When Did "An Original Musical" Become Preferred?

[jnb9872]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 9:10pm

I'm genuinely curious about this question: so many times when a musical adaptation is announced, there's a general commotion about how something "original" would be better. What magical time in the history of Musical Theatre are they referring to when musicals always used to be original? Because, strangely enough, hasn't it actually been recently?

This is an incomplete, arbitrary metric, but I think it's useful: look at the history of the Best Musical Tony. The first 9 winners in a row were all adaptations. 17 of the first 20 were adaptations. This, by the way, assumes FIORELLO! is based on the life of Hizzoner, which can be debated as far as "source material" is concerned, but frankly that gets to the point: who cares what the material is based on, so long as the result is good? Likewise, 1776.

The "original musicals" that have won the Tony (again, admitting it's a pretty terrible metric for objective quality but it represents a slice of each season across decades):
THE MUSIC MAN
REDHEAD
BYE BYE BIRDIE
HALLELUJAH, BABY!
COMPANY
A CHORUS LINE
CITY OF ANGELS
AVENUE Q
IN THE HEIGHTS
MEMPHIS
THE BOOK OF MORMON

There's the question of FIORELLO!, 1776, and THE WILL ROGERS FOLLIES, all bio-musicals with original scores, and you're welcome to add them to the list.
Additionally, you have the jukebox musicals (AIN'T MISBEHAVIN' and JERSEY BOYS, which the boosters of "original musicals" will no doubt scoff at as they don't have original scores) and the revues/etc (JEROME ROBBINS' BROADWAY, FOSSE and CONTACT, to which: ditto).

In the adaptations camp, you have KISS ME KATE, SOUTH PACIFIC, GUYS AND DOLLS, THE KING & I, WONDERFUL TOWN, KISMET, THE PAJAMA GAME, DAMN YANKEES, MY FAIR LADY, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, HOW TO SUCCEED..., FORUM, HELLO DOLLY!, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, MAN OF LA MANCHA, CABARET, APPLAUSE, TWO GENTS, RAISIN, THE WIZ, A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC, ANNIE, SWEENEY TODD, EVITA, 42nd STREET, NINE, CATS, LA CAGE, BIG RIVER, DROOD, LES MIS, PHANTOM, CRAZY FOR YOU, SPIDER WOMAN, PASSION, SUNSET BLVD, RENT, TITANIC, LION KING, PRODUCERS, MILLIE, HAIRSPRAY, SPAMALOT, SPRING AWAKENING, BILLY ELLIOT, ONCE, KINKY BOOTS and GENTLEMAN'S GUIDE.

There's some clunkers on both lists, but some masterpieces on both too. So, here's my question: for those who react negatively every time an adaptation is announced, what is the basis for "an original musical" being innately preferable to an adaptation? Isn't the execution what counts?

My (harebrained) theory: did [TITLE OF SHOW] bring this about? Did they start the "original musical" fetish, or if it was already out there did they mainstream it to make it go viral?

Updated On: 3/17/15 at 09:10 PM

[broadwaysfguy]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 9:26pm

great post
have never understood the "outcry" either
i think its more so for jukebox musicals

I love Title of Show BTW and WISH i'd seen the OBC...

Nine peoples favorite thing!!!!

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 9:28pm

I think part of it has to do with the film industry as well. For quite a few years now, it seems that all movies are based on a book, comic book, graphic novel, a reboot, or a sequel to something. I think the desire to see something that has never been seen before has spilled over to theatre or the same frustration exist in the theatre community as well.

[candydog2]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 9:42pm

I think people mostly hate the movie-to-stage transition. Adapting from novels seems to be ok with most people.

I do sort of understand it. Movie to stage adaptations are nothing new, BUT the way they are handled nowadays is far less tasteful than back in the day. In fact early movie adaptations were often given an entirely new name. Nowadays, the use the title of the movie with "THE MUSICAL" slapped across the bottom. It does come across as a little cheap and more of an excuse to capitalise on a popular film than an attempt at creating a piece of art.

