"Fans" of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals- Page 5
"Fans" of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
riv
Leading Actor Joined: 3/6/05
#100re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 11:20am
best12bars says: "It's just as bad as asking, "Can you really call yourself a movie fan if you don't like silent films or B&W? Or foreign cinema? Or gangster pictures?" Answer: Yes, you can."
Actually what it means is that you go to the movies, which is not the same thing as being a movie fan.
As to musicals, I understand a lot of young people don't grow up with a ear for the so-called "golden age" Broadway style (much less something like operetta, which they should certainly delve into as well), but it leads one to take their opinions and ravings about current fare less seriously. With so much stuff out on CD or available on the internet nowadays, there's no excuse for being devoid of knowledge about musicals of the past. (Same goes for films, by the way.)
If one is truly a "fan" of anything, they should be irresistably compelled to search out past material.
#101re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 11:22am
Does any of this really matter?
Does anything really matter?
Of course it doesn't matter. However, given that we are all spending our free time on a message board I think it's safe to assume that the goal here is that one of two (if not both) agendas be served.
1) Listen to what other people who have similar interests and hobbies have to say about a specific topic, show or concept.
2) Share your thoughts and opinions about a specific topic, show or concept with people who have similar interests and hobbies.
Both of those are being served in this thread. It's about theatre and therefore on topic, so whether it not it "matters" really becomes an irrelevant concept on a message board.
That is unless we want to start the "Are fans of musicals who don't think that fans of musicals who don't like Golden Age Musicals threads matter really fans for musicals?" thread.
If one is truly a "fan" of anything, they should be irresistably compelled to search out past material.
I don't think that is necessarily universally true. I mean, I am that way. However, being a fan of something in the current doesn't necessarily mean you have to take a history lesson on it. Especially something as diverse as theatre and the arts. I mean if you like "Rent" or "Les Miserables" do you have to just study musicals of the last 10 years. Musicals of the last century? Do you have to study straight plays too? What about Greek Tragedy? Shakespeare? Kabuki theatre? When blanket statements are made about what "should be the norm" it makes it very difficult to get a handle on where the stopping point is.
Furthermore, as has been illustrated in this thread a lot of people have stated that they were compelled to research older musicals and understand their worth, they just don't like it.
Let's not get too far off the original question. It isn't about recognizing old musicals. It isn't about acknowledging that they are important and relevant. It's about "liking" them. That is a slippery slope because everyone's tastes are so different and unique.
In general, it's really difficult to equate a value to the importance of personal taste and preference.
FYI, I am rocking out to "Redhead" as I type this, and am considering playing "Rent" when I am finished. 
Updated On: 5/14/06 at 11:22 AM
#102re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 11:29am
"I hate it because these ture believers think this show is some some sort of masterpiece. It isn't."
Who are you to deny opinions? Is it really that much of a strain on your life is someone thinks Rent is the most amazing musical? It doesn't hinder you from seeing whatever shows you want to see.
You are making VAST generalizations, which is so "pedestrain", not to mention plebeian. Like Em there are many of musical theatre fans (more then you probably have guessed) that enjoy lots of other shows (From Sweeney to Show Boat) and still enjoy Rent. I'm tired of people creating a schism between the Broadway world, with Sondheim and "Golden Age" emerging on the top of the spectrum and Rent and Wicked caging the bottom. Taste is taste. One is not better then the other because it is all opinion.
One is not better if they shun Rent, and glorify the Golden Age. Can't we all just be fans of musical theatre, and leave it at that?
#103re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 11:38am
One is not better if they shun Rent, and glorify the Golden Age.
Of course not.
Can't we all just be fans of musical theatre, and leave it at that?
Well, that is the question that we are debating here. For the most part everyone is being respectful and I don't see any reason to "leave it at that." Again, this is a discussion forum. The purpose of this forum is to discuss theories and opinions. The Main Board has been so overrun with review threads and "OMG I Love XX" threads that rarely illicit and good conversation. I personally think that this thread is fantastic because we are having an intelligent debate.
Of course any label is irrelevant. There isn't any need to call yourself ANYTHING. You like what you like and that's that.
Now, in the interest of discussion...
Can someone who only likes two specific shows really be considered a musical theatre fan?
Can someone who dislikes 90% more musical theatre than they like be considered a musical theatre fan?
Can someone who only likes a specific performer be considered a musical theatre fan?
I think the key is really breaking down the meaning of the word fan. Fan is derived from "fanatic".
The definition of fanatic is:
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Now, let's say you love Rent, but you don't really love any other musicals. You like some, but it's mostly about Rent.
Can you really be called a musical theatre "fan". Who would you be a Rent fan who likes some other musicals?
It's all semantics really.
Updated On: 5/14/06 at 11:38 AM
wickedrentq
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/6/04
#104re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 2:34pm
Patronus, you bring up a good point. I think the semantics are all relative. Most of my friends who know nothing about and don't really care about Broadway would have very loose standards. To them, they probably would consider me a musical fanatic whether I loved 2 shows or 100 shows. I've become much more of a Broadway fan, and especially more knowlegable about past Broadway shows since joining this board, but most of my friends truly see no difference between before I joined this board and after--I always loved musicals.
