Are jukebox musicals like ‘The Cher Show’ dumbing down Broadway...
Are jukebox musicals like ‘The Cher Show’ dumbing down Broadway...
#1Are jukebox musicals like ‘The Cher Show’ dumbing down Broadway...
Posted: 2/22/19 at 9:30am
Interesting read per the Washington Post--
Are jukebox musicals like ‘The Cher Show’ dumbing down Broadway, or just giving us what we want?
#2
Posted: 2/22/19 at 9:50am
Here’s the thing with jukebox musicals - I treat them as if it is any original musical. Some are stellar, some are pure crap.
I don’t think the flak that The Cher Show is getting is really justified because in the reviews, I find a lot of unfair comparisons to Summer in that they both used the triumvirate, “Three Tall Women” approach. Part of jukebox musicals is finding a story to tell and knowing how to frame it and I think The Cher Show really leans into that swaggering, camp approach that is her brand, while also using the triumvirate as cheeky Greek chorus.
It really almost always comes down to the book.
Check out my eBay page for sales on Playbills!!
www.ebay.com/usr/missvirginiahamm
#3
Posted: 2/22/19 at 11:18am
They're a symptom, I think, of chafing against a different cultural paradigm: the unbreakable singer-song connection. Up until the seventies, if you wrote a good song, that song belonged more to the songwriter and to the public than to the individual artist. They got passed around, sung, reinterpreted, used in multimedia in different ways. The rise of singer-songwriter as the only "authentic" musical paradigm meant that songs weren't written to be part of the culture anymore, so much as individual statements of personality and intent for specific artists, even if they weren't writing them themselves.
Jukebox musicals, and karaoke as an American public experience (as opposed to the traditional Japanese method, where it's something you do as a private event with friends), are both taking back the older notion of "let's all share in the song."
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#4
Posted: 2/22/19 at 12:07pm
I dont care for them - esp the biopics. But "dumbing bway down"? Seems a bit of a stretch.
Hopefully its a fad that will pass.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#5
Posted: 2/22/19 at 1:00pm
I like many jukebox musicals. They can be a lot of fun and it's great to hear the hit oldies performed on stage.
In my humble opinion, though, jukebox musicals do not qualify as original Broadway musicals because they have no original score. New Broadway musical must have new music.
The creatives don't have to worry about whether the audience leaves the theater humming the show's songs because they are already humming the songs on the way in.
Jukebox fine, but not fair to new musicals with new scores in which many months were spent writing and arranging the music. If jukebox musicals were found to have a much higher rate of success than other Broadway musicals, original musicals with new music could start to decline, if they haven't already.
Rainah
Broadway Star Joined: 11/24/16
#6
Posted: 2/22/19 at 1:06pm
There's a lot of bad musicals out there, period.
I think it IS possible to have a jukebox musical that is a work of art and elevates the form. Just that most of them don't reach for something transformative.
It's all politics really. Politics that says a show will sell better if we already know the tunes, so someone gets commissioned to write X The Musical instead of it growing organically put of an artist's creativity. And it's politics that make them toothless. Gotta get permission to use all those songs, and it's unlikely you'll get them if you portray the singer in a way that doesn't help the brand.
Something as bold as Evita would never have been written today, for example. Instead we get the same story over and over.
#9
Posted: 2/22/19 at 1:44pm
Seems a stretch to say we couldn't have anything as bold as Evita today, when in the past half decade we've had a number of shows with the same boundary-pushing dynamism: for example, Here Lies Love (pop opera about revolutionaries and controversial political figurehead, all depicted in shades of gray), and Fun Home (bracing psychological portrait of an antiheroic central character which gives us every reason not to love them, leading up to their death foreshadowed from the opening scene).
#10
Posted: 2/22/19 at 1:56pm
Many musical comedies of the 40s-60s weren't exactly particularly smart, nor were they meant to be anything but light entertainment. Sure, we remember the ones like Guys and Dolls, the ones that transcend, but even shows like Anything Goes barely hold together today as anything but a string of catchy tunes nailed into a particularly flimsy book.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
teresa2
Featured Actor Joined: 4/1/05
#11
Posted: 2/22/19 at 2:02pmThe best jukebox musical by far was Jersey Boys. The fact that it ran for 11 years is testament to that. It also won the Tony for best musical, best lead and supporting actor in a musical also.
