...shows built this way are somewhat bloodless, cynical, and lesser than shows which are unashamedly artist-led and artist driven.....
Some might be, sure. But, I don't think this holds up collectively. The problem is not because the producer originates the work, but because the producer doesn't understand what it takes to be best-crafted and most-ready for an audience acceptance.
.....all of these shows are worse than they would be if a writer had pitched the idea themselves and then a producer had worked with them to help acquire those rights, or develop that story, or make that show happen........
That depends entirely on the skills, training and experience of that writer. A new-found genius, with no track record of practice, is an extreme rarity.
Why? Because musicals are an emotional form and require an active and honest emotional engagement. And people can always instinctively tell when that isn't there. We just have to admit it to ourselves. We can tell on some level when a show is faking it. And everyone knows.
Wow! I've never heard anyone take that stand. But, you are probably more right than wrong. I think that I mentioned this commenting on your (open and closed?) concept of musical adaptation. Clearly, the first use of musical language in any dramatic piece is the communication of emotion to an audience. Music can have other functions, but historically, relaying the emotional feelings of character via music and the internal monologue in lyric, are the primary objective. For this reason, clearly audiences tend to lean into musical plays hoping to be carried on an empathetic journey of discovery and feeling through the characters story progress on stage - including self-effacing comic revelation. And, yes, I concur completely. Audiences know, though they don't always know how to articulate their feelings about it. And some withhold those private thoughts for fear of exclusion and shaming. (What's wrong with me, if the critics all liked it?) I submit, the critics are jaded and need provocative new ideas thrown at them far more than the audience does. They see 1-6 shows a year, the critic sees 50-100 shows a year.
We should make space for artist-led musicals and question how to evolve or disrupt situations where producer-led pathways are the predominant or dominant direction of travel......
I am in quite a quandary here. I am such an artist that writes on "spec." I most often choose what I wish to write and rarely write for the whim of the producer. But, even as you champion what best serves my interests, I cannot agree completely. If more producers truly had the training and experience to intuit subjects and adaptive works that make for good musical theater, this might be less of a need. The dearth of their ability to understand quality of craftsmanship is likely what truly needs improving. And what's worse, most could never intuit quality or marketability from a lone read of the manuscript, a few more might be able to arrive at smart conclusions if the work is mounted in a reading, but the majority probably needs to see the work on it's feet in some near-full production capacity, to deduce it's national or international potential.
Frankly, what we need is not for West End or Broadway producers trying to develop their own projects, we need a national system (both US and UK) that nurtures development from lower, less expensive producing levels of workshop and production, but with a firm commitment to participate and partner with these regional companies to get 6 works a quarter up in music-stand reading, earnestly pursue critical commentary and developed rewrites, select projects ready to move to staged reading , then partial production, and in each stage, producers are involved in these determinations. The result will be not only better quality work developed over time, but using time to help develop better (more informed) producers who begin to understand craft and see how, by pursuing it, a work is improved. It's not fast magic. But, as long as producers push to churn out something in 18-24 months, the majority of projects will arrive incomplete and lacking to most audiences.
I believe all venues and producers should meet writers, listen to their work, ask them their passions, their ideas, their dreams. And support those. Stop slotting writers into projects. ......
Yes, under the model mentioned above, we arrive at this outcome. (And mostly, we get better informed producers.)
A director colleague of mine once suggested that new plays were a writer’s medium, revived plays a director's medium and musicals a producer's medium......
My immediate reaction was to assume this was true. But, when I started to think about the genesis of many musicals, like Guys and Dolls and How to Succeed, those projects were producer driven - acting on book rights they acquired first and then assembling a writing and production team. My guess is that this has always been the norm, except where highly-successful writers had the fame, fortune and luxury to pursue their own project interests. (Hey, even George Gershwin, Richard Rogers and Larry Hart first wrote for revue producers!) And, even after they garnered success, it's likely they pursued their own projects with some discussion with their producer partners (Prince, Crawford, etc.)
.....I have come to believe that musicals are much better off, as a medium, and on a show by show basis, if they are not producer-led, not producer-instigated, and not producer-first.........