I have no problem with the adaptations personally, but I think that's why most people do. It would be nice to see more original work though!

[jnb9872]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 9:45pm

It would be nice to see more original work though!

But why, necessarily? Shouldn't we be rooting for *good* work, not necessarily "original"? I don't get why "original" is innately superior to adapted. The work is the work, not the source material, no?

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 9:52pm

All I'm going to say is that I've seen a bad musical based on no preexisting source material, in other words, a bad "original" musical. I won't say the name but I will say that it was not on Broadway and if I could, I would hold this show up to the naysayers of all musicals based on preexisting source material and say, "Be careful what you wish for".

[candydog2]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 10:08pm

I never said original was more superior, I just said that I'd like to see more original work getting produced in general. There are so many wonderful up-and-coming writers out there with fantastic new ideas, yet the industry often puts money into adaptations instead because they seem more secure and profitable.

Your favourite story may be one that hasn't been told yet. Your favourite song might not have been written yet!

[jnb9872]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 10:34pm

It just seems like a strange thing to prioritize, is all. Especially to the point of discounting the possibility that your favorite story may be one that someone wants to reimagine in a new light, or that someone wants to introduce into a new theatrical form.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 10:54pm

Well, but preferred by whom?

Theater aficionados? The limited number of people on this board who also rarely ever pay full price on anything? I think that's the real answer.

Tourists want more bang for their buck, especially with rising prices, which feeds into the notion of "creative safety" in an already very risky business, which influences decisions to adapt things already familiar to the public at large to offset that risk. (Still often doesn't work, but hey.)

So what separates tourists who want to be entertained for their money from those who desire original works is, I would posit, the pursuit of art. I think the pursuit of art will always be struggling in direct opposition to the pursuit of financial success, no matter the industry; the "starving artist" is one of those images that feels both right and wrong at the same time. "Real art" should be created without regard to commercialism if it is to push the boundaries of culture, yet everyone wants to be able to "make a living" doing what they love as well.

I know Davenport gets hate on this board, but he does have a number of interesting posts about this very subject.

http://www.theproducersperspective.com/my_weblog/2008/07/the-stats-on-ad.html

http://www.theproducersperspective.com/my_weblog/2009/03/in-defense-of-the-screen-to-stage-adaptation.html

http://www.theproducersperspective.com/my_weblog/2014/05/some-startling-new-statistics-on-broadway-musical-adaptations-vs-original-shows.html

[candydog2]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 11:11pm

It appears I didn't make myself very clear.

I never said original was better. I never said we should prioritise original work. I never said that your favourite story could not be one that was adapted or re-imagined.

I just said that it would be nice to see more original work in general because there are so many great new ideas and possibilities out there. I also said that perhaps one of those stories could possibly become your favourite one day.

That is all.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 11:28pm

There's no doubt that the more fiscally conservative choices are often adaptations, and that original work is often riskier, but as Davenport himself points out, it's not always so.

While choosing adaptations to produce often is a craven money-grab, it just seems like more uproar is about the choice to adapt instead of originating, as opposed to the cravenness of the money-grab at the heart of each choice. A GENTLEMAN'S GUIDE is ostensibly based on a novel (more accurately, a film to which they lost the rights so they acquired the source novel instead), but it is hardly a money-grab on first inspection. IF/THEN, a mangled stew of ideas that likely wouldn't have existed without Idina Menzel's involvement, is an original musical that is also a craven attempt to money-grab by fast-tracking big names to ticket sales before the product was ready for Broadway.

The original-adaptation dynamic seems to me to be a red herring, and an easy criticism that on its face is meaningless. It just intrigues me why "more original work" is a good thing, implying that "less adapted work" is equally good.

[seahag2]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 12:27am

It does seem to be a trend that a lot of original musicals don't make it very far. A local theatre puts on a number of the cheesiest original plays and musicals you could imagine every season and they definitely add to the 'silly, never serious' stereotype that theatre holds. The 'original plot' element is difficult to pull off, so when a show is original, perhaps it's a mixture of people who are glad it hasn't tanked + want to get to know this new story that add to show's buzz.

