The "Glee" Phenomenon- is Broadway going mainstream??

Ken Davenport recently blogged at his "Producers Perspective" site about how Broadway is no longer producing any crossover hits for top 40 radio. While I disagree with Ken as to the extent that Broadway influenced the pop charts back in the day, there are a handful of showtunes that crossed to the mainstream.

In 1971, Judy Collins version of "Send In The Clowns" was a top 10 hit at adult contemporary radio. The soundtrack to Jesus Christ Superstar spawned "I Don't Know How To Love Him", which was a minor US hit for Yvonne Elliman in the 70's. Murray Head's version of "One Night In Bangkok" from the Chess soundtrack, managed to climb into the top 10 on the Hot 100. Stephanie Mills went to #1 on the R&B charts with "Home" in 1989 (years after she performed the show on New York stages). The most recent win came when Madonna's remix of "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" landed on the dance charts in the mid 90's. While they are all nice, individual stories, it's not exactly overwhelming evidence to suggest that Broadway was ever a consistently important piece of the pop music landscape.

Nevertheless, the theater community is buzzing today after hearing that the latest Glee Soundtrack would debut at #1 on next week's Billboard Charts. With such beloved theater stars like Lea Michelle and Matthew Morrison being a prominent part of the show, it proves that Broadway can once again rule the charts, right??

Well, kind of.

The album that will top the charts is a CD of Madonna cover songs, not showtunes. In fact, in their three combined soundtrack releases, you can only find three Broadway songs represented on the playlist. For every "Defying Gravity", there is five Journey songs.

Glee is successful because of the same formula that has worked for Mama Mia, Rock of Ages, and the recently opened American Idiot. Take a catalog of previously successful pop music, and "swish it up" (thanks Sue Sylvester") for the Broadway stage. The formula is commercially successful, but it doesn't mean that Broadway is dictating pop culture. Instead, it's imitating it.

That isn't meant as a negative. "Glee" is tremendously important for Broadway in the sense that it has given mainstream credibility to some very talented stage performers. At some point, Lea Michelle is going to head back to the stage and be a massive box office draw. That's going to be great news for producers, investors, and more importantly, the other actors and crew members who will stay employed because they are in a show with someone that audiences are paying to see.

In the meantime, let's not hold our breath waiting to hear Lady Gaga cover "Defying Gravity" on you local top 40 station anytime soon.

Love Theater? We've got an app for that. Oh wait, just kidding.

One of the radio stations that I manage here in Sacramento is currently in development for our own Iphone application. Listeners will be able to listen to our radio station on their phone 24/7, as well as access video content and podcasts from our website, see an up to the minute feed from the DJ blogs, connect with our social networking sites, and more. Will this make an impact in the monthly radio ratings? Perhaps not, but it is a powerful marketing tool that keeps us top of mind over our competitors, and keeps us relevant in the ever-busy lifestyle of today's youth culture.

I don't say this to brag because, to be quite frank, my parent company should have been rolling these apps out for their radio stations 18 months ago. An estimated 22 million people purchased Iphones in 2009, and that number is going to double in 2010.

If radio stations are late to the party, then Broadway producers are light years behind. A recent search for Broadway related Iphone applications listed only a handful of results, none of them particularly impressive. New York producers are sinking $100,000 a week into TV campaigns for "maintenance marketing" in an age where many viewers are fast forwarding through commercials on their DVR. Yet, there is a relatively inexpensive way to connect with not just the New York audience,but tourists who have already made plans on how to spend their theater dollar before they get to the city....and nobody is taking advantage of it.

If I am the producer of "American Idiot" and I know that the sustainability of my show hinges on getting younger, and possibly, first time theaters goers to the St James theater, I am immediately getting an Iphone app started for my show. Imagine downloading an app where you could preview songs from the soundtrack (with a link to buy the CD and download it right to your phone). You could include video footage of the "sizzle reel" with show clips, and Green Day fans can watch interviews with Billie Joe Armstrong discussing how great it is to be a part of Broadway. You could link to the twitter page for the show (ask the Next to Normal team how vital that has been to their marketing). Most importantly, there is a direct link to Telecharge to buy tickets.

Maybe some smart producer could even develop a partnership with Apple to sell tickets directly through an Itunes account??

Come on, Broadway! I realize some 1960's musicals have been brought back to the stage over the last year, but it doesn't mean we have to keep using 50 year old marketing strategies too.

How to Lose Money on Broadway Without Really Trying

It seemed like in the 1990's, the best way to have a sure-fire hit in New York was to stage a revival. Shows like "Cabaret", "Annie Get Your Gun", and "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" all did big business. In fact, the "Chicago" revival is still running at the Ambassador theater 15 years after it opened, even spawning an Oscar nominated film version in the process.

Conversely, over the last decade, there is an equally long list of revivals that did not recoup their investment. Some of them, including the 2002 version of "Into The Woods" and the 2005 version of "La Cage Aux Folles" won tony awards. Others, like last year's "Ragtime" and "Finian's Rainbow", garnered rave reviews from critics, none of which translated into money at the box office.