Funny. We come to the same conclusion, but from very different travels. I honestly think yours is meant to avoid insulting producers. Mine seems, foolishly less tactful. If you look at past producers with long, long track records of success, like Hal Prince, Joseph Papp and Cameron Macintosh, a few traits emerge very quickly. They all came from a very long career in theater. They worked their way up through the ranks, to become producers. And they learned their various crafts assisting and along side many other creative luminaries. Only David Merrick, a former lawyer, came out of nowhere and had immediate success. (But, Merrick was a producer who opted material for a project and then brought his writers together.) The rest learned craft and developed their producing talents and nose for the market working their way up the ranks. None of them were writers and none could sit down and write a show (though all would contribute ideas to change works they produced.) What they did do was find and champion a select few writers and in collaboration with them, created successful empires producing their chosen writer's finished works. (Prince=Sondheim, Merrick=Herman, etc.)
What is most clear to me is this: the best producers develop their talent and skills (nose) for success over years of theatrical experience and none dare attempt to write their own work, but instead hire the best, most successful authors, to create works for them. Musical play writing and producing today suffers from a void of experienced producers. They have not come through the ranks of creation and production, they are most often outside money people looking for celebrity in the theatrical industry on a cheap $60k to $120k investment as a producing-angel. Those most driven parlay these minor investments into a gaggle of Tony awards and then take that credit as proof they are ready to helm selecting projects to manage as lead producer. (But, financing does not train you to select and develop dramatic works.)
Simply put, the vast majority of modern producers do not understand the mechanics of writing a functional or literate musical play and therefore are short of the knowledge to judge submitted material or the talent and skills of the submitting artist. They haven't been through the ranks, they haven't learned from the knees of prior luminaries in the field and they haven't practiced or even studied the mechanics of that craft. Ergo, decisions are either based on subjective considerations (do I like the music, do I find that funny?) or financial ones (jukebox or biographical musical highlighting a known and beloved artist.) And frankly, were I as naive as they are, I would likely do exactly the same - merely to protect my financial investment.
I have seen that when it comes to musical theatre, ....producers and venues seem to be in the business of 'idea hunting’. This is, I believe, the wrong order of operations.......
Perhaps so. But, it was a long-standing practice in the Broadway industry for decades. An essential difference was they hired artists that were practiced writing in that genre. They weren't hiring K-Pop or decade old one-hit wonders as songwriters with no theatrical experience. But, even more tricky is finding a playwright that truly begins to understand how scene beats are developed to rise to emotional musical song moments or to carry critical information that propels plot forward and how songs must be integrated to do these things. This is a studied craft. And if the producer doesn't have these understandings, his writing team damn well better.
.....many venues and producers are using the scarce time, energy and resources allowed to musicals, to push forward shows of their own conception, based on ideas and intellectual property of their own preference. Often, this seems based on perceptions of what audiences want and cynical ideas of capitalistic short-term gain. This type of process then asks writers to pitch, audition, and slot themselves into the shape of something not of their own passion or design.......
Again, I think this follows the severe understanding limitations most producers bring to the table. What's even more hysterical is that they should even think that a really good musical should be quickly created and be ready for profit taking. Most really good musicals take 2-3 years to write and then go through a series of workshops, rewrites, small productions, out of town tryouts and more rewrites. (most of today's writers have neither the time, patience or self-effacing stamina to keep refining their work to make it as near-bulletproof as possible. More to the point, without a lot experience, they have no idea how to translate critical comment into useful information to retool a project. God knows, the producer hasn't a clue. THE MUSIC MAN took more than a decade to get to near perfection, so did SHUCKED (in it's second complete reincarnation.)
Even when shows might have a series of out of town tryouts, being rewritten daily on the road, many authors like Abe Burrows were still rewriting the show after it opened - to improve weak moments, change a line to get a better laugh. Who does that now? Nobody. And a show like Guys and Dolls had George F Kaufman for stage director. Imagine the rewrite notes flying hourly from that genius - which, though un-credited, became part of the finished work. Where is that genius comic author, turned stage director, working with writers to develope new works today? Where is the Hal Prince learning from the knowledge and experience of George Abbott?
