What musicals of the last 20 years will be considerred classics fifty years from now?- Page 3

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 7/30/09 at 8:19pm

I agree with the answer "Not a one."

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 7/30/09 at 8:28pm

frontrowcentre2

Rent was far more than just another Rock Musical like JCS etc, Rent SPOKE to people, more than any shows were doing at that point (on the same level Hair spoke to people)

And yes there had been shows about Aids before, but it was the way Rent was done is what made it special, for example Angels in America and Rent come at the subject from very differnt ways.

On top of that Rent spoke to people about more than just Aids, again by the way it was presented and written.

I think far to many people underestimate the impact that Rent had on Broadway and how many nw people it brought in to the theatre and who continue to do so to this day, more than shows like Hair did.

[BroadwayBound062]

Posted: 7/30/09 at 8:35pm

While I hope and pray Grey Gardens and The Light In the Piazza, are considered classics. These are the one's that will last

Hairspray
Rent
Mamma Mia!
Billy Elliot
Spamalot
Spelling Bee
In The Heights
Jekyll and Hyde
The Last 5 Years
Ragtime
The Lion King
Passion (If it gets an incrediable Revival)

[jennamajig]

Posted: 7/30/09 at 9:03pm

I have seen a number of SOUTH PACIFIC productions over the years that were at best lackluster and these diminished the show's reputation. Suddenly a director comes along who freshens the show up with a dynamite cast willing to explore all the nuances of the script and suddenly we're seeing what audiences in 1949 first saw. Thanks in part to the revival SOUTH PACIFIC will likely be around again in another 50 years, the way operas by Verdi and Puccini are still performed.

Oh, I've seen a good production of the show. I still just don't really care for it; I think 30-45 minutes could be cut easily. I understand its story and how it is considered revolutionary in its themes, but for me, the book is just boring. My opinion, of course and I wasn't around it 1949 to experience in the first time around :).
Updated On: 7/30/09 at 09:03 PM

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 7/30/09 at 11:02pm

"I think "classics" is also generally defined on the level of recognition by everybody in America. Brilliant shows like Caroline or Grey Gardens will never be recognized on the level of the latter three."

That's because they are neither brilliant nor classic but complete misfires in conception and execution.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/30/09 at 11:35pm

Oh, I've seen a good production of the show. I still just don't really care for it; I think 30-45 minutes could be cut easily. I understand its story and how it is considered revolutionary in its themes, but for me, the book is just boring. My opinion, of course and I wasn't around it 1949 to experience in the first time around :).

Have you seen the concert version? I didn't like South Pacific much either until I saw the concert which coincidentally cuts about 30-45 minutes from the book scenes. I also saw a regional production that incorporated the Royal National Theatre changes with the show opening with "Bloody Mary" and "Nothing Like a Dame". "My Girl Back Home" was moved to the second act and they included "Now is the Time". That sold it for me. It's one of my favorite shows now because of those two productions.

[dayao]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 1:26am

That's an easy question: NONE. The only thing that will speculated about the musicals of the early part of the 21st Century 50 years from now is why the theatre going public consisted of so many artistically ignorant people who regularly attended and made hits of such mediocrity.

Updated On: 7/31/09 at 01:26 AM

[fromthecity]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 2:19am

And if Broadway was a place where theater snobs like the above poster were able to decide the sort of material that filled our theaters, it would be long dead.

Welcome to 2009.

The fact that most of you claim you can't think of any classics within the last twenty years and still find a need to post on Broadway message board is beyond me.

[dayao]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 7:18am

Yes, thanks for making my point. When it's all beyond you the only thing left to do is to insult people by calling them snobs merely because you don't know the difference between what constitutes a popular show (Phantom of the Opera, Wicked & Rent) and what constitutes a genuine classic of Musical Theater (West Side Story, South Pacific & Sweeney Todd). Welcome to Broadway 2009.

Updated On: 7/31/09 at 07:18 AM

[jennamajig]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 7:28am

Have you seen the concert version? I didn't like South Pacific much either until I saw the concert which coincidentally cuts about 30-45 minutes from the book scenes. I also saw a regional production that incorporated the Royal National Theatre changes with the show opening with "Bloody Mary" and "Nothing Like a Dame". "My Girl Back Home" was moved to the second act and they included "Now is the Time". That sold it for me. It's one of my favorite shows now because of those two productions.

I've only seen clips of the concert version, I'll admit...is it on DVD? If so, I'll have to add it to my Netflix to see if it can change my mind. Those changes you mention the Royal National Theatre made sound very promising to livening the storytelling.

