Definition of a post-modern musical
cjgen...@my-deja.com
post-modern (POMO) musical. I'm curious as to what is the consensus of
what makes a musical and/or a composer POMO?
Is it the subject matter? Is it the structure? Is it style of music?
Which shows are? Which shows are not?
Company?
Pacific Overtures?
Parade?
Wild Party? (Parties?)
Hello Again?
A New Brain?
Sweeney Todd?
Nine?
Titantic?
Myths and Hymns?
Floyd Collins?
IMHO these definitions are useful as long as they are not dogmatic.
I am not interested in splitting hairs over them. I'm more interested
in what the discussion concerning them may reveal.
Chris Gennaula
http://www.mp3.com/ChrisGennaula
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve & Rhonda
totally subjective, gut-reaction POV, they're all POMOS for me except
the Broadway WILD PARTY, SWEENEY TODD, and PACIFIC OVERTURES which, to
my surprise is hands down my favorite musical on this list.
Matthew Murray
> A similar formula applies to pomo musicals. When the combination of boredom and
> pain gets so intense that you're ready to pass out, it's pomo.
Though they all meet your criteria, I'm not sure I would consider
Jekyll & Hyde, Footloose, Fame, or Aida "post-modern" musicals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always wanted to see the lights of Broadway,
And I was told if I look too close I just might go blind...
...If the lights of Broadway blind me,
I won't mind!
-Michael John LaChiusa, from The Wild Party
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray - mmu...@cc.wwu.edu - http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loire21
>On another thread there is a discussion of whether or not Parade is a
>post-modern (POMO) musical. I'm curious as to what is the consensus of
>what makes a musical and/or a composer POMO?
Good question. The phenomenon is probably easier to recognize than define.
It calls to mind the Lucy restaurant episode in which Lucy complains about not
knowing how to cook a hamburger. To which Ethel replies something like, "It's
easy. You put the meat on the griddle, and when your face is redder than the
hamburger, it's done."
Loire21
>
>> A similar formula applies to pomo musicals. When the combination of boredom
>and
>> pain gets so intense that you're ready to pass out, it's pomo.
>
>Jekyll & Hyde, Footloose, Fame, or Aida "post-modern" musicals.
>
bad, were not boring. For that ne plus ultra experience, you have to go to the
likes of Marie Christine, Passion, Dream True, and... well, in deference to
you, Matthew, I'll stop here.
Matthew Murray
Uh, Dream True? I've never heard of that one before... What can
you tell me about it?
Michael Callery
can define what a "post modern musical" is. Most books define Oklahoma!
as the "turning point" in modern musicals. Of course, we know that
things like Showboat preceeded it and started the "cogs" in motion.
So I'm guessing here, but pomo musicals dump the obligitory ballet, dump
the secondary juvenile love story (often played as comic), dump the
happy ending (as nebulous as that may be c.f. My Fair Lady), and dump a
lot of things that are part of the musicals of the "Golden Era."
It's definitely not subject matter, but, I think, mostly structure. It's
not style of music, either. In the old days (geesh, I hate to type
that!), we talked about "concept musicals," which Company is generally
considered the first although, as with Showboat, there are lots of
precidents. It's just that Company was the first hit to use an unusual
structure and dump most of the characteristics of traditional musical theatre.
So I think that "pomo" is simply a synonym for "concept" ... a show
which puts the idea behind the show in the forefront and uses
traditional structures as needed but never in the forefront.
By this definition, I think only Company (and maybe the Broadway Wild
Party) qualify. Myths and Hymns should be excluded because it is a revue.
Mike
cjgen...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> On another thread there is a discussion of whether or not Parade is a
> post-modern (POMO) musical. I'm curious as to what is the consensus of
> what makes a musical and/or a composer POMO?
>
> Is it the subject matter? Is it the structure? Is it style of music?
> Which shows are? Which shows are not?
>
> Company?
> Pacific Overtures?
> Parade?
> Wild Party? (Parties?)
> Hello Again?
> A New Brain?
> Sweeney Todd?
> Nine?
> Titantic?
> Myths and Hymns?
> Floyd Collins?
>
> IMHO these definitions are useful as long as they are not dogmatic.
> I am not interested in splitting hairs over them. I'm more interested
> in what the discussion concerning them may reveal.)