#12
Posted: 2/22/19 at 3:40pm
So glad this guy finally decided to jump into the conversation from 2001. The answer is still the same, "no". Jukebox musicals are simply a subgenre in the evolution of musical theatre and have been around much longer than Mamma Mia whether the academics want to admit it or not. And every season we still get musicals with original scores (though I've never been fond that an "original musical" is most often determined by the score alone...how much bitching do we see about the adaptation of films not being "original" enough, even when they feature original scores? Pick a lane, people!). Jukebox musicals don't "dumb down" Broadway any more than bad musicals with original scores do (and we have a century of those from which to choose). If they want to worry about the factors that may effect the state of musicals with original scores, they should probably be more concerned about the flops with original scores for an apples/apples comparison. I think these guys just consider jukebox musicals to be inherently inferior and don't feel they can be taken seriously as critics unless they publish an article flagellating them.
Jukebox fine, but not fair to new musicals with new scores in which many months were spent writing and arranging the music.
How is it "not fair"? In terms of what? Revues don't have original scores either, but we never hear the critics or academics bemoaning those. It's the idea of more recent pop music that seems to rankle them, especially when a book has been written to showcase either the music or the life of a performer.
If jukebox musicals were found to have a much higher rate of success than other Broadway musicals, original musicals with new music could start to decline, if they haven't already.
They haven't. We still get original scores every year as we always have. I mean, if we're to blame a decline in original scores on the surge in jukebox musicals since Mamma Mia, then on what can we blame the sparse seasons of 88-89 and 94-95?
Many musical comedies of the 40s-60s weren't exactly particularly smart, nor were they meant to be anything but light entertainment. Sure, we remember the ones like Guys and Dolls, the ones that transcend, but even shows like Anything Goes barely hold together today as anything but a string of catchy tunes nailed into a particularly flimsy book.
Not only that, but the Porter/Gershwin era featured countless musicals with thin plots with the majority of their shows and songs having been forgotten except by the enthusiasts that make up an arguably small minority. We extol the virtues of their die-hard hits and mostly ignore the plethora of songs and shows that disappeared into obscurity. The idea of producing musicals for the sake of entertaining audiences seems to be considered de rigueur non by those who want Broadway to be something it's not, nor has ever been.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Updated On: 2/22/19 at 03:40 PM
Theatrefanboy1
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/2/15
#13
Posted: 2/23/19 at 12:25am
See there are some jukebox shows to me that do seem to have more depth to them than just a hopeful cash cow. I thought a show like mamma Mia worked well. And shows like jersey boys and beautiful were well crafted. Honestly I did have fun at the Cher show. I don’t look at it as groundbreaking or anything. But it was fun. And was an escape for the three hours.
What has drove me made is the idea that every catelogue of songs is now somehow warranted for a broadway theatre. Or some artists story is dramatic and theatrical enough that it needs to be plucked away at in the theatrical art form. I’ve said before. I really only think there may be only 3-4 artists who I feel a bio musical could really work for.
With shows like That Donna summer and on your feet Musical. Made me wish someone would have just said. “no.” The fact that those are deemed eligible for broadway. Just make me annoyed.
But then again I criticize the pieces of original stuff and the last two trips into the city I realize that I’ve seen unoriginal pieces. All of which were either a franchise based off a book. A movie, a revival or a jukebox catelogue.
ggersten
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/11/06
#15
Posted: 2/23/19 at 6:46am
Jukebox fine, but not fair to new musicals with new scores in which many months were spent writing and arranging the music.
How is it "not fair"? In terms of what? Revues don't have original scores either, but we never hear the critics or academics bemoaning those. It's the idea of more recent pop music that seems to rankle them, especially when a book has been written to showcase either the music or the life of a performer.Revues fall into the same category as jukebox.
Revues shouldn't qualify either if the music isn't new. Musicals compete with others for audience and awards. It's much easier to put on a jukebox since no one has to write the music and lyrics and integrate them into the book.
Put jukebox musicals and revues into their own category.
#16
Posted: 2/23/19 at 10:44amBut jukebox musicals AREN’T revues or song cycles. They use music just as musicals with original scores do, to develop character, express emotion, and move the plot along, but the music happens to have been created previously.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#17
Posted: 2/23/19 at 12:01pm
Many musical comedies of the 40s-60s weren't exactly particularly smart, nor were they meant to be anything but light entertainment.
Yes, I agree. In fact you could go further and say that all of the musicals from the 1910s-1930s were just light entertainment. Anything Goes was 1933. But why do we remember these shows at all except for their music. Merrily We Roll Along was Sondheim's biggest critical and commercial flop. Why does everyone keep trying to make it work? Because it has one of his finest scores.
(The exception was Show Boat in 1927. Show Boat was a huge hit, made into a hit film in 1936. Checking Wikipedia, I see that the great Paul Robeson, for whom the song Old Man River was written and who played Joe in the film, was blacklisted in 1950 and the 1936 film was rarely seen until after his death. I had no idea that blacklisting was that powerful.)
Puzzles me how after Show Boat it took until 1943 before another integrated musical was made and again it was Oscar Hammerstein who was responsible.
