Are we nearly at the end of an era for our great musical divas?

I agree with your overall sentiment, though not necessarily with all of your groupings of names.

I think the problem we are running into is we have too many belters, and not enough actors (I realize of course it’s enirrely possible to do both, but many young performers don’t seem to have realized that).

With most of the names you mentioned, it’s not just that these women have distinct personalities, it’s that most of them technically skilled actors. So many young musical theatre performers coast along on some combination of great vocals, generalized “emoting,” charismatic stage presence, comedic timing, or fun characterization. And those things are all good, and there are plenty of performers that I really like who fall into that category. But it’s rare to see young musical theatre performers who really feels dropped in, listening and responding, and who really works with the music to delve into the specific thoughts and emotional layers of a character.

I was actually thinking about this recently, and I tried to think of as many names as possible of performers UNDER 40, who are mostly known for musical theatre, who I think are technically skilled actors. The list was saddeningly short. One person on my list who you didn’t mention was Ashley Park. She has continued to impress me with her genuine acting abilities.

(BTW, I imagine some people will want to respond to this post by rattling off a long list of musical theatre performers under 40 who you think are good actors - you’re welcome to do that, but odds are I will just disagree with most of the names on your list)

Updated On: 8/8/19 at 05:55 PM

Well, of your 13-person list, 8 have appeared on Bway in the past 4 years. Of the 5 others, two are retired from the stage, one STRUGGLED her way through Addams Fam, one is UK-based, and two are deceased. So perhaps you're painting this to be more dire than it actually is.

The reality of today's Broadway market is NONE of those women (or the women mentioned in your "next pool) could sell enough tickets to recoup a show; few would command a hefty Broadway salary, too. Which also hinders the newer generation: people like Kristin Cheno, Jane Krakowski, Laura Benanti, Cynthia Erivo, Renee Elise Goldsberry, Sutton Foster, Idina Menzel, Lindsay Mendez, Ruthie Ann Miles, even Audra, have found work on TV/film that can offer them a living wage.

It's also a question of, what constitutes as a "diva" performance? There aren't a ton of "diva" roles nowadays; for a long-running show, the hope is that the ROLE becomes the star (Elphaba, Christine Daae).

I think there are a lot of promising younger talents out there, and I do think you're sounding like a "man in chair"/ "Make Broadway Great Again" type. It's easy to look back without celebrating the future.

Updated On: 8/8/19 at 06:49 PM

Of the major divas not on your initial list, I think Stephanie J Block and Megan Hilty have yet to really show what they're made of (and I do think it's a lot more than their already substantial achievements). What we somewhat lack right now is good material and vehicles for these women to really shine.

I think the business of Broadway has changed, as has the business of television, which plays a part in what you've observed. In the 1950s, a Broadway hit could make someone a star beyond Broadway. While that was less true in the 1960s, it was still possible. With each subsequent decade, this has become less true. The mega-musicals of the 1980s succeeded on property and/or composer and less on the star and in this age of Disney musicals and franchise properties, it's even more so. The nature of today's Broadway doesn't support the type of environment in which the 13 women you named flourished.

And today, television is always right around the corner. There is more work available, though it's not necessarily star-making, and the salaries Broadway pays pales in comparison to TV. Actresses like Audra and Sutton can make more money there, even if it's less prestigious.

It may also be that the Big Diva thing is becoming an antiquated ideal.

It's funny that the most recent breakout star from broadway is not a woman but LMM. The only one out of the Hamilton OBC who became a ticket selling name in himself and cross over to movie and TV work significantly more prestigious than he did before Hamilton.



There's also, I think, less room for "diva" personality these days I think. It's just considered rude.

SouthernCakes said: "I think it’s a lot to do with casting and colleges. Most casting offices pull from a specific college/university, and those schools are churning out carbon copy performers, so honestly there’s no way to be unique in today’s market... It’s really aggravating as an actor who didn’t go to the main schools and who has the talent to break into this talent pool."

Absolutely! Blame casting directors and producers who cast performers who they think will appeal to audience members instead of the best person for the role. These actors exist; they’re just not getting cast, very rarely getting called back, and oftentimes not even being given the opportunity to audition in the first place.

SweetLips22 said: "Is it true that if you don't have a certain number of 'followers' that you won't even get an audition?"

