(The days of the week are merely a consideration of time. There’s no real reason why today can’t be Monday. In fact, considering we’ve probably lost days and weeks, or even years, back during the Dark Ages, today might actually be Monday. Who knows, and who cares — today is Musical Monday, whether you like it or not.)
It’s been a long time coming, but hopefully worth the wait. I’ve finally made it to the last stage of this little lesson in musical theatre history: contemporary West End and Broadway shows!
We had the golden years in the 40s, 50s and early 60s. I’ve discussed the birth of rock musicals in the 60s, and their eventual maturity with masterpieces such as Rent. The 70s and 80s were full of Sondheim masterpieces and Andrew Lloyd-Webber’s ‘power’ and ‘pop’ musicals. And now, we have the new millennium. The musical composers that kept the stages and audiences around the world buzzing for the last 50 years have proverbially taken their last bow and left the stage. It’s been a long time indeed since Les Miserables or Phantom of the Opera debuted. That’s not to say we’re without good, contemporary musical writers — there are a few, and I certainly remain hopeful to see a second smash hit from Wicked‘s creator Stephen Schwartz — but there has certainly been a bit of a creative slump in recent years. The same stagnation that’s plagued the popular film industry has seeped into musical theatre.
Today, it’s all about brand re-use. It’s all about value-added productions. Why bother to spend time and money on something that might fail? Today more than ever, commercial success is vital — gone are the days when musicals might only run for a week or two. Experimentation is not something that goes down well with investors! Couple this with the world’s ‘need’ for bigger productions, shinier productions — moving stages, sinking ships — and it’s no wonder we’re seeing consolidation in the musical industry. With the recession, it’s almost a certainty that we won’t see any new, refreshing and big productions. In fact, Wicked was probably THE last great, original musical — at least until the end of this decade, I would’ve thought.
Now, this ‘consolidation’ (vertical integration) is nothing new, and it’s borrowed directly from the multimedia industry. When you make a blockbuster film it makes sense (for the publisher at least) to piggyback video games and merchandise on the film’s marketing strategy. The number of video games sold on the back of the Harry Potter and Spider-Man films is huge! It was only inevitable that musical theatre would go the same way, which is why we’ve laboured through such 3 1/2 hour epics as Lord of the Rings: The Musical and Titanic: The Musical. It’s why we’ll soon have to struggle through Spider-Man: The Musical.
This isn’t to say that screen-to-stage adaptations don’t work! Look at My Fair Lady, The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast — all huge hits on the screen, and then the stage. Though, there’s one major difference: they were already musicals with fantastic scores! Sunset Boulevard is one of the only non-musical-film-to-stage adaptations that’s been a large success and funnily, Lloyd-Webber’s musical version is scheduled to become a film again. That’s not new though: The Producers did it too with fantastic results: Film, musical, and finally becoming a musical film.
Somehow I can’t see Spider-Man: The Musical being adapted for the big, silver screen though. Unless Toby Maguire can sing, then we might see it after Spider-Man 5. Maybe. Though, I get all excited, thinking about the harness work they’ll do on stage for Spider-Man. The acrobatics in Mary Poppins, though very simple, were incredibly effective. On a larger scale, it might be very impressive indeed. I do wonder if a singing Spider-Man could be taken seriously though. Crowd-pleasing, full-chorus numbers lamenting his inability to get the girl, or control his sticky web issues.
Anyway, the other popular musical production today is the ‘jukebox musical’. It’s a format that has existed for a while, but only really lifted off with Mamma Mia! in 1999 (which recently became a film, completing the circle of life!) In 2002, the genre was firmly cemented with the truly awesome production of We Will Rock You by Ben Elton and Queen. But what is a jukebox musical exactly? It’s when an enterprising person takes an existing body of pre-branded music and shoehorns it into a totally wacky, nonsensical story. And it works — just. If you’re an ABBA or Queen fan, you’ll love it; if you’re not, you’ll probably leave the theatre a little worse for wear, and very confused. Fortunately, the music industry is massive and there’ll always be enough fans to drive these jukebox musicals for years and years.
Though, saying that, there’s a depressingly large list of jukebox musicals that have been produced, or are in the works. Musicals based on the works of John Denver — OK, I can kind of envision something Calamity Jane‘ish. But really, would people go to see a Green Day musical? Or Boney M? Or even… Take That? (OK, the Take That musical is actually quite good; don’t hurt me, girls, please.)
