Interesting discussion over on MusicalTalk (episode 759) between Nick Hutson and Stagey Rebecca over the topic of jukebox musicals: love 'em or loathe 'em? The greatest thing since Ethel Merman on toast or the end of Western civilization?
Well, it's tricky. And, as ever, it's useful to define terms.
As far as I can tell, jukebox musicals fall into three broad categories:
1. BIO TUNERS, where the story is essentially the story of a famous band/pop singer with their big hits covered along the way (e.g. The Buddy Holly Story, Jersey Boys)
2. BACK CATALOGUES, where a story is fitted around the back catalogue of a famous band/pop singer (e.g. Mamma Mia, We Will Rock You)
3. COMPILATION SHOWS, where a story is fitted around a pot pourri of old pop songs from any number of famous bands/pop singers (e.g. Moulin Rouge)
What is most definitely NOT a jukebox musical, as suggested on the podcast, is Oh! What a Lovely War. That was a devised piece of bleakly satirical theatre about the First World War using theatre songs from that period. For my money, a proper jukebox musical, as the name suggests, should use songs pop songs, not theatre songs.
This, I think, is an important distinction. I would guess that part of the appeal of shows like Mamma Mia or We Will Rock You is the opportunity to hear songs performed live that are much more familiar as a recording. (I say "guess" as I'm not really a consumer of jukebox shows. Nothing against them, just not my cup of Early Grey.)
One other interesting point made during the conversation is that jukebox musicals seem to be more of a British than a Broadway invention. Why should that be the case? Well, my best guess is that, following the Brit hit mega-shows of the 80s and 90s, there was a large audience for musicals. So there was a big demand, plus a burgeoning pool of musical theatre talent, but not enough supply. Britain has never had quite the same tradition as Broadway of nurturing new musical theatre writing. So, jukebox musicals filled the gap.
What's also interesting is how the former may be affecting the latter. When it comes to jukebox vs. new writing, the usual complaint is that jukebox shows are crowding out original work, sucking up all the space and all the funding. I have some sympathy with this. There's no obvious way to get over the inherent commercial bias of a show with an established songbook. But I also wonder, are jukebox musicals are beginning to shape the kind of new work being produced?
Take Six.
Although it's an entirely original show, doesn't it have the feel of a jukebox musical? It uses pop songs, written in the style of particular pop bands/singers. The story is framed as the creation of a pop band, almost like a bio-tuner. Now, I confess I've never actually seen Six on stage. So I may be talking a load of old gammon [wouldn't be the first time - ed.]. But from what I've read, it would seem like a good show for audiences who have been primed by jukebox musicals. It would certainly feel more familiar to a jukebox audience than, say, a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical or a Sondheim musical.
Still, my own feeling is that, when it comes down to it, jukebox musicals can never really be the future of musical theatre. At some point, I imagine the jukebox shows will simply run out back catalogues to plunder (although it doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon). They are essentially franchises of those back catalogues. Nothing wrong with a franchise or inherently uncreative. You could get The Empire Strikes Back or wind up with Jar Jar Binks. But franchises are about the familiar.
Jukebox musicals offer audiences the opportunity to hear old songs that they already know and love. That's great, but it's not enough. Musicals need new songs. Songs that surprise. Songs that startle. Songs that we don't know and are yet to love.
For me, the jukebox jury's still out.
