The following roundtable, moderated by Jay Adana and Zeniba Now, brings together arts leaders from new musical development programs across the country. Together, they discuss and demystify the sobering reality of creating new musicals. 

Jay Adana: Hi, I’m Jay, and I am a composer and lyricist and performer and sometimes bookwriter. It’s lovely to see you all. Oh, and she/her.

Chris Dieman: Hi, I’m Chris Dieman. I’m also a composer! I’m also the artistic director of New Music Theatre Project [NMTP], based in New York City, and I’m so thrilled to be here with all of you. He/him. Thank you. 

Frankie Dailey: Hi there. I’m Frankie Dailey. I am the new works director at the National Alliance for Musical Theatre [NAMT]. I am the producer of the festival of new musicals that we have each October. We’re here in New York City and my pronouns are he/him.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: Hey there. My name is Neen Williams-Teramachi. I use they/them pronouns, and I’m the director of new works at the 5th Avenue Theatre in Seattle, Washington.

Alexander Gemignani: Hi, friends. I’m Alexander Gemignani. Pronouns are he/him/his. I am the artistic director of the National Music Theatre Conference [NMTC] at the O’Neill and the artistic director of the American Music Theatre Project at Northwestern [AMTP]. I’m calling in from Paris, France today.

Zeniba Now: Hi. I’m Zeniba Now. She/her. I’m currently calling in from Brooklyn, where it is raining. And I’m also originally a West Coast gal. 

So, we’ve tried to come up with questions that we thought would help dramatists and mostly help me and Jay.

Jay Adana: Us. [Laughs] Very specifically.

Zeniba Now: The first question is, in the grand scheme of the theatre industry, where do you [fit] in terms of genre, piece of development, style... Basically we’re allergic to Google, and the question is what do you do, and how does that fit into everything else?

Chris Dieman: We sit at this nexus of theatre and music making. If it’s theatre we’re commissioning, we want it to be inherently musical. And if it’s a piece of music, even instrumental music, we want it to be inherently theatrical in nature, maybe even programmatic. 

Starting in 2020 we really lasered in on this development-forward mission, as we saw other incubators falling aside. It was happening left and right. It was and continues to be a travesty. And this is not just a New York problem: it’s a nationwide problem. Where are the artists supposed to go? It’s my question to funders and even to audience members: where are they supposed to go? So, we have completely embraced development. We commission things from scratch and eventually even premiere them, but the joy is in the process.

Zeniba Now: Anything about the kind of work that your artists do – not to box you in, but do you have a general?

Chris Dieman: The number one rule is it has to be from scratch. No one can come to me with a finished or in-process script. I literally ask, “What do you want to do? What kind of ideas do you have?” Last round of commissions, we had a piano and violin sonata and a musical. Right now, we’re doing an opera, a vocal quartet work, and a one-act musical.

That brings in a specific kind of generative creative artist. So far, most of them call themselves composers first, but they are all writing their own lyrics, they are their own librettists, orchestrators, etc.

I know that’s very broad, but so far, that’s who’s creating work with us. It’s great.

Zeniba Now: That’s perfect.

Alexander Gemignani: I’ll jump in. First of all, I think this is so great, that we can all have a conversation about development. I love the question, Zeniba, because the four of us and all the other folks who do development do it differently and meet pieces at different stages of gestation, which I think is critical, in particular, to musicals. 

At NMTC we want to empower writers to take risks, to find the heartbeat of their show, so that when they inevitably have to include production elements and more team members, [they] can maintain a strong presence of their own voice.

In order to reach that place, we have really tried to be writer-led, which to me means listening with intent and making sure you really hear what the writers need, and trying to stay facile with how that might change from day to day, as they have revelations, writing blocks, liberations, or whatever. Being able to bob and weave with them to support the exploration so that by the time they end their two weeks in the conference, they leave feeling empowered to continue to work on the piece – [that’s] the primary way we try to function at NMTC.

I find the hardest thing about working in development is the desire to continue supporting the pieces past their two weeks. I find it very challenging, not just from a financial standpoint, but also… we have the luxury of not being a producing house, and it also sucks. [Laughs] We produce readings, and that’s amazing, because it takes the pressure off. They’re not [production ready], and they shouldn’t be. 

