| re: Did Rent change the musical theater forever? How? | |
| Posted by: IvyLeagueDropout 03:15 am EST 03/04/22 | |
| In reply to: Did Rent change the musical theater forever? How? - bobby2 02:29 am EST 03/04/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, I guess it depends on definitions. Was it a dramatic change in form, unprecedented in style or structure? No. There were rock musicals before. But I'd vote yes on your question for a few reasons. 1) The score carried the narrative far more than the scores to any rock musical I can think of prior to its creation, second act problems notwithstanding. 2) It introduced a new generation of producers, performers and creatives to the world, or at least to the big leagues of Broadway, international and touring productions. 3) Its intense financial success certainly allowed for people to take more risks going forward. I think there is a good argument that if no Rent, there very well might not have been Broadway productions of edgier "downtown" shows, ranging from Avenue Q to If/Then, Next to Normal, Passing Strange and Spring Awakening. 4) It served as the A Chorus Line for the 90s. By that I mean it was a touchstone first show for countless (many younger) theatergoers, who went on to become avid attendees of it and many other things. Musical theatre would be more different now had Rent not existed than any other show from the 90s, with the only possible competition being The Lion King. Guys & Dolls and Chicago radically altered economics and marketing with their hit revivals, but not so much content in the industry. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Did Rent change the musical theater forever? How? - Hair 04:49 pm EST 03/07/22 |
| Next: | re: Did Rent change the musical theater forever? How? - KingSpeed 02:30 pm EST 03/04/22 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.019800 seconds.