|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 10:50:06 GMT
Id also say theres a flaw with the original post. To say that Matilda and Billy Elliot were not successes is ridiculous, they have played long london runs, respectable broadway and us tour and have played internationally. Ghost has played international but shot itself in the foot with some poor producing for london and broadway. Mamma Mia was also british in origin in terms of london and producing team.
A lot of people are quick to point the finger at producers, but more money is lost than made in theatre and until youre willing to put all your money on a show i dont think you should be so quick to judge. And where are these shows that the producers are meant to invest in, i cant remember the last time i heard a decent new uk musical, certainly one that could have any life in it after fringe. Producers have to be objective, where as many of the artists and creatives can get a bit sycophantic and rave about eachothers work. I wouldn't say Mormon was a risk when you have south park to sell a show and wicked has the wizard of oz which is built into American dna
You are using the 80s mega musicals as a bench mark and they are really the exception not the rule. in the last decade Broadway has produced Wicked, Mormon and now Hamilton that have really turned into mega musicals and even the latter two still are early days on how thry go worldwide. Maybe Aladdin too. Broadway also has lots of flops every year. The fact that broadway is seasonal probably helps where as in London shows open when another show closes. Broadway has more of a pattern of when shows close and when they open
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 11:44:24 GMT
Id also say theres a flaw with the original post. To say that Matilda and Billy Elliot were not successes is ridiculous, they have played long london runs, respectable broadway and us tour and have played internationally. Ghost has played international but shot itself in the foot with some poor producing for london and broadway. Mamma Mia was also british in origin in terms of london and producing team. A lot of people are quick to point the finger at producers, but more money is lost than made in theatre and until youre willing to put all your money on a show i dont think you should be so quick to judge. And where are these shows that the producers are meant to invest in, i cant remember the last time i heard a decent new uk musical, certainly one that could have any life in it after fringe. Producers have to be objective, where as many of the artists and creatives can get a bit sycophantic and rave about eachothers work. I wouldn't say Mormon was a risk when you have south park to sell a show and wicked has the wizard of oz which is built into American dna You are using the 80s mega musicals as a bench mark and they are really the exception not the rule. in the last decade Broadway has produced Wicked, Mormon and now Hamilton that have really turned into mega musicals and even the latter two still are early days on how thry go worldwide. Maybe Aladdin too. Broadway also has lots of flops every year. The fact that broadway is seasonal probably helps where as in London shows open when another show closes. Broadway has more of a pattern of when shows close and when they open Billy Elliot and Matilda were obviously successes, but I think the point is they're not the type of shows to inspire rabid fan bases the way shows like Wicked and Hamilton do. As I mentioned earlier, they're not really worth paying top price to see repeatedly. These shows survive on the tourists that see a show once a year or once every few years and say 'oh I know that movie'. Whilst these two shows are well-respected internationally, Ghost and Mamma Mia are not and I think that's what we're looking for here. Musicals that succeed financially, that people are enthusiastic about and that are ultimately solid pieces of art. I don't think anyone thinks that this is all solely down to the producers but at the end of the day these are the people that decide what shows to put money into and I find it difficult to believe that with all the fans of musical theatre that reside in the UK, none of them are capable of coming up with an original/innovative idea worth investing into. Look at Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller. The first show he ever put money into was an off-broadway production of a rock adaptation of La bohème, containing topics such as homosexuality, sex, AIDS and drug addiction, at a time when these topics and rock music itself were all huge taboos to be explored in musical theatre, written by a waiter who lived in an apartment with no heating. But Seller saw something in the show. He believed in the show and then that show became Rent, the defining musical of the 1990s. It is probably one of the top three biggest gamechangers in Broadway history in terms of the influence that it had on the shows that followed. Then he went on to produce other shows such as Avenue Q, In the Heights and Hamilton, three big successes and all risky ventures. In a few decades time, he will probably be the Broadway version of Cameron Mackintosh, because he went for shows that didn't seem like a success on paper, not in spite of it. I don't think anyone is asking for every West End producer to invest in a show like Rent, but why aren't there ANY who will when there are numerous in NYC? The Book of Mormon was