And this is totally jacking the thread but I can't help myself--you mentioned liking a specific performer, which makes me think of baseball, or I suppose other sports these days. People wonder how you can be loyal to a team if one day the person you're whole-heartedly rooting for you start booing. If you love one specific player, can you align yourself to a team? What defines the team if players keep shifting? The uniforms? I don't know...it's interesting to think about in this day in age of free agents.
Sometimes I feel trapped--that no matter how much I fight to prove otherwise, people are always going to make generalizations about Rent/Wicked fans just liking them and not being appreciative or knowledgable about other shows. Sure, there are fans like that, but it's really frustrating often being grouped with them.
"If there was a Mount Rushmore for Broadway scores, "West Side Story" would be front and center. It snaps, it crackles it pops! It surges with a roar, its energy and sheer life undiminished by the years" - NYPost reviewer Elisabeth Vincentelli
#105re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 3:10pm
I don't know, man, no matter how long he wears my beautiful pinstripes, how many runs he scores, or how many great plays he makes, I don't think I can ever love Johnny Damon. He just irks me.
On topic: I think Patronus asks some great questions and wickedrentq had some good responses.
I'd have to say that this person who loves RENT, but doesn't really love any other musicals is a fan of RENT, but not really a fan of musicals.
While someone tried to argue the movie thing the other way, I would say it IS the same with movies. A person can love certain movies like (based on a real person I know) Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Braveheart, and The Patriot, but I wouldn't classify him as a fan of movies. Were this person a fan of movies, whether or not he enjoys the films in general, he would watch a movie like Sling Blade and enjoy the quality writing and acting or Rear Window and enjoy the tension Hitchcock creates through his meticulous care in making us care for the characters.
The first person is a fan of epics that uphold his moral standards, while the second is a movie fan. Your so-called musical theatre fan who only (<--key word) enjoys RENT, or Wicked, or Phantom, or Cats is a person who enjoys spectacle, or popularity, or fun musicals, while the person who, in addition to those, also enjoys My Fair Lady, Sweeney Todd, or South Pacific (for whatever reason), is a musical fan
Jazzysuite82
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/6/05
#106re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 4:14pmI think many people fail to realize that there is cutting edge, new, challenging musical theatre happening OFF Broadway and in Regional theatre. Broadway is not the be all and end all of theatre. There are plenty of edgy controversial musical plays being produced all over.
mrkringas
Broadway Star Joined: 9/28/05
#107re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 4:27pm
Parade is a good example that made it to Broadway and got a few rewards and a loyal fanbase. Musical fans are clamouring for a London production yet our National Theatre's new Director doesnt seem to rate it at all. Oh well! At least we are getting Caroline, Or Change.
I absolutely take your point about Broadway not being the be all and end all. Its a shame that challenging musical theatre is not the commerical success that it can be. Thats more to do with the economics of broadway in 2006 than the tastes of audiences. No matter how hard we try to rewrite history shows like West Side Story, Company, Sweeney Todd Parade did not enjoy the massive runs of Cats or Phantom.
Because it costs so much money to mount a Broadway show, producers are looking for sure fire hits or at least something less risky. Didnt the producers of Wicked take a risk afer the bad San Francisco reviews? Yeah I would say so and it paid off. Avenue Q is another one thats made it too the big leagues, ditto Spelling Bee. Anyway before I rammble anymore I guess I am trying to say that audiences will respond to a *good* evening in the theatre regardless of what the subject is. It just needs to be a well constructed piece of theatre. The key is of course to "trick" people into seeing something a bit off key every once in a while and not just go back and see Chicago over and over.
I am of course an elitist snob from the UK so please take this all with a pinch of salt 
)))))))
(Who btw the way loves Rent, Wicked, Parade and even had a *fun* time at Footloose. Sometimes I want popcorn, sometimes a nice vintage wine so long as its well prepared!)
FoscasBohemianDream
Broadway Star Joined: 1/20/06
#108re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 5:31pm
JazzySuite82, in response to your comments about Rent I have to say that I am a 25 year old man, almost 26. I was 16 years old when Rent came out, and I have to say it was probably one of the most powerful theatrical experiences I've ever had. It felt like a rock concert, the original cast had such a vibrant energy, being a young gay boy it meant a lot for me to see two males kissing on stage, my father was the one who took me there so it was further proved how much he accepted my lifestyle. I was one of those kids who saw the original cast like 4 times on Broadway.
However, I grew up. I work in a college where I have become friends with the Queer Studies professor. He introduced me to a theorist, Ms.Sarah Schulman, whose novel was plagiarized by Jonathan Larson to write Rent. I've read Schulman's take on Rent, and I realized how non-progressive it is. Here's an article in which Schulman discusses Rent. And next time you want to say I don't know what I'm talking about please check your facts first, and if you think I'm a "youngin'" at 25, well, thank you, I feel flattered.
Schulman's interview
#109re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 5:41pmThat's a very often-disputed claim; I would be careful when taking it as the truth so easily. More likely, it's probably neither completely true, nor completely false.