Beb11572
>as the "turning point" in modern musicals. Of course, we know that
>things like Showboat preceeded it and started the "cogs" in motion.
>
I have never understood why "Oklahoma!" is claimed to be the turning point.
Clearly, "Showboat" broke all the boundaries beforehand, except for the dream
ballet...and that was done, the year before, in "Peggy-Ann." It has to be
because "Showboat" was, for years, the only one of its kind: then, for years
thereafter, it was back to fluff.
Eight years later, there was "Porgy and Bess" (I know, I know, "it's an
opera..." :) ). Then, more fluff until "Pal Joey" in 1940, which broke all
the rules once again. Then nothing of consequence for three years until
"Oklahoma!'...THEN "the fully-realized musical" caught on...
But, overlooking the artistic gaps, how can "Showboat" be disqualified as the
beginning of modern musical theatre?
Pizzaman95
(Beb11572) writes:
It is as you suggest--the gaps. Oklahoma was the beginning of a steady
run of shows of substance in the "Golden Age" format so while SB and
others might be seen a precursors, it is as if the fact the R&H and others
were able to set forth a steady stream of shows creates the true dawn
of the "Modern" musical.
Biff McKeldin
Beb11572 wrote:
>
> >Most books define Oklahoma!
> >as the "turning point" in modern musicals. Of course, we know that
> >things like Showboat preceeded it and started the "cogs" in motion.
> >
>
> I have never understood why "Oklahoma!" is claimed to be the turning point.
> Clearly, "Showboat" broke all the boundaries beforehand, except for the dream
> ballet...and that was done, the year before, in "Peggy-Ann." It has to be
> because "Showboat" was, for years, the only one of its kind: then, for years
> thereafter, it was back to fluff.
>
> Eight years later, there was "Porgy and Bess" (I know, I know, "it's an
> opera..." :) ). Then, more fluff until "Pal Joey" in 1940, which broke all
> the rules once again. Then nothing of consequence for three years until
> "Oklahoma!'...THEN "the fully-realized musical" caught on...
>
> But, overlooking the artistic gaps, how can "Showboat" be disqualified as the
> beginning of modern musical theatre?
SHOW BOAT wasn't a trend setter, and it's long run (for the day) was no
more impressive than the other mega-hits of the 20's. OKLAHOMA!
quadrupled SHOW BOAT's run -- and ran substantially longer than any
other musical -- book or revue -- ever had. It received the first
full-fledged original Broadway cast album (ok, second -- THIS IS THE
ARMY was the first: but I don't count THE CRADLE WILL ROCK because it
was so outside of the Broadway mold, and only utilized piano
accompaniment) and it's *phenomenal* success guaranteed that R&H would
become a brand name and that everyone else would follow their more or
less new paradigm for book musicals. Add to that, a behemoth of an
organization that has a stake in promoting the myth that OKLAHOMA! was
the "first modern musical," and you come up with OKLAHOMA! -- *the
legend*.
For what it's worth I do think SHOW BOAT is frequently recognized as the
beginning of American musical theater (just not as frequently as
OKLAHOMA!) -- but some would argue with *that*, pointing to perhaps
Cohan and/or Herbert or even Harrigan & Hart as the true originators
(and of course they were only borrowing from others as well).
Biff
joegillis [tm]
I saw Dream True. It starred Judy Kuhn, Jeff McCarthy, the guy who played Adult
Josh in the musical Big, one of the Bowen kids, and Jessica Molaskey (to name most of
the cast). It was....writen? directed? by Tina Landau (sp?).
Just thinking about it makes my head hurt.
It was one of those really-not-very-melodic scores (except for like one song).
The show was about 2 best friends who grow up in the midwest and then one gets sent
away to live with his father in NY. Years later he (jeff mccarthy) stumbles on the
friend he left behind ("Adult Josh" guy) who's become a gay activist. Judy Kuhn
played his wife. The gay friend (forgive me i can NOT for the life of me remember
their names) dies (was it AIDS? I believe that was implied? I could be SO wrong),
and Jeff McCarthy's character goes crazy.
It was a rather bizarre show, and implied more than it actually said. Don't worry,
you didn't miss much, except for the fabulous Judy Kuhn, who thank GOD was in it and
could keep me from cracking my skull open.
