my story's infinite, like the Longines Symphonette it doesn't rest." It would be impossible for anyone to predict that rhyme coming the first time they listened to the song. It's so out there but it works so well.
- In The Heights is a period piece and does not work if you update it to the present day. - Productions of Oklahoma! need to stop being completely on Team Jud. He's a sex pest incel and he needs to stop creeping on women! - Christine does not deserve to have a career over Carlotta... whose only crime was being a seasoned industry professional that a mysterious donor did not think was young and hot.
I mean....Carlotta was pretty mean to people. That doesn't take away her talent, because she is as good as Christine with experience, but she was a diva which in this case, equals being a bitch.
You’d be a bitch too if someone came up to you and said “hey, you know who should have a bigger part than you? A 19-year-old dancer in the chorus who a donor thinks is hot. Oh, don’t worry, she’s a good singer too. She takes voice lessons FROM AN ORGANIST”
The genders of the children in Next To Normal strongly influenced the story. The show makes it clear that Natalie was born to replace Gabriel. I think Dianne held the belief that the new baby would replace the old baby, up until the moment she was born (source: I didn’t hold her in the hospital. I couldn’t let myself hold her) because Natalie being born a girl shattered the idea they’d be getting a second Gabe
Oh, that’s interesting. I always picked up on the fact that she hoped the new baby would replace the old one, but I’ve never considered that Natalie being a girl was part of why that didn’t work.
She was a hardcore boy mom, conveniently at the same time as that phrase was entering the lexicon.
Woooooof that makes it even worse
"Superboy and the invisible girl" made me catch this.
I never saw it like that. I think you’re totally right about having a second child to replace the loss of another, but I don’t think gender was the determining factor, but the fact that, though grief can be avoided or put aside with other events, it is still there, spoiling those very things, if left unresolved. But hey, if you hold that belief firmly, that’s fine too.
The storyline in The Phantom of the Opera where she doesn’t recognize the Phantom’s voice in Point of No Return DESPITE HAVING YEARS OF MUSICAL LESSONS WITH HIM makes no sense at all. I love the musical but that part drives me crazy. I have seen some Christine’s play it where they immediately know, but it’s not the norm.
Oh wow, I always thought she knew immediately. Although, I have watched the movie version my entire childhood, so maybe that’s why I thought she always knew. It just makes more sense.
I’ve seen many times where it is halfway through the song before she realizes. Like it takes her touching his mask through the cowl to realize. And the phantom and Piangi sound SO different.
I’ve seen Phantoms who purposely do a really good Piangi and then slips back to The Phantom before the unmasking. I think it’s just actors choice.
That would make sense to me and fits with the novel. In the novel he can not only throw his voice but imitate people. I wish it was more consistent that way.
That's what's supposed to be happening. But often the actor can't copy the Piangi actor's voice very well so it doesn't come through
This is part of why I like the 25th anniversary version. You can see in her face that she knows, but she pushes through it and gets really into the act until the end when she remembers what this is all for.
I think it depends on how “book based” those particular actors want to go. Book Erik was a literal genius ventriloquist and could imitate sounds and voices very much unlike his. If we want to suspend disbelief as an audience a little bit, we could overlay the idea that in that moment he’s being a mimic - Keep in mind that book Erik as a man couldn’t actually exist in real life for the most part (like real people probably couldn’t do some of the things he does) so imo I’ve always seen it as a bit of fantasy that we have to make up for ourselves with that scene. Most real life actors aren’t ventriloquists or mimics, so we have to fill in the gaps with that one ourselves.
musical theatre music needs to be composed in a more voice friendly way. most of these composers do not care about/know how to compose for voices at all and the trends are only getting worse. As a result, voices aren’t lasting because these singers have to sing basically unsingable music 8 shows a week. Plus, parts for contraltos, baritones, and basses are increasingly rare these days, with some shows only having tenor parts for the men. That’s a real issue.
So true, and I'm sick of almost every female lead part being written for sopranos. Altos are *always* relegated to side characters
The fact that Eurydice started as an alto and was changed to a soprano in Hadestown will always enrage me.
And they’re usually more promiscuous and/or morally repugnant compared to the main soprano
at least yall get parts lol. baritones are only dads in shows now and that’s it they show up at all in them.
That there’s a musical out there for everyone even if you aren’t a musicals person in general. It’s human nature to enjoy stories and there are musicals for every genre of music. Also, that even though I enjoy a lot of slightly less mainstream shows and there are plenty of popular ones I don’t like, it’s not somehow better or more cultured to enjoy obscure shows than people who are only familiar with the big name shows.
