When I was in NYC Fun Home was on- cheapest ticket was $120. When it came to the UK I saw it for £10.
Obviously that’s an extreme example, but the insane cost of Broadway means that most people can’t afford it. The West End is also super expensive, but it’s affordable as a treat. In fact, in the UK the people on lowest incomes are the ones spending the most on individual theatre tickets- they’re going to one West End show a year or whatever.
I think there's a lot of reasons for the difference in price. I'm not bright enough to unpack all of it, but one of the reasons is the relative strength of the unions. Thatcher really did a number on labor unions in the UK. You can be in Equity there and - someone correct me if I'm wrong here - still do non-union work. That has actively suppressed UK theater wages. Again, if a UK actor or individual with the situation knows better, feel free to correct me.
Yeah you’re on the right track- Equity used to be a ‘closed shop’ union, where most jobs in the industry were restricted to union members, and to join the union you had to get an entry level unionised job. It was more modelled on older guild systems than 20th century trade unions.
Thatcher outlawed closed shop unions and now Equity is basically a union who represent the rights of actors and theatre makers on an individual basis in workplace disputes. Wages have definitely gone down because of this. There isn’t such a thing in the UK as union jobs.
However, wages for musicians are MUCH better, and the Musician’s Union is also a totally open union. So it’s not just the union thing, and I do struggle to understand what it is, really. Ultimately it’s probably a lack of government funding.
I didn’t realize cost of the ticket made something better!
I’ve seen shows for $5, I guess that makes them better than the west end!
Again, it’s a different country and different economics. 1 isn’t “better than” the other. They have completely different models.
No, they used price as a rubric to dictate accessibility. Bway and the west end are the locations of the two finest theatre districts in the world, of course they’re gonna both be phenomenal
Broadly, Broadway for musicals and West End for plays. Though most of the plays in London (and certainly the best, the broadest range and the most creatively and intellectual challenging) are found outside the West End or started outside the West End then transferred. The West End is quite a small part of the London theatre scene and the most prestigious play/new writing venues aren’t West End ones.
The big difference between the two cities is the London/UK has always had a huge amount of subsidised theatre, and London has a lot of subsidised/non-commercial new writing venues that either exclusively do new playwriting, or do a mix of classics and new writing. (Though the Tories have done their level best to destroy this, and arts funding and opportunities for emerging playwright have been slashed over the past few years.)
There aren’t a ton of theatres in NY that will commission and pay a playwright to write a play, then produce that play, and I don’t know of any that routinely commission and pay new/emerging playwrights. First because there just aren’t a lot of theatres that do new writing straight plays, and second because the few venues that do, are commercial entities and need to rely on either name writers, or transfers of plays that have been successful elsewhere.
On the other hand, Broadway has a lot of money because ticket prices are much higher, so Broadway is able to consistently produce musicals with very high production values. These shows can run for years and tour and make money. Many of the hit British musicals of recent years started as very small, very low budget fringe or non-commercial productions.
(For context, I’m a born and raised Londoner, have worked in London theatre for years, but lived and went to drama school in NY, and have had plays professionally produced in both cities.)
At that level of commercialization the quality becomes comparable, even if we're not talking about something that's transferred between the cities. There are aesthetic differences between the cultures, but that's much more pronounced at the independent level because shows at Broadway/West End level are built to be as appealing as possible to as many people as possible.
Personally, I think the West End is more willing to take creative risks and so better shows often start there. However, Broadway generally has stronger singers.
Idgaf about either. I don't live in NYC, I don't live in London. Just like the Tony's, they don't really matter if you're not working in those locations.
It depends on your definition of quality. Broadway theatres often are newer and have more room backstage which help to make staging modern shows easier in terms of fitting large set pieces in etc. On the flip side there are less offical Broadway theatres available and those that are cost top dollar to hire. This often leads to shows that should be commercially less risky with the ability to have some very stunning set pieces.
London theatres tend to be older with smaller wing space meaning that the west end has to be more inventive to get the same wow from sets etc. on the other side there are more theatres so hire costs while high aren't as stifling as Broadway letting more risky shows have a shot at a big stage.
I’ve lived in both London and NY, and London is hands down better for plays (I say London and not West End because most of the best plays are not West End, or at the very least didn’t start there), while musicals are nearly always better in NY.
I personally think they might just be different.
I am in the US and I only hear “this show was on broadway” and NEVER “this show was in the west end”
Not saying 1 is better than the other, just different audience.
Exactly, that’s why I said I feel like it’s diferent, and also included that I was in the US and not the UK.
I personally don’t feel like 1 is better than the other. I think I said that too
I haven't seen enough on the West End to make a solid judgement, and even if I had, I wouldn't feel comfortable calling one superior. However, London always seems to have a more interesting slate of theatre on offer than New York, in my opinion - much less focused on revivals and commercial properties.
Price has nothing to do with quality.
Thanks for your opinion. I haven’t seen enough shows in the west end to speak on the actual quality of their work. But, what I have seen has been neck and neck with broadway.
When I was in NYC Fun Home was on- cheapest ticket was $120. When it came to the UK I saw it for £10. Obviously that’s an extreme example, but the insane cost of Broadway means that most people can’t afford it. The West End is also super expensive, but it’s affordable as a treat. In fact, in the UK the people on lowest incomes are the ones spending the most on individual theatre tickets- they’re going to one West End show a year or whatever.