It amazes me how some Broadway producers don't learn from past mistakes. For instance, does anyone believe that Kelsey Grammar is still a big enough star to guarantee huge houses for this season's "La Cage", when the show just failed 5 years ago? How about the revival of "Promises, Promises"? There is no bigger female star on Broadway than Chenowith, but there was also no bigger star than Bernadette Peters in the 90's, when she was paired with a fading TV star, and a Neil Simon script. "The Goodbye Girl" turned out to be one of the ten biggest flops of the last 20 years. Now, fast forward to 2010, replace Martin Short with Sean Hayes, throw in dated Neil Simon material from 40 years ago, and we could have another recipe for failure.


What are the two reasons to do a revival?? Most theater people will tell you this:


A) Because you are stunt casting with an A-list star (Angela Landsbury and Catherine Zeta Jones are proving to be a formidable combination right now in "A Little Night Music")

B) The source material is totally relevant to today's theater audience (The Diane Paulus revival of "Hair")


With all these things being said, there was an official announcement today that Daniel Radcliffe will return to Broadway next year in a revival of "How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying". Don't get me wrong, the theater nerd part of me is intrigued. The businessman part of me??? Eh... not so sure.


The show was last seen in New York in the mid 90's, when Des McAnuff staged it as a star vehicle for Matthew Broderick (and John Stamos after him). The show received generally positive reviews, but closed after a 15 month run, just missing out on recouping it's investment. So what has changed in 2010? The star of the world's biggest film franchise, Daniel Radcliffe, will be on the marquee.

Radcliffe's name was also on the marquee of last season's "Equus", a show that got great reviews and didn't recoup. Of course, one could argue that younger Potter fans weren't going to get mom and dad to spring $125 a pop to take them to see full frontal Harry (not hairy) nudity onstage. But are we sure that they are going to want to pay that amount to see a story about a young man trying to scheme his way up the corporate ladder? Furthermore, is there any evidence that Daniel Radcliffe is even a draw away from the Potter movies? It's not like he's done any commercial films other than that.

Naturally, we have to wait and see how this all plays out. Maybe director Rob Ashford has a concept that will totally reinvent the show and it will be the greatest piece of art of all time. History has shown us though, even if this is an artistic success, it may not be a financial one.

N2N wins a pulitzer

The Broadway community is buzzing about "Next to Normal" winning this year's Pulitzer Prize for drama. Does the show deserve this honor? Is it true that most of the Pulitzer voters didn't see the show until the day before they cast their vote?? Did it sway their opinion? Is N2N too "commercial" to win such a prestigious award?

As for me, I don't know and I truly don't care. My question is this:

Can Alice Ripley accept on behalf of the show??

Because let's be honest, last year's Tony speech was deliciously overindulgent and the true highlight of the whole evening. Enjoy a few minutes of someone taking themselves entirely too seriously.

I can't help but wonder what other political leaders Alice could quote at the Tony Awards.

"There is a quote from George W Bush that says JUSTICE ought to be FAIR"!

Or maybe she could share a quote from California Governor, Arnold Schwartzenegger.

"There is a quote from the 'Governator' that says DON'T be economic GIRLIE MEN"

Maybe she'll step outside of the box and use some quotes right from pop culture.

"There is a quote from Lady Gaga that says GA GA OOH LA LA... watch out BAD ROMANCE"

Next To Normal is a tremendous show. Alice Ripley gives an amazing performance. But do you get the feeling that maybe it's because there's a lot of Diana in her already???

Just saying.

Green Day Takes on Broadway

My Northern California theater friends may already be acquainted with "American Idiot", as the rock opera premiered down the road at the Berkeley Repertory Theater last fall to rave reviews. The show has been tweaked, pimped all over MTV, and ready to open later this month at the St James Theater.

"American Idiot" is inspired by Green Day's 2004 concept album of the same name. Despite selling 17 million copies worldwide and winning the Grammy award for "best rock album", the CD was met with tepid reviews. In fact, Rolling Stone initially said the album was "a mess, although the songs are tough and punchy enough to work on their own". Entertainment Weekly said it was "based on a musical theater concept that periodically makes no sense".

As a Broadway show, continuity is not really the problem. It is staged expertly by Michael Mayer. The biggest problem with "American Idiot" is that we've seen most of it before. The show, in a subtle way, steals a little bit from other "Teen Angst" show that has come before it.

-Young man is seduced into a seedy underworld by a drug dealer?? We already saw that with the Acid Queen in "Tommy"

-Young man falls in love with a fellow drug addict. They make mad love after shooting each other up. Yep, saw that in "Rent"

-Young people being shipped off to fight in a war that they didn't choose? Diane Paulus' tribe did it better in the revival of "Hair".

-Elevated platform in the center of the stage?? Mayer used the same concept in his Tony winning "Spring Awakening".