The future looks pretty bleak for musical theatre. Recent years have only seen a handful of musicals that would make their ‘golden years’ brethren proud. We can pray that musical theatre doesn’t follow in the footsteps of the other media industries, but I think that would wishful thinking — everything in this world is becoming larger, globalised, monetised and capitalised upon. You can guarantee that if a studio spends 10 million on the marketing of a film and video game, they’re going to make a stage production too!
As always then, it comes down to a few enterprising composers, or an investor that see that little glimmer of potential that everyone else missed. Unless we want to be plagued with the third and forth revival productions of classic productions, something has to change. More risks need to be taken. It’s down to you Stephen Schwartz; make your Jewish musical masters proud.
I know I’ve painted a grim picture, but it’s worth noting that musical theatre is more popular than ever (which must be a good thing?) The problem – at least, in my eyes — is the quality of productions. Musicals have become ‘a special, expensive trip to the cinema’ that a family might do once a year. Musicals should be more than that! They shouldn’t simply be part of our entertainment consumption regime; they should be part of our culture, and the future culture of our children.
pinkjellybaby
Apr 15, 2009
I loved We Will Rock You….but the main guy I saw in it the first time (who was awesome and totally made it) swanned off to do it in America (so what, the UK wasn’t good enough?) and it just wasn’t as good after that.
Abi
Apr 15, 2009
I think I might love you for posting this.
I have been known to look sceptical when someone goes: “Abi, its ___the musical.. you will love it”.. Usually, (and there are exceptions to the rule) the score is all. Whatever you think about Take That- the songs are there. What is Spiderman going to sing?. His version of Pinnochio “Ive got no webs to hold me down”??.
I guess I was lucky to get to see so many productions as a kid. As you say, it is just as expensive trip to the cinema now. There is still some good stuff out there but it is all about the moolah.
*Sticks on Calamity Jane soundtrack*
(I am still half asleep so this may not make sense)
sebastian
Apr 15, 2009
Well, that was probably THE ‘Freddie’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Vincent — an American! A lot of effort went into choosing the right guy, and to be honest… he was totally amazing (and it’s not surprising that he’s played both parts in Rent, either!)
But hey, good things have to come to an end… and he went back to the USA, after doing the whole Queen Elizabeth’s 50th birthday thing
sebastian
Apr 15, 2009
(I’m still half asleep too — what on earth am I doing up this early…?)
I’ve seen Lord of the Rings (the musical), and indeed… it was the score that mostly let it down. It wasn’t bad, but it also wasn’t good enough to support the show for 3 1/2 hours. It was a visual spectacle — a serious, mondo-mother-frackin’ spectacle — one that cost millions and millions, and eventually had to close before they went bankrupt.
You’re right about Take That’s musical, at least they have the songs. I guess we shouldn’t worry quite so much about the jukebox musicals for that reason. Though, a Blondie musical…?
I am more concerned about Spider-Man, and if it means we’ll see lots of comic book musicals. I am also surprised there’s Spider-Man: The Musical, but no X-Men — isn’t that a bigger franchise?
Richard Hardwick
Apr 15, 2009
Hi,
Love the blog. I’m 50/50 on it.
There have been some foolish jukebox musicals: Desperately Seeking Susan and the Boney M debarcle stand out, but Musical theatre has always adapted to the environment and evolved with it. This is just a phase of big adaptations, but just as many before were based on legends, books and classic stories, TV and Film has replaced these as a source of material.
Spiderman has Julie ‘Lion King’ Taymor behind it with original music by Bono and the Edge so it has a genuine chance of being a dynamic and very creative show as Taymor isn’t know for doing things half-cocked. Sister Act has the legend Alan Menkin writing the music, whichvirtually assures a great score. New musical wise; Spring Awakening has still managed to rise above the rest and Jersey Boys is the best jukebox/theatre combination to date. Avenue Q remains one of the most inventive shows in years.
I think there’s a wide range of shows with a broad appeal and probably a better selection of shows than ever ranging from high brow to classics to hen night shows to new dynamic works. There’s something for everyone but no room for shows that are poor quality.
pinkjellybaby
Apr 15, 2009
Aye yes, that was him…he was AMAZING… I went twice after that and it just wasn’t as good.