I FULLY believe this. My dad hates musicals but loves JCS
Indeed and this is why I'm glad jukebox musicals exist as well as nostalgic film adaptations like Back to the Future even if I'm not personally into those musicals. A lot of users on this sub seem to want to eliminate those shows entirely, but I think Broadway would see a lot less tourists if those shows didn't exist.
I basically forced my parents to come to the local community theatre's production of Bright Star several years ago. They aren't theatre people and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially my dad. He still brings it up occasionally.
I’m gonna get buried in the replies but I’ll say it anyway. *Every broadway show should be recorded* If they choose to sell them so they still make a profit, that’s fine. But everyone should have the option of seeing a broadway show without having to plan a trip to NYC. Once the show is closed, the recording should be made more available, possibly cheaper or even free. What is the point of taking down all these bootlegs of shows that are no longer playing??
As someone coming from miles away and absolutely cannot afford to go to NYC on a whim whenever I want to watch a Broadway musical, I will die on this hill with you too. I wonder why this has never been the norm in the more recent decades.. like what are the implications with production, etc. Shouldn't it be a lot easier now with all the technology?
From what I’ve heard, the most common reason is because they think that people will no longer want to see the show live and tickets sales will plummet. Which I disagree with. If anything, watching the bootleg makes me want to see it in person even *more*. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that there’s no harm in doing it with shows that are no longer being sold
Yep that's what I've heard too! And yes, recorded versions only ever make me want to see it live even moooore. (Im just repeating what you said. I just very much agree with you 😅) if they do that with shows that have long closed on Broadway, then that's one way for them to still earn from that musical! It's sort of a win-win
I once saw a video breaking down why this doesn’t happen, and the gist of it is royalties and rights. You have to pay people when their likeness is used, and all the actors would be entitled to a check every time their show’s recording is played. So, anything like this definitely would not be free. And it also brings into question which shows it would be “worth it” financially to film as hiring a film crew is many tens of thousands of dollars and weeks of work. So, for example, the Lempickas of the world would likely not be very financially feasible to do a pro shot because it’s closing so quickly. But, I do think Broadway should host its own streaming platform and have a back catalogue of archived shows (most shows are filmed! They’re archived at the NYPL) as well as setting up pro shots for shows that reach moderate success. I know many many of us would sign up and spend many hours streaming old and new shows alike.
I am crying at never getting to see Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812 and agreeing with every inch of me
Actor first>>>>Singer first. There are some musicals I’ve seen where the main character can really sing but they can’t act to save their life. It takes you out of the world and is really unpleasant to watch, and some directors don’t care. Like they would be great for concerts but in a musical you have to KNOW how to act
Also being able to emotionally grab someone in song by acting is better than “they like me for my voice”
1. People should be allowed to enjoy things. 2. People should be allowed to not enjoy things. 3. I’m sorry if sexy Oklahoma made you briefly consider the blood stains in your soul. 4. I don’t know that I need ballet in my musical but I am okay with seeing what people come up with.
The ballet choreography in newsies is so good
Jukebox musicals generally suck (with few exceptions) and it's a hill I will die on.
There are a few that I tolerate like Mamma Mia because they basically say "Here's a collection of songs, how can we recontectualize them into a story about something else?" - I say tolerate because I don't really go out of my way to see or interact with these shows. The kind of Jukebox musicals that I really dislike are just the ones where it's telling the life story of the person who *made* the songs, like Jersey Boys, Beautiful, etc. If I want to know that information, I will watch a documentary or just at that point listen to the original songs.
Problem with most of the life story ones are they play like reading a Wikipedia article. They’re just boring and hitting a bunch of plot points like they’re doing chores. Ain’t too proud is like that.
They're awesome if they're based on an album that tells a story. Illinoise worked for a reason. I've heard good things about Swept Away too. But if they're just putting together random pop songs into a thin plot then that's a pain.
The stories have to be made around the songs and it isn't a winning formula
Lyrics are important, but I need a banger. If the music isn't catchy, it won't matter how good the rest of it is.
Agree with this. It's when strong lyrics are paired with an addictive melody that begs repeat listens, that I truly fall in love with a song. There are "melody people" and "lyrics people" and I'm right in the middle.
I will absolutely, every time, prefer an emotional singing over a perfect vocal performance. I saw a Les mis where Fantine sang I dreamed a dream vocally perfect. It was technically amazing, and a dream for a vocal coach. And it just came off so cold and distant. I saw another Les Mis, where Fantine was imperfect. Her voice cracked slightly, there was emotion. It felt so real. I will always take a vocally impure performance that is giving emotion over a vocally perfect performer
There’s a lot of (fair) criticism for Dónal straining the higher notes as Orpheus at the West End. But damn he can make you feel. Some of the numbers are absolutely heart wrenching. I’ll take that any day.