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 1:13am

I don't think that most theatre-goers see original work as immediately better and more worthy of praise. There's just a longing for something that is completely born out of the writer(s)' head. You see many more original plays than you do musicals. Playwrights aren't adapting the latest movie immediately into a play. They come up with original scripts. They may be based on historical events or the such, but they create the arch of the story and the words spoken (usually).

But in musical theatre, it seems like that's so rare. If they create an original story they seem to use preexisting music (Holler if Ya Hear Me). If they have original music they seem to adapt from a movie or an existing play (The Visit).

That's why I get excited for shows like Something Rotten, with original books and scores. There's something intriguing about knowing very little about a show when you go in. Now if Something Rotten turns out to be horrible, I'll admit it. I won't say it's better than a show like A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder.

Good art is good art. Original work just has a bit more intrigue for some.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 2:04am

I think whatever backlash there is (and certainly there is one online,) came when so many adaptations that either opened or were announced were [Insert film title]: The Musical. I get that this does mark a more cynical turn than when an adaptation even of a hit film or play would have a new name (ie Promises, Promises... Holly Golightly was doing poorly out of town and when it was meant to come to Broadway was retitled after the movie.)

But really, the majority of major musicals have always been based on established material. I think that speaks to the nature of the art form, and is not an issue. The main switch has been that before musicals, and Hollywood in general would look to books and plays for inspiration, and now they are starting to look to movies for inspiration more than they have in the past. It's largely just due to a shift in the zeitgeist--no longer would a Broadway play necessarily have the name recognition to create a hit movie (Robert Brooks' films of Tennessee Williams' Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, and particularly, Sweet Bird of Youth largely re-appropriate and change the themes of the original plays--partly due to questions of censorship, partly due to Brooks' own extremely narrow minded view on sexuality and morality--but, while Cat anyway holds up on its own as a strong film divorced from a brilliant play, they largely were sold both to studio execs and to audiences on the strength of Williams' name and the recognition of the play's title. That would be largely impossible to happen now.)

There are many musicals that are based on non blockbuster movies that I think still get treated intelligently on their own merits--Dogfight and Fun Home both immediately spring to mind.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 3:42am

May 7, 2003.

But seriously, this is brought up all the time. Most of us KNOW this isn't actually "new".

The real backlash comes from the lack of imagination that seems to come from the choices. It seems that often a non artistic choices been made...and one that assumes: title recognition will equal financial success.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 8:53am

MEMPHIS maybe in bio-musicals camp as much as the others you mentioned. As it is based on a real person and certain events.


Don't Feed the Critics:
http://tinyurl.com/pxjsxdy
Updated On: 3/18/15 at 08:53 AM

[Lovinbroadway2]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 8:56am

Mostly because people on this board are tired of movie-to-stage adaptations. One in a while you can get a good one, such as Grey Gardens. But sometimes you can get a Little Mermaid. I think we mean (or I mean) original as in a show being experimental or seminal. Something we have never seen on a Broadway stage.

In other words, "the original musical" is probably preferred, because we feel it is more imaginative, than a movie plunked onto stage. We want an original score, and not an existing songbook, because it obviously makes us feel like their was hard work put into the show.

That being said, most of the Broadway audience disagrees, because the adaptations keep gettin' the cash. So for me, I do not look for a completely original musical on Broadway, because it is much to hard to find. Instead, I look for a show that uses its material well, and changes the way you watch a show.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 9:18am

You have to go to the pre-Oklahoma age.
Most (though not all) Gershwin, Porter, Kern, Youmans, Cohan, Berlin, and Rodgers and Hart shows were not based on earlier material. This is a huge chunk of the history of the American musical though - and I understand your point - an earlier form.

Of the many best musical tony winning adaptations you've mentioned, two bear further comment:

Is Kiss Me Kate really an adaptation of Taming of the Shrew or is it an original musical about a musical adaptation of Taming of the Shrew, with many show-within-a-show numbers?