Funny. I always thought that if I didn't enjoy those kinds of "sophisticated" shows
it meant I was a bad theatre goer. It just makes the shows POMO. : -)
Loire21
>Funny. I always thought that if I didn't enjoy those kinds of
>"sophisticated" shows
>it meant I was a bad theatre goer.
That's what they want you to think.
> It just makes the shows POMO. : -)
Glad you've caught on. :)
Beb11572
>
>>
>>>Most books define Oklahoma!
>>>as the "turning point" in modern musicals. Of course, we know that
>>>things like Showboat preceeded it and started the "cogs" in motion.
>>>
>>
>>I have never understood why "Oklahoma!" is claimed to be the turning point.
>>Clearly, "Showboat" broke all the boundaries beforehand, except for the
>dream
>>ballet...and that was done, the year before, in "Peggy-Ann." It has to be
>>because "Showboat" was, for years, the only one of its kind: then, for years
>>thereafter, it was back to fluff.
>>
>>Eight years later, there was "Porgy and Bess" (I know, I know, "it's an
>>opera..." :) ). Then, more fluff until "Pal Joey" in 1940, which broke
>all
>>the rules once again. Then nothing of consequence for three years until
>>"Oklahoma!'...THEN "the fully-realized musical" caught on...
>>
>>But, overlooking the artistic gaps, how can "Showboat" be disqualified as
>the
>>beginning of modern musical theatre?
>
>run of shows of substance in the "Golden Age" format so while SB and
>others might be seen a precursors, it is as if the fact the R&H and others
>were able to set forth a steady stream of shows creates the true dawn
>of the "Modern" musical.
And leave us not forget that the librettist/lyricist of SB was the same Mr.
Hammerstein!
Noel Katz
innovations Oklahoma brought about. (Luckily, Max Wilk already did.) I
consider it the most revolutionary play of the 20th century, because it truly
changed everything. The type of musical seen on Broadway prior to Oklahoma
quickly disappeared from The Street after its opening, and folks like Cole
Porter and Irving Berlin were considered has-beens until they could create
shows in the same "integrated" style. Think how many shows since 1943 can be
(and are) revived today and compare how few pre-OK shows can be done with their
original scripts.
Jesse C. Jones
> It's definitely not subject matter, but, I think, mostly structure. It's
> not style of music, either. . .
> So I think that "pomo" is simply a synonym for "concept" ... a show
> which puts the idea behind the show in the forefront and uses
> traditional structures as needed but never in the forefront.
In attempting to define "postmodern" should we recognize the word has a
meaning independent of muscial theatre. For example, a philosophy dictionary says
thus:
"Most generally, abandonment of Enlightenment confidence in the achievement
objective human knowledge through reliance upon reason in pursuit of
foundationalism, essentialism, and realism. In philosophy, postmodernists
typically express grave doubt about the possibility of universal objective truth,
reject artificially sharp dichotomies, and delight in the inherent irony and
particularity of language and life."
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p7.htm#pomo
An art definition is too long to paste:
http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fina/glossary/p_list.html
Or, closer to my own heart, if one wants to understand postmodern theology,
take a look at
http://www.mindspring.com/~chainlightning/tgk/004.htm
Brooke Pierce
"In musical theatre," then complete it with: "postmodernists typically express grave
doubt about the possibility of universal objective truth, reject artificially sharp
dichotomies, and delight in the inherent irony and particularity of language and
life."
If we went by that definition, I'd say Sondheim and his colloborators were the
pioneering writers of pomo musicals. The new guard have picked up on it somewhat, but
could hardly be considered the first to do so. And I agree with whoever said that
this post-modernism is more about style than subject matter. It also seems to be
about the attitude toward the subject matter and the way the characters and story are
handled.
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~chainlightning/tgk/004.htm
And thanks especially for sharing this one, Jesse - I found it very interesting as
well.
Brooke
Newpor...@webtv.net
Or dance? Or something?)
Stephen Ross Roberts-Newport
Faye Rhonda Barmack-Newport
Biff McKeldin
Loire21 wrote:
>
> >"joegillis [tm]" wrote:
>
> >Funny. I always thought that if I didn't enjoy those kinds of
> >"sophisticated" shows
> >it meant I was a bad theatre goer.
>
> That's what they want you to think.
Who's "they?"
Biff
(who didn't care for DREAM TRUE either -- but didn't feel any lack of
theater-going self-esteem because of it).