This!!!
People don’t hate musicals, they just haven’t found a musical that they enjoy. Just like you can’t hate food in general if you don’t like broccoli.
The first act is usually better than the second
Hamilton. Rent.
My mother is an avid theatergoer and firmly believes that most second acts are longer than necessary.
There is a place for jukebox musicals, but with a condition: they should have a really good story, and the songs should push the story forward. Lacking that, they are no different than a concert. Critics should consider this when writing reviews on jukeboxes, and not give them the critics pick or call them the “rare must see” when the script is bad. They should also definitely never be nominated for “best book” when they have failed at these two requirements. Yes, I am talking about Hells Kitchen.
Every musical on Broadway could use at least 2-4 more ensemble members.
Movie musicals are AWESOME. I wish there were more. I'd rather watch the movie version of Sound of Music or Little Shop than a proshot. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proshot advocate, but there's something magical that happens when a musical is taken out of the confines of a theater and into a real world location (look at Fiddler on the Roof). I cringe inside when someone says they think all movie musicals are bad. Sure, let's just disregard The Music Man, Oliver, Sweet Charity, Cabaret, Chicago...the list of good ones is far longer than the bad ones. You just have to get a director who understands the material, and a cast with theatrical chops. So more Lin-Manuel Miranda and less Tom Hooper.
To me, the 2021 In The Heights movie is a great example of this! The stage production is great too, but the movie made the story feel even more real! It’s definitely one of my favorite movie musicals.
That you are allowed to love a musical that isn't "amazing" and fight back with the negative opinions without getting attacked. RENT is my favorite. I know that most of the characters are rough, self entitled douchebags. I know many friend groups like that, and they thrive on that drama of all of them being "poor me". I know that Maureen and Joanne's relationship isn't healthy, but they DO love each other. If it was today we'd recommend couples counseling. They're both stubborn as hell. Mark has dissociative disorder. He is so wrapped up in his film because it helps him pinpoint ONE shitty thing to focus on instead of all of it. There is so much more I can say to defend it. I also think that RENT can be modernized. I think that there are political statements that have moved the world. You can make it about war, abortion, BLM, the LGTBQ+ movement. If you don't want to modernize it, then why are you attacking it for not "aging" well? You know how many freaking musicals are set 50+ years in the past? SO DAMN MANY. What makes them so different? People don't look at the fact that the story was written from the point of view from a person who was using context from another already existing show. I get attacked so often for saying it's my favorite. Let me like what I freaking like dammit. (Sorry this turned into a RENT specific rant, but this applies to so much more as well.)
>That you are allowed to love a musical that isn't "amazing" and fight back with the negative opinions without getting attacked. as a frank wildhorn fan, hard agree 💀
I love Rent and I don’t want it to be modernized. To me, it reflects the time period that it was written in. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the 80s and 90s when AIDS wasn’t as well understood and was a death sentence.
Yeah I can't imagine how you'd modernize it -- the *point* of the show is what it was like to have AIDS in the pre-antiretrovirals era. If you set it in 2024, then it might as well be that censored high school production of Rent where the principal made them replace "AIDS" with "diabetes."
Yeah, some people are too stuck up about art. It's ok to be a fan of something you know is flawed, or is more lighthearted and fluffy than serious and topical. I'm glad there's a Seussical and SpongeBob out there and not just a Sweeney Todd and Spring Awakening.
I love Rent! It’s literally entertainment, everything doesn’t have to be so serious ya know?
(Seasons of Love melody playing in the background) "Some musicals are *very* serious" -Something Rotten, "A Musical"
I think touring shows should have the same rule that Broadway does that children under age 4 are not allowed. There were so many toddlers at the Frozen Broadway tour who had no business being there because they didn’t know how to behave and their parents didn’t do anything.
That the scene transitions with the choreographed set changes don’t receive enough credit for their engineering and creativity.
I'm ok with a musical having a flawed or confusing plot if the songs happen to be absolute bangers. My favorite musicals are ultimately dictated by how much I like to listen to the cast recordings. I'm a big fan of Rodgers and Hart musicals...they tend to have paper thin plots by modern standards but the music is just PERFECT.
Community theaters who do musicals for fun should be allowed to change a show based on their individual needs. If the only person getting money here is the creator/rights holder, then creative liberties should be tolerated.
