What do you think?
Rate this book
Not Since Carrie: Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops
Not Since Carrie is Ken Mandelbaum's brilliant survey of Broadway's biggest flops. This highly readable and entertaining book highlights almost 200 musicals created between 1950 and 1990, framed around the notorious musical adaptation of Carrie , and examines the reasons for their failure. "Essential and hilarious," raves The New Yorker , and The New York Times calls the book "A must-read."
384 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1991
68 people are currently reading
1097 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
June 21, 2019
Often regarded as one of the best books written about Broadway, Mandelbaum's tour of 40 years of flops is entertaining, hugely informative and just as messy as many of the shows he writes about. The book vanishes anything resembling a timeline and is instead split into arbitrary categories of the author's own creation. Therefore we get chapters on flop musicals that went under due to their star, a chapter on the flops of major writers, a whole chapter on musical adaptations of films (which are nearly always flops) and so on. Whilst the book is always enlightening, it is severely disorientating as Mandelbaum flips back and forth between years as if linear time were a mere plaything.
Mandelbaum himself seems to have fallen off the face of the earth in recent years, which is disappointing because, as many of the other reviews of this book states, a new edition is badly needed. This book was written in 1991 which means that nearly 30 more years of flops have happened since. It would also be interesting to read Mandelbaum's views on the fact that the musical once considered the greatest flop of all time and the very spark for this book, Carrie, has gone on to actually become a pretty well-respected work of musical theatre and even getting good reviews off-Broadway.
Overall it's a very enjoyable book for those of us somewhat familiar with our Broadway history and also a cold-water reminder that success must always work in tandem with failure.
Mandelbaum himself seems to have fallen off the face of the earth in recent years, which is disappointing because, as many of the other reviews of this book states, a new edition is badly needed. This book was written in 1991 which means that nearly 30 more years of flops have happened since. It would also be interesting to read Mandelbaum's views on the fact that the musical once considered the greatest flop of all time and the very spark for this book, Carrie, has gone on to actually become a pretty well-respected work of musical theatre and even getting good reviews off-Broadway.
Overall it's a very enjoyable book for those of us somewhat familiar with our Broadway history and also a cold-water reminder that success must always work in tandem with failure.
April 7, 2009
I know, I know… you can't judge a book by its cover, but I had high hopes for this one nonetheless. I mean, who couldn't love a compendium of failure whose cover image features a vapidly smiling, blood-soaked teen? A quick glance at Mandelbaum's index will give you an indication of his thoroughness: he cites around 250 different shows, each of which receives 2-3 pages of coverage (accounting for overlap). I aspired to a few metro rides full of deliciously catty snark cutting up the likes of the titular work, along with such presumed gems as Ballad for a Firing Squad, My Darlin' Aida, and James Clavell's Shogun: The Musical. (Not kidding. Those were real titles.)
(Theatrical) disaster should inspire passion and derision, the likes of which Carrie's readers get as a quotable introduction to each chapter. Walter Kerr: "Kelly is a bad idea gone wrong." (p. 11) John Simon: "Raggedy Ann, I gather, was a great hit in Russia…. perhaps it was all merely relief at discovering how ineffectual US bombs could be." (p. 183) Martin Gottfried: "[Bajour is a:] big noisy musical that has everything going for it except style, invention, and finesse." (p. 251) Had Mandelbaum used reviews like these as his model (or even his major primary source material), this book could have been tremendously entertaining. But no, this guy wants to be professorial, and so instead of polemical damnation by example and faint praise, the author delivers a clinical, dispassionate catalog that even a researcher would yawn her way through.
To make matters worse, the book reads as though Mandelbaum ran his index of titles through a lotto-ball mixer, grouping them into time-jumbling, arbitrary chapters with uninspiring titles (Chapter Four: "The Movie Was Better," Chapter Seven: "Not Bad" -- I am not making this up). Apparently not satisfied with the likely ennui this might engender, the author assumes a reader's encyclopedic knowledge of Broadway by name-checking works successful and otherwise in an undifferentiated continuum of time. And so we have a discussion of Robert Preston's appearance in the 1978 Prince of Grand Street immediately followed by Judy Holliday's 1963 production of something called Hot Spot, by way of a one-line segue through Holliday's premiere in 1956's Bells are Ringing (p. 63). The very next paragraph references the respectively un-indexed works of Frank Loesser (How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying) and Mary Rodgers (Once Upon a Mattress, Rodgers apparently wrote Hot Spot's score) in reverse chronological order, before dying out in an orgy of reference with the following breathless sentence: "Charnin ranks high on the list of flop masters, and Hot Spot was the first of his long string of Broadway failures, which came to include the old-fashioned Zenda, the accident-prone Mata Hari, the grim La Strada, the out-of-control I Remember Mama, the unfulfilled The First, and the unnecessary Annie 2." Whew! That covers a spam of time from 1959 through at least 1990 (I know, I just looked it up) and mentions shows, some of which would actually be covered by the author… anywhere from 150 to 200 pages later in the book!
So, okay, Mandelbaum is dull and disorganized, but at least his observations are self-contradictory, inconsistent, and vague. In Chapter Five ("Don't Let This Happen to You") our intrepid author attempts to subcategorize bad musicals into nine separate rules-to-avoid, the first four of which might overlap by unhelpful post hoc analysis ("Don't musicalize works which can't be musicalized;" "Don't musicalize works which don't need music;" "Don't start with a bad/impossible idea;" and "Don't attempt to musicalize a major work if you're not up to it"). That's right, kids, don't try to make a living doing this unless you're a professional!