I’ve heard of that being true for other media, but not for theatre. The main culprits (beyond the obvious looks>vocal ability>acting ability hierarchy) include the school connections that SouthernCakes mentioned (some casting offices give a huge priority to actors who attended the “right” schools when determining who is given audition appointments) and the way the union runs its “open” auditions (or more specifically, its path to membership).

I wish we had the full clip of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNwnrA8EshM

Just perfect.

If the things that I learned in queer theory class back in grad school hold true, the "divas" of old are less necessary now than they were half a century ago. The central diva/claque symbiosis was that these larger-than-life, often eccentric or melodramatic women could evoke the exaggerated peaks and valleys of a "feminine" or feminized experience, enabling the mostly-effeminate gay men in the audience a catharsis of vicarious performance. Judy singing a hard-love ballad was every repressed love they ever had to fight. Dolly descending that staircase was as fabulous as they sometimes dreamed of being. The screaming and weeping and tearing of hair that you hear about in the old newspaper articles about Judy in concert were half idolization and half identification: "she is everything we are and everything we wish we could be in one."

Of course now, gay culture faces many challenges, but by no means as many as it did back then, and gayness as a mass sociological facet has definitely come out of the closet and into the light. Fabulous women are no longer necessarily needed as semi-coded "interpreters of queerness," so the diva symbiosis remains vestigially but distantly; Beyoncé has a definite gay following, but Beyoncé has a definite EVERYONE following, and you couldn't really say that the subtext of her career is performing elements of queerness.

I've seen the sheet music for Send in the Clowns. I also saw the documentary where Stephen Sondheim said he wrote it for Glynis Johns and so she could only sing so many notes without a break. So he split up the phrases into four notes at a time.

With that being said Bernadette takes loud, audible breaths after each four note phrase when she doesn't need to.

She didn't sing like this when she sang the song with Sondheim accompanying her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZhmsp6iBQ

It comes across as a mannerism, not interpretation.

There are no pop divas nowadays?

Beyonce, Rihanna and Lady Gaga would like to have a word with you about that.

qolbinau said: "hahahaha. I kind of get the criticism - I do. She might have been sick at the time (isn't she 'always' when I saw her in Dolly but her voice does seem to have declined a little even in the last 5 years. <>, and her line readings of latecan sometimes be a bit puzzling (I. Don't. Want. To. Fight. With You. Phyl - I don't have to) - although sometimes also skilled (He, he held me and the band was playing - I'm going to get married to the man I love...oh dear lord, isn't it a wonder).

While I sometimes don't get why Bernadette seems to attract more criticism than others for vocal issues (see: Tyne Daly, Chita Rivera, Imelda Staunton), I get that she can be a little rough around the edges. But her voice is never boring (perhaps the worst sin of the theatre), and I'm willing to take the bad with the good if it means we get an interesting, well-acted song that really conveys some kind of emotion.

https://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/NUNN-ON-ONE-A-Little-Night-Music-with-Bernadette-Peters/66722.html

WCT: What led you to being involved with the LGBT community?

BP:The LGBTQ community are sensitive people and always into the arts. They would tell their friends about my shows and then I started having a wonderful audience. They understand people that sing. If I am singing something with real emotion, they get it. People have asked me about the following before and I would say, "Because they are smart!"

---

I really do 'get' it. Maybe people 'got it' when she did Mack & Mabel, Sunday or Into the Woods. But even now she can still churn it out.

If you can't enjoy these performances then I don't know what else to say but I'm sorry that you're missing out!

Rose's Turn(see her Tony Award performance...the highlight being her face and desperation in "welll...someone tell me when is it my turn, don't I get a dream for myself)

Send in the Clowns(a peak of her career)

In Buddy's Eyes(listen how nice the transition from the beginning 'happy' part of the song till the sad slower reflective subtext part at the end for the final verse and that really nice controlled vibrato on the last note - not everyone seems to get this)

Hello, Dolly!(a celebration of her career, a complete diva fan-service that is not 'good' character development or story telling but just plain excitement, fun and happiness).

I hope there is still more to come but if these are the end, I am proud and happy for her recent accomplishments.

"

I like what you observe here about Peters. She's in her 70s now so it makes sense that there are changes in her voice but she's adapting to them beautifully, I think. But she has given some of her best stage performances since 2003 and her work remains extremely accomplished. I saw Gypsy three times because she was so good in that role. Thanks for sharing your observations.