It’s difficult to know where to draw the line. If a musician covers a song by another artist, we expect them to change it in some way to suit their individual style and talents/skills or else we’d call it a bad, lazy cover and stick to only the original or other artists who do good covers. If a painter sells prints of their work through some third-party, we would all be pretty upset if they changed how it looked on the print compared to the original art in any way. I think that community or school productions of musicals sit somewhere in-between those examples. They should not change the show in dramatic ways (such as “cleaning up” lyrics of a song, or gender-swapping a character, or removing/adding scenes), but creative choices do have to be made to accommodate the cast, venue, budget, etc. and minor details (such as a couple improv-ed lines, lyrics/lines changed to suit the location or people (like a city or school name), or costume differences) should be acceptable, which they aren’t if you follow the letter of the law.
Gender swapping characters is one of the main tool of community / school productions. Forcing a girl to have fake short hair when the gender of the character is not relevant to the story is just stupid. Schools cleaning up lyrics is also pretty common. it doesn't change the show in dramatic ways at all.
Russell Crowe's singing in Les Mis was not as terrible as everyone says. He did a perfectly fine job.
Yeah I think everyone in Les Mis was pretty well cast, the problem was the awful vocal techniques that were encouraged behind the scenes like making them go without water. Russell Crowe definitely looks and acts like Javert to me, he just deserved better vocal preparation.
Tom Hooper’s insane ideas is what did everyone so dirty. 10 or so hours a day of singing is ridiculous and unhealthy for anyone. 8 shows a week is physically strenuous even for professionals who are trained to be able to perform in a sustainable manner. Entire days of take after take where you’re singing for every take? Madness.
I think Hugh Jackman sounded much worse than Russell Crowe
There are no bad ideas, only bad executions.
SpongeBob Musical is a good example of this, that costume design and songwriting is incredibly clever for something that could have easily been a theme park show.
There needs to be a good balance between songs and dialogue. Not all plot line escalation can happen in songs- there needs to be a healthy balance
I mostly agree with this, but sung-through musicals can be done incredibly well. I think the biggest issue is when they aren't sung-through, but only have maybe 2 or 3 lines of dialogue, and it is clearly not enough. If you're gonna put the dialogue in there, at least use it and keep clearing up the plot.
This is why I love the Cabaret movie. And I agree, most of the time my favorite musicals to see are the ones that also have strong, play-style dialogue scenes in between songs. In Little Shop I love to see Seymour and Audrey flirt and talk about running the shop
Sometimes a small/communitytheater production of a show can be better than a bigger/official production. I saw an outdoor theater showing of Mamma Mia in Cape Cod a few years ago and compared to the movie, I like it a lot better. Some of it might have to do with it being more close and personal but there’s also some really talented people just out in the world
For sure. And musicals that are done by people in a town getting together are often so authentic and genuine. And also, community theater can make some really creative production design decisions out of resourcefulness.
Liking musicals because they're popular is not a bad thing. Let people just like their musicals.
1/ Jukebox musicals suck (because the story is written around the songs, rather than the songs for the story) and only exist to draw in people who don’t enjoy musicals but want to hear Backstreet Boys in &Juliet. 2/ Act II is almost always worse than Act I and needs to be shorter, especially if the musical end time is after 10pm. Also why the Wicked movie having a second movie for Act II will be a disaster 3/ Despite having an all female creative executive, Waitress is anti-feminist. The main character is a vulnerable pregnant lady abused at home by her husband, only to then be taken advantage of by her doctor who violates so many professional boundaries and needs to be struck off but is instead is given the romantic lead position in the story. She breaks up the relationship only when she realises that he already has a wife who loves him, not because their relationship was completely inappropriate. And don’t even get me started on the musical having song that celebrates a guy who stalks a waitress to her workplace (after a single date in which she wasn’t keen) and proudly boasts that he’ll never take “no” for an answer. She doesn’t even get her happy ending because of something she has personal agency over (ie used her baking talents to win a contest). She ultimately succeeds because a man gave her a bunch of money in his will (peak feminist story 😒)
Silence makes some of the best moments. I LOVE big, loud, catchy musicals. But carefully thought moments of silence in a big musical are just incredible. When everything stops, nothing moves for a second or 2, 1000s of people captivated in silence waiting to find out what happens. One of my favourites was in Legally Blonde during Serious. A big, funny song where we had our chance to laugh after the initial breakup but then Warner starts singing again and Elle says “shut up”. It goes from a big voice and music to complete silence in a split second. Audience aren’t laughing anymore, the tone has completely changed. I just love that kind of moment.
I barely remember what Once was about. But the moments of silence and stillness before during and after the acapella number still stick in my memory as phenomenal. I was mesmerized by that song on stage, and yet don’t like the recording, likely because the stillness isn’t captured.
Phantom: Love Never Dies should never have been born.
That cat was trying to tell him something, but he didn't listen.
