I’m watching the episode of “Glee” (I know…I know, but there’s nothing else on) where New Directions goes to NY to compete.

The show’s depiction of New York is totally warped. (Much like their depiction of high-school, singing and tolerance). I think it’s morally irresponsible.

New York is not a clean, white oasis full of tea shops and stuffed animals. If you try to give a loved one a bouquet of flowers in CP, someone would shoot you. Oh, and if you ran into Patti LuPone and said “Ms. LuPone! I’m your biggest fan!!!” she would rip up the program you’re holding in your hands…yup she’s a bitch in real life.

…why?

Kitsch noun \ˈkich\ : “a tacky or lowbrow quality or condition” - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Poor Lea Michele. It’s one thing to play the ingénue to Kristin Chenoweth’s dipsomaniac belter, which is what she had to do on the fifth episode of “Glee.” It’s quite another to have the show cut back and forth between you and her as you both sing “Maybe This Time” from “Cabaret.” Ms. Michele is a fine singer, but really. We’re talking about Kristin Chenoweth. It felt like there should have been a mercy rule, so they could call it off before anyone had to sing “Everybody … loves a winner …” Ms. Chenoweth made it all work with her singular brand of daffy intensity.

Of the many things that baffle me (and there are quite a few) is this constant desire to make Musical Theater part of the Facebook era. Much has been made about the show “Glee” and how it’s bringing musical theater back into the mainstream. This may be true, to an extent, but from where I stand, there isn’t much in the show about musical theater. If you watch carefully, you’ll notice about 80% of the material is pop or rap and the occasional musical theater song is thrown in for good measure.

But more importantly, the songs in “Glee” are applied in a very general sense, lacking the specificity of situation and character that Hammerstein and Sondheim pioneered. In my opinion, this doesn’t really do much for the musical as an art form. Conversely, it actually reduces the genre to the kind of campy, mawkishness that one usually associates with musicals. It’s a perception Broadway has been trying to shake off since the late 60’s.

The same goes for the recent crop of rock musicals. Critics basically worship at the shrine of these “new” shows, claiming the future of lyric theater lies in these kinds of shows. But for sheer emotional content - not to mention decible level - rock music doesn’t really deliver all the goods. It’s telling that most of these new rock shows have been about angst-y young people who are angry. Rock music - particularly the rock music of today - with it’s pastel shadings can only paint so many emotions and it’s a very limited palette to work with.

Also, it should be noted, that rock music in the theater seems to revert to the richer, harmonically complex rock of the 60’s. This type of rock is less minimalist and is capable - to a certain degree - of conveying a wider range of emotions. The high-octane, electronic rock of today doesn’t really work in a theatrical context, except to provide a visceral impact, which is what I believe the critics are responding to.

Anyway, this proves the latest rock musicals on Broadway are hardly cutting edge. With the explosion of rap over the past decade and the emergence of Lady Gaga’s techno pop revolution, rock seems to be fast becoming the music of yesteryear…hmmm?

So why the urge to interpolate it into musicals and call it “groundbreaking?” There’s a timelessness to Rogers & Heart, Sondheim, and Cole Porter that just doesn’t fade. Like the greatest opera scores, this music continues to thrive and movie audiences everywhere. The classic American songbook will always sound cooler and more sophisticated than any Green Day song.

For me, the most persuasive case for the rock musical was “Next to Normal,” though I wasn’t sure if it was the content of the show, or Alice Ripley’s emotionally naked performance. I couldn’t remember a single lyric or song when I left the show, but I remembered everything about Alice Ripley. When I payed a second visit to the show - after Ms. Ripley’s departure - I found myself counting away the minutes wondering what all the fuss was about. The same could be said of the critic’s adoration for these synthetic rock musicals.

“Certainly she can sing, but it worked better on “Glee,” no? The emotional context of the song wasn’t there. It seemed a bit “American Idol”-ish to me. Vocally overwhelming, but not much real human feeling underneath. It will be curious to see what happens with the casting of the revival. I don’t envy whoever gets the role. There’s a reason it’s never been revived, namely Babs.” - Charles Isherwood

Okay, it’s cliche time, but hear me out first. I LOVE Streisand. I admire her so much as an artist but unlike other gaywads, my love for her was aquired much like my love for Callas. Until I studied music, I didn’t realize what a consumate artist and first-rate musician she truly is.

Moreover: she’s unique. Plain and simple. There’s no one else like her, and her artistry is her own. She really is a trailblazer. She managed to defy typecasting and proved herself as a comedic actress and a leading lady through sheer force of will.

Before I continue, I should mention that my feelings towards Ms. Streisand are unrelated to her personal life or who she is as a person because I don’t know her and it’s irrelivent. My adoration is based soley on her artistry. She may be a nutbag, but she’s a fucking talented nutbag.

Which brings me to the impending revival of Funny Girl. All of Broadway has been abuzz of ever since it was announced (this being the first revival since the original production). We still have no confirmation on who Fanny Brice will be, but Lea Michelle (of Glee) seems to be the leading contender. My guess is, the part will be Ms. Michelle’s. She’s the star of the hottest show on TV, and her performances of ‘Don’t Rain on my Parade’ at the Tony Awards and on Glee, were no coincidence. Maybe I’m wrong, but for arguments sake, let’s just pretend Ms. Michelle has the part because this could apply to any actress given the way Broadway shows are cast these days.

Funny Girl is not a good musical. It’s got an enjoyable first act and a fabulous score, but it’s really a lugubrious melodrama. The driving force - one might say the motor that makes the engine run - is Streisand. Her star turn in the show, was the ultimate synthesis of star and story. Streisand’s life was very much like that of her character, Fanny Brice. Brice was a woman of immense talent, who achieved unbelievable success despite her looks and Jewish persona. She was the kind of performer who could have you laughing hysterically at one moment, and break your heart the next. In other words: Streisand was Brice.

Moreover, Streisand is an idiosyncratic performer who commands a stage - a quality, I’m sad to say, Lea Michelle greatly lacks. She’s a fine singer and an attractive girl, but rather generic. Her duet with Kristin Chenoweth on Glee was a perfect demonstration of Ms. Michelle’s shortcomings as a performer. Both women had great voices but there was a certain daffy intensity to Chenoweth’s singing - a certain “it factor” - that set the screen ablaze. Michelle came of as a pretty girl with a pretty voice which, basically, is all she is.

If Funny Girl is going to be successfully mounted, they need a true star. Someone with more than just a pretty face and voice.