definitely a risk. Any musical that uses an original story is and the South Park fanbase is largely young, heterosexual men aka the exact opposite of the target demographic for musical theatre. It's also got some very controversial content that could easily have alienated many people and caused bad press and attention to the show. You list 3 or 4 Broadway shows that in the last decade have become mega-musicals but then say they're the exception not the rule. They're certainly not the rule but 3 or 4 in the last decade compared to 0 from the UK in three decades says it all. I don't think we can really say that The Book of Mormon and Hamilton are untested internationally at this point. The Book of Mormon was the biggest West End musical success in years and continued to be until Hamilton tickets went on sale. They're huge financial successes on a different continent to their original Broadway productions. Whilst the buzz around them may not be quite the same as it was in America, I think that's far more down to the differences between UK and US culture. Take Harry Potter and the Cursed Child for example. A ridiculously huge success but there's no real buzz about it in the general public the way there is for Hamilton in America. Jamie Parker hasn't become a household name like Lin-Manuel Miranda has there. The Oliviers didn't have a massive increase in ratings this year the way last year's Tonys did. Broadway definitely has flops but I think the point that me and others are trying to make is that most of the shows that flop there are these movie adaptations, whereas the original and innovative stuff seems to sell, providing it's of a good quality. I don't think that at this point it's asking too much for the industry to look at The Girls, Made in Dagenham, Mrs Henderson Presents, Bend It Like Beckham etc. etc. etc. and realize that these so-called 'safe' musicals aren't actually safe at all and usually fail to make their money back. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 12:16:49 GMT
Chicken or egg? What comes first, a game changing show or an audience that is there for it?
I'm not sure that, at the moment, the audience for musical theatre is there to make an untested musical of the like of Hamilton, Natasha/Pierre etc. successful in ths country. What works are shows with children in lead roles or with songs that people already know or, semi successfuly, shows that are adaptations that already have a built in demographic without much of a greater reach. A Broadway audience deciding for us that a new and different show can be a success sometimes too, but not always.
A less conservative audience might make writers take greater risks but how can anyone take the risk of writing for an audience that doesn't seem to exist. Chicken or egg?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 12:32:02 GMT
Chicken or egg? What comes first, a game changing show or an audience that is there for it? I'm not sure that, at the moment, the audience for musical theatre is there to make an untested musical of the like of Hamilton, Natasha/Pierre etc. successful in ths country. What works are shows with children in lead roles or with songs that people already know or, semi successfuly, shows that are adaptations that already have a built in demographic without much of a greater reach. A Broadway audience deciding for us that a new and different show can be a success sometimes too, but not always. A less conservative audience might make writers take greater risks but how can anyone take the risk of writing for an audience that doesn't seem to exist. Chicken or egg? I don't think the solution is to just sit around and wait until the audience is suddenly ready for it. The only way you can ever get an audience to go see a game changing show is to write one and put it on. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 12:33:22 GMT
Chicken or egg? What comes first, a game changing show or an audience that is there for it? I'm not sure that, at the moment, the audience for musical theatre is there to make an untested musical of the like of Hamilton, Natasha/Pierre etc. successful in ths country. What works are shows with children in lead roles or with songs that people already know or, semi successfuly, shows that are adaptations that already have a built in demographic without much of a greater reach. A Broadway audience deciding for us that a new and different show can be a success sometimes too, but not always. A less conservative audience might make writers take greater risks but how can anyone take the risk of writing for an audience that doesn't seem to exist. Chicken or egg? I think there just needs to be a variation. Broadway has the risky shows and they also have the super conventional adaptations and jukebox musicals. But at least there's a choice. Same with anything else, most big movies these days are superhero related or at least formed from a franchise of an already well-known story or characters. But then we do get gorgeously unique movies like Moonlight to keep us going (an example of a stupidly risky venture in another art form becoming a huge success). And really, what was the last risky and modern musical to take up a West End theatre for an open run and flop? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but probably Spring Awakening, right? But that was eight years ago. Since then we have had shows like Mormon and Hamilton do extraordinarily well in ticket sales, certainly better than any British musicals, even those with children in the lead roles or with songs people already know. If Hamilton was a British show (maybe featuring a British historical figure instead), would something of that high of a quality really have flopped? I just sincerely doubt it. I don't see how the audiences for the two cities can be so different in terms of taste, especially when these shows are huge successes after transferring. Again though, the main point is that the audiences at the moment aren't here for any British shows, not even the safe ones. So they may as well try something new, because at least it will be a noble failure rather than a failure to make another movie adaptation that no one cares about a success. |