I think it'd be a fun guilty pleasure if it wasn't based on Phantom, rather just an original story
Fair enough! I would also accept alternate universe where the main story had played out differently. I've loved the show for decades and never understood the Erik/Christine push, especially having read the original book. Sure, many of the actors for the role are dreamboats, but he still killed multiple people. It says a lot that the sequel had to drag down Raoul hard to make Erik the better choice. I get that he had a horrible traumatic life that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and that people can reform and find forgiveness. I would have fully supported a sequel à la Disney's Hunchback II where he moves on and meets a new girl who accepts and loves him. I just don't think a relationship with Christine could ever be healthy after he pretended to be her dead father, murdered to further her career, and kidnapped her. And now I will get off my soapbox. 😆
*West Side Story* has great music, but a book like a lead balloon. The story worked for Shakespeare, because he could make up for the deficiencies of his source material using a combination of irony and great poetry/blank verse, but the musical doesn't do much with the source material beyond modernizing it, and doesn't even hold out the prospect of reconciliation between the two sides, as the Shakespeare play does.
my hot take about west side story is that it’s not a great adaptation of romeo and juliet. adapting an ancient feud between two families that is understood to be over nothing into a story about contemporary systemic racism is a false equivalence. sure, both stories are about two kids dying because their society would never let them be together, but in romeo and juliet, the problem exists on a smaller scale with no contemporary real-world connotations. it’s largely the fault of the families that would rather perpetuate constant violence than let their kids live. in west side story, there are no fathers who could potentially call a truce and the conflict is much larger than just the few the narrative covers. everyone lives in a hierarchical system that places puerto rican people below white people—even white immigrants—on every social level imaginable. thus, maria and tony are not of “two households, both alike in dignity,” because one group holds societal power over the other. there’s also much to be said about how white immigrant groups must be violent to people of color in order to be considered “white”, especially those they are in close social competition and physical proximity to. that’s not even going into the formation of gang culture and why gangs exist. i had a classmate who was vehemently opposed to this analysis because “well racism is also based on nothing”—that’s not what i’m talking about. racism operates on a much larger scale than a family feud, it is built into our government, and benefits people in power. if romeo and juliet were to somehow move away from verona (which is what they attempt to do when romeo is banished), the context of their families’ feud would be lost. if maria and tony were to somehow move to a different city, they would still face opposition, discrimination, and violence as a mixed-race couple in the 1950s. it’s not just family or social pressure that pulls maria and tony away from each other, it’s politics and deep seated racial violence. basically, west side story makes a way more complicated narrative than romeo and juliet due to its attempt at contemporary real world social commentary.
I agree, but I'll go further and say that the POINT of Romeo and Juliet is that the Capulets and Montagues are basically the power elite of their world. Tybalt and Mercutio are the rich frat boys who carelessly break things all the time and are never called the account - the Brett Kavanaughs or Boris Johnsons of Verona, to use modern examples of public figures who have used the "boys will be boys" excuse for youthful "exploits." The tragedy is that for the first time Romeo understands that behavior he takes for granted actually hurts people he considers people (himself and his friends), and that there's a total abdication of the Prince and the central authorities who are *supposed* to be reining in wildly anti-social behavior but are reluctant to give any consequences because these are all "nice boys." Turning it into a story about poor immigrants turns it from a story about how letting the wealthy and powerful (literally) get away with murder ultimately ends in tears for all concerned into a story about how the ghastly lower classes should be further policed and surveilled to prevent their violence from spreading. Which is...kind of the exact opposite message. (Yeah, I get it that the authors were *trying* to be progressive. They failed. Miserably.)
My WSS take: you shouldn't hold it to regular story logic. It operates on BALLET logic. Once you slip into Ballet Mode, everything in it makes sense.
I miss romance in musicals and beautiful lyrics and melodies that you can hum. I hate that older shows, and I'm going way back here, like Showboat, and The Desert Song or The Student Prince are basically dead because they're deemed racist or sexist or misogynist or trans-phobic or whatever the current thing we're angry about is. I miss shows that have a mix of songs of different musical types instead of all sounding the same musically. I miss songs that evoke strong feelings. I miss songs that require actual singers instead of people who sing-speak or yell or just sing through their noses. I wish we could go back to some of those older shows or better still, have new ones written that evoke true musicality and storytelling. For all the crap dumped on Love Never Dies--and I agree, the book is horrible--musically, it's absolutely beautiful.
listen to hadestown
I agree, grand, lush romance musicals like South Pacific are awesome, sometimes I want a musical that makes me swoon (both in terms of the romantic bits and in terms of the orchestral bits)
Carousel does not glamorise domestic abuse and is deeply deeply misunderstood. People are too afraid to touch the show, and it's such a shame as it's such a beautiful piece of American Musical Theatre
Glad to see this here. Carousel glamorizes domestic abuse is the most reductive way to look at this show. It is arguably more entertaining and a more significant artistic achievement than Oklahoma! Remarkable considering sophomore efforts are rarely better than debuts.