Part two of two parts
...shows built this way are somewhat bloodless, cynical, and lesser than shows which are unashamedly artist-led and artist driven.....
Some might be, sure. But, I don't think this holds up collectively. The problem is not because the producer originates the work, but because the producer doesn't understand what it takes to be best-crafted and most-ready for an audience acceptance.
.....all of these shows are worse than they would be if a writer had pitched the idea themselves and then a producer had worked with them to help acquire those rights, or develop that story, or make that show happen........
That depends entirely on the skills, training and experience of that writer. A new-found genius, with no track record of practice, is an extreme rarity.
Why? Because musicals are an emotional form and require an active and honest emotional engagement. And people can always instinctively tell when that isn't there. We just have to admit it to ourselves. We can tell on some level when a show is faking it. And everyone knows.
Wow! I've never heard anyone take that stand. But, you are probably more right than wrong. I think that I mentioned this commenting on your (open and closed?) concept of musical adaptation. Clearly, the first use of musical language in any dramatic piece is the communication of emotion to an audience. Music can have other functions, but historically, relaying the emotional feelings of character via music and the internal monologue in lyric, are the primary objective. For this reason, clearly audiences tend to lean into musical plays hoping to be carried on an empathetic journey of discovery and feeling through the characters story progress on stage - including self-effacing comic revelation. And, yes, I concur completely. Audiences know, though they don't always know how to articulate their feelings about it. And some withhold those private thoughts for fear of exclusion and shaming. (What's wrong with me, if the critics all liked it?) I submit, the critics are jaded and need provocative new ideas thrown at them far more than the audience does. They see 1-6 shows a year, the critic sees 50-100 shows a year.
We should make space for artist-led musicals and question how to evolve or disrupt situations where producer-led pathways are the predominant or dominant direction of travel......
I am in quite a quandary here. I am such an artist that writes on "spec." I most often choose what I wish to write and rarely write for the whim of the producer. But, even as you champion what best serves my interests, I cannot agree completely. If more producers truly had the training and experience to intuit subjects and adaptive works that make for good musical theater, this might be less of a need. The dearth of their ability to understand quality of craftsmanship is likely what truly needs improving. And what's worse, most could never intuit quality or marketability from a lone read of the manuscript, a few more might be able to arrive at smart conclusions if the work is mounted in a reading, but the majority probably needs to see the work on it's feet in some near-full production capacity, to deduce it's national or international potential.
Frankly, what we need is not for West End or Broadway producers trying to develop their own projects, we need a national system (both US and UK) that nurtures development from lower, less expensive producing levels of workshop and production, but with a firm commitment to participate and partner with these regional companies to get 6 works a quarter up in music-stand reading, earnestly pursue critical commentary and developed rewrites, select projects ready to move to staged reading , then partial production, and in each stage, producers are involved in these determinations. The result will be not only better quality work developed over time, but using time to help develop better (more informed) producers who begin to understand craft and see how, by pursuing it, a work is improved. It's not fast magic. But, as long as producers push to churn out something in 18-24 months, the majority of projects will arrive incomplete and lacking to most audiences.
I believe all venues and producers should meet writers, listen to their work, ask them their passions, their ideas, their dreams. And support those. Stop slotting writers into projects. ......
Yes, under the model mentioned above, we arrive at this outcome. (And mostly, we get better informed producers.)
Good work, Adam. You're on the right track.
Part one of two parts
A director colleague of mine once suggested that new plays were a writer’s medium, revived plays a director's medium and musicals a producer's medium......
My immediate reaction was to assume this was true. But, when I started to think about the genesis of many musicals, like Guys and Dolls and How to Succeed, those projects were producer driven - acting on book rights they acquired first and then assembling a writing and production team. My guess is that this has always been the norm, except where highly-successful writers had the fame, fortune and luxury to pursue their own project interests. (Hey, even George Gershwin, Richard Rogers and Larry Hart first wrote for revue producers!) And, even after they garnered success, it's likely they pursued their own projects with some discussion with their producer partners (Prince, Crawford, etc.)
.....I have come to believe that musicals are much better off, as a medium, and on a show by show basis, if they are not producer-led, not producer-instigated, and not producer-first.........