But I quibble. Fairness dictating closer consideration, let's look at rule #8, "Don't use old music," a rule which Mandelbaum first applies to the ill-conceived 1961 show The Happiest Girl in the World (apparently a musicalization of Aristophanes Lysistrata by way of re-lyricized Offenbach). (p. 217) (With the women in charge, it's time to can-can!) Presumably, the failure here was less one of questionable taste, more audience objection to the recycling of Offenbach's melodies. But Mandelbaum himself notes that "Wright and Forrest had great success adapting old music [sic:] in Song of Norway [Grieg:] and Kismet [Borodin:]." And what about Oscar Hammerstein's successful earlier adaptation of Bizet's Carmen as Carmen Jones? Back on p. 204, Mandelbaum had tried to distinguish Jones from a misbegotten adaptation of Verdi's Aida, by arguing that the former was "an opera comique,… not all that dissimilar to a musical," while the Verdi was "a grand opera with no dialogue," whose "arias did not work as songs in a Rodgers and Hammerstein-style musical play." Is the problem here one of musical recycling or a stylistic one, and if the latter, then what distinguishes the successful adaptation of Bizet's opera comique from the failed use of Offenbach's? I'm hearing crickets.
Of course, this book was written before the emergence of the "jukebox musical" trend, which provided such Broadway staples as Mamma Mia (re-using Abba by way of Muriel's Wedding by way of Carmelina), We Will Rock You (re-using Queen), Smokey' Joe's Café (re-using the works of Lieber and Stoller), Jersey Boys (re-purposing Franki Valli among others), and Moving Out (re-using Billy Joel), among others, so perhaps I should not be faulting Mandelbaum for conflating problems more likely attributable to poorly-crafted adaptations to the bogeyman of musical recycling. However, the author's very next example, which considers the music of John Philip Sousa coupled with that of someone named Richard Kapp in a late '80s presidential pomp-romp (pp. 219-220), itself proclaims that "the problems of Teddy and Alice went beyond its lack of a completely original score." Yes, even Mandelbaum wants me to know that musical Teddy's faults had more to do with a "shallow" book, lack of suspense, and campy staging. In fact, Mandelbaum acknowledges, "Even with an original score and a better book, Teddy and Alice would probably not have found accceptance on Broadway in 1987." So it would appear that Mandelbaum's "rule" about "old music" is not much of a rule at all.
*Sigh.* This book is such a waste of time. Perhaps the author was somehow infected by his subject matter... heyyyy... not a bad idea for a...! No. Stop me. Say something positive. What can I tell you? Let's see... oh, yes! This book has nice pictures.
(Theatrical) disaster should inspire passion and derision, the likes of which Carrie's readers get as a quotable introduction to each chapter. Walter Kerr: "Kelly is a bad idea gone wrong." (p. 11) John Simon: "Raggedy Ann, I gather, was a great hit in Russia…. perhaps it was all merely relief at discovering how ineffectual US bombs could be." (p. 183) Martin Gottfried: "[Bajour is a:] big noisy musical that has everything going for it except style, invention, and finesse." (p. 251) Had Mandelbaum used reviews like these as his model (or even his major primary source material), this book could have been tremendously entertaining. But no, this guy wants to be professorial, and so instead of polemical damnation by example and faint praise, the author delivers a clinical, dispassionate catalog that even a researcher would yawn her way through.
To make matters worse, the book reads as though Mandelbaum ran his index of titles through a lotto-ball mixer, grouping them into time-jumbling, arbitrary chapters with uninspiring titles (Chapter Four: "The Movie Was Better," Chapter Seven: "Not Bad" -- I am not making this up). Apparently not satisfied with the likely ennui this might engender, the author assumes a reader's encyclopedic knowledge of Broadway by name-checking works successful and otherwise in an undifferentiated continuum of time. And so we have a discussion of Robert Preston's appearance in the 1978 Prince of Grand Street immediately followed by Judy Holliday's 1963 production of something called Hot Spot, by way of a one-line segue through Holliday's premiere in 1956's Bells are Ringing (p. 63). The very next paragraph references the respectively un-indexed works of Frank Loesser (How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying) and Mary Rodgers (Once Upon a Mattress, Rodgers apparently wrote Hot Spot's score) in reverse chronological order, before dying out in an orgy of reference with the following breathless sentence: "Charnin ranks high on the list of flop masters, and Hot Spot was the first of his long string of Broadway failures, which came to include the old-fashioned Zenda, the accident-prone Mata Hari, the grim La Strada, the out-of-control I Remember Mama, the unfulfilled The First, and the unnecessary Annie 2." Whew! That covers a spam of time from 1959 through at least 1990 (I know, I just looked it up) and mentions shows, some of which would actually be covered by the author… anywhere from 150 to 200 pages later in the book!
So, okay, Mandelbaum is dull and disorganized, but at least his observations are self-contradictory, inconsistent, and vague. In Chapter Five ("Don't Let This Happen to You") our intrepid author attempts to subcategorize bad musicals into nine separate rules-to-avoid, the first four of which might overlap by unhelpful post hoc analysis ("Don't musicalize works which can't be musicalized;" "Don't musicalize works which don't need music;" "Don't start with a bad/impossible idea;" and "Don't attempt to musicalize a major work if you're not up to it"). That's right, kids, don't try to make a living doing this unless you're a professional!
