HOME ALL THAT CHAT ATC WEST COAST SHOPPIN' RUSH BOARD FAQS

LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH THREADED MODE

not logged in

Threaded Order | Chronological Order

Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: NewtonUK 09:20 am EST 11/01/15

A few weeks ago I started reading RAZZLE DAZZLE by Michael Riedel, which covers interesting periods during the 'cowboy days' of Broadway pre 1963. On page 5 I found a major inaccuracy about the number of shows that opened in the 1962-63 - "There ad only been seventeen new shows in the 1962-1963 season, Many of them flops". I knew immediately that this could not be right - and a quick fact check confirmed this. 55 plays and musicals opened in the 1962-1963. 35 were out and out flops.

That means 36% weren't flops. Hmmm. The average of shows that recoup or otherwise succeed hovers between 25% and 35% every year since WW2.

And the previous season 1961-1962 saw 58 openings, including mega hits like A FUNNY THING HAPPENED, A THOUSAND CLOWNS, TAKE HER SHES MINE, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS, MILK & HONEY, and Pinter's THE CARETAKER. So why was Broadway dying? We were in the midst of the last 6 or 7 years of the Golden Age.

Many things have distracted me since, and I'm only on page 24 now.

Sam Shubert arrives in NYC in 1900. Mr Riedel writes "With more than fifty productions opening every year in theatres stretching from Union Square to Longacre Square, New York was the engine of the AMerican Theatre."

Does Simon & Schuster not employ fact checkers for non-fiction books? I'm available.

Lets take 3 seasons around when Sam Shubert arrived in New York.

In the 1899-1900 season, 160 productions opened on Broadway, including the original production of WIlliam Gilette's SHERLOCK HOLMES. Well, yes, that's more than 50.

In the 1900-1901 Season,132 productions opened. Again. SUre, more than 50.

In the 1901-1902 Season, 122 productions opened.

In a book about Broadway history, how are we meant to believe all of the (terrific) stories that Riedel recounts, if simple facts that can be checked online in 5 minutes are incorrect?


reply to this message |

I question that 25-35 percent figure

Posted by: AlanScott 10:31 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - NewtonUK 09:20 am EST 11/01/15

My general perception is that most seasons, only 10-20 percent of shows recouped.

For a quick example, since I have a certain number of Best Plays volumes from the 1960s and 1970s, I looked at the volumes for 1964-1965 and for the following season, since the latter would list shows that opened the previous season that went on to recoup during the 1965-1966 season.

i did my best to eliminate shows that probably counted as nonprofit, which took the 81 shows listed as having been produced on Broadway during the 1964-65 season down to 54. (Yeah, that's probably a surprise, isn't it?)

Best Plays lists seven shows as having recouped by the end of the season. The following year's volume lists one more as having recouped later. Not listed that year is Half a Sixpence, which supposedly recouped thanks to revenue from the two post-Broadway tours. Perhaps Best Plays only counted shows that recouped during the Broadway run.

That makes eight out of 54. That is just under 15 percent.

One of those, Poor Richard, recouped only thanks to a film sale. Another, The Roar of the Greasepaint, would not have recouped had Merrick not done his long pre-Broadway tour thing that he did with several of the British musicals he produced during the 1960s (although Roar, unlike Oliver!, did not recoup before it even opened on Broadway).

There may have been a better record some other seasons, but still it seems to me that this 25-35 percent figure is rosy thinking about the Broadway of the past. My guess is that during most 1950s and 1960s Broadway seasons, less than 20 percent of the productions recouped. A season in which 20 percent of the shows recouped would have been considered fantastic financially.


reply to this message |

Two more 1960s seasons

Posted by: AlanScott 03:34 pm EST 11/03/15
In reply to: I question that 25-35 percent figure - AlanScott 10:31 am EST 11/03/15

First, 1962-63, the season that provoked the conversation. Again, I'm using Best Plays for my info. Before Guernsey took over in 1964-65, the Best Plays format for listing a season's Broadway productions and which were hits and which were flops (as determined by Variety) was a bit different but easier to utilize for the purposes of this conversation. (At least this is true during the brief time that Henry Hewes was the editor.) This is what I find:

As of the end of the season, there were eight hits, one of which was a one-man show: Ages of Man. Two of the hits involved John Gielgud: Ages of Man and The School for Scandal. Yet a third of the eight was a British import limited engagement: The Hollow Crown.

Twelve were listed as Status Not Yet Determined. Of those, my guess is that only one, Enter Laughing, paid off. I don't have the following year's volume to be sure that none of the others paid off, but if any did, it probably would have been because of a film sale for a film that was never made.

Thirty-three were listed as failures. In addition, six closed out of town and surely were financial failures. That was something I did not think to look for in 1964-65. If I had, it would have added four shows to the total number of commercial productions and thereby reduced the percentage that recouped.

Twelve are listed under Miscellaneous. This is a bit confusing as five of them seem to have been for-profit ventures, but I will leave them out of the calculation.

Including the shows that closed out of town, but excluding those under Miscellaneous, gives us (if my math is correct) nine hits out of 59 shows — 15.25 percent. Of course, if I'm wrong and one of the other shows whose status was undetermined at the end of the season did manage to recoup, that would up the percentage slightly.

I'm losing a bit of patience to make sure I'm getting this right (and sometimes it's tough to be sure about what was nonprofit back then), but a quick look at 1968-69 leads me to this estimate that I don't swear is correct: nine hits out of 51 commercial productions, including four that closed before opening on Broadway (either out of town or during Broadway previews). Again, under 20 percent.

It seems to me that this is probably what we would find for most 1960s seasons: 15-20 percent recouped.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: WWriter 09:21 pm EST 11/01/15
In reply to: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - NewtonUK 09:20 am EST 11/01/15

I found the book sloppy in the extreme. My review includes some examples.

