Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:41 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - ryhog 03:01 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Why does there have to be only one word, when there could be many words that refer to success? Why must we have a binary that is either "made money" or "lost money" which determines how a show is talked about culturally and artistically (at least by a certain type of theater person)? It's a tired way of seeing the world, and one that I hope we all most past. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:19 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - Singapore/Fling 03:41 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| there is not and I never suggested there was. My issue was with the misappropriation of hit/miss, terms that go back decades or maybe longer and actually mean something. I am all for having words that mean artistic and cultural success (especially because I think most financial successes on Broadway are artistic if not cultural failures). But if you want to be non-binary in your analysis, then you have to also know that there are lots of different kinds of theatre people and they view success or failure differently. | |
| reply to this message |
| "Flop" does not equal "Miss", which is why we're asking for more words than just Hit and Flop | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:04 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - ryhog 04:19 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think we're saying more or less the same thing in different ways, or from different aproaches. What's interesting here is that you used the terms "hit" and "miss", but "miss" is not the same as "flop", and the conversation on this board generally insists that things are either Hits or Flops (as in, more than one person has literally written that a Broadway show can only be one or the other, and that anything short of a hit is a flop). Perhaps it's the way the word sounds, or perhaps it's the way the word became entangled with Ken Mandelbaum's book, but "flop" carries a much harsher judgment than "miss", in the same way that a "bomb" or a "turkey" carry a much harsher judgment than a "miss" or its kissing cousin a "misfire". Since there are lots of different theater people, and they do view success or failure differently, shackling us to only two words - Hit and Flop - is wrong. And what's interesting, again, is that in defending the usage of those two words, both you and another poster used other words, which I believe is all that the OP of this sub-thread asked for. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Flop" does not equal "Miss", which is why we're asking for more words than just Hit and Flop | |
| Posted by: ryhog 06:23 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: "Flop" does not equal "Miss", which is why we're asking for more words than just Hit and Flop - Singapore/Fling 06:04 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| my use of "miss" was 100% a brain fart. I would've sworn I typed flop as I definitely meant flop. to be clear (and I thought I said this in the prior post but now I have started questioning myself), I am in no way advocating for the exclusive use of hit and flop to mean anything other than made money/lost money. I am very happy with the use of any other words to mean a success or failure on other than financial terms. In fact I would be delighted if we just used success or failure as those two words, and let them cover any subjective assessment of a production. But hit and flop are terms of art and I do think it is wrong (imo) to misappropriate them as some seem to do. I also have a thing about cast recordings and soundtracks, but that's another song. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Cast Recordings | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:27 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "Flop" does not equal "Miss", which is why we're asking for more words than just Hit and Flop - ryhog 06:23 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| I just accepted a few years ago that the Cast Recording ship had sailed, lol | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cast Recordings | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:34 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: Cast Recordings - Singapore/Fling 06:27 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| lol. well, I think that for the general public that is certainly true but for people who purport to be theatre people on any level (the same people who pay attention to hits and flops and successes and failures etc in anything beyond a superficial sense), I still think the distinction remains in effect. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cast Recordings | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:04 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Cast Recordings - ryhog 08:34 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| I have heard more and more industry people use the word "soundtrack" in recent years. And I think they all know that "cast recording" is the most "proper" term - but they don't seem to care so much anymore. When one of my students uses "soundtrack," say, in an email to me, I will tend to respond by referring to it myself as a "cast recording," but I also don't specifically correct them or say they can't use "soundtrack." We're just going to have to accept the more contemporary usage. It's like "begging the question," which doesn't mean what most people think it does when they use it - but when they use it that way, we know what is meant, and it's become rather silly to argue about it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.021060 seconds.