I've been thinking a little bit about age recently, partly because my own musical The Curious Case of Benjamin Button looks quite closely at the subject. But I'm thinking about it now in relation to opportunity, praise and critique that seems to use the idea of age in an interesting way...

Why for example are we more impressed with someone who is able to do something excellent when they are in their teens than someone who has achieved something of equal or better quality who is older? Surely it should be the quality of the creation that should be assessed, rather than the age of its creator. There is an argument I suppose that goes along the lines of...
​
"Well, if they can do that when they are so young then think of their potential to create even greater things as they gain experience, skill and wisdom."

But potential is not owned by the young. It is owned by the young at heart. It is owned by the curious and the fascinated. It is owned by those who are driven to discover and uncover. As much as the media would like us not to believe it, potential and skill is open to anyone of any age.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I have recently seen several reviews and articles about a variety of shows that either directly reference the creators exact age or mentions that they are in their twenties. Interestingly, I cannot find a single review of work of writers in their 30's or above that mentions the age of the creators, until we get to the age of about 70+ where it suddenly becomes an item of interest again. 

So what is this obsession with age in musical making? 

I did not start writing musicals seriously until I was 30, so have never been eligible for any 'emerging' opportunities despite the fact that 14 years on I am pretty sure I still haven't quite 'emerged.' And you know what? When I was 25 I didn't need the financial support that some of these emerging awards provide in order to pursue my passion. Because I had limited responsibility, was in a small share house (and admittedly living in 2005 when things were a hell of a lot cheaper!) I didn't need financial recompense to pursue my passion and hone my skills because I had the time to do it on my own dime. 

I know that the idea of age and its marketing power in selling a new show by the latest 'Wunderkind' remains important for selling tickets. But is it entirely helpful in sustaining a meaningful career for those involved? If the quality of work is assessed partly by the fact of age, then what happens when those same writers reach 30+? Are they suddenly going to be held to a higher standard that they have hitherto not been prepared for? And what good is that going to do them or the industry?

I would rather we go down the Hammerstein route who said to the young Stephen Sondheim after showing him his first musical, "I'm going to treat you like a professional. And as a professional this is the worst thing I've ever read. And if you like, I'll tell you why."

So what I'm saying is, if you want to mention age then please go ahead, it's your opinion. But I think it's worth noting that physical age has almost nothing to do with overall potential and that there maybe considerable downsides to the effect this has on the writers themselves. 

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?

Lately I've been thinking alot about my friend and collaborator Adam Lenson. For the last 17 years Adam has been ploughing the hard, arid land, planting seeds, providing nutrients for the soil slowly making the ground fertile.

But Adam is not a farmer.

He is a director, a producer, a creator, tireless advocate for new British musical theatre. He's not the only one who has been doing this, but he's certainly the one who seems to have been shouting the loudest for the longest. 

Conversations with Adam inspired me to be part of a solution. A solution to a question that 15 years ago seemed so nebulous, so vast and so impossible to solve that even the attempt felt like folly...

Why are there so few new musicals by UK musical theatre writers being produced by in the UK? And how can we change that?

17 years ago I wrote my first amateur musical with friends at Putney Arts Theatre Company. Little did I know the path that this experience would set me on. Years later, after throwing myself into the fledgling world of new musicals, I met Adam. I wouldn't have described myself back then as a passionate advocate. I hate upsetting people and I have an almost pathological need to be liked by everyone I meet. But by the time I met Adam, I had been trying to break through (by which I mean make a reasonable living) as a musical theatre maker for 9 years. I was tired but I was also fed up. And that's when the fires started to burn...

Adam's fire had already been burning for a good long while when I met him, but the thing about fires is that they have a tendency to spread. So I started going to events and talks and concerts that Adam was organising...

Adam set up forums, working groups, conversations and concerts where we began to talk about how we could change things. How could we help make this country better at producing new musical theatre. Bear in mind that these groups were made up almost entirely of people who had no real "power" to speak of. We were freelancers, writers, creatives, performers and we came together to try and understand why the doors we had been pounding on for so long remained closed to us. Because it was only in understanding WHY a door is closed that we could learn HOW to open it.

We did not have venues, we were not artistic directors of large theatres, we did not have money but we talked and we learned and we figured out what we were able to do that might ultimately make a difference. We could do what the organisations with the money and the power were not doing. We could support each other, we could encourage each other as we ploughed the stone filled fields in the depths of the icy winter. 

Okay, a little dramatic, but ask any of us musical theatre creators who have been trying to break through for at least 16 years what it felt like (and still does) and I would imagine that isn't too far from the mark. In fact I know it isn't, because many of those creators have become my friends and stout-hearted colleagues.

But the key thing that was really going to help us all, was that whilst supporting each other we had to keep WRITING.

We had to keep getting better at our CRAFT. Because once those doors were opened we had to be READY for what lay on the other side. So what did Adam do, he created SIGNAL where writers could present their craft. An incredible concert series that gave writers the opportunity to hear their material sung by amazing performers and performed by a world class band. And it was all FREE!

Adam created this. I don't know how many shows, collaborations, songs, partnerships, productions began purely because of this incredible act of generosity from a man who refused to let the world he was in dictate the world he wanted to create. But believe me... It's ALOT.

Essentially, along with other tireless producers, BML, MMD and MTN, Adam's work and his concert series have led to the fertilisation of the new musical theatre landscape in this country. There is now a fledgling orchard offering the beginnings of shade and fruit to a younger generation. 

The main thing that I'd like to say is that often this immeasurable contribution passes unnoticed and goes without thanks. We all need to keep planting and growing that orchard, we need to keep supporting the farmers like Adam who with limited resources are nurturing it. And when we get to climb the ladder to harvest the ripest fruit... we cannot pull the ladder up behind us. So if you end up with a platform for a big show with a big marketing budget, please don't forget to use your platform (as much as you are able) not just for yourself and your show but for the industry as a whole. 

Please thank people like Adam and all those who have been fertilising that soil, because years ago they saw an arid, stone-filled field and decided to change it into a beautiful orchard. We sit in the shade of their labour, we eat the ripening fruits of their hard work.

​It's time to give them something back.