Funny. We come to the same conclusion, but from very different travels. I honestly think yours is meant to avoid insulting producers. Mine seems, foolishly less tactful. If you look at past producers with long, long track records of success, like Hal Prince, Joseph Papp and Cameron Macintosh, a few traits emerge very quickly. They all came from a very long career in theater. They worked their way up through the ranks, to become producers. And they learned their various crafts assisting and along side many other creative luminaries. Only David Merrick, a former lawyer, came out of nowhere and had immediate success. (But, Merrick was a producer who opted material for a project and then brought his writers together.) The rest learned craft and developed their producing talents and nose for the market working their way up the ranks. None of them were writers and none could sit down and write a show (though all would contribute ideas to change works they produced.) What they did do was find and champion a select few writers and in collaboration with them, created successful empires producing their chosen writer's finished works. (Prince=Sondheim, Merrick=Herman, etc.)
What is most clear to me is this: the best producers develop their talent and skills (nose) for success over years of theatrical experience and none dare attempt to write their own work, but instead hire the best, most successful authors, to create works for them. Musical play writing and producing today suffers from a void of experienced producers. They have not come through the ranks of creation and production, they are most often outside money people looking for celebrity in the theatrical industry on a cheap $60k to $120k investment as a producing-angel. Those most driven parlay these minor investments into a gaggle of Tony awards and then take that credit as proof they are ready to helm selecting projects to manage as lead producer. (But, financing does not train you to select and develop dramatic works.)
Simply put, the vast majority of modern producers do not understand the mechanics of writing a functional or literate musical play and therefore are short of the knowledge to judge submitted material or the talent and skills of the submitting artist. They haven't been through the ranks, they haven't learned from the knees of prior luminaries in the field and they haven't practiced or even studied the mechanics of that craft. Ergo, decisions are either based on subjective considerations (do I like the music, do I find that funny?) or financial ones (jukebox or biographical musical highlighting a known and beloved artist.) And frankly, were I as naive as they are, I would likely do exactly the same - merely to protect my financial investment.
I have seen that when it comes to musical theatre, ....producers and venues seem to be in the business of 'idea hunting’. This is, I believe, the wrong order of operations.......
Perhaps so. But, it was a long-standing practice in the Broadway industry for decades. An essential difference was they hired artists that were practiced writing in that genre. They weren't hiring K-Pop or decade old one-hit wonders as songwriters with no theatrical experience. But, even more tricky is finding a playwright that truly begins to understand how scene beats are developed to rise to emotional musical song moments or to carry critical information that propels plot forward and how songs must be integrated to do these things. This is a studied craft. And if the producer doesn't have these understandings, his writing team damn well better.
.....many venues and producers are using the scarce time, energy and resources allowed to musicals, to push forward shows of their own conception, based on ideas and intellectual property of their own preference. Often, this seems based on perceptions of what audiences want and cynical ideas of capitalistic short-term gain. This type of process then asks writers to pitch, audition, and slot themselves into the shape of something not of their own passion or design.......
Again, I think this follows the severe understanding limitations most producers bring to the table. What's even more hysterical is that they should even think that a really good musical should be quickly created and be ready for profit taking. Most really good musicals take 2-3 years to write and then go through a series of workshops, rewrites, small productions, out of town tryouts and more rewrites. (most of today's writers have neither the time, patience or self-effacing stamina to keep refining their work to make it as near-bulletproof as possible. More to the point, without a lot experience, they have no idea how to translate critical comment into useful information to retool a project. God knows, the producer hasn't a clue. THE MUSIC MAN took more than a decade to get to near perfection, so did SHUCKED (in it's second complete reincarnation.)
Even when shows might have a series of out of town tryouts, being rewritten daily on the road, many authors like Abe Burrows were still rewriting the show after it opened - to improve weak moments, change a line to get a better laugh. Who does that now? Nobody. And a show like Guys and Dolls had George F Kaufman for stage director. Imagine the rewrite notes flying hourly from that genius - which, though un-credited, became part of the finished work. Where is that genius comic author, turned stage director, working with writers to develope new works today? Where is the Hal Prince learning from the knowledge and experience of George Abbott?