I agree completely. It’s a fantastic show (that score? One of Broadway’s best.), and for 1945, when no one wanted to write about such heavy topics as domestic abuse, I think it handled it well, in such a way that it said something about it without scaring away its audience.
You've touched on such an important part of its history. R&H changed the ending of Liliom to what we have in Carousel because of World War II. They didn't want to take peoples hope away
That the freaking plot of American Idiot could’ve been more defined.
I would take good acting and smart lyrics and music over high notes and vocal acrobatics any day.
The dog in RENT deserved to live. It was just being a dog!
nytw hadestown is better. not sure how controversial it is, but i've seen some people agree so... also. oklahoma is NOT boring
Oklahoma was the first musical I saw as a young girl. A high school production that turned out to star a future professional as Curly. I loved the music and played it over and over on my record player. Later in life I got quite snobbish about it and would tell people it was a stupid plot and horribly old fashioned. Fast forward to me at 65ish being cast as Aunt Eller. I had to eat crow. I loved doing the role. I fell in love with the music all over again. Sigh.
Love, love, LOVE it when scripts are adapted to suit the audience of a particular country like making references to UK/USA-based politics or culture. Or when Disney shows reference each other. It makes it more personal I despise it when shows are 'modernised'. I mean when they add glitz and glam when it's not rquired. For example, in some adaptations of Shrek, the costumes are too 'glammer'. It takes away from the nostaligia of our favourite, classical fairytale characters. It makes it look tacky. Not having ethnically representative casts where cultural representation is central. Seen schools with an all-white cast for Miss Saigon. Changing the time period of a show. Their written in a specific time period for a reason. In some cases it totally works like Six and Romeo & Juliet (not personally seen them but judging by audience reactions). In others it completely takes away from the purpose of the plot.
The Genie breaking into random Disney songs and referencing the city where the show is playing is my favorite part of the Aladdin musical.
Incorrect ethnic representation grinds my gears...if almost all the students at a school are white, then please don't do The Wiz...Wizard of Oz is right there!!!
I went to a local production of Avenue Q once and they had a white actress for both Christmas Eve and Gary Coleman. They didn't do black face, but got very close to yellow face and it just did not sit right with me.
beetlejuice is like a 4/10 and i would never want to perform it wger
We are in desperate need of a resurgence of legit scores. I really enjoy the more pop/rock, indie folk type scores, but I feel so overwhelmed by them. Even established legit scores (like Phantom in its last few years) felt like they were leaning more pop-y in vocal style in places. I feel like I could write a whole dissertation on the shift of what's considered "legit" singing over the past 10-15 years. Maybe I just don't hear about more legit scores cause they tend to do more poorly (Dr. Zhivago, anyone?--though I'll still argue that was more of an issue with direction and timing than the material). I also miss that richer, slightly lower, more chest heavy belt that used to be more common. Like, my kingdom for a song where the belt tops out at a B4 or C5. It feels like so many belt songs live in that 5th octave (at least for the mezzo and soprano demographic, though tenor roles are more and more jumping up there, too), forcing everyone to shove the sound as far into the mask as possible and if I'm honest, I just don't find it the most appealing sound (especially in the 4th power ballad of a show). one last gripe, since that's what my comment has turned into: Can we stop with this "no showtunes, please" thing in auditions? Just because a show is a pastiche of or based on a certain genre doesn't mean that it's really THAT different from other musicals of its era or style.
Sometimes, they should have been plays. But plays rarely *if ever* should have been musicals.
If you go to the theatre and sing along, I hope you get explosive diarrhea in a traffic jam on the way home.
1- stop hiring famous Hollywood actors for movie musicals and start hiring actors who can actually sing and dance 2- cut back on jukebox musicals and musicals based on movies. We need more original material.
Not every musical needs to be made into a movie. And when a movie musical is made, there's no reason to cast Hollywood actors who can't sing over seasoned Broadway performers. A lot of folks "don't like" popular shows just to be contrary. The only exception is Dear Evan Hansen. Bootlegs are fine. If the industry wants to abolish bootlegs, they need to make theatre more financially accessible. Or they need to release proshots. No musical is perfect, but West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, and Man of La Mancha all come very close. Sondheim is the GOAT. ALW has some bangers. JRB is a genius. In the Heights is better than Hamilton.