Jazzysuite82
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/6/05
#110re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 5:52pm
First of all, you're 25 that's really young. It's not 12 but you're certainly not a wise old sage so to say that you're not a 'youngin' may be true, but it isn't entirely. Second I never said that you "don't know what you're talking about". I said at most you were ill informed. The only 'facts' I need are your comments. So please don't start getting your panties in a bunch over that.
Frankly you simply made my original point. You're comment was that Rent wasn't progressive and didn't confront anything. Firstly we're talking about theatre, not literature. NOw whether Larson copied from whoever isn't really of consequence here. Honestly I could care less, I don't like Rent. The point was at the time it was being written (Larson started working on it around 1990) there was really nothing like Rent around. THere was VERY little musical theatre taking on the subjects it took on and none of them were presented the way Rent was. I refer to your experience of the evening which you recount. You yourself say it was one of the most powerful experiences in your life in your last post.
Now in your original post you said "My point is that Golden Age musicals broke rules, they established guidelines, they pushed boundaries". I think Rent more than meets these qualifications and it's NOT a Golden Age musical. The difference is the medium. No one's saying Rent is sooo progressive in all things, we're just talking musial theatre here. I mean look at what was playing on Broadway at the time of it's opening. It was progressive and new. As I stated originally, it's just not new anymore. The world has changed and it's not quite as fresh as it was in 1990. To say that it wasn't progressive in my opinion is to be ill-informed. I stick by that.
jonartdesigns
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/04
#111re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 8:44pmAct4ever- i agree with you about the length of older musicals. Shows like wicked, and rent are popular since there is alot of singing in them, among other reasons. Oklahoma has 16 songs spread across 3 hours, not all too evenly so while most of them are great it makes for a very long night.
"Grease," the fourth revival of the season, is the worst show in the history of theater and represents an unparalleled assault on Western civilization and its values. - Michael Reidel
#112re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 9:22pm
I personally really DISlike most of what's on Broadway right now. In rotation on my iPod right now is Follies, Merrily We Roll Along, West Side Story, Kiss Me, Kate, Company and Sweeney Todd. (Ok so there's ONE show I really like).
But you can debate how much better shows like Sondheim's were as opposed to stuff like Wicked and RENT in terms of quality of score. It's really no contest, even to someone who likes Wicked and RENT.
I know this groc'ry clerk...
#113re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 9:22pm
Well if you want to talk about older shows seeming too long, blame it on the 6 minute attention span brought on by the parents of a generation who let their kids sit in front of the TV all day.
These shows were not considered horrible to sit through during their original productions. Producers and directors knew a thing or two about keeping the audience's attention, and they would not have made the show so long it would have lost its audience. Our attention spans have unfortunately gotten shorter. My advice is to watch less TV and do more activities that require concentration for longer periods of time.
My avatar is a reminder to myself. I need lots of reminders...
Updated On: 5/14/06 at 09:22 PM
#114re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/14/06 at 11:15pmThere are a lot of classic musicals that I love, and as I get older I gain a greater appreciation for older musicals. I think before it was because the songs for me, weren't as fun to sing, so I would never sing them. Then my voice teacher made me sing stuff from West Side Story and Roar of the Greasepaint The Smell of the Crowd. And I just started to listen to the lyric structure and was amazed at how well the songs flowed. Then listening to old cast recordings I started picking up on the subtleties of the songs. I still like singing modern musicals, but I now have a greater respect for the older musicals.
http://theaterfag.blogspot.com/
Reviews and the like
#115re: 'Fans' of Musicals Who Don't Like Golden Age Musicals
Posted: 5/15/06 at 11:45am
I still think that it's ridiculous to say that you have to like (all? 90%? where is the cut off?) Golden Age musicals to be considered a fan. And I'm not talking about quality of recordings or singers, but the shows themselves. I would never discount a show without seeing it on stage first, but I’ve not found that many I've seen to be worth me (remember, this is only an opinion!) seeing again. As I’ve said, I do have inexplicable exceptions (My Fair Lady and Guys and Dolls) and I hope to find more someday...
This is really just echoing what JazzySuite said, but just because shows were radical once doesn't mean that they still have the same impact. I don't doubt that South Pacific made many valuable points in 1949 but now it just seems like pointless moralising (there's a reason why it is rarely revived). Back then, racism was a casual, ingrained attitude which R&H bravely decided to take on. Now, racism is not as a result of the same ignorance in that it can't be taken on with logical argument and some pretty songs.
Another huge problem is that familiarity breeds contempt. The more these shows are done (and in some cases, very badly), the less people will want to see them. I want to be surprised by the score and book of a totally new musical rather than sit through three hours of hill-side yodelling only to watch Maria and the Seven Dwarfs climb over that hillside. Again.
Oddly, I find that productions of Sondheim shows tend to be more daring and I can usually find something new in them to keep me interested. Is that the writing, or a more liberal 'estate'?
This 'old is good, new is bad' mentality is just annoying. I rank Crazy for You with Footloose - a load of popular hits strung together with a terrible book and a lot of dancing. Whether you consider the score to be good or bad is a matter of taste rather than quality, though of course both sides will insist that their taste is better. And so life on a musical discussion board goes on...
Videos