But I quibble. Fairness dictating closer consideration, let's look at rule #8, "Don't use old music," a rule which Mandelbaum first applies to the ill-conceived 1961 show The Happiest Girl in the World (apparently a musicalization of Aristophanes Lysistrata by way of re-lyricized Offenbach). (p. 217) (With the women in charge, it's time to can-can!) Presumably, the failure here was less one of questionable taste, more audience objection to the recycling of Offenbach's melodies. But Mandelbaum himself notes that "Wright and Forrest had great success adapting old music [sic:] in Song of Norway [Grieg:] and Kismet [Borodin:]." And what about Oscar Hammerstein's successful earlier adaptation of Bizet's Carmen as Carmen Jones? Back on p. 204, Mandelbaum had tried to distinguish Jones from a misbegotten adaptation of Verdi's Aida, by arguing that the former was "an opera comique,… not all that dissimilar to a musical," while the Verdi was "a grand opera with no dialogue," whose "arias did not work as songs in a Rodgers and Hammerstein-style musical play." Is the problem here one of musical recycling or a stylistic one, and if the latter, then what distinguishes the successful adaptation of Bizet's opera comique from the failed use of Offenbach's? I'm hearing crickets.
Of course, this book was written before the emergence of the "jukebox musical" trend, which provided such Broadway staples as Mamma Mia (re-using Abba by way of Muriel's Wedding by way of Carmelina), We Will Rock You (re-using Queen), Smokey' Joe's Café (re-using the works of Lieber and Stoller), Jersey Boys (re-purposing Franki Valli among others), and Moving Out (re-using Billy Joel), among others, so perhaps I should not be faulting Mandelbaum for conflating problems more likely attributable to poorly-crafted adaptations to the bogeyman of musical recycling. However, the author's very next example, which considers the music of John Philip Sousa coupled with that of someone named Richard Kapp in a late '80s presidential pomp-romp (pp. 219-220), itself proclaims that "the problems of Teddy and Alice went beyond its lack of a completely original score." Yes, even Mandelbaum wants me to know that musical Teddy's faults had more to do with a "shallow" book, lack of suspense, and campy staging. In fact, Mandelbaum acknowledges, "Even with an original score and a better book, Teddy and Alice would probably not have found accceptance on Broadway in 1987." So it would appear that Mandelbaum's "rule" about "old music" is not much of a rule at all.
*Sigh.* This book is such a waste of time. Perhaps the author was somehow infected by his subject matter... heyyyy... not a bad idea for a...! No. Stop me. Say something positive. What can I tell you? Let's see... oh, yes! This book has nice pictures.
December 23, 2020
As a fan of old musicals in general and fascinating failures in particular, this is not just a book I’ve read a couple of times (though, yes, I’ve read it cover to cover a couple of times). This is a book I pick up and read a few pages of when I can’t sleep, when I’m between books, or when I just want to relive a moment here or there for pure fun. It’s that kind of “just cause” entertainment.
There appear to be a number of naysayers who take issue with Mandelbaum’s non-chronological timeline, his choice of categorization, and his “meanness.” I couldn’t disagree with any of these critiques more. The non-chronological aspect allows the reader to see reoccurring themes and traps in flop musicals, the categorization made perfect sense to me (I would say that, given the subject matter, a chapter called “Not Bad” is wholly appropriate), and as for meanness, well, theater is a cruel industry and you may as well have a laugh on BUTTRIO SQUARE’s account, for BUTTRIO SQUARE sounds absurd.
My favorite section is the final one, concerning shows that really were terrific and should not have failed. This chapter culminates in describing a musical, THE GOLDEN APPLE, which has since become one of my favorites. Between the pictures and the thoughtful writing, I feel like I’m reliving a small part of that semi-forgotten masterpiece every time I read about it. Throughout, actually, Mandelbaum includes many recommendations for excellent scores or outstanding songs from not-so-great shows, and every time I read this (which, as established, is a lot) I always come away with more music I want to listen to.
So I say if you’re a fan of this kind of thing, you should indulge, and if you’re as big a fan as me, you may find yourself wanting to indulge repeatedly, at all hours, just cause.
There appear to be a number of naysayers who take issue with Mandelbaum’s non-chronological timeline, his choice of categorization, and his “meanness.” I couldn’t disagree with any of these critiques more. The non-chronological aspect allows the reader to see reoccurring themes and traps in flop musicals, the categorization made perfect sense to me (I would say that, given the subject matter, a chapter called “Not Bad” is wholly appropriate), and as for meanness, well, theater is a cruel industry and you may as well have a laugh on BUTTRIO SQUARE’s account, for BUTTRIO SQUARE sounds absurd.
My favorite section is the final one, concerning shows that really were terrific and should not have failed. This chapter culminates in describing a musical, THE GOLDEN APPLE, which has since become one of my favorites. Between the pictures and the thoughtful writing, I feel like I’m reliving a small part of that semi-forgotten masterpiece every time I read about it. Throughout, actually, Mandelbaum includes many recommendations for excellent scores or outstanding songs from not-so-great shows, and every time I read this (which, as established, is a lot) I always come away with more music I want to listen to.
So I say if you’re a fan of this kind of thing, you should indulge, and if you’re as big a fan as me, you may find yourself wanting to indulge repeatedly, at all hours, just cause.
June 2, 2017
Ken Mandelbaum explores seemingly every short-lived American stage musical produced from 1950 to 1990, including several intriguing flops which closed in tryouts. Impressively detailed, and repetitive. Mandelbaum's expertise shows on every page, although Ethan Mordden's decade-by-decade book series on Broadway musicals of the same era were more lively and interesting.
November 16, 2019
Actual rating: 3.5
Mandelbaum covers an impressive array of shows, and his categorization of flops is extremely useful. Through this book, I have found many new scores to listen to. I have also gained a better appreciation for how some of the more famous flops occurred. At times I found the passages similar, but reading about the storylines of some of the more obscure musicals was extremely amusing. And Mandelbaum is not overly rude about any particular performers or creators, which I appreciate. Instead, he tends to lean towards the "ill-suited-towards-this-particular-project" mindset. I would be curious to see what would be included in an updated edition as well as his opinions of the recent, semi-successful productions of Carrie.