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 1, 2017 16:51:11 GMT
And really, what was the last risky and modern musical to take up a West End theatre for an open run and flop? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but probably Spring Awakening, right? One thing I say for London is that the "fringe" has become much better in the last 10 years or so. I'm sure Spring Awakening would have done better in a small venue like Southwark. Likewise, I don't think that In the Heights had run for as long as it eventually did in a West End venue. Look at what happened to Scottsboro Boys, when that transfered. Fun Home is now directly going to the fringe as well. Broadway tends to put smallish shows ON Broadway and people seem to be willing to part with their money for these shows over there, but not here. I do think the UK would be ready for something fresh and new. It was ready for dancing cats as far back as 1981... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 17:21:44 GMT
And really, what was the last risky and modern musical to take up a West End theatre for an open run and flop? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but probably Spring Awakening, right? One thing I say for London is that the "fringe" has become much better in the last 10 years or so. I'm sure Spring Awakening would have done better in a small venue like Southwark. Likewise, I don't think that In the Heights had run for as long as it eventually did in a West End venue. Look at what happened to Scottsboro Boys, when that transfered. Fun Home is now directly going to the fringe as well. Broadway tends to put smallish shows ON Broadway and people seem to be willing to part with their money for these shows over there, but not here. I do think the UK would be ready for something fresh and new. It was ready for dancing cats as far back as 1981... I agree but then again I guess we'll never know because these shows aren't given a chance for a West End run which would include a big West End marketing campaign, bigger names in the cast etc. that could get more bums in seats. In the Heights for instance I thought was a great production but I thought half the cast were pretty amateurish which made me not want to return more than once, whereas if there had been a cast of the calibre of the original Broadway cast, I would have been there much more. Spring Awakening is an interesting one because that was really the first show after Rent to dare to go so edgy and young again and I imagine at the time it was pretty shocking to see a show like that take up a big commercial theatre space. Now we tend to get at least one of these types of shows every year coming along, which again may make audiences more receptive. Whilst Fun Home is technically a Broadway production coming to the fringe, there's only going to be around 200 less seats than there was at Circle in the Square where it played on Broadway. I think a big part of the decision to take it to a smaller theatre is to do with the effect it has on the audience to be in an intimate space with that show. I imagine that was particularly important for this production as it will be a re-imagining from the Broadway director, so I'm sure he had a say in not having it in a bigger space. I also think British audiences would be more receptive to these smaller types of shows if they were to originate here. It's one thing to see a show that you may have already seen on Broadway a few years back or that you've heard the cast recording to repeatedly and quite another to discover something new. Just think about how people flocked to Groundhog Day here, whereas in NYC it's a wet fish at the box office. It's always going to be more interesting to see something that audiences haven't seen anywhere else yet. Not to mentions shows like In the Heights are very Americanized. Most people that live here don't have a clue what Washington Heights is, whereas that show was a success on Broadway largely because of the latinx community that inhabit Manhattan. If a British writer were to write a show about a neighbourhood in London, British audiences would be more likely to flock to it I think. But yes, thank goodness for the fringe taking these shows on. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 18:05:49 GMT
The venues that you need to get a decent tryout in London for the West End are the Young Vic, Lyric Hammersmith, National (obviously), Donmar, all of which will get you professional standards of production. They try their best on limited budgets but places like Southwark, Union and such aren't in the same league. Maybe a producer can step in to help upscale and give them enough to buy extra preparation and rehearsal time but that's very rare.