[Colle]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 3:49pm

"Lion King" I think will probalby be considered a classic, and I am leaning towards thinking "Mamma Mia" will be too, at least I think it will have a long life after broadway, being a popular choice for community theaters.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 5:21pm

If I would define a classic as a well-known show that had a big impact on Broadway, these are the shows that I would call classics:

The Lion King: the most popular Disney show on Broadway has run for 11 years and probably encouraged more Disney/family shows

Mamma Mia: as much as I HATE this show, I think it was the first jukebox-musical and it has been very successful

Rent: I know a lot of people disagree that it will be a classic, but it A) is very well-known B) had a 12-year run C) is a cheap show to produce and will probably be performed by community theaters, and D) has a universal message that has touched many people's lives

The Producers: will be remembered for its 12 Tony's. It had a very long run and a movie was made (with celebrities!), and its popularity will probably make it performed in many regional theaters. It has already proved that it can stand the test of time because the original movie wasn't made that recently.

I'm sure there are many others, but these are the only ones I can think of

[broadwayomgomg]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 5:31pm

A lot of the things we consider "classics" today had bad first runs. Many of the times shows are too far ahead of their time and in later years will be revived and brought into great success. (WSS and Chicago as 2 that pop into mind) Many of the times classics are not based on their original run but how often their toured throughout the country, and regional theatre. Even though Seussical was flop on broadway it is one of the most produced shows in community theaters today and in the future may be considered a "classic". Shows like Wicked and Rent although not the best of broadway will be considered classics in the future b/c the amount of times they have toured and the millions that have saw them, and now with Rent School Edition many community theaters and schools are taking the challenge trying a very difficult piece of theatre. Whether these types of shows are the "best" of the last 20 years they will be considered classics.

[LeTtHeSuNsHiNeIn2]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 9:45pm

I'd have to say Wicked, Hairspray, Spring Awakening, Rent, Phantom........and just my personal opinion I think Hair but I don't think it is going to be around that long. Just because of the influence it has had on me.

[kchenofan]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 10:02pm

Rent
Hairspray
Wicked
The Light in the Piazza
If you're counting Phantom, then Phantom of the Opera

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 10:44pm

"And if Broadway was a place where theater snobs like the above poster were able to decide the sort of material that filled our theaters, it would be long dead."

But Broadway IS dead, or just about. It's a dinosaur lumbering to its inevitable demise and those who refuse to acknowledge it don't have the taste, judgement and insight to see it.

"Even though Seussical was flop on broadway it is one of the most produced shows in community theaters today and in the future may be considered a "classic"."

Oh, really? It takes more to make a show a 'classic'
than the ability to distract not very bright five year-olds for an hour.

"That's an easy question: NONE. The only thing that will speculated about the musicals of the early part of the 21st Century 50 years from now is why the theatre going public consisted of so many artistically ignorant people who regularly attended and made hits of such mediocrity."

Oh, Dayao, can I have your babies?










Updated On: 7/31/09 at 10:44 PM

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 11:07pm

To those who responded to the thread's question by saying Phantom: The Phantom of the Opera is already a classic. It is Broadway's longest-running show ever and is very famous. You could talk to some random person in the most remote person in Alaska and ask them to hum the famous six-note theme and, although they might not have a pleasant voice, the person will know the theme. I think the show has accomplished a lot for so many people who hate musicals to know at least one song from the show.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 7/31/09 at 11:58pm

Broadway Theatre being filled with mediocrity and pap that appeals to the masses is not anything new. For every "Classic" out there there have been slews of mediocre, mindless and forgettable entertainments produced.
It doesn't herald the "DEATH OF BROADWAY THEATRE" but more so "BUSiNESS AS USUAL".

[dayao]

Posted: 8/1/09 at 12:48am

You are quite right, Snafu. There have always been more misses than hits, more quantity than quality in musical theater. The misses are largely forgotten today. Which makes me think we sould readdress the original question of this discussion: "What musicals of the last 20 years will be considered classics fifty years from now?

Definition of a CLASSIC:
1. An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, of recognized value and enduring significance.
2. A work recognized as definitive in its field.
3. Something that is of the highest rank or class.
4. A superior or unusual example of its kind.

Definition of a HIT:
1. A successful or popular venture: (actual dictionary example: a Broadway hit).
2. To become notably and unexpectedly successful.
3. A conspicuous success.

To put it in better perspective, the popularity of a musical does not necessarily have anything to do with its quality or automatically guarantee its place in musical history. Let's face the fact that every musical we attend is not going to be as good as My Fair Lady or Gypsy. On the other hand, I am sure many of us have attended a flawed, not so great musical in the past but one or more elements, maybe the score or an exceptional performance by one of the stars, still allowed it to provide us with an enjoyable evening at the theater. I did not care for the music in Next to Normal but the brilliant performances by the three lead actor-singers still made it a memorable evening of live theater for me.