Mandelbaum covers an impressive array of shows, and his categorization of flops is extremely useful. Through this book, I have found many new scores to listen to. I have also gained a better appreciation for how some of the more famous flops occurred. At times I found the passages similar, but reading about the storylines of some of the more obscure musicals was extremely amusing. And Mandelbaum is not overly rude about any particular performers or creators, which I appreciate. Instead, he tends to lean towards the "ill-suited-towards-this-particular-project" mindset. I would be curious to see what would be included in an updated edition as well as his opinions of the recent, semi-successful productions of Carrie.
June 15, 2023
The content was super interesting! I loved hearing about the flops and what happened with each show, but the organization of this book was really hard to follow and it got super repetitive. Honestly I think it was just trying to cover too many shows because it all just started blurring together. It also started to showcase the author’s opinions and which shows he thought was good - it was helpful in some cases where we wouldn’t have audience reactions but it felt sort of judgy in other places. An interesting read for sure but it just could have been better organized. I would be curious to see a present day update though!
October 8, 2024
I am so happy I finally finished this book so I can write about how much I disliked it. The information itself was interesting enough, but the presentation is some of the most monotonous writing I've ever suffered. It reads more like an academic encyclopedia, or a telephone book!
On top of that, anytime Ken Mandelbaum took it upon himself to make a sweeping generalization about "writers" or the "current state of the industry," I disagreed! I disagreed with nearly all of it! I'm sorry it's the year 1991, Ken, that Richard Rodgers and Leonard Bernstein are dead, and that you think the world of musical theater is already artistically bankrupt; or as you say, full of "other junk." How awful.
On top of that, anytime Ken Mandelbaum took it upon himself to make a sweeping generalization about "writers" or the "current state of the industry," I disagreed! I disagreed with nearly all of it! I'm sorry it's the year 1991, Ken, that Richard Rodgers and Leonard Bernstein are dead, and that you think the world of musical theater is already artistically bankrupt; or as you say, full of "other junk." How awful.
December 22, 2021
Oh man. This book.
Bullet points because I can't seem to come up with a coherent review:
- This book is one of those that I suppose you're supposed to read if you're a True Musical Fan, but it's daunting to begin, daunting to read and daunting after finishing it. This, I guess, is mostly due to the fact that it's chock-full of information (so much so that it took me around two months to read my way through it, with ~lighter~ reading on the side to turn to once the barrage of input became too much) which, once you've gone through the book, leaves you unsure of what to do with it (seek out the cast recordings of the flops? all 200+ of them or just those deemed 'not that bad'? forget all about them? be vaguely aware of them in the future? I still don't know).
- Both in this book and in general, I love reading Mandelbaum's opinions on shows I'm familiar with. In such cases, his enormous knowledge of theatre means he's bound to, in some way or another, improve my understanding of the show. Most of the shows covered in this book, however, were new to me, and I'm not sure the tone of the book was altogether the right one to present them. It was too scholarly for reviews (indeed, the quotes from the shows' opening-night reviews were often the more amusing parts of the book), not objective enough to actually be scholarly (the judgments on why a show failed often seemed to be on the wrong side of subjective), and all in all a strange mix between dry lists and MTI agent pitches of the not-that-bad shows to community theatres nationwide.
- I think this book would have benefited from a chronological timeline. I understand Mandelbaum's idea of presenting the shows in themed categories, but the shows tend to overlap between categories anyway, and continually jumping between shows produced in different decades was, for me at least, more confusing than putting like shows together was helpful. A big reason for this is that much is made of who was involved in creating which show, and how much the entire enterprise cost - both of these themes would have been much clearer if the flops had been presented chronologically.
- Not so much a review of the book itself, but little Central European me was fascinated at the fact that so many of these shows opened with the director uncredited. I don't even like the type of Regietheater so prevalent in my parts, but, damn, not listing anyone as director? I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that one.
- Judy Craymer is sitting somewhere and laughing her head off at "don't use existing music".
Altogether, this was a fascinating mix of instructive and inscrutable. And now excuse me while I go look for a recording of Carrie...
Bullet points because I can't seem to come up with a coherent review:
- This book is one of those that I suppose you're supposed to read if you're a True Musical Fan, but it's daunting to begin, daunting to read and daunting after finishing it. This, I guess, is mostly due to the fact that it's chock-full of information (so much so that it took me around two months to read my way through it, with ~lighter~ reading on the side to turn to once the barrage of input became too much) which, once you've gone through the book, leaves you unsure of what to do with it (seek out the cast recordings of the flops? all 200+ of them or just those deemed 'not that bad'? forget all about them? be vaguely aware of them in the future? I still don't know).
- Both in this book and in general, I love reading Mandelbaum's opinions on shows I'm familiar with. In such cases, his enormous knowledge of theatre means he's bound to, in some way or another, improve my understanding of the show. Most of the shows covered in this book, however, were new to me, and I'm not sure the tone of the book was altogether the right one to present them. It was too scholarly for reviews (indeed, the quotes from the shows' opening-night reviews were often the more amusing parts of the book), not objective enough to actually be scholarly (the judgments on why a show failed often seemed to be on the wrong side of subjective), and all in all a strange mix between dry lists and MTI agent pitches of the not-that-bad shows to community theatres nationwide.
- I think this book would have benefited from a chronological timeline. I understand Mandelbaum's idea of presenting the shows in themed categories, but the shows tend to overlap between categories anyway, and continually jumping between shows produced in different decades was, for me at least, more confusing than putting like shows together was helpful. A big reason for this is that much is made of who was involved in creating which show, and how much the entire enterprise cost - both of these themes would have been much clearer if the flops had been presented chronologically.
