Several times over the last few years I have heard the word risk being used to explain the reason for the early closure of theatrical endeavours throughout the world. Risk is an inevitable part of the theatrical process but I just wanted to say a little something about it as it's been playing on my mind recently...

There's two different types of risk in my mind. There's the inherent risks that must be taken in order to undertake a journey of any kind and then there's the other kind... the avoidable risk.

I'll just mention two key avoidable risks:
1. Hiring people to do something at the very top level when they have no (or very little) experience doing that thing.
2. Opening cold in large theatres at prestigious venues with material that has not been properly strength tested.

These risks are not in the inherent risk category, which includes things like global economic factors. Unfortunately we are living in a world in which many industries, of which live performance is one are heavily affected by a global economic situation beyond our control making the business of show-making an even more risky prospect than it usually is.

In a world where the basic inherent level of risk is higher, show makers, producers and venues should be doing everything they can and more in order to minimise the avoidable risks that they do have control over. As ever, it's a shame to see any show not living up to it's potential both in terms of artistry but also in terms of financial sustainability and we should be doing everything we can to ensure that this the chances of this happening is as low as possible.

So just a little call out... when our shows close let's make sure it's because of the inherent risks involved and not the avoidable ones.

In most reviews and articles I have read over the past several years of new musical theatre there is one word and concept that seems to pop up more than any other. 

Innovation.

There seems to be a requirement that any new musical, in addition to being a new musical must push the form forward, or break new ground in order for it to have a valid place in the new musical world. Just going to take a few moments to tell you why I think it's a dangerous and unrealistic expectation to put on something that is already staggeringly difficult to do.

The most bizarre thing is that we seem to expect innovation in musical theatre to come from those who have no experience in the form. From pop stars, from bands, or singer songwriters, from playwrights or screenwriters or authors. From directors who have never directed musicals before. 

You wouldn't expect the major innovations in space technology to come from those who have no experience in space technology. Innovation does not happen in leaps and bounds, no matter how much the world wants us to believe that. Innovation occurs through almost invisible incrememental steps over long periods of time. It can happen by intention and design or in certain cases by complete accident. Much like the story of the overnight success, innovation is often the logical result of incremental steps completed and achieved over a long period of time until finally the tip of the volcano peeps over surface of the water.

In musical theatre, to denigrate something that is good purely because it does not appear innovative is naive. And to praise something objectively of low quality purely because it appears to be 'innovative' or trying to do something new is equally naive. 

For something to be good it must first be competent. Musical theatre is notoriously and famously very hard to do well. Instead of putting innovation on a pedestal we should be putting basic competence on that pedestal. Because even a basically competent musical is an extraordinary achievement. With rare exceptions any writers first musical will very rarely be their finest work. Musical theatre is a craft, a skill that must be mastered over many years and with the help of many generous collaborators. 

So let's give the whole innovation a break and just try and tell a good story well huh?