Delete

[LuminousBeing]

Looking at some of the reactions on Facebook (Stans notwithstanding) to the 2018 sweep of "The Band's Visit," I noticed an overwhelming number of people make statements like, "they always choose the artsy show over the commercial stuff." I did a scant amount of research to determine the veracity of this statement. Here is what I discovered in terms of "Commercial" shows beating "Artsy" shows:

1972: "Two Gentlemen of Verona" beat "Follies."
1984: "La Cage aux Folles" beat "Sunday in the Park with George." (Not to decry any "La Cage" fans; the show certainly filled an inclusivity need. I also find it artistically inferior to "Sunday." 
1986: "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" beat "Song and Dance."
1991: "The Will Rogers Follies" beat "Once on this Island," "Miss Saigon," AND "The Secret Garden."
1992: "Crazy for You" beat "Falsettos" AND "Jelly's Last Jam."
1998: "The Lion King" beat "Ragtime" AND "Side Show."
1999: "Fosse" beat "Parade."
2001: "The Producers" beat "The Full Monty" (and ushered in the era of "premium seating". 2004: "Avenue Q" beat "Caroline or Change" (and "Wicked".
2005: "Spamalot" beat "The Light in the Piazza."
2006: "Jersey Boys" beat "The Color Purple" AND "The Drowsy Chaperone."
2009: "Billy Eliot" beat "next to normal."
2010: "Memphis" beat "Fela!" AND "American Idiot" (both the latter were based on previously-released pop albums and might technically be considered 'jukebox musicals,' but I found them to be superior shows to "Memphis," which felt to me like "Dreamgirls" meets "Hairspray" lite.) 
2011: "The Book of Mormon" beat "The Scottsboro Boys." (This one still breaks my heart, and they didn't throw "Scottsboro" any Tony bones for tech awards or anything. 12 noms, 0 wins.)

The seasons I excluded either had a greater number of artistic shows in contention against each other (e.g. 1976, in which "A Chorus Line" beat "Chicago" and "Pacific Overtures", or when an overwhelmingly well-received show won in an otherwise relatively weak season (e.g. 1965, in which "Fiddler on the Roof" beat "Golden Boy," "Half a Sixpence," and "Oh, What a Lovely War!".


In 2015, "Fun Home" took home the statuette, reversing the trend of "commercial usually beats artistic." To my mind, FH was easily the most artistically worthy piece nominated (up against "An American in Paris, which was danced beautifully but to me, was otherwise plodding, "Something Rotten!" which was fun and also the most "commercial" piece nominated, and "The Visit," which I found interesting and unique but not nearly at the caliber of "Fun Home.". (Arguably, the trend began reversing in 2014 when "Gentleman's Guide" beat "Beautiful."

In 2016, "Hamilton" deftly fulfilled BOTH identities of "experimental artistic piece with no celebrity casting and an innovative original score" AND "huge commercial blockbuster smash." So voters didn't have to choose "commercial" or "artsy" in 2016.

Last year, we had "Dear Even Hansen" repeat "Hamilton's" feat in terms of being a "smaller, edgy" show with no movie stars that was also a commercial success (like "next to normal" before it, but n2n, as we know, did not take the Tony). 2017 was relatively unique because whether DEH, "Comet," or "Come from Away" won, an "artsy, risky" piece would have taken the Tony. (This is not to deride "Goundhog Day," I just mean that there were three contenders that were NOT based on a previously-released internationally successful and widely-recognized property.)

And this year, of course, "The Band's Visit" declared victory over "Mean Girls," "Frozen," and "Spongebob." I leave it to readers to determine whether, given the overwhelming history of the Tony awards outside of the last few years to reward commercially viable pieces over smaller, more "artistic" works, whether "Mean Girls," "Spongebob," and "Frozen" fell victim to the voters wishing to give the statuette to a small, artistic piece, or whether the voters simply found "The Band's Visit" to be the best show of the season. 