I hate to think of someone reading this decades from now and thinking it's history.

Link Razzle Dazzle review

reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: AlanScott 01:27 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - WWriter 09:21 pm EST 11/01/15

I'm sure that the book is mess, but your list of notable creators of musical theatre who are not (or were not) gay men has at least two people on it rumored to have been bisexual.

I'd question his statement on Rich having been the most powerful critic in the history of the TImes on two bases. First, it's an unprovable statement. Second, I think it's simply incorrect. Atkinson was extremely influential with audiences. And while a lot of people may not have liked or respected Barnes, he was generally believed to have tremendous power. As for Rich, lots of shows prospered despite receiving mixed or even negative reviews from him, and shows that he championed failed to catch on. The same could be said of Atkinson and Barnes. It would be truly impossible to gauge which of them wielded the greatest influence over ticket buyers.

I would guess that the source of the cassette of Nine story is page two of the linked article. If so, it simply serves as another example of Riedel's sloppiness, as the story says that Mario Fratti pushed the cassette under Tune's door. Actually, the mail-slot story sounds more plausible to me. Some of those old Manhattan buildings had mail slots that would easily be big enough to push a cassette though. That particular building is a pre-war high rise with a doorman, and I find Riedel's version plausible. But under a door seems to me a bit more unlikely, though not impossible.

Link 8 1/2 Inspires a Musical

reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: keikekaze 02:43 pm EST 11/01/15
In reply to: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - NewtonUK 09:20 am EST 11/01/15

We've had a conversation similar to this one recently. It seems to me, if I'm recalling the other thread correctly, Riedel may have made his comment about the "only 17 productions had opened" while in the middle of some anecdote keyed to some date in the 1962-63 season, possibly some time in November, 1962? If that's the case, and he meant that only 17 productions had opened so far by the date of the anecdote, then that might have been correct. I think the 17th Broadway production of the 1962-63 season opened some time in November. But I haven't got the book, so you'll have to tell me. And Riedel probably should have specified more clearly that he meant "opened so far," if that's what he meant.

The remark about "more than 50 productions" opening every year circa 1900 is also technically true--but so far short of the mark that, I agree, it looks like wild guesswork rather than anything that had been checked.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: NewtonUK 08:48 am EST 11/02/15
In reply to: re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - keikekaze 02:43 pm EST 11/01/15

The 1962-1963 error (17 openings) seems to be referencing the whole season. Regardless, its a misleading statement. The 1962-1963 was not much different than the two prior or two after, in number of shows produced, and % of flops. The book seems to be saying that this is an outlandishly small number of shows.

The 1900 error? Well - whats puzzling to me is that you can just click on the IBDB site an count the number of shows in any season - and also click thru and find out how many were original (1st Broadway production) and how many were revivals - or in the case of 1900, shows that closed over the summer and re-opened.

The number 50 had to come from somewhere - maybe from the bio of the Shuberts that Riedel quotes.

Still - for something simple like a numbers of shows - a hard fact - it seems more than odd not to do, or have someone do, a quick check of it.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: davei2000 03:26 pm EST 11/01/15
In reply to: re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - keikekaze 02:43 pm EST 11/01/15

You can look at the passage in question on Amazon. It's on page 5, and appears to be paraphrasing Leland Hayward speaking in a meeting that occurred at the end of the season. The Times article Riedel quotes on p. 3, supposedly published on the same day as the meeting, appeared on June 7.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: DCollingwood 01:08 pm EST 11/01/15
In reply to: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - NewtonUK 09:20 am EST 11/01/15

Perhaps he meant 17 *new* shows? Only referring to things that had premiered that season and not counting revivals?


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: NewtonUK 01:38 pm EST 11/01/15
In reply to: re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - DCollingwood 01:08 pm EST 11/01/15

I thought that at one point - checking I found 51 new musicals and plays that season!


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: abbigail62 11:25 am EST 11/01/15
In reply to: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - NewtonUK 09:20 am EST 11/01/15

FYI: Unike magazines, publishers do not have fact checkers. The author bears the responsibility for fact checking.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: icecadet 11:25 am EST 11/01/15
In reply to: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - NewtonUK 09:20 am EST 11/01/15

"Does Simon & Schuster not employ fact checkers for non-fiction books?"

Not in this day of cut-backs. Publishers (erroneously) assume that the authors have done their homework or, in the case of autobiographies, aren't suffering from "selective memory!"


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: AlanScott 01:29 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - icecadet 11:25 am EST 11/01/15

whereismikey is correct. We have this idea that nonfiction books in the past were reliable. They weren't.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check

Posted by: whereismikeyfl 06:46 am EST 11/02/15
In reply to: re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - icecadet 11:25 am EST 11/01/15

It is not just in this day of cut backs. As far as I know (and I began working in publishing in the 1980s), book publishers NEVER hired fact checkers. That was and is the author's responsibility.

Periodicals was where you would find fact-checkers.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check: PS

Posted by: NewtonUK 09:47 am EST 11/01/15
In reply to: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check - NewtonUK 09:20 am EST 11/01/15

Don;t fact check me - yes - it covers other things than the 'cowboy' producing years - that's where it starts when 'ice' was melted (more or less) and investment began being regulated.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check: PS

Posted by: davei2000 10:51 am EST 11/01/15
In reply to: re: Riedel/RazzleDazzle/Fact Check: PS - NewtonUK 09:47 am EST 11/01/15

This post could use a coherence check...


reply to this message | reply to first message


All That Chat is intended for the discussion of theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)

Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.

[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]

Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2015 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]

Time to render: 0.098587 seconds.