Musicals such as West Side Story, Sweeney Todd, Finian's Rainbow, My Fair Lady, South Pacific are genuine classics and a deserved part of musical theater history. The history yet to be written by the historians of the future will determine the classic status, if any, of the musicals of the last 20 years in musical history, based on the above definitions of a classic, not how popular or much money these shows made and the fact that they were hits. For example, no matter how much money it makes or how many productions are mounted I think we can all safely predict that HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL will never attain the status of a classic musical. History is the one place where having a fan club, a publicist or a blog and being financially successful is not going to be mistaken for what represents genuine quality.

Updated On: 8/1/09 at 12:48 AM

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 8/1/09 at 2:03am

You left out one thing in your definition of 'classic," dayao:

it must speak to future generations (though I suppose your use of the phrase 'enduring significance' implied that).

In response to SNAFU: Sure, there have ALWAYS been mediocrities on Broadway (ANKLES AWEIGH, COPPERS AND BRASS, THREE WISHES FOR JAMIE, to name a few) but they weren't funded by mega-gazillion-dollar corporations and they didn't plague the Great White Way by running for decades. These current low-rent, artistically void bastard stepchildren of authentic musical theatre are now considered the gold standard by undiscerning mass audiences and are created to order by producers, and it will only get much, much worse before it gets better (if ever). Therein lies the heartbreak (and demise) of quality musical theatre.

Updated On: 8/1/09 at 02:03 AM

[broadwayrob]

Posted: 8/1/09 at 7:38am

People have been saying that Broadway has been dead for the past 30+ years. In my opinion, it just takes on new forms. Sure every age has the "we're in it for the money" phase, to where artistic merit is hardly valued and the folks putting this out there only care about the bottom line and creating what some consider droll.. some of which I find to even be enjoyable ways to spend an evening.

However, it could be argued that we're due for another "shot in the arm" for musical theatre. You do have a show like Next To Normal, you can say what you want about it, but in an age of movie adaptations and cartoons/CGI characters becoming Broadway hit makers, it is an ORIGINAL show. This could probably be viewed as a turning point in producers/theatre-purist's eyes.

As far as classics go, I'm not sure how that can be defined at this point. Take a show like Chicago that basically fell on it's face the first time, Liza swooping in notwithstanding, and with a great revival has turned that around to be one of,if not the longest, *help with this.. i'm not sure about actual stats here" revivals of all time.

I'm not sure that Rent will achieve this. I am definitely a huge fan but not so much so to see that it doesn't have flaws because it clearly does. I'm in the same boat as the "I might not be into theatre without this show" folks

At the end of the day I feel that "classics" are generationally chosen. It all has to do with WHEN a show finds someone or sometimes even WHERE. Starting from the early post-vaudevillian days all the way up to some of the Brit imports of the late 80s shows will be considered either classics or overblown spectacles.

This will continue on and on until the end of time.

geez.. and apparently so will this rambling message.. sorry guys.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 8/1/09 at 8:13am

Perhaps we should distinguish between classics and landmarks of musical theatre. 'Phantom', as the holder of longest run, is surely a landmark production. Similarly 'Cats', as the zenith of concept pop operas from Britain was a landmark production.

Perhaps neither are classics in terms of material, but they will not be quickly forgotten. (By definition, it's going to be a long time before the 'Phantom' record is broken.

Again, 'Rent' was a landmark show, but quite time-specific, I suspect. Whether it influenced shows that followed is arguable, but certainly at the time it felt like a breath of fresh air.

In 50 years time it will be the shows with a timeless relevance that remain. I'm not saying I like it, but I think Les Mis may well tick that box.

[Gobstopper]

Posted: 8/1/09 at 7:29pm

I reeeally hope that Spelling Bee becomes a "classic." I don't know that it will, because it's not even that well-known now outside of theatre fans. However, it is an absolutley marvelous show and it deserved more attention. Let's hope regional theatres continue to give it life beyond Broadway.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 8/1/09 at 7:42pm

I agree about Spelling Bee. I recently saw a local production that I loved. It's a good show for regional theaters to produce, and I have heard that a high school nearby is even doing a production. It really needs a lot more credit than it has gotten.

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 8/1/09 at 8:36pm

I love Spelling Bee too but it's way too lightweight, in my opinion, to be considered a classic.

I use the Supreme Court definition of pornography for "classic." -You know it when you see it.

That said, all the elements have to click just right. The theme should have significant universal appeal, i.e. love/hate, prejudice/intolerance; the music must be amazing with an outstanding score of songs you want to hear over and over without being bored to tears; and the characters should be well written and have the ability to grab the audience. It also has to have that intangible quality of being the best of its genre.

When I was a kid I listened to my mom's record of West Side Story, and without even seeing the show I knew it was really special.

I have seen Phantom many times, I have also seen the Arthur Kopit version. Of all the shows mentioned in this thread, it is the most borderline to be deemed a classic. The theme is there, but I find too many of the show's songs boring. Time will tell.



Updated On: 8/1/09 at 08:36 PM