I don’t think it quite fits into this category but I would like to have seen the His Dark Materials on stage…for the puppets!
sebastian
Apr 15, 2009
Hey Richard! Thanks for stopping by.
I almost mentioned Jersey Boys, but figured Mamma Mia and We Will Rock You were enough to prove the concept (though, they were both 6 or 10 years ago now!)
Avenue Q is also 6 years old…!
Perhaps I am just spoilt, being brought up with all of the old musicals — perhaps, back in the ‘golden days’, a good musical only came around once every 5 years, and there were lots and lots of duds, just like there is today. Somehow, though, looking at the dates on my CDs and LPs, strong musicals were a lot more common, back in the day.
I still need to see Sister Act, and I hope Spider-Man is good. I wonder if it only has those names behind it because there’s a lot of money being invested, or if they’re actually involved. Taymor is OK, but she’s a director (and with Disney behind her, it would’ve been hard to mess up The Lion King!) She’s the co-writer of the Spider-Man musical…!
Sarah
Apr 15, 2009
I read this whole post like I was going to be quizzed on it later… mostly, I just don’t know that much about musical theatre. So I learned a lot. Plus… Spider Man the Musical… I had no idea. I don’t know if that’s depressing or ingenious (although Richard’s comment did seem slightly reassuring… till I read yours and I was a skeptic again…).
Didn’t they make a musical out of the famous porn Debbie Does Dallas? I think that was strict off-broadway and a disappointment to all who actually expected it to have sex scenes… but really, you can’t forget that genre. The porn musical… maybe that’ll bring back musical theatre?
Hezabelle
Apr 15, 2009
Oh, Seb… You are so after my heart.
A whole post about musical geekery? Monday or not, this is awesome. Awesome.
I would totally see a Boney M musical, I think they could make a whole show around Rasputin!
I would like to add Spring Awakening to your list of great musicals. That came out this decade too!
Did you know they’re making a Wicked movie…? After what they did with the Rent movie, I’m scared. Rosario Dawson as Elphaba?
sebastian
Apr 15, 2009
You know, Debbie Does Dallas: The Musical never made it to the UK… what a shame! It had no nudity in at all, if I recall correctly, which inevitably led to an awful lot of discontent. It was also written and directed by the same girl that starred as Debbie. A labour of love, perhaps?
You’re late, Heza! There were TWO OTHER posts all about musical theatre history, and a few other bits and bobs scattered throughout the blog.
I’m afraid ‘Spring Awakening, Avenue Q and Wicked’ hardly makes for a ‘killer’ list of musicals when you consider we’re almost through the first decade of the new millennium! Actually, The Producers is probably my favourite musical of this decade — but again, that was 8 years ago now… Christ, time goes by, eh?
I hope things will turn out OK. It just bothers me that Spring Awakening might be the only successful, original musical in the last 5 years — and whether it will be a long-term fixture on stage remains to be seen.
jo
Apr 15, 2009
I am surprised that no one has put ‘Moulin Rouge’ onto the stage actually, I would love to see that….
I expecte we will get ‘The Madonna Years’ soon, followed by ‘I Should be so Lucky’, the life story of Kylie!
Sarcastically Bitter
Apr 15, 2009
I saw an ad for Take That the musical, when I was in London. I thought it was a joke. I did like Take That….so I’d possibly love the musical.
Eric
Apr 15, 2009
I didn’t actually read this post. I just wanted to let you know that this is why I can’t say you’re manly. A post about musicals. Turn in your penis–you’re out of the male club.
sebastian
Apr 15, 2009
You should read it, Eric. It’s educational — and you should never stop learning, lest you turn into a boring, ol’ wrinkly-willy frump! Since when are you handing out member(hah)ships to the male club anyway? You are hardly the embodiment of male machismo and bravado and ample neck and chest hair.
Take That: The Musical is surprisingly good, Miss Bitter. It might be still on when you get another chance to visit our rainy shores… depending on how long they can flog their musical horse. It looks like Robbie’s rejoining them too…
Moulin Rouge would be great on stage! I imagine Baz Luhrmann hasn’t sold the rights yet though, or he wants to do it himself!
Hannah
Apr 15, 2009
Can I tell you that I love you? or is that too stalker?
“they should be part of our culture, and the future culture of our children” <–my thoughts exactly. If I ever convince someone to have children with me, my kids are totally going to be brought up to appreciate musicals and the theatre in general. It’s such a great experience and it amazes me that more people aren’t into it.
sebastian
Apr 15, 2009
Love is fine! Lust, or craving is a little stalkerish… Love is pure, and fancy-free! What the world needs now is… love, sweet love.