I'm sure we will all continue to track this over the next few years to see if we are about to witness  a new era of the Tony committee favoring artistic endeavors over more commercial ones.

[RJ14]

I disagree with some shows on your list that you said are "commercial vs artsy".

I might be so wrong here but  I think the term "commerical" was started because of Mammia mia in the late 90s, not before then. In the past. it's just simply different genres. Since then, they started to adopt what has already been popular to the stage. I hate when people label a show 'commercial' just because it's fun, has a poppy sound. 

And I don't think this year the votes chose to award "artsy" show over commercial ones. The Band's visit simply a better show than the rest.

[Dancingthrulife2]

delete

[LuminousBeing]

I agree with you in terms of "labeling a show 'commercial' just because it's fun [and] has a poppy sound" as being derivative and inaccurate for the most part. I was more speaking in general terms, and I am not implying that if a show is based on a movie or is a "pop" or "rock" musical that I consider it artistically inferior to more "serious" or "original" fare.

Overall, I think it's pretty easy to distinguish whether a show was written with intent to cater to a crowd that wants "fast, loud, and funny" above all else (e.g. "Aladdin" vs. a show that was written as a "message piece"  vs. more avant-garde "art for art's sake" vs. shows that integrate aspects from each category to emerge as a show with some humor, wit, a great score, one or more meaningful "themes" or "messages" without coming across as "preachy" or claptrap, that also have elements that just "feel" like "art." There are certainly some shows that tried to be "artsy" but only succeeded in being poor shows, and shows that were meant to be "accessible" that have also artistic merit (for me, one that comes to mind in this category is "Legally Blonde". I also don't think there's anything wrong with shows being "fast, loud, and funny" above all else--they just wouldn't be my picks for Tony awards unless they happen to do what they do better than the other nominees that season do what they do, or if the show breaks new barriers on being "fast, loud, and funny" in ways that other shows of its ilk before it haven't already done. 

Out of curiosity, where do you disagree with me re: my list of shows that beat out other shows? (Don't worry, I won't call you "inhuman" or "stupid' if you happen to disagree with me. We are thinking, mature adults here.)

(Also, I personally LOVED "The Band's Visit."

[chewy5000]

It's interesting that you start your list at 1972. Follies still won best score, and Verona beat out out two shows which are certainly more "commercial": Grease - which would go on to become the longest running broadway show - and Jesus Christ Superstar - which despite being quite a phenomenon was not even nominated for the top prize.

[LuminousBeing]

I was definitely thinking about "JCS" and considered including it as part of an "amazing but not even nominated" category. I could write pages and pages of analysis, but I wanted to keep this as brief as possible.

1949-1955 Best Musical winners did not have competition, so it didn't make sense to start there.
I'm less familiar with the shows that did not win Best Musical in the following 20 years and didn't want to make false attributions.

1960 was certainly an interesting season as far as this topic is concerned, with "Fiorello!" and "The Sound of Music" tying, leaving "Gypsy" out in the cold (with "Take Me Along" for company).

You make a very good point about "Two Gentlemen of Verona" also beating "Grease!" in 1972. There are admittedly a number of years in which the "Artistic" show emerged victorious, such as in 1994 when "Passion" beat "Beauty and the Beast" (along with "A Grand Night for Singing" and "Cyrano: The Musical." I'm certainly not making the argument that the "commercial" show ALWAYS wins, just pointing out a trend and wanted to start a cogent dialogue about this topic--which you're giving me now, and I appreciate it! :)

[Call_me_jorge]

I would say 2012 began this trend... once vs. newsies.

[HogansHero]

At the risk of redundancy, there are no rules. It's just that sometimes the better show (i.e., the one that appeals to the most voters most) wins. The voters are not a test group for what's going to be commercially successful. People don't vote for junk, and the fact that many junky shows are commercial does not make your analysis especially meaningful. But the most commercial show in Broadway history is Hamilton, and it is also way up there in the artsy category.

[Wick3]

Also, I don't think the same people vote every year (or do they?) At the end of the day, it also depends on the composition of Tony voters (one year might have more people who prefer commercial shows and another year might have more people who prefer artsy ones, etc.)