I would say if the spectrum of development is on a scale of 1 to 10, one being “Here’s the first draft of something, I don’t really know what it is,” and ten is the world premiere production, I think the O’Neill lives in the first half, maybe a little closer to the middle, depending on the piece. The ideas are good, the craft is solid, this writer has something to say. They need the support of a creative team and a cast to be in a room to help the writers see the thing, and take that group of humans, move the piece from a 3 to a 4 or a 4 to a 5, so that they leave knowing their work better, and they can now focus their goals moving forward. 

Zeniba Now: As soon as you said the 1 to 10, my guess was going to be that the O’Neill takes fours and helps them cross to six. Like crossing the river past five. 

Jay Adana: As an alumna, I would verify that. 

Alexander Gemignani: Yes! I think there are shows, frankly, like yours, Jay, that did do that. Some writers see the path to the six or seven. We’ve had shows come convinced they are a six, and after a day or two the realization from the writers might be, “I don’t know what this show is about,” and they have to take a few steps back. Hopefully we can support both of those kinds of experiences. We have to really make sure that all the right people are touching that work at the right time. Which is a little bit unknowable, but it is also kind of exciting. 

Zeniba Now: I’m obsessed with this analogy now, of 1 to 10. But it’s very painful as a writer if you have a seven and you have to take it back to a five in order to ever get to an eight. It’s a very emotionally excruciating time period, so I like that you do that as well.

I think that was very clear where in the development line you see your organization, but is there anything specific to genre?

Jay Adana: Like anything you tell the people who are reading the submissions.

Alexander Gemignani: I really try to make my personal taste a small piece of the puzzle when selecting a season. [It’s] really more about what is the thing that is being said in the pieces we select. The pieces I’m ultimately drawn to at the end of the day are reaching inside of me and grabbing onto my heart a little bit. 

And that heart-grabbing quality encompasses anything if it’s executed right. Even in the semifinal round, you know, we have a thorough process that encompasses several months, and 99% of the submissions are great ideas. And then we ask, “Well, how are these ideas executed?” And then we ask, “Okay, is it executed in a way that feels authentic, and is it executed in a way that feels human?” Having those interrogations, I think, leads you toward why the thing is necessary. And I think if you can get there, then you’re really in a sweet spot, and you can, without having to try, stand behind the works that you put on your season.

Jay Adana: Beautiful.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: The 5th Avenue Theatre does commissions, workshops, readings, and full productions as well. We’re a LORT A Theatre, so keep that in mind when we start talking numbers. [Ed. Note: LORT theatres are divided into categories determined by box office sales.] I’m also in a bit of a unique position as someone who’s a young arts leader, one of the folks who got in at the beginning of the pandemic. I was fortunate to have an artistic director who was encouraging me to mold the program. It was important to me, in developing and modifying new systems, that we were moving with community and artistic values forward. Keeping artists, especially writers, at the center. I’m also a big fan of collaborating with organizational partners who share those values. 

We have [a program] called First Draft, which is an eighteen-month commission. Going from an idea that is not written yet, we take [writers] through retreats, professional development, readings, workshops, and then we get them to a solid first draft that they can send out to other places, like all the people here. [Laughs] 

One of my favorite things that [we did] was create a “radio musical” program. Demos are a big thing. I hear that from writers all the time. So, we adapt scripts [into] an audio-only format with the writers, rehearse with a cast, and record in the studio with a band and a post-production Foley artist. The writer comes out with the experience, development, and a cast album that can be spliced up into some sick demos. 

If I were to rate where we excel in development, we’re really strong in the 0-3 range, then most recently we’ve taken a stab at the 5-6 range, and of course our mainstage at the 8-10 range. I’m always looking for ways to bridge the numbers in between and meet artists where they’re at. 

Frankie Dailey: So, the National Alliance for Musical Theatre is actually a membership organization of producers and presenters of musical theatre. That’s commercial producers, theatre companies, [and] development organizations that are doing pre-production work: readings, workshops, and EPs, or recordings. Academic institutions are also NAMT members, meaning musical theatre programs at colleges and universities. 

We’re bringing these organizations and individuals together serving the furtherance of musical theatre. And we do that through a variety of different member and artist programs. There’s a large section of what we do that is business to business, member to member. 