I’m sure you’ll find a guy that appreciates you for all your… odd eating habits. And your other perks, of course!
Ambles
Apr 15, 2009
Ha! Sticky-web issues….
I am so seeing the new Footloose musical film with Chase Crawford… It’s going to be awful, I can feel it! Pure comedy gold….
And don’t worry, I am currently dreaming up “Technology: The Musical!” Which will be brilliant, and like, totally relevant.
Eleni
Apr 15, 2009
Wicked is indeed a great musical, and it’s original in the sense that it’s not a reproduction and has an original score and script. But since you call it “the last great, original musical” while in the midst of complaining about recycled brands, it might be prudent to acknowledge the fact that Wicked is a musical based on a book based on a movie based on a book. Or maybe it’s not prudent, I’m sure you have your justifications.
I just saw the Mamma Mia! movie on Sunday. It was very entertaining, but I did squirm a bit in my seat through some of the performances. I recognize that its goal was to be fun and not necessarily to be a great film, but I still think they might have done a bit better.
“I am also surprised there’s Spider-Man: The Musical, but no X-Men — isn’t that a bigger franchise?”
Really? X-Men may be the larger franchise in the sense that it has more heroes (and therefore probably has more stories), but in terms of current market power, no. The three X-Men movies together grossed a total of about $1.2 billion in the worldwide box office, while the three Spider-Man films together grossed a total of $2.5 billion–more than twice as much.
“with Disney behind [Taymor], it would’ve been hard to mess up The Lion King!”
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, but with Disney behind her, she could have ended up with The Little Mermaid or even–*shudder*–Tarzan. Disney does not guarantee a great Broadway musical. Give Taymor some credit there.
Great post. I agree that musical theater has been declining lately. I’m also not living near New York anymore as I was when Avenue Q and Wicked were winning Tony awards, so I like to tell myself that I’m not missing much. Broadway has been hurting financially in recent years. I hope they can turn it all around.
sebastian
Apr 15, 2009
Almost every musical is based on a book, or some kind of story/myth! Very few are original-original… very, very few. Successful ones, anyway
There’s a big difference between productions that were based on films though — there’s already been that artistic interpretation from text to visual: comic book to film, classic book to musical. When you go from comic book to film to musical… you get a nasty mash-up of creative input. You also have an awful lot of expectations/preconceptions that might be hard to break through.
Not to say it’s impossible — just hard to do well.
The Little Mermaid score is actually quite good…! I mean that The Lion King music isn’t great, but the production values are. Beauty and the Beast is the same deal (though the music is better in that). Disney likes to prove that you can perform magic on stage, with enough money, and expertise!
I meant the X-Men franchise — as in the number of fans, and comic books produced. But I could be wrong? I just recall being told that the X-Men universe is the biggest/most successful of any comic? Spider-Man (film) has probably been more successful because of the HUGE marketing spree (unless the Spider-Man comics really are more popular than X-Men… you tell me!)
From a quick search, 2007 was the ‘highest year ever’ for musical theatre. That might be Broadway, or West End, or combined. I presume 2008/2009 are lower, because of the recession — but this ‘creative rut’ started well before 2007.
Eleni
Apr 16, 2009
I love The Little Mermaid and think it has a great score (I have extolled the Menken-Ashman team before). It is my understanding, however, that the Broadway version didn’t come out as well as people had hoped–the direction and production did not do justice to the music. I want to be clear that my point was that a good Disney score and lots of Disney money does not guarantee a great Broadway production. Disclaimer: I have not actually seen The Little Mermaid stage production, so I am just saying what I’ve read. If you’ve seen it and thought it was good, then that’s great.
As far as Tarzan goes, I hear that it was supposed to be an even worse stage show, but it did have the disadvantage of a largely unmemorable score to begin with.
sebastian
Apr 16, 2009
I’m not disagreeing with you — I’m telling you that The Lion King isn’t actually that great.
It’s a visual spectacle, and very little else. It wouldn’t be half the show it is, if it was in a small theatre, put on by an amateur group — the same could not be said of Sweeney Todd or Les Miserables which rely on powerful characters, interactions and story.