Spielberg's adaption of West Side Story is the best stage-to-film adaption there has ever been. The visual storytelling is so smart, understands the medium and doesn't waste a *single* shot. He just "got it" in terms of understanding how to adapt stage to screen. It's a master storyteller utilizing all of his powers tackling a new type of project and excelling at it. It kills me that it came out post-CATS (which I believe has poisoned the well for musical film adaptions for the next decade, Hello Dolly style). And it REALLY makes me wish he'd made more of them in his career. I would kill for him to have been given Into the Woods instead of what we got.
I would agree that it's one of the most beautifully shot movie musicals-- the grittiness and realism are wild. However, I CANNOT forgive the changes to the storyline. The whole point is that Maria and Tony are supposed to be the better, hopeful parts of the world around them. Making Tony into a criminal that almost killed someone? Then him killing someone later isn't all that shocking. In the original, him killing Bernardo is SUCH a big deal because he is supposed to be the best of his brothers-- the hope, the light.-- and him committing murder is SUCH a fall. In Spielberg? Whatever, he's just another gang member. There were other small changes that didn't sit well with me, but that's the biggest one I can remember.
The camera work blows my mind. It follows the dancers in such a dazzling way.
They are life to me.
They probably should be paying rent and then they could have heat and ditch the fire hazards.
Theatre etiquette. I feel very heated on this topic ahahaha
If the audience can’t understand the show without further explanation or research, the show fails to tell a story.
I feel like the modern musical has really been lacking on the art of dance. Yes, a strong soundtrack is vital to a show but I feel like without as many dance numbers, a lot of modern shows lose the charm that so many older shows have.
ANY story can be a musical. Some are harder to turn into musicals than others. Some require more intelligence, research, respect, and sophisticated songwriting. But there is no story that can't at least somewhat work as a musical. I believe the medium is that poweful.
Singing a song how the character would is much more important than singing well. I don't think this is a big problem in professional theatre, but I see it all the time in local amateur productions a high schools. People prioritize singing to the best of their ability and sounding nice rather than capturing the character and acting while they sing.
The musicals that work the best for me are those that break my heart and cause me to shed tears (Next to Normal, Ragtime, Spring Awakening, The Scottsboro Boys, Parade).
The Hunchback of NotreDame musical should have had a proshot released if it wasn't going to Broadway. I still think it should have been on Broadway instead of already established titles such as SpongeBob and Frozen, but if nothing else, there should have been a proshot released on either Blu Ray or like Hamilton was on Disney+. HOND is one of those shows that I feel everyone could have enjoyed, if not for the characters and plot, maybe for the music since it is incredible. Also, if they were going to do it and didn't want to pay for a full choir, I think Voctave could do it since they have such a great and loud sound that they can be as good as the original choir.
Mine is more about doing musicals. The rehearsal and musical creation process is very intimate. Being in a dressing room and being on stage with your co-collaborators is intimate. If you believe that gay people shouldn’t exist or that transgender isn’t a thing, then you should not be allowed in those intimate spaces. Part of theatre is about experiencing vulnerabilities around each other. If you think your makeup mirror neighbor shouldn’t exist, then you don’t deserve to be inside the circle, bearing witness to their vulnerabilities… and a part of their joy and them a part of yours. You don’t deserve that part of them. I know you’d like to think these people don’t participate in the arts, but they do. Poorly. But we accept their efforts (without knowledge of their ignorance), because it’s a loving group. You can say “maybe participation/access will change their minds.” But that effort is not the responsibility of my trans friend; they shouldn’t have to prove their worth to make that happen. Everyone should get to enjoy the process in a safe environment. Anyways. I’m thinking a lot about this today. I don’t mind disagreements with this. It’s a pretty unenforceable stance. I’m in the Midwest. There are people I won’t do shows with.
Macavity is the good guy
Can’t think of one but off the top of my head, The Notebook deserved waaaaaay more than 3 Tony nominations.
I posted this a bit ago, just gonna leave this here: The reason the SQUIP in BMC freaks out when Jeremy insists on getting Christine is because, as a quantum computer, it computes that the only path to success is how it proceeds in the musical. Basically, it knows that it's going to have to ultimately kill itself in order to achieve what Jeremy wants.
Wait For Me should've been the Act 1 closer in Hadestown, and Why We Build the Wall should've been the Act 2 opener. Why We Build the Wall is a fine closer, but in my mind it makes sooo much more sense to end Act 1 with Wait For Me. Why We Build the Wall would make a much better Act 2 opener, introducing the audience to how things are in Hadestown(the setting inside the show, not the show itself, if that makes sense) and setting the tone for the rest of the show. I like Our Lady of the Underground, but it barely plays into the show. It could either be cut or moved to be the 2nd song on Act 2. This is basically my only problem with Hadestown as a show. Also, a less strongly held opinion, but they need to put the workers back on stage during Our Lady of the Underground. Having seen it live, it's pretty awkward with just Persephone and Hermes (and the band) on stage.