[HogansHero]

There is ebb and flo of course but mostly (guessing 90%) it is the same people. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I don't like this dichotomy so much because I doubt a lot of the creators of these so-called "commercial" shows would say they only made the show to cater to the crowd and that they didn't pour all their hard work and soul into making the show just so it could be called "commercial" even if the way they structure the show has been informed by experience as to what would work for an audience and what wouldn't. A big part of theatre is having the words and songs heard and acting through and every person talks about how certain changes and choices are made based on audience response. It's the nature of the beast. I mean I do know what you're getting at and I've even accused certain shows of only being made for the sole purpose to cash in on a franchise they thought would make tons of money based on marketing research, but even then the people outside the money-inclined producers who are in charge of actually creating something on the stage would probably argue they put a lot of their craft into it. And even the ones who made what some thing are "high art" would love it if their show became a hit or at least did well enough not to close "prematurely" and have people actually watch their show.

I also don't agree with a lot of the OP's categorizations as to which show was "commercial" and which show was "art". I think it's pretty simplistic actually.

[Dancingthrulife2]

HogansHero said: "But the most commercial show in Broadway history is Hamilton"

If by "commercial" you mean "profitable," The Lion King has made more money than any other show on Broadway. 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

For a while, it was believed that a majority of Tony voters were out-of-town producers who present national touring productions at their venues. Thus, there were years where the commercial hit would win over the more accomplished piece like The Phantom of the Opera winning over Into the Woods, Crazy for You winning over Falsettos, Thoroughly Modern Millie winning over Urinetown, Spamalot winning over The Light in the Piazza, and Memphis winning over Fela!.

Though a few years ago, it was revealed that the road vote only makes up about 10% of the voting bloc. So in recent years, we've been seeing the more accomplished piece winning over the commercial hit like Once winning over Newsies, A Gentleman's Guide to Love & Murder winning over Aladdin & Beautiful, and Fun Home winning over An American in Paris.

[Kad]

The 90s/00s also saw more recognition of shows other than the Best Musical winner in the Best Book and Score categories. So far this decade, only one winner in each category has not gone on to win Best Musical (Newsies winning Best Score- by default, essentially- in 2012, and Matilda taking Best Book in 2013).

Compare to the previous decade, in which 5 Best Score and Best Book winners did not go on to win Best Musical.

(there are of course other factors involved- in a few years, the Best Musical winner was not eligible in one or both of those categories).

[The Distinctive Baritone]

In all fairness, sometimes the “commercial” show really is the best. It is possible to be “artsy” and terrible at the same time you know.

[qolbinau]

Interesting that The Book of Mormon is considered commercial in hindsight. A vulgar satire/criticism of religion is not particularly commercial in my mind, and let’s not forget they actually had discount codes available for prime seats during early previews. Like Hamilton, it shockingly became an absolute sensation and a worldwide hit. But besides the well known creative team involved, there is nothing commercial about it. Not the same way that you feel when you watch a formulaic theme park type show that clearly is trying to cater for a very wide audience.

[SonofRobbieJ]

SONG & DANCE is the ART in this equation?  I need to start drinking at work.

The thing about both PHANTOM over WOODS and CRAZY FOR YOU over FALSETTOS is that the two Tony-winners were astounding productions.  PHANTOM was and still is a worldwide phenomenon (I'd argue entirely due to Hal Price's unbelievable direction and storytelling abilities) and I wanted to absolutely hate CRAZY FOR YOU when I saw it because I loved FALSETTOS so, so very much.  But CRAZY FOR YOU was joyous and sensational and had some of the best dancing I've ever seen on a Broadway stage.  

And though LION KING has two huge brands (the title itself and Disney), it was also a wildly creative triumph.  RAGTIME has the best first act of a musical I've ever seen, but the second act makes me want to re-bury Baby Coalhouse back in the ground.  