- Not so much a review of the book itself, but little Central European me was fascinated at the fact that so many of these shows opened with the director uncredited. I don't even like the type of Regietheater so prevalent in my parts, but, damn, not listing anyone as director? I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that one.
- Judy Craymer is sitting somewhere and laughing her head off at "don't use existing music".
Altogether, this was a fascinating mix of instructive and inscrutable. And now excuse me while I go look for a recording of Carrie...
December 28, 2018
i wish there was an updated version of this, to include some of the more modern flops!! other than that it was enjoyable and eye opening.
amazon-wishlist
April 10, 2012'Even so, one is grateful for the other second-half pockets of delirium, including a song in which the telekinetically empowered Carrie (Linzi Hateley) cutely serenades her ambulatory powder puff, hairbrush and prom shoes. As Carrie's stern mom, a religious fanatic dressed up in dominatrix black from wig to boots, even the exemplary Betty Buckley earns one of the show's bigger unwanted laughs. ''Baby, don't cry,'' she gently tells her daughter after stabbing her with a dagger.' http://theater.nytimes.com/mem/theate...
September 19, 2024
it takes skill, almost, to mess up such a fascinating subject. there is an easy way to organize this! alphabetically, encyclopedia-style, by date, pretty much anything but the author ended up doing, which was loose categories not followed. the organization and rambling made the book unreadable, and, frankly, gave me a headache. disappointing to say the least.
June 15, 2017
I've heard about this book for years and years and always wanted to read it. For some reason though, I didn't think it was available in anything other than print. I considered buying the print book and scanning it in page by page, but somehow that never happened. I was thrilled beyond words to find it on BARD (the Braille and audio reading download site of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped), and I'm even more thrilled to have read this enlightening compendium.
The book is exactly what the title promises, a study of failed Broadway musicals from 1950 through 1990. Mandelbaum uses two criteria to define "flop": the musical must have run for fewer than 250 performances on Broadway and it must not have had a national touring production or other substantial success after it closed. In an effort to provide structure to his work, Mandelbaum divides the book into eight chapters which address different categories of "flop." For example, one chapter looks at failed musicals penned by very well known, usually successful composers such as Rodgers and Hammerstein and Stephen Sondheim. Another looks at shows which had the potential for being excellent, but for various reasons didn't make the grade.
Ray Hagan did his usual great job which definitely added to my enjoyment. With that said, I must admit that I wish I could buy a copy of this one in hardcopy Braille so that I could skim through it from time to time and look for commentary about specific shows which are of particular interest to me.
Even though I couldn't put this book down, I'm not sure I can recommend it to the general reader. That probably makes me sound like a terrible snob, so let me explain. I knew something about many of the shows the author mentions; some of them have fascinated me for years. Others have scores that are on my hit parade. My guess is that the casual reader has probably not heard of very many of them though. I'm not sure that too many people will jump at the opportunity to read page after page after page about musicals they have never seen and will probably never have the chance to see. Maybe I'm wrong and, if I am, I'd love to know about it.
While the musical version of Stephen King's CARRIE (which is where this book got its name) may have been the flop to end all flops, Mandelbaum's book is certainly not that. If, like me, you are engaged in a love affair with the Broadway musical, you owe it to yourself to read this well researched and fascinating book.
The book is exactly what the title promises, a study of failed Broadway musicals from 1950 through 1990. Mandelbaum uses two criteria to define "flop": the musical must have run for fewer than 250 performances on Broadway and it must not have had a national touring production or other substantial success after it closed. In an effort to provide structure to his work, Mandelbaum divides the book into eight chapters which address different categories of "flop." For example, one chapter looks at failed musicals penned by very well known, usually successful composers such as Rodgers and Hammerstein and Stephen Sondheim. Another looks at shows which had the potential for being excellent, but for various reasons didn't make the grade.
Ray Hagan did his usual great job which definitely added to my enjoyment. With that said, I must admit that I wish I could buy a copy of this one in hardcopy Braille so that I could skim through it from time to time and look for commentary about specific shows which are of particular interest to me.
Even though I couldn't put this book down, I'm not sure I can recommend it to the general reader. That probably makes me sound like a terrible snob, so let me explain. I knew something about many of the shows the author mentions; some of them have fascinated me for years. Others have scores that are on my hit parade. My guess is that the casual reader has probably not heard of very many of them though. I'm not sure that too many people will jump at the opportunity to read page after page after page about musicals they have never seen and will probably never have the chance to see. Maybe I'm wrong and, if I am, I'd love to know about it.
While the musical version of Stephen King's CARRIE (which is where this book got its name) may have been the flop to end all flops, Mandelbaum's book is certainly not that. If, like me, you are engaged in a love affair with the Broadway musical, you owe it to yourself to read this well researched and fascinating book.
January 6, 2020
"I thought, 'There isn't a chance in hell that they'll be able to pull this off.' They really didn't have any ideas about how to fix things; things were really set in concrete, and they did nothing but polish the same killing dance numbers. Going in, I thought, 'this man is the head of the Royal Shakespeare Company; if a scene isn't working, he's going to see it's not working.' Well, he didn't." ~ Barbara Cook on Carrie: The Musical
Not Since Carrie is an important book, it's a book I enjoyed reading, and a lot of the details that Mandelbaum included when telling tales about the several dozen flop musicals he discusses in the book itself were fun and, at times, jawdropping in the car-wreck-on-the-interstate way. Don't get me wrong on that. I just feel like this is a book that I should have liked a lot more than I actually did. Maybe it's because I was expecting it to be funnier than it was? A lot of the reviews on the back cover pointed out Mandelbaum's wit, and while it was there, it was not as much as I was lead to believe.
