In the next 10-15 years we will likely lose Liza, Patti, Betty Buckley and Bernadette — Page 2

thank you, queenalice.

Updated On: 3/15/26 at 12:01 PM

Looking at the brighter side, we will also have “lost” (at least) 75% of the angry bitter old queens who are regulars on this board.

JSquared2 said: "Looking at the brighter side, we will also have“lost” (at least) 75% of the angry bitter old queens who are regulars on thisboard."

...yeah, looking forward to the deaths of members you dislike is ****ed up.

Unfortunately, I think the industry has moved away from these "legacy" theatre performers and I don't see how it will recover that particular performer, thinking of a Merman, Lansbury, Lupone, Peters, Liza, Barbra.

I do see use getting a fuller Bodied career of Lea Michele or Sutton Foster.

However I feel that many of the stars now come from "belt" scores, which I wonder how someone would age in an industry where a voice that it known for pop belt, does age as well post 50. I would say Idina will not have the signature scores in her 70s and even with a very technical singer like Kristin, a soprano voice too ages out.

On top of that, I see so much of the imports from Hollywood coming in that I don't know the environment to develop a Broadway "diva" is longer there.

Kelley10 said: "How fun! Do it for men too."

I mean, I'm gonna be 100% honest. Gays don't care about Men in this realm.

binau said: "How do we cope with this?"

By moving on with your life and appreciating the joy their performances gave you.

Binau really is bat**** crazy

To get rid of it you just have to question whether Hugh is or isn’t!

Kad said: "binau said: "Some of you really are insufferable, can you please just ignore or block me? I mean I'm happy to continue the fighting if this is how you want to do it though."

We've been going through this with you a few times a year for years now. You come on here with melodramatic handwringing about Bernadette Peters while on other threads going off on tangents the theme of which is always "everybody is irrational but me," coupled with a compulsive need to always have the last word, then you either disappear, settle down, or make a big show of leaving the board forever for real this time.

I don't think you're a troll but I do think you need to seriously re-assess why you're on this board in the first place because this pattern of behavior is not healthy."

Also, I kind of agree with you broadly that you've got the pattern mostly right especially the need to continue engaging, although I reject the characterisation of how it ends. It usually ends because the conversation or thread naturally dies, and I've only once ever announced I'd leave and then came back (I really wonder what happened in this thread because the mods deleted it).

I also do of course insist that I am indeed the rational actor in most of these events. I am constantly faced with a high level of emotionality on this forum - I almost never call anyone names and I always give a rationale for the ideas I post.

For example, in the case of warning this forum that Trump had a real chance of winning in 2024, I clearly was on the rationale side. It was irrational of others to be awful to me because you didn't want to hear the truth of what might happen, which did. I never supported Trump, I simply warned you that it was likely to happen and why (polls, debates, lack of adequate democrat leadership to compete, rejection of 'wokeness' because I pay attention to what people are saying outside left wing bubbles etc.), and it did. It was irrational to treat me the way you did. You wanted to feel good that's all, and when these ideas didn't make you feel good you come on the attack.

In the case of Kecia Lewis/Patti, it was obviously irrational to believe that Patti's comments about the sound levels of Hell's Kitchen were racist.

In the case of the Patti/Kecia/Audra drama, it was irrational to try and 'cancel' Patti because she was calling out Kecia Lewis' terrible behaviour towards her, or didn't like Audra's performance in Gypsy.

In the case of the Nicole S drama, it was irrational to suggest that despite giving one of the greatest performances of all time (as evidenced by the fact that she won over Audra), Nicole shouldn't win her Tony or be on that stage and pile on her because she is apparently a Christian or potentially even voted for Trump, especially given the context of us going through another Trump win where it is clear this kind of behaviour doesn't work.

In the case of the Great Comet fiasco, it was irrational for people to suggest that Mandy going into the show was in any how racist, eventually putting an entire show 1/2 POC out of work.

Yes, of COURSE there is a theme of "you guys are irrational and I am rational". That is the very point when it comes to these strange 'woke' issues that we've had to face over the last several years. You keep acting in irrational ways, causing a path of destruction around you, causing the very outcomes you're trying to avoid. It isn't rational. It's a very strange hyper emotional state that seems to prioritise looking good in the name of social justice rather than doing good or even caring how divorced from reality or not some of these claims are. This is irrational by definition and it is not the same progressive movement we had in the past.

Oh look, 8 paragraphs Kad. Based on your previous comment that 5 paragraphs is too much, is this going to be too much for you now? Would you, in hindsight defend say the comments Kecia Lewis made towards Patti? That's the whole irony of this. I don't think you would. Will you say right now that you actually think Kecia Lewis' comments towards Patti about the sound design of Hell's Kitchen were right? Especially given this article? I suspect you won't because you probably aren't irrational yourself, but if you want to feel free to argue that actually Kecia was right. So give me a break that I am often the face of having to do the dirty work and be the one to challenge these terrible ideas in the face of extreme emotionality and resistance from many posters here, when you probably secretly agree with me half the time even if you have an issue with the relentless of it all.