At the end of the day, the Disney stuff has already been rehashed 2, 3 or 4 times — from ancient myth, to film, to sequel, to stage — each stage layering yet more creative input on top, but not really improving things.
I never did like The Lion King (the film, or musical) as much as everyone else, though — perhaps that’s just me.
I did cry during the opening scene though — it was THAT awe-inspiring.
Eleni
Apr 16, 2009
You don’t have to tell me that The Lion King isn’t that great; I’ve told you before that my favorite Disney movies are Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, you have read my rant about The Lion King’s plot, and basically I think it’s a hugely overrated movie (#169 on IMDb? Seriously?) and have on occasion had heated arguments with my college roommate about it (she inexplicably thought it was the best of the Disney musical movies). I do agree that the opening scene of the stage musical of The Lion King was amazing (yes, there were tears), and the visuals–sets, lights, costumes, choreography–were all gorgeous, but it’s still the same story and mostly the same songs as the original so-so movie.
All I was trying to do was respond to what you said in an earlier comment:
“with Disney behind [Taymor], it would’ve been hard to mess up The Lion King!”
I may have misinterpreted your quote (in which case this entire conversation is about nothing), but I took it to imply that Disney’s involvement in the project, not Julie Taymor, was to credit for the quality of The Lion King stage musical (whatever quality that may be, though the phrasing of the quote suggests the musical at the very least was not “messed up”). I brought forth the relative failures of the Little Mermaid and Tarzan stage musicals–two Broadway adaptations of animated Disney films that did not find much success with audiences or critics in spite of Disney money–to show that, perhaps, Taymor’s vision might be credited at least to some extent for the quality of the Lion King stage production; after all, she did win two Tony awards, for direction and costume design, and the costumes were pretty awesome.
Was that clear? Because, as far as I can tell, both of your previous responses were only tangentially related to my above point; neither response has actually mentioned Taymor or the stage productions of The Little Mermaid or Tarzan. I mean, why are we arguing about the quality of The Lion King when we are clearly in agreement? I need to go to bed…
Eleni
Apr 16, 2009
I guess this should teach me to comment on parenthetical statements in your responses to post comments. Too obscure, perhaps. Sorry!
Eric
Apr 16, 2009
Two words: five horses.
Sarcastically Bitter
Apr 16, 2009
If Robbie rejoined Take That, I would be in heaven. I love Robbie Williams. Well when I go to London, I just might have to see it. Care to join me?
sebastian
Apr 16, 2009
Sure, I could tag along, if it’s still on! Remember, Robbie wouldn’t actually be in the musical…!
(Eric, if I don’t get your reference, does that just confirm my eunucity? (Sometimes I have to invent words to compete with your literary ass…))
Eleni… where to start…
I’ll try to boil it down: Taymor certainly did a good job of The Lion King. But: I am doubtful that someone whose only major success was the ‘musicalisation’ of the 24th greatest grossing film of all time. We’re talking about a ‘no brainer’ here. Lots of money, some music by Elton John, and one of the most successful films of all time.
Now, the difference might be that Taymor’s Lion King was a lot better than the productions of Little Mermaid and Tarzan, and I’m not disagreeing with that (though I haven’t seen the other two!)
But Taymor = A Good Chance Of Spider-Man Awesomeness is a fallacy!
Eleni
Apr 16, 2009
Oh yes, I agree. I have been following the Spider-Man: The Musical saga with great skepticism, but also amusement. It will certainly be interesting to see what becomes of it!
sebastian
Apr 16, 2009
I wonder why there’s going to be a Spider-Man musical and not a Pirates of the Caribbean musical…
Eleni
Apr 16, 2009
Hmm, that might have potential. Of course, we already have a great Pirates musical, we don’t need another one.
sebastian
Apr 16, 2009
I’m not sure The Pirates of Penzance really counts…
Eleni
Apr 16, 2009
So I was brainstorming other huge hit franchises that could use some musicalification (hmm… James Bond: The Musical?), and came across a number of articles discussing the plan to open Harry Potter: The Musical in 2008. Did this happen? I haven’t found anything to suggest it did, which probably means the project didn’t happen. Is it going to happen? Hopefully the project went away, but I am confused and a bit distressed!
sebastian
Apr 16, 2009
‘I raise my wand’ would be a fantastic show-stopper…
It certainly didn’t appear here in the UK; perhaps because Harry ended up stripping off in Equus instead…