There is one other significant issue with "American Idiot". The source material was Green Day's middle finger to the Bush Administration in a year where the apathy of the young voter had reached an all time high. In fact, among the sound clips used in the shows opening is the former President saying "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists". However, a mere 4 years later, Barack Obama was able to mobilize many of these "slackers" and convince them that "Yes, We Can" create change. One can argue exactly how much his administration has accomplished, but you can't argue that, more than ever, the young generation is taking part in the process. It's for this reason that parts of "American Idiot" just don't feel current.

The story is most effective and poignant as we watch the journey of Tunny, who joins the military and gets deployed to fight overseas. Part of this is because of our current administration's policy in Afghanistan, part of it is because Stark Sands (taking over the role in NY), is the most compelling presence and the best singer on the stage.

Despite an overall negative tone towards the prospects of young people, the show still has an amazing energy, largely in part to a passionate cast that is giving every fiber of their being to the performance. The orchestrations by Tom Kitt (Next to Normal) are magnificent and played wonderfully by the 8 piece band onstage. The choreography amazingly combines a grunge club mosh pit with classical dance. Then there is the music, featuring a multitude of ear candy, radio hits, composed by Green Day's Billie Joe Armstrong.

In five years, "American Idiot's" greatest contribution to Broadway might not be the piece itself. The matinee I attended was brimming with theater newbies--- Green Day fans who would otherwise never see a Broadway show. My girlfriend and I were approached in the lobby by two girls asking us "how much we paid for a Playbill". The theater needs "American Idiot", much like we needed "Tommy" and "Rent" before it, to serve as an on ramp to the theater for new audiences.

Grade- B

In Defense of "The Addams Family"

It seems like the fashionable thing in New York right now is to bash the new "Addams Family" musical that just opened at the Lunt-Fontanne Theater. In fact, "the most powerful reviewer on the planet", Ben Brantley, might have written the most scathing critique ever for a show not named "Glory Days". If you only read the reviews, you would think people would be screaming for the exits like a Max Bialystock show in "The Producers"

However, when I attended the final preview last Wednesday night, a funny thing was happening around me in the mezzanine. It was the sound of laughter. I dare say the audience was actually enjoying what Brantley called a "ghastly musical". I attended the show with my girlfriend (a die-hard theater snob) and a friend from Sacramento (a prominent local theater director in that city). As we left the theater that evening, the two of them graded the show anywhere from an A- to a B+.

Is this to say that "Addams Family" is a great show? No. Did I personally think the show was a B+? No. Will the show win a Tony for best musical?? Not a chance.

The critics aren't incorrect in addressing the problems with this production. The story is unfocused, with a storyline that's already been done better in shows like "La Cage". The score by Andrew Lippa is uneven. The entire second act feels like an episode of "Oprah's Favorite Things", designed less to advance the plot, and more to pacify the egos of the top tier Broadway actors (YOU get a song... and YOU get a song...and YOU get a song).

"Addams Family" is by no means a perfect show--- but it is still a fun night, with many laugh out loud moments. In many respects, it is the inverse of last season's atrocious revival of "Guys and Dolls", where the producers wasted money stunt casting actors who were completely wrong for the show. Lauren Graham played Adelaide like she was Corky Thatcher in "Life Goes On". The actors were so bad, that they dragged down what is essentially the quintessential Broadway musical. However, in the case of"Addams", it's fun to see what happens when great actors elevate bad material. The majority of the evening's laughs are provided by Nathan Lane, who earns every bit of his reported $30,000 a week paycheck finding jokes that other actors couldn't. Kevin Chamberlain provides an act 2 highlight with his song "The Moon and Me". The always reliable Jackie Hoffman makes Grandma Addams a 60's Woodstock stoner. Critics might say that Chamberlain's song is gimmicky and Hoffman is over the top, but they got huge laughs all night. Isn't that what matters? Carolee Carmello's act 1 song, "Waiting" is a great moment that gives some color to an otherwise one dimensional character. I imagine that this is why, as a producer, you spend the extra money to hire A-list, proven talent. They just might be good enough to save your show.

On a different note, I think "The Addams Family" will also be a powerful study in how much clout reviewers still have in this day and age. Do theatergoers really care what Brantley thinks about a show? Or will they pay the money to make their own judgement? Theater snobs who read reviews may very well never go see "Addams". Then again, perhaps a musical based on an old cartoon isn't something that's in their wheelhouse to begin with. That's why those patrons have "Next to Normal" to masturbate to.

Remember, very few movie critics will say nice things about an Adam Sandler project. Yet, Sandler has a remarkably steady track record of films that make big money at the box office. His work may seem a little "lowest common denominator", but it appeals to families and middle America. Based on the standing ovation I saw last Wednesday night, I'm willing to guess that the tourists and families like the show. If there are enough to shell out $125 a pop, maybe this show won't die a slow and painful death...even if that's how the "Addams Family" would prefer to go.