Updated On: 3/16/26 at 03:08 AM

BroadwayNYC2 said: "“Using "mental illness" as a pejorative is the least okay thing about this thread.”


Aww, anyway!"


Excuse me?

binau said: "Kad said: "binau said: "Some of you really are insufferable, can you please just ignore or block me? I mean I'm happy to continue the fighting if this is how you want to do it though."

We've been going through this with you a few times a year for years now. You come on here with melodramatic handwringing about Bernadette Peters while on other threads going off on tangents the theme of which is always "everybody is irrational but me," coupled with a compulsive need to always have the last word, then you either disappear, settle down, or make a big show of leaving the board forever for real this time.

I don't think you're a troll but I do think you need to seriously re-assess why you're on this board in the first place because this pattern of behavior is not healthy."

Also, I kind of agree with you broadly that you've got the pattern mostly right especially the need to continue engaging, although I reject the characterisation of how it ends. It usually ends because the conversation or thread naturally dies, and I've only once ever announced I'd leave and then came back (I really wonder what happened in this thread because the mods deleted it).

I also do of course insist that I am indeed the rational actor in most of these events. I am constantly faced with a high level of emotionality on this forum - I almost never call anyone names and I always give a rationale for the ideas I post.

For example, in the case of warning this forum that Trump had a real chance of winning in 2024, I clearly was on the rationale side. It was irrational of others tobe awful to mebecause you didn't want to hear the truth of whatmight happen, which did. I never supported Trump, I simply warned you that it was likely to happen and why (polls, debates, lack of adequate democrat leadership to compete, rejection of 'wokeness' because I pay attention to what people are saying outside left wing bubbles etc.), and it did. It was irrational to treat me the way you did. You wanted to feel good that's all, and when these ideas didn't make you feel good you come on the attack.

In the case of Kecia Lewis/Patti, it was obviously irrational to believe that Patti's comments about the sound levels of Hell's Kitchen were racist.

In the case of the Patti/Kecia/Audra drama, it was irrational to try and 'cancel' Patti because she was calling out Kecia Lewis' terrible behaviour towards her, or didn't like Audra's performance in Gypsy.

In the case of the Nicole S drama, it was irrational to suggest that despite giving one of the greatest performances of all time (as evidenced by the fact that she won over Audra), Nicole shouldn't win her Tony or be on that stage and pile on her because she is apparently a Christian or potentially even voted for Trump, especially given the context of us going through another Trump win where it is clear this kind of behaviour doesn't work.

In the case of the Great Comet fiasco, it was irrational for people to suggest that Mandy going into the show was in any how racist, eventually putting an entire show 1/2 POC out of work.

Yes, of COURSE there is a theme of "you guys are irrational and I am rational". That is the very point when it comes to these strange 'woke' issues that we've had to face over the last several years. You keep acting in irrational ways, causing a path of destruction around you, causing the very outcomes you're trying to avoid.It isn't rational. It's a very strange hyper emotional state that seems to prioritise looking good in the name of social justice rather than doing good or even caring how divorced from reality or not some of these claims are.This is irrational by definition and it is not the same progressive movement we had in the past.

Oh look, 8 paragraphs Kad. Based on your previous comment that 5 paragraphs is too much, is this going to be too much for you now? Would you, in hindsight defend say the comments Kecia Lewis made towards Patti?That's the whole irony of this. I don't think you would. Will you say right now that you actually think Kecia Lewis' comments towards Patti about the sound design of Hell's Kitchen were right? Especially given this article? I suspect you won't because you probably aren't irrational yourself, but if you want to feel free to argue that actually Kecia was right. So give me a break that I am often the face of having to do the dirty work and be the one to challenge these terrible ideas in the face of extreme emotionality and resistance from many posters here, when you probably secretly agree with me half the time even if you have an issue with the relentless of it all."

Seek help.

I can read, write and type extremely quickly so it really doesn't take THAT much time (and that's why I tend to write posts that are too long it isn't because I'm spending loads of time, it would take me longer to think how do I condense what is going on in my mind). It's like just taking a minute break or whatever. Also, I do use this as a bit of a learning tool and social experiment (in addition to being interested and passionate about some of these issues because look I don't want to see the mob go and try cancel Patti ok? I didn't become a Broadway fan to watch a toxic community turn on itself).

For example, even though I recognise that I have burned many bridges here over the years I can never repair which is unfortunate, it means that there are things I won't try again because I can see here that they don't work. In fact, I think as you'd probably agree there is probably SO MUCH I have tried here over the years that doesn't work it really is hard to identify things that do work. It's an ongoing challenge, and I'm learning every day.

Updated On: 3/16/26 at 11:56 AM

Remind me to start a thread 10-15 years out from you're death.

Updated On: 3/16/26 at 12:20 PM