More to the point, Crazy for You is a revisal of Girl Crazy, which is exactly the kind of "original"- non-adapted - pre-Oklahoma musical I'm referring to, above.









Updated On: 3/18/15 at 09:18 AM

[leefowler]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 9:45am

I think there's a difference between shows like Promises Promises and Applause, which tried to create something new from their source material, and shows like Beauty And The Beast and The Little Mermaid, which attempt to recreate literally the original experience of seeing the movie. When someone sees a show like "Lion King", they expect to see a show that on some level attempts to recreate the experience of seeing the movie, so that seeing the musical is an extension of the original movie. I think this is valid, by the way. If someone has seen a movie on CD a hundred times, their desire to see a theatrical version of it is based on a desire to see a recreation, rather than something different.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 1:13pm

I think the Disney musicals definitely play a big part in the more recent era. For the most part, though, these have been adaptations of movies that were already musicals to begin with. PROMISES and APPLAUSE, for example, are of a piece with HONEYMOON or BRIDGES (hi, JRB!): they are based on non-musical material with original music composed for the stage. The Disney shows, except AIDA (based instead on Verdi), have been expansions of already-composed movie-musicals.

But these differences just underlie how arbitrary the line between "original" and "adapted" need be. When news of a new musical adaptation breaks, regardless of how fertile the idea or how apropos the creative team to the project, there's a line of conversation that inevitably springs up bemoaning it as an adaptation and wishing they worked on an original musical instead.

Granted, this is mostly a phenomenon on boards like this. Maybe it's a a symptom of the same kind of rampant, sight-unseen speculation that can cause extremely vocal die-hards or haters of shows that no one has seen, a phenomenon I also don't understand. I just find it interesting.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 2:00pm

It's in large part due to adapting an existing screen musical for the stage, like the Disney catalog titles or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or Saturday Night Fever.

Very few offer a clever theatrical take on the material. More often it's served up as "the movie you already know" with some extra (forgettable) songs and an extended dance number or two.

It feels like a cop-out, and artistically, I agree. Sometimes it also seems like the ONLY reason the material was adapted as a stage musical is profit, which should always be part of it, but no, it shouldn't be so obvious to an audience that it's the only reason it happened.

Even the non-musical films seem to be "the movie you already know" with songs added. No fresh concept, no point of view, no real theatrical core.

There are exceptions: The Lion King, Little Shop ...

I also wish there were more adaptations of lesser-known films. Usually it's a big box office hit, or a cult favorite, but not something with a great story that could benefit from a musical adaptation.

Like: Eve's Bayou or Gosford Park.

I'm also tired of the children's movie adaptations. Way too much children's theatre at mega-prices these days. The Broadway Theme Park for the whole family.

But what you're mostly seeing is a "Pavlov's dogs" reaction of "ugh, another movie on the stage."

If more of them were good and meaningful and clever, that wouldn't happen.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 7:10pm

In terms of adaptations, I think many actually like it when novels and plays are adapted for the stage because it takes some real creative ingenuity to make it work for the stage and turn those words into songs. What many do have an issue with is taking a preexisting movie and doing it scene-by-scene with some ultimately superfluous changes and adding songs. From my own experience, for the most part, the theater adaptations aren't nearly as good as the movies are themselves because they tend to make things bigger (tackier) and gets rid of all sorts of subtlety. So it's not only lazy but less-than.

Also, I think what many here want out of theatre is to be amazed and experience something new. They want playwrights or musical book writers to tackle on subject matters that are often ignored but whose stories should be told, and well. Movies are a medium is able to be seen by a huge amount of people, so when that story is adapted, it's not saying anything new. It's just adding songs to story people are already familiar with.

There are tons of source material that I would love to see musicalized and some times a movie adaptation may be excellent, but for the most part they are just the Legally Blonde types.


Updated On: 3/18/15 at 07:10 PM

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 7:33pm

The reason I like originals is because it's fun not knowing what's going to happen or how it's going to end. But I'll take a good adaptation over a lousy original any day.