[Someone in a Tree2]

I'm sure I'll get flack for this, but there is a simple way to distinguish the 2 categories of shows above that doesn't involve how much money the show made (i.e. how commercial it is).

One show (BOOK OF MORMON, FROZEN, SOMETHING ROTTEN, MEAN GIRLS) caters to the lowest common denominator audience member.

The other (LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, THE BAND'S VISIT, FUN HOME any Sondheim show) caters to an elite audience.

It helps that I think of myself as an elite audience member, but that's not to say that I don't love some lowest common denominator shows as well, for instance HELLO DOLLY.

Of course, the miraculous shows like HAMILTON or THE LION KING are the ones that straddle both groups.

 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Gurl...show your work.

BOOK OF MORMON is really tightly constructed and has something really interesting to say about religion v. faith.  Sure...it's potty-mouthed...but it's smart and a well-made musical (I'd give most of that credit to Bobby Lopez).

LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA sure sounds pretty.  But, Jesus, that show is like watching beige paint dry on a piece of sheet rock while listening to modern classical music.  I mean...she gets kicked in the head by a horse.  That is hilarious.  

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

A friend of mine saw the production of Light in the Piazza when she lived in L.A. years ago and to this day says how much she hated that show. We're both big theatre fans and talk about it a lot so I know she doesn't have bad tastes or anything. She just thought it was so stupid and even mentioned the horse kicking the girl in the head thing as something stupid.

I don't always like Broadway Abridged's parodies as they can come off as too mean-spirited or missing the point of the show (especially when I checked out the author's actual stuff and was like 'you're one to talk' but I thought their abridged version of Light in the Piazza (and Wicked) was really hilarious.

[SonofRobbieJ]

I exaggerate my dislike of the show.  I didn't much care for it, but could recognize it's artistic worth.  But two nights after seeing it, I was at the Townhouse (stop judging) and ran into a co-worker and his friend that I was just meeting that night.  They said they had just seen PIAZZA and I said, almost apologetically, 'I didn't really care for it.'  The friend, to whom I was JUST introduced, slapped me across the face.  So...Adam Guettel now has to deal with my wrath.  

[HogansHero]

Not that I'm surprised but this thread has now officially come off the rails.

[SonofRobbieJ]

SONG AND DANCE was proffered as the Art against DROOD's commercialism.  Was it really ever on the rails?  

The problem is, the theory doesn't hold up all that well.  Some years, it seems that commercialism was highly valued over art (see: SPAMALOT).  The last few years, it seems the opposite...with riskier fare being rewarded.  It also doesn't really take into account that the award is for Best Production of a Musical.  It also views some productions with hindsight.  For example, PHANTOM doesn't get the credit it deserves for the artistry of its production.  LA CAGE was anything but a sure thing.  It's a deeply personal work by out, gay writers at a time when that wasn't particularly commercial...especially with gay men dying by the thousands at that point.  Viewing LA CAGE as commercial is fine today, I guess.  The original post seems to posit that LA CAGE was created with an eye on great commercial success.  That couldn't be farther from the truth given the times and the fact that Jerry Herman hadn't had a hit in well over a decade.  

[Elfuhbuh]

The Distinctive Baritone said: "In all fairness, sometimes the “commercial” show really is the best. It is possible to be “artsy” and terrible at the same time you know."

This.

[Solipsist234]

I am very intrigued by this thread, because it takes me back to the 2013 Tony Awards, where I feel like ALL of the Best Musical nominees were commercial pieces of theater (Matilda was probably the furthest from this, but it also had the added benefit of being a hit in London, so there's that.) I don't know why, but the past few seasons (and their respective Best Musical winners) have felt increasingly commercialized (save for maybe Once and Gentleman's Guide and Fun Home.) That's just my two cents, y'all!

Also, the La Cage vs. Sunday in the Park debate piques my interest, because both of those shows have very different interpretations of how we should view art. Whether it's a biographic yet fictional piece about a famous painting, or a fun, glitzy musical about a drag club in France, it's very much up in the air for those two shows!