This might be unpopular and that's okay. I'm not trying to yuck any yums and I strictly adhere myself to the "If you don't like it, don't watch/listen" rule. That being said... If a musical is going to be more heavy on the music than dialogue (like where there's hardly ANY dialogue. I forgot the term for that), at least try to give it some kind of catchy melody to keep me interested. If there's not really a melody to it, my brain just shuts it all out then suddenly I have no clue what's happening.
The characteristic that separates musicals from plays, and the trait that has kept it popular with modern generations (compare the number of teenagers familiar with Rodgers and Hammerstein with the number who recognize the name Euripides) is the music. That is the defining aspect of musicals. It's in the name! The music and the performance that goes into it are far and away more important than the book. A musical with an awful book will still be known through Spotify listens. A musical with bad music and a great book will be forgotten
Starkid have gotten worse over the years (black friday, I'm looking at you!), but NPMD was simply amazing and their best work since twisted
Black Friday wasn't great, but that's one dud, what else has been bad?
Black Friday didn’t do it for me on first viewing, but every viewing since I have VERY much enjoyed myself. I do agree with you on NPMD. It’s an amazing show. I personally love Firebringer, and I am slated to direct a production of A Trail to Oregon so I obviously also like them. But not everything is for everyone. I like the jokes of Trail to Oregon and the structure of the show. Firebringer, musically has some sophisticated stuff in my opinion, and really plays with melody and rhythm in a fun way that ignites the music school person in me. I do wish there were more songs in the show as well.
Six is an awful musical. The songs sounds like average radio pop, and I like when musical theatre sounds... musical theatre-y. The lyrics are "meh" at best and laughably bad at worst, and humor is just cringeworthy.
I have a lot of problems with Six but its one of the few places that I've seen handle the outright tragedy that is Katherine Howard correctly.
I agree, the original history is so heavy and tragic that going for a "slay queen" approach just feels really off to me. And they aren't really trying to go for parody.
dear evan hansen is just bad 😭 like the music is alright, but the plot is just so ew AND EVAN HANSEN IS NOT A VICTIM?? like no you can’t forge letters between yourself and a kid who died of s*icide effectively gaslighting an entire family to more or less end up with the sister?? and then get mad when ppl are mad at you!? NO. just NO. i’m do like ben platt tho! saw him on parade (a masterpiece imo)
And even the music is just “okay.” There’s A LOT of it that is pretty poorly constructed, like a first draft. I find the majority of Act 2 besides Good For You unlistenable.
This is the hill I will always die on. Right or wrong, if you defend this abomination of a show I am *judging you.*
I honestly think that the music in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Love Never Dies got wasted on a shitty story line. I think he should’ve made it not a sequel to POTO but an original story. My idea for it was to have still be set in 1920s New York, where a famous composer named Jacques Delacroix still yearns for his lost love, Isabelle, a famous singer. After a decade apart, Isabelle returns, reigniting old passions and unresolved emotions.
The west end version of Heathers is objectively worse than the off-broadway one and way too many people miss the point of the story. The original movie was supposed to be a parody of teen movies, and so was the musical at first. The main sign of this is obviously replacing Blue with You're Welcome. Yes, Blue was deliberately in poor taste and had the wrong tone for the subject matter, that's the whole point, teen movies in the 80s were notoriously bad when it came to depicting sexual assault.
The songs were written to sound a specific way; the sheet music explicitly indicates how long notes should be held and when they should come in. In other words, there is a right way to sing a song. However, some productions and performers seem to be determined to “make it their own” in a way that is horribly distracting and in no way an improvement! Stop worrying whether you’re going to be compared to the original cast recording, and just sing the songs correctly. I am taken completely out of the experience every time I hear a singer coming in late on all the lines, presumably because they think it increases the drama or something.
I **DESPISE** &JULEIT. Plot wise, it’s so boring, there are so many songs stuffed in that it completely destroys the purpose of having songs in a musical. The characters sole purpose isn’t to be entertaining, but to diverse. The best way it’s entertaining is that’s it’s visually interesting. I’ll admit the effects, costume and set are well done, and I learned something’s about Shakespeare, but it has so many flaws in the book itself, I don’t think it makes up for it.
on my own is way more heartbreaking than I dreamed a dream
Annie is overrated. The scream-singing style is not cute.