The other thing that nagged at me while I was reading (the thing that bumps this down to three for me) is that at times there wasn't enough said about certain shows. I was of course fascinated by the shows where he went deep on why exactly they went wrong; the sections about Annie 2: Miss Hannigan's Revenge, my beloved Merrily We Roll Along, and, of course, Carrie were among the strongest because they were among the best known flops of all time. But there were other musicals that didn't get quite as much page space that I would have liked to know a lot more about (homework assignment: look up A Broadway Musical because holy moly). Not a bad thing, but I do feel a little shortchanged.
All that aside: Mandelbaum clearly knew that which he spoke of. Several of these musicals he actually attended, and as a scholarly resource, this is an invaluable text, detail-rich and exacting. But as an entertainment? I felt a bit cold. Again, good book, one I'll certainly return to, but it isn't quite what I expected it to be. Not a bad thing, but I can't help but feel a tiny bit let down.
Not Since Carrie is an important book, it's a book I enjoyed reading, and a lot of the details that Mandelbaum included when telling tales about the several dozen flop musicals he discusses in the book itself were fun and, at times, jawdropping in the car-wreck-on-the-interstate way. Don't get me wrong on that. I just feel like this is a book that I should have liked a lot more than I actually did. Maybe it's because I was expecting it to be funnier than it was? A lot of the reviews on the back cover pointed out Mandelbaum's wit, and while it was there, it was not as much as I was lead to believe.
The other thing that nagged at me while I was reading (the thing that bumps this down to three for me) is that at times there wasn't enough said about certain shows. I was of course fascinated by the shows where he went deep on why exactly they went wrong; the sections about Annie 2: Miss Hannigan's Revenge, my beloved Merrily We Roll Along, and, of course, Carrie were among the strongest because they were among the best known flops of all time. But there were other musicals that didn't get quite as much page space that I would have liked to know a lot more about (homework assignment: look up A Broadway Musical because holy moly). Not a bad thing, but I do feel a little shortchanged.
All that aside: Mandelbaum clearly knew that which he spoke of. Several of these musicals he actually attended, and as a scholarly resource, this is an invaluable text, detail-rich and exacting. But as an entertainment? I felt a bit cold. Again, good book, one I'll certainly return to, but it isn't quite what I expected it to be. Not a bad thing, but I can't help but feel a tiny bit let down.
July 20, 2020
As someone who is a fan of musical theater, I was interested in reading about a history of Broadway flops. While this book is very enlightening, it is also very dry. I also expected this to have a lot more behind-the-scenes information about the initial run of Carrie, but that's just relegated to the prologue and epilogue.
Not Since Carrie reads like a textbook most of the time as it recounts the various failures that hit (or didn't even get to) Broadway. I found myself glossing over passages where it discussed the plots of the various musicals listed because it felt like they had no relevance to what was being discussed. There were some flop stories that did intrigue me (like the marketing of Subways Are for Sleeping), but I feel like I could've gotten the same kind of excitement reading a Wikipedia article.
With the book being published in 1991, it's easy to tell why this was an important text when it came to studying musicals long before Wikipedia was a thing. Even now, it gives those with a passion for musical theater a starting point in studying it more. It would have been nice if the book had an updated version (especially since there was a successful revival of Carrie). For what it is, it's a good book for those studying musical theater to read but too dry and niche for any other audience.
Not Since Carrie reads like a textbook most of the time as it recounts the various failures that hit (or didn't even get to) Broadway. I found myself glossing over passages where it discussed the plots of the various musicals listed because it felt like they had no relevance to what was being discussed. There were some flop stories that did intrigue me (like the marketing of Subways Are for Sleeping), but I feel like I could've gotten the same kind of excitement reading a Wikipedia article.
With the book being published in 1991, it's easy to tell why this was an important text when it came to studying musicals long before Wikipedia was a thing. Even now, it gives those with a passion for musical theater a starting point in studying it more. It would have been nice if the book had an updated version (especially since there was a successful revival of Carrie). For what it is, it's a good book for those studying musical theater to read but too dry and niche for any other audience.
May 12, 2021
I bought this book wanting to learn about past shows that I would never get a chance to see because they were long since dead. What were they about? What happened in them? What went wrong?
This book, sadly, is so amazingly dry that it can barely manage to make the story of Carrie itself readable. An encylopedic list of names - actors, directors, shows - flows by rapidly, giving the impression that it expects you to already know all of this and simply nod in agreement as he categorises how each show failed. Very few of the entries give you any idea what each show was even about (Annie 2 being an exception).
Printing limitations of the time are also not kind to the subject matter. What images exist are reproduced in murky black-and-white, distancing rather than illuminating.
While this book might serve as a suitable text for a class on the subject of theatrical productions, and especially as a springboard for further research, it is clearly more concerned with sounding erudite and authoritative than with being entertaining or even particularly informative.
This book, sadly, is so amazingly dry that it can barely manage to make the story of Carrie itself readable. An encylopedic list of names - actors, directors, shows - flows by rapidly, giving the impression that it expects you to already know all of this and simply nod in agreement as he categorises how each show failed. Very few of the entries give you any idea what each show was even about (Annie 2 being an exception).
Printing limitations of the time are also not kind to the subject matter. What images exist are reproduced in murky black-and-white, distancing rather than illuminating.
While this book might serve as a suitable text for a class on the subject of theatrical productions, and especially as a springboard for further research, it is clearly more concerned with sounding erudite and authoritative than with being entertaining or even particularly informative.