Even with that, the edgier shows like Spring Awakening, Scottsboro Boys, maybe Fun Home too, struggle against the commercial feelgood stuff. Shows like Mormon and Kinky Boots are as safe as anything, which is why they sell and why they get investors in place for a direct West End run. Maybe The Other Palace will come good but it's early days yet.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on May 1, 2017 18:08:49 GMT
As an American who has spent the last 8 months in the UK, I'd like to weigh in on this. I've observed several things about the difference between British and American musical theatre that I think contribute to the issue. Some of what I have to say may be a bit controversial, but I'm just gonna go for it anyway.
As others have already said, musical theatre is an inherently American art form. It is, indeed, in our theatrical DNA. That isn't to say that all American musicals are better than all British musicals, but it does mean that American musical theatre writers in general simply have a better cultural understanding of how to construct a good musical, how to make the music and lyrics work together to advance the plot, develop character, and deepen the emotion. As others have pointed out, Billy Elliot and Matilda have been the most successful recent British musicals, and I genuinely believe it's because they manage to achieve that synergy. Billy Elliot even goes so far as to utilize dance to further develop the character and deepen the emotions, an added layer that musicals these days rarely achieve. I don't think that British musical theatre writers are unwilling to take risks. I think London Road and A Pacifist's Guide to the War on Cancer, for example, were both risky pieces of musical theatre, but IMO they were too intellectual, and failed to use the music to serve the story in a significant way. I have a hunch that "Committee" at the Donmar will have the same problem.
Also, British composers tend to prefer very different sorts of melodic structures than Americans, and though I can't speak for everyone, I think it just sounds kind of gross. British musical theatre scores often sound very dissonant and chaotic. Matilda is an example of this, although I think Minchin (who I realize is Australian) manages to utilize that sound to the show's advantage. Still, I think some American audiences were turned off by it, which is why it was such a divisive show in the States, and why it lost the Tony for Best Musical and Best Score.
The sound I'm referring to could be heard in shows like Wonder.Land, London Road, and the recent Peter Pan (which was not a proper musical, but did have a lot of original, non-diegetic music). You can also hear it in Barlow, as well as Styles, though not as much. You can hear it a LOT in Andrew Lloyd Webber's work. In my opinion, ALW is virtually incapable of writing a cohesive musical theatre score, and large portions of his shows are needlessly dissonant and highly unpleasant. Webber gets away with it, and rakes in millions, because he always throws in a few beautiful melodies that get stuck in the audience's head as they leave the theatre. Who's going to remember the awful "Mungojeree and Rumpleteezer" when they have "Memory" to sing on the way home?
All entirely subjective, I know. And there are, of course, exceptions. But that's this American's take on the situation. Sorry to offend the Web-heads out there.
EDIT: I'd just like to clarify that I'm not one of those people who thinks all musicals should have "hummable" melodies. In fact, I hate it when people say things like that. I'm all in favor of dissonance, complexity, alternative sounds, etc. But only when it helps the storytelling, like in "Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812" to use a current example. I just don't feel that's the case with most British musicals, Matilda being the most notable exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 18:15:35 GMT
Let's not write Fun Home off yet, I'm expecting it to sell very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 18:54:47 GMT
Thanks sondheimhats for the interesting and thought provoking view. Firstly, there are clear transatlantic differences in style, yet the dominant culture (the USA in this case) has gradually become the unspoken arbiter of musical theatre right and wrong. Understand, however, that for the UK the whole question of the US's ability to be that arbiter is in question. With Europe we are traditionally much closer in terms of style (hence the success of the Boublil/Schoenberg shows, less jazz inflected, more diatonically based) and, because there is no such dominance (well, not since German operetta and, there, Gilbert & Sullivan had a large say) there is no real issue.
Some decades ago and in a different place on the internet I was berated by an angry American commenter, saying that I didn't have a right to comment on American musicals and that British directors were 'ruining our shows' by emphasising darker elements, foregrounding more naturalistic acting etc. (I think that was the Hytner Carousel, it was over twenty years ago and the disgust an non traditional casting and such has, I hope, moved on).
So, what an American sees is not necessarily what a Brit sees (or hears), where the blandness of much US musical theatre can grate (though generally not via the Sondheim of your screen name), the feelgood piety and shallowness of intent deflate.