I am working in between the members and artists primarily. We have the Frank Young Fund for New Musicals, a real anchor for a lot of what we do. This is a triplicate of granting programs, the first being Writers Residency Grants, just for the creation of a show, writing a show, bringing writers to your organization to create one. We also offer Project Development Grants and Production Grants for anything from readings and workshops to full productions of new musicals. 

We are newly relaunching the Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge for High School Students, which is an initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts that we’re thrilled to join. This is an educational program geared to student songwriters only, and the only program of ours like it. 

We also have the Festival of New Musicals, which is a big one for us. This happens every October in New York City, where we’re highlighting eight musicals that are selected from a worldwide anonymous selection process that takes eight months of the year to facilitate and includes three rounds of review and over 100 screeners and Festival Committee Members. We are facilitating these processes for our members and artists to decide; NAMT staff doesn’t make selections for any of our programs. NAMT Members make up our Festival Committee and our Screening Committee, and our Festival and Grantee alumni artists join our screeners as well. I often describe our Festival Committee as The Avengers of musical theatre because they are truly the leaders of our field fighting for and experimenting with how this works. And they are all bringing, I think, a sense of their own agenda on behalf of their organizations and audiences and their own creative leanings into this process. 

Even through the Festival only has eight selectees, we’re trying to get that whole 1 through 10 – a real balance. We have NAMT members that are working specifically early in development and are only going to present shows that are in the beginning stages, so we need those early-stage projects to be part of our lineup. Just as well, we have large, major regional theatres in our membership that are producing ready-for-showtime musicals. 

We’re really going for a whole swath of everything. And we have members all over the world now, really, so that’s a whole bunch of audiences to consider, and artists that you want on stage as a result of that, too. 

For the festival, we’re not reaching super developmental climbs here… it’s a 45-minute presentation of your full-length show that will rehearse in twenty hours with a small creative team and cast. It’s very much intended to be a showcase, to do something we know will work well in a way we know will work well. And to that end, we’re bringing in audience of 800 people from all around the world to see it as a moment in development with a mind toward producing or developing it for themselves. 

Zeniba Now: Cool. Since we developed this analogy with Alex, we’ll go back; Chris, my sense is that you’re willing to go all the way to ten, as long as they start with you zero or one?

Chris Dieman: Yeah, we have to start at a zero or 0.5 or thereabouts. And that doesn’t mean I come up with the idea with them; it just has to be at an early impulse stage.

And then I want to bring it to at least an eight or a nine. Now I will comment that, in my view, we should be partnering with as many people as possible, including some of you folks. I’m even having conversations right now with a couple higher education institutions, where maybe there’s an overlap at that five to six stage, where they can bring in the musical theatre actors to work on the material. I’m also totally up for partnering with a bigger nonprofit to help develop the work at any stage. The more the merrier. We’ve got to work together to help these artists.

We had a 29-hour reading with one of our pieces that’s at, let’s say a five, and a major commercial producer is now interested in this piece. So, if I have to let this one go in order for it to succeed, I’ve done my job. Right? If NMTP doesn’t get it to the 9 or 10, that’s fine, so long as the project gets there.

Zeniba Now: Awesome. Thanks, everyone. That was very helpful.

Jay Adana: Great pitches. Well done.

Zeniba Now: Very, very great pitches. Very easy to understand, and very helpful to understand in the context of various developmental processes at once. 

So, for this little rapid fire round section, hopefully these are one-word answers, remembering that we do want to F with you a little. [Laughs]

Alexander Gemignani: Can I say “placeholder” instead of the word?

Zeniba Now: You can always decline to answer. We were stealing this from Kit Yan and Melissa Li, who did this to us on a live interview to accept an award.

Jay Adana: [Laughs]

Zeniba Now: We could not go back.

Jay Adana: Caught us being honest.

So, first question: In the last season of theatre at your institution, who was having the most fun?

Frankie Dailey: Alumni.

Chris Dieman: Me. 

Jay Adana: Hell yeah. 

Neen Williams-Teramachi: Yeah, also me. 

Alexander Gemignani: My dog, Lenny. 

Jay Adana: [Laughs] Excellent. 

How many shows have you seen on Broadway so far in 2024?

Alexander