But jukebox musicals AREN’T revues or song cycles. They use music just as musicals with original scores do, to develop character, express emotion, and move the plot along, but the music happens to have been created previously.
Also agree. I always respect your opinion, Kad, but I just think a new musical should have new music. And I think I'm going to be in the minority.
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#18
Posted: 2/23/19 at 12:10pm
"For bored or outraged critics, jukebox musicals are Broadway’s most cynical [...] chance to reboot an already over-discussed topic when those critics aren't inspired to write about anything else".
There. I fixed that for 'ya.
C'mon... the fact that jukebox musicals keep appearing on Broadway, with the kinds of successes (or failures) they're having, pretty much answers the question without much need for critical discourse.
Like any musical, the good ones are good and the bad ones are bad. No need to trot out the "dumbing down" accusation (yet again).
#19
Posted: 2/23/19 at 12:51pm
"What has drove me made is the idea that every catelogue of songs is now somehow warranted for a broadway theatre."
Any show, jukebox or otherwise, that can raise the money to be produced on Broadway is warranted for a Broadway theatre. What anyone thinks of the subject or material is completely irrelevant. $$$ is the single factor that decides if any show is worthy of Broadway. Audiences decide whether it is a hit or a flop. Producers gamble on the likelihood of a hit motivated by a variety of factors.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#20
Posted: 2/24/19 at 2:29am
The only thing dumb about them are the people calling them dumb.
They are a phase, a style of entertainment popular now; it may pass it may continue and others continue to flourish[and die].
Do we eat this, do we go see this, we have a choice, we also have an opinion.
Long live theatre in whatever form.
GeorgeandDot
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/13/16
#21
Posted: 2/24/19 at 2:37amIdk. I think they're lame and a waste of time and resources, but I guess somebody is enjoying them since we seem to open and close a new one every week.
#22
Posted: 2/24/19 at 3:36am
Kad said: "But jukebox musicals AREN’T revues or song cycles. They use music just as musicals with original scores do, to develop character, express emotion, and move the plot along, but the music happens to have been created previously."
Your very definition (though correct) is essentially a paradox. The songs do NOT express character in almost all cases because they were not written for that purpose nor for the characters in the "jukebox" version. JERSEY BOYS succeeds in large part because no attempt is made to pretend the characters are doing anything but singing popular songs for a general audience back in the day.
On the other hand, something like MAMMA MIA defies the idea of music evoking character because, at best, the songs are tangentially related to plot points alone. Even Aristotle decries such a lazy use of music in his POETICS. I was bored senseless by the MAMMA MIA score (at least until the curtain call); I realize millions of people enjoyed the show and I can only assume they appreciated the "Golden Oldies" fest and didn't care there were no true characters on stage.
Your definition makes the modern versions of shows like ANYTHING GOES and BABES IN ARMS "jukebox" musicals because while their books are rewritten, their lesser known songs are mostly removed and replaced with hits from other shows by the same composer. These revivals work because, back in the day, every musical comedy had more or less the same characters; an Ethel Merman song from one Cole Porter show can be replaced with a better known Ethel Merman song from another.
As for this thread, yes, there has always been mediocrity and pandering on Broadway. But any show that simply gives spectators what they already know and think they want diminishes the Broadway experience; just as any show that challenges audience expectations while also entertaining enhances the Broadway "brand".
#23
Posted: 2/24/19 at 9:50amTheatre historians will also tell you that the jukebox musical came before even the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta- the "ballad opera" The Beggar's Opera, written and compiled by John Gay, built a score out of collected popular scores of the day.
yankeefan7
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/14/12
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#25
Posted: 2/24/19 at 11:08am
GavestonPS said: "On the other hand, something like MAMMA MIA defies the idea of music evoking character because, at best, the songs are tangentially related to plot points alone. [...] I was bored senseless by the MAMMA MIA score (at least until the curtain call); I realize millions of people enjoyed the show and I can only assume they appreciated the "Golden Oldies" fest and didn't care there were no true characters on stage."
I would Agree that MAMMA MIA could be isolated from other jukebox musicals, but I disagree regarding, "because, at best, the songs are tangentially related to plot points alone."
A lot of pop songs are written from a perspective of the singer singing about something or someone. Almost all ABBA songs are written as monologues, or the audible half of a dialogue to/with an unseen character. In creating MAMMA MIA, a plot was constructed around that vast collection of "speeches" that created a direct relationship - not a tangential one. The ABBA songs in MAMMA MIA directly reveal and move the plot forward, and also reveal character just as if they'd been written from scratch for a new book.
The constructed plot and characters for ABBA's catalog aren't particularly deep, or intriguing, but neither are the book and characters in ME AND MY GIRL or THE BOYFRIEND. IMO, I'd put MAMMA MIA in the same category as those two musicals.