As such, London Road and Pacifist's Guide, although aimed at an audience who are smaller in number, if not as receptive to the dominant culture, can be to someone like myself a breath of fresh harmonic air. A show that interrogates a neighbourhood terrorised by a serial killer? Fine. Sung in a style that nobody has really heard before. Thank you very much and give me a bit more dissonance please, the grit that makes me work a bit more at listening. Cancer? Well, why not and merge it with a bit of performance art so that, in the second half, the show decides that a musical is the wrong medium for the story? Brilliant.
I looked at the Outer Critics Circle awards last week and, after a quick check if the panel, had my thoughts confirmed. Someone in the same circle as the person who warned me off 'our musicals', someone who had lambasted Minchin's 'Groundhog Day' score was there.
To my mind the British musical should stop looking across the Atlantic and trying to ape what is done there, it's a fool's errand, it should create a different type of musical theatre and trust in itself.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 1, 2017 19:05:01 GMT
V interesting about diff between American and British musical but honestly, if it is good then it is good. I don't think we are so misunderstood. Our hit shows are hits there, no?
I think part of the prob is the money?...producers want mega hit shows that will run and run, in other words a product. If it is based on other already successful products like the music of a past star or stars, then fine, they will find the dosh. Dosh will appear. But something smaller and original won't look worth the risk. So writers and composers can't get their stuff developed. Not rocket science. Just sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 19:42:33 GMT
Our hit shows are hits there, no? producers want mega hit shows that will run and run All two of the British hits from the last decade were relatively successful on Broadway yes (although both closed there before their West End runs did). They're failing to make any mega hit shows that will run and run is the point. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 1, 2017 19:48:33 GMT
Yes yes, I see that. But nobody will give you a revolving set, a full orchestra and a line of dancing llamas unless an American pop star sang the lyrics in 1950, will they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 19:52:30 GMT
Yes yes, I see that. But nobody will give you a revolving set, a full orchestra and a line of dancing llamas unless an American pop star sang the lyrics in 1950, will they? Well maybe they should try it and see what happens. They gave Lin-Manuel Miranda that and it resulted in him having the 5th best selling album of 2016, making a cast album sell more than 99% of the American pop stars did themselves. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 1, 2017 20:03:45 GMT
Great thread. Don't watch musicals so have nothing to offer but the standard of discussion and views expressed are all very eloquently well argued. Have some very good writers on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 20:16:39 GMT
Great thread. Don't watch musicals so have nothing to offer but the standard of discussion and views expressed are all very eloquently well argued. Have some very good writers on this board. Some of them are so eloquent it makes me think they should try writing a show. |
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on May 1, 2017 20:47:19 GMT
Thanks sondheimhats for the interesting and thought provoking view. Firstly, there are clear transatlantic differences in style, yet the dominant culture (the USA in this case) has gradually become the unspoken arbiter of musical theatre right and wrong. Understand, however, that for the UK the whole question of the US's ability to be that arbiter is in question. With Europe we are traditionally much closer in terms of style (hence the success of the Boublil/Schoenberg shows, less jazz inflected, more diatonically based) and, because there is no such dominance (well, not since German operetta and, there, Gilbert & Sullivan had a large say) there is no real issue. Some decades ago and in a different place on the internet I was berated by an angry American commenter, saying that I didn't have a right to comment on American musicals and that British directors were 'ruining our shows' by emphasising darker elements, foregrounding more naturalistic acting etc. (I think that was the Hytner Carousel, it was over twenty years ago and the disgust an non traditional casting and such has, I hope, moved on). So, what an American sees is not necessarily what a Brit sees (or hears), where the blandness of much US musical theatre can grate (though generally not via the Sondheim of your screen name), the feelgood piety and shallowness of intent deflate. As such, London Road and Pacifist's Guide, although aimed at an audience who are smaller in number, if not as receptive to the dominant culture, can be to someone like myself a breath of fresh harmonic air. A show that interrogates a neighbourhood terrorised by a serial killer? Fine. Sung in a style that nobody has really heard before. Thank you very much and give me a bit more dissonance please, the grit that makes me work a bit more at listening. Cancer? Well, why not and merge it with a bit of performance art so that, in the second half, the show decides that a musical is the wrong medium for the story? Brilliant. I looked at the Outer Critics Circle awards last week and, after a quick check if the panel, had my thoughts confirmed. Someone in the same circle as the person who warned me off 'our musicals', someone who had lambasted Minchin's 'Groundhog Day' score was there. To my mind the British musical should stop looking across the Atlantic and trying to ape what is done there, it's a fool's errand, it should create a different type of musical theatre and trust in itself. All very fair points. I totally agree that our tastes have been formed by the culture of our respective countries, and because of that, the music styles across the pond will naturally have a tendency to grate on our ears. I also totally agree that lots of American musicals - even successful ones - do have a very bland, generic quality to their scores, but more and more I think we can see more ambitious and carefully constructed scores getting the attention they deserve here in the US. Your comments about London Road and Pacifist's Guide are apt, and I do think both shows were pushing the boundaries of musical theatre, which I appreciate. But the manner in which they pushed the boundaries was very telling. As I said, the music seemed to be there for intellectual purposes more than emotional/storytelling purposes. Pushing boundaries of the sake of pushing boundaries, I might argue. I find it to be very misguided, but I can certainly understand why one might find it refreshing. |
|
5,060 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 1, 2017 23:20:19 GMT
A well worn adage is 'you go to the West End to see a play and Broadway to see a show', however I have seen brilliant shows in London and cracking plays on Broadway. On Broadway there would be no infrastructure to create something like War Horse or Curious Incident of the Dog.............., they haven't got the the theatre creative process that could make such a piece.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 2, 2017 8:08:26 GMT
Honestly, I think we just have different musical theatre cultures now.
I often find 'Broadway musicals' a bit strange - there seems to be such a formula! There will be a tap number, whether it's necessary for the story or not....
Obviously there are notable exceptions (I'm guessing Hamilton doesn't have a tap number...). But it seems like Broadway audiences know what they like and like what they know - and it's not necessarily what British audiences like any more.
I think the worst thing a British musical can do is try to be a 'Broadway musical' - anyone remember how 'I Can't Sing!' tried it? It wasn't a bad show, either, but the American-style production values really didn't suit it.
These things do tend to go in cycles, mind. Lin-Manuel Miranda will I'm sure inspire writers and producers to take a few more risks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 8:12:09 GMT
Honestly I can't remember the last Broadway musical I saw with a tap number unless we count Groundhog Day which started in the UK.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 2, 2017 11:47:31 GMT
Well, maybe it's just the ones I tend to see! I'm pretty sure Groundhog Day threw in the tap number just to tick that box, since it was Broadway-targetted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 11:51:17 GMT
Well, maybe it's just the ones I tend to see! I'm pretty sure Groundhog Day threw in the tap number just to tick that box, since it was Broadway-targetted. Can we start a campaign to have a tap dancing groundhog in everything though? |
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 2, 2017 12:06:44 GMT
Honestly, I think we just have different musical theatre cultures now. I often find 'Broadway musicals' a bit strange - there seems to be such a formula! There will be a tap number, whether it's necessary for the story or not.... To be honest, I'd rather have a random tap number thrown into a show than the (for some time) ubiquitous whore number in European musicals. Virtually every musical in a historical setting seemed to have one number set in a brothel or seedy tavern, so the female chorus could do a dance routine in very little clothing or cheesy "historical hooker outfits" with lace, frills and corsets. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 15:11:51 GMT
Honestly, I think we just have different musical theatre cultures now. I often find 'Broadway musicals' a bit strange - there seems to be such a formula! There will be a tap number, whether it's necessary for the story or not.... To be honest, I'd rather have a random tap number thrown into a show than the (for some time) ubiquitous whore number in European musicals. Virtually every musical in a historical setting seemed to have one number set in a brothel or seedy tavern, so the female chorus could do a dance routine in very little clothing or cheesy "historical hooker outfits" with lace, frills and corsets. What can I say. Us Europeans, we like whores. It's as simple as that. |
|