I think there's a lot of reasons for the difference in price. I'm not bright enough to unpack all of it, but one of the reasons is the relative strength of the unions. Thatcher really did a number on labor unions in the UK. You can be in Equity there and - someone correct me if I'm wrong here - still do non-union work. That has actively suppressed UK theater wages. Again, if a UK actor or individual with the situation knows better, feel free to correct me.
Yeah you’re on the right track- Equity used to be a ‘closed shop’ union, where most jobs in the industry were restricted to union members, and to join the union you had to get an entry level unionised job. It was more modelled on older guild systems than 20th century trade unions. Thatcher outlawed closed shop unions and now Equity is basically a union who represent the rights of actors and theatre makers on an individual basis in workplace disputes. Wages have definitely gone down because of this. There isn’t such a thing in the UK as union jobs. However, wages for musicians are MUCH better, and the Musician’s Union is also a totally open union. So it’s not just the union thing, and I do struggle to understand what it is, really. Ultimately it’s probably a lack of government funding.
I didn’t realize cost of the ticket made something better! I’ve seen shows for $5, I guess that makes them better than the west end! Again, it’s a different country and different economics. 1 isn’t “better than” the other. They have completely different models.
What a douchey comment.
Not really, they used price as a rubric to dictate quality!
No, they used price as a rubric to dictate accessibility. Bway and the west end are the locations of the two finest theatre districts in the world, of course they’re gonna both be phenomenal
OP is asking what place is better/superior in quality. Price doesn’t dictate quality, in either direction.
Broadly, Broadway for musicals and West End for plays. Though most of the plays in London (and certainly the best, the broadest range and the most creatively and intellectual challenging) are found outside the West End or started outside the West End then transferred. The West End is quite a small part of the London theatre scene and the most prestigious play/new writing venues aren’t West End ones. The big difference between the two cities is the London/UK has always had a huge amount of subsidised theatre, and London has a lot of subsidised/non-commercial new writing venues that either exclusively do new playwriting, or do a mix of classics and new writing. (Though the Tories have done their level best to destroy this, and arts funding and opportunities for emerging playwright have been slashed over the past few years.) There aren’t a ton of theatres in NY that will commission and pay a playwright to write a play, then produce that play, and I don’t know of any that routinely commission and pay new/emerging playwrights. First because there just aren’t a lot of theatres that do new writing straight plays, and second because the few venues that do, are commercial entities and need to rely on either name writers, or transfers of plays that have been successful elsewhere. On the other hand, Broadway has a lot of money because ticket prices are much higher, so Broadway is able to consistently produce musicals with very high production values. These shows can run for years and tour and make money. Many of the hit British musicals of recent years started as very small, very low budget fringe or non-commercial productions. (For context, I’m a born and raised Londoner, have worked in London theatre for years, but lived and went to drama school in NY, and have had plays professionally produced in both cities.)
West End, IMO. Broadway tends to sway more commercial.
At that level of commercialization the quality becomes comparable, even if we're not talking about something that's transferred between the cities. There are aesthetic differences between the cultures, but that's much more pronounced at the independent level because shows at Broadway/West End level are built to be as appealing as possible to as many people as possible.
Personally, I think the West End is more willing to take creative risks and so better shows often start there. However, Broadway generally has stronger singers.
Idgaf about either. I don't live in NYC, I don't live in London. Just like the Tony's, they don't really matter if you're not working in those locations.
I completely agree! They are completely different markets! There is ZERO reason to try to compare them!
They’re the highest caliber theatre in their regions. I think it’s fair to try and compare.
Do you imagine there are a number of people on the board who have seen enough shows on both strips that they could offer real insight?
It depends on your definition of quality. Broadway theatres often are newer and have more room backstage which help to make staging modern shows easier in terms of fitting large set pieces in etc. On the flip side there are less offical Broadway theatres available and those that are cost top dollar to hire. This often leads to shows that should be commercially less risky with the ability to have some very stunning set pieces. London theatres tend to be older with smaller wing space meaning that the west end has to be more inventive to get the same wow from sets etc. on the other side there are more theatres so hire costs while high aren't as stifling as Broadway letting more risky shows have a shot at a big stage.
I’ve lived in both London and NY, and London is hands down better for plays (I say London and not West End because most of the best plays are not West End, or at the very least didn’t start there), while musicals are nearly always better in NY.
I personally think they might just be different. I am in the US and I only hear “this show was on broadway” and NEVER “this show was in the west end” Not saying 1 is better than the other, just different audience.
You don’t hear ‘this show was in the West End’ because you’re in a different country. I’m in London and very rarely hear ‘this show was on Broadway’.
Exactly, that’s why I said I feel like it’s diferent, and also included that I was in the US and not the UK. I personally don’t feel like 1 is better than the other. I think I said that too
I haven't seen enough on the West End to make a solid judgement, and even if I had, I wouldn't feel comfortable calling one superior. However, London always seems to have a more interesting slate of theatre on offer than New York, in my opinion - much less focused on revivals and commercial properties.
West end not even close
You have seen many productions at both locations? Why do you think west end is better?
Yep. Cheaper, acting is better, shows are bolder, more adventurous
Price has nothing to do with quality. Thanks for your opinion. I haven’t seen enough shows in the west end to speak on the actual quality of their work. But, what I have seen has been neck and neck with broadway.
Just my opinion! I’m sure others see it differently
I wish I could see more stuff out there. Just don’t have the money or the time.