January 12, 2024
This book is mind-boggling in its attention to detail and in its exhaustive study of the many reasons the majority of Broadway musicals are considered "flops." Mandelbaum uses the horror (used to describe the piece and its production) musical Carrie as book-ends to this compendium of fascinating and frustrating facts. Carrie possessed virtually all the factors that contributed to Broadway disasters: material that shouldn't be musicalized; wildly uneven treatment of staging, sets, costumes, and performances; death knells for careers of those who are associated with more than one flop; the exorbitant financial demands placed on new works; hostile critics with an agenda; shifting (and fickle) public taste; "stars" that are unsuited to the demands of their roles; and more. Mandelbaum's book is not arranged chronologically (which threw me off more than once) but thematically. He includes some shows that lost money even after respectable runs and yet others don't make his list. It's an entertaining and thought-provoking study. My one caveat to prospective readers: read this in small doses for maximum enjoyment. Because I plowed through it in order to finish, I found some sections redundant and a bit tedious. But those reactions are on me and not on the author or material. This book is a must for any aficionado of Broadway musicals.
February 10, 2021
After hearing nothing but praise about this book for ten years, I was excited to finally dig in and learn more about flop Broadway musicals. I am sorry to say that I found the first two-thirds of the book incredibly difficult to get through, despite my interest in the subject matter. I felt that the author was trying to cover too much ground with not enough space--most of the flop musicals discussed get 2-3 pages each, giving you a wide overview, but not allowing time for any real insight to be provided. There would be a brief synopsis, followed by an anecdote about the show's trouble out of town, and a brief explanation of why the show failed, before moving onto the next blurb. Much of the book felt like a dressed-up trivia book, listing creative team members and number of performances. The attempts at insight were sometimes laughable--the chapter entitled "Don't Let This Happen To You" listed nine rules for musical-writing (with examples of flops which failed those rules) but the rules were such so self-evident as to be totally useless (i.e. "Don't musicalize a story that can't be musicalized"). I found myself asking why I had heard such unanimous praise about this book in the past. Then, I reached the final two chapters, which focus on musicals which, in the author's opinion, were artistically successful or had enormous strengths despite their flaws, and did not deserve to become flops. Here, the blurbs become longer and more interesting. I found myself writing down the titles, and I am now excited to listen to the scores of Flahooley, Simply Heavenly, and The Golden Apple. When Mandelbaum is writing about shows that he loves, the excitement is infectious, and you decry the injustice of the un-meritocratic system of Broadway. Flipping through the index of shows in the back of the book, it is only these shows which stick with me--in between them are mostly titles about which I remember absolutely nothing, despite having just read about them.
If you are a musical theatre enthusiast eager to learn about overlooked musicals, I highly recommend you skip to the later chapters of this book for a fun, informative, and exciting read.
If you are a musical theatre enthusiast eager to learn about overlooked musicals, I highly recommend you skip to the later chapters of this book for a fun, informative, and exciting read.
June 2, 2020
Mandelbaum covers over two hundred musical flops, giving each two or three pages and briefly describing their production history, major players and songs, and giving his well-reasoned and cleverly-written opinions about why they failed. He's organized the book pretty loosely, jumping back and forth in time, theme, and composers - it might have been better off as an encyclopedia, honestly. It's also nearly thirty years old, and some of his criticisms feel very dated - he doesn't care for pop music, or gloomy musicals, or unsympathetic characters, and he has very clear ideas about what subjects are right for musicals and what aren't (God only knows what he thought about the success of Spring Awakening, or Hamilton, or Rent) - but it's full of backstage conflict and gossipy anecdotes, and it makes for a very engaging read and a useful, thorough guide to often deservedly forgotten musicals.
October 6, 2022
Wonderfully opinionated account of some of the biggest financial and artistic debacles in Broadway musical history. Mandelbaum derives his title from the legendary 1988 flop musical version of the Stephen King novel ‘Carrie.’ Like many of the shows covered in the book, the horror musical had good things going for it - including a strong score and a powerhouse performance by Betty Buckley - but comically misguided staging did the show in.
The author takes us through hopeless bombs like the 1966 musical version of ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ but also examines flops that didn’t deserve their fate such as ‘Mata Hari’ which closed out of town in 1967 due to production disasters and bad casting.
Mandelbaum is one of the most knowledgeable Broadway historians but he is also a very sharp and witty writer so the book is a real page turner.
The author takes us through hopeless bombs like the 1966 musical version of ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ but also examines flops that didn’t deserve their fate such as ‘Mata Hari’ which closed out of town in 1967 due to production disasters and bad casting.
Mandelbaum is one of the most knowledgeable Broadway historians but he is also a very sharp and witty writer so the book is a real page turner.
February 12, 2025
While it was cool to learn about the unethical marketing for "Subways are for Sleeping," and the weirdness of Raggedy Ann, this book was a disappointment overall. It reads more like an essay listing ever single failed musical ever than a non-fiction book. There was just an insane amount of shows covered in these 350 pages, waaaay too many to actually care about. And for every show, we had to learn the composer, producers, writers, actors, characters, plot, and if any of those changed throughout the run, we had to hear it all again.
Focusing on fewer shows but delving more into why each one flopped would have been a much more cohesive and entertaining way to write this. As it is, so much information was thrown at me that I barely remember any of it.
Focusing on fewer shows but delving more into why each one flopped would have been a much more cohesive and entertaining way to write this. As it is, so much information was thrown at me that I barely remember any of it.
June 8, 2025
Published in 1991, this book could sure use a sequel, as I’m sure there have been more Broadway flops since. I enjoyed the book but wish it had been organized differently. Maybe just going in chronological order, giving each show its own chapter. As it is, the book tries to group flops together based on common categories: based on a movie (though some movie-based flops are in other categories), boasting big stars, etc. There are A LOT of names, some I’d heard before (Stephen Sondheim, Eileen Stritch, Bob Fosse), and many I hadn’t. It was hard to keep track of everyone, especially when the author references them in another chapter about their other flop, which might have come out before the flop you already read about. Anyway, I liked seeing the old pictures and playbills.
February 13, 2020
Interesting subject that seems hard to contain
When this book is at its best, it is incredibly good. But so much of it was dry resumes of who did what. Certainly, as the Author states, there have to be many fascinating flops in Broadway, so why aren't the more interesting flops discussed? Instead, I flipped through pages describing what rookies were brought in for jobs they weren't prepared for, rather than hearing about plots that simply didn't work.
It had so much potential but just didn't deliver the entertainment it seemed to promise. It's a great piece to flip through but not a captivating work you can really enjoy every page.
When this book is at its best, it is incredibly good. But so much of it was dry resumes of who did what. Certainly, as the Author states, there have to be many fascinating flops in Broadway, so why aren't the more interesting flops discussed? Instead, I flipped through pages describing what rookies were brought in for jobs they weren't prepared for, rather than hearing about plots that simply didn't work.
It had so much potential but just didn't deliver the entertainment it seemed to promise. It's a great piece to flip through but not a captivating work you can really enjoy every page.
August 17, 2024
An interesting on Broadway flops, but very little about Carrie the Musical?
Of course this is a 40-year journey for notable and infamous works that could not hack it on the Great White Way, but it felt like a tier list or a long countdown for the most part. Overall, the disorganization of the book is a bit off-putting, but Mandelbaun is a witty writer who has great opinions on what worked and what did not.
I just feel like this could have been drawn out via by decade or stricter chapter themes to keep each one central. While this is not a great big storybook, the final chapter could have been longer. Like a show-stopping number...?
Regardless, it was a pretty good read!
Of course this is a 40-year journey for notable and infamous works that could not hack it on the Great White Way, but it felt like a tier list or a long countdown for the most part. Overall, the disorganization of the book is a bit off-putting, but Mandelbaun is a witty writer who has great opinions on what worked and what did not.
I just feel like this could have been drawn out via by decade or stricter chapter themes to keep each one central. While this is not a great big storybook, the final chapter could have been longer. Like a show-stopping number...?
Regardless, it was a pretty good read!
February 27, 2022
An absolute wealth of information about bygone flops, many that are now forgotten by all but a select few. Mandelbaum arranges the shows thematically, not chronologically. It made sense to me that I'd spend 50 pages reading about, say, shows that had major issues with their stars before moving on to the next topic, but I can see where some would prefer to read through all the shows in the 40s before moving on to the 50s. I'd love to see a new book fill the last 30 years since this was published.
January 21, 2024
I adore reading about Broadway flops, but 10% in and I already feel overstuffed. Mandelbaum rarely dedicates more than a couple of pages to each musical, and so so far in I’ve already read about 20 or so of the things, all of which blur together as he veers between different decades but tries (and fails) to link them together. I appreciate that there’s likely little information about most of these shows, so the research he has put together on each of the shows is impressive, but it’s not enough for me to stick around without feeling exhausted.
June 27, 2024
A truly comprehensive look at Broadway musicals… the ones that absolutely failed that is.
I love that this book understands being a musical flop connoisseur is not only worthy, but shows a deep appreciate for the history of Broadway.
However, I do wish this book found a more propulsive through line or leaned more into narrative. What works best are chronicles of Carrie which open and close the book.
The majority of the musicals end up being very encyclopedic and repetitive in how the story/history/failure of each show is chronicled
I love that this book understands being a musical flop connoisseur is not only worthy, but shows a deep appreciate for the history of Broadway.
However, I do wish this book found a more propulsive through line or leaned more into narrative. What works best are chronicles of Carrie which open and close the book.
The majority of the musicals end up being very encyclopedic and repetitive in how the story/history/failure of each show is chronicled
September 6, 2021
Disasters always seem to have a fascination, and theatrical disasters more so. Nobody deliberately sets out to make a flop, so it's educational to see how it happens - and so frequently. Some failures are obvious from the get-go, but others fail due to unforeseeable circumstances. What surprised me most, though, was the number of these flops I actually have cast albums from! It's an entertaining book, but a bit dry.
September 13, 2022
OH MY GOD!!! This book took me forever to read! First and foremost the title says, “40 Years of Broadway Musical Flops.” However, I swear that almost half of the musicals discussed, “closed on the road” meaning they never made it to Broadway and therefore are not Broadway musicals.
There were some incredibly boring sections that I was trying so hard not to skip!
I don’t regret reading this book though. I read about so many interesting musicals, several of which I’d like to take a stab at.
There were some incredibly boring sections that I was trying so hard not to skip!
I don’t regret reading this book though. I read about so many interesting musicals, several of which I’d like to take a stab at.
March 4, 2023
Very superficial discussion of many Broadway flop musicals from about 1950 to 1990. Rach play is given from a few paragraphs to about two pages. Mandelbaum seems to have gone into the project with the intent of bashing nearly every play he discusses. But he Gives each play so little space and covers so many that one feels that one is skimming through People Magazine at the dentist office.
If a reader is looking for an in-depth discussion of why certain shows failed, pass on this book.
If a reader is looking for an in-depth discussion of why certain shows failed, pass on this book.
August 23, 2024
This book may feel like a long Wikipedia entry for those who are not musical theatre geeks, but the truth is that there will probably never be anything like it ever written again. Ken Mandelbaum's groundbreaking book is not only an exhausting history of Broadway's most horrendous musicals; it is also a love letter to dashed dreams and missed opportunities. Sometimes, no matter how much love, work, and passion you put into something, it will still fail.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews