Welcome to Gaia! ::

Some time ago, I was told by a professor that musical theatre is quite low on the theatre scale, actually it's the lowest form of theatre, which is quite funny because it's the usually highest grossing form. Anyway, I think that in that form, revues are probably the lowest form of musical show. So I'm surprised they don't do musicals at your school, but at the same time, they're also the most expensive to produce because of the large cast and the orchestra. I would think. I've never heard of Tomfoolery so I don't know how big it would, though usually revues have the least number in the cast.

My high school always did three performances: the Fall Musical, the Winter One-Act (competition), and the Spring Play.

I wish college had the same sort of routine. My experience has, however, been varied and has gotten me a lot of different opportunities for different kinds of theatre.

This year we did: the Doane Playwrights' Festival (student-written and student-directed works)
Dearly Departed (a comedy about death)
Truth and Beauty (a look at terrorism from the terrorists point of view; really creepy and glad I wasn't in it)
Across The Desert (kids trying to get out of a dinky little town in Oklahoma; sounds vaguely familiar)
Story Theatre (kids plays)

Overall, I wish we would do more musicals (we've done 1 since I've been here) but it's understandable why they would want other types of plays. The main reason, sad to say, is that the theatre and music departments don't really get along.

And yet, I'm still trying to major in them both.

I've gotta ask: who wrote Truth and Beauty?

I always hate to hear someone call something a "lower form of art." What does that really mean, anyway? That people enjoy it less? That it's easier to create an artistic work in that art form than others? Or could it just be that a particular establishment looks down upon it?

Example: Bluegrass music. Most musicians (especially those who play classical) will say that this is a "lower" form of music. The truth of the matter is that bluegrass is quite hard to play, if you want it to come out sounding right, and is dearly loved by many. So why should someone say it's lower than other musical genres? The reason is that they disparage the cultural group from which bluegrass comes.

I'd say that this disparagement of the musical comes out of a residual snobbery in the theatre from the days of rigid "high-class/low-class" lines in American society.

"Straight" shows are "high class," having a pedigree stretching back to Shakespeare and the other greats of the theatre past.

Musicals, on the other hand have a history that goes back to the minstrel shows. These where a horrible concept, because they were simply racist jokes and stereotypes played out onstage. Because of this, and the fact that minstrel shows and later vaudeville were spectacles for the lower classes has meant that their grandchild, the modern musical, is still looked down upon by some. Forget the fact that they've left the racism of minstrel shows, and bawdiness of vaudeville far in the past, and become wonders of modern stagecraft and performance, the upper crust of the theatre shall still say that musicals are low-brow. [/rant]

I'm in a really staunch theatre group and I kind of understand both sides.
I hate doing musicals. I hate the idea of saying 3 lines and then singing for 7 minutes.
On the other hand, as unrealistic as they are, I love watching them.

I dunno. I see where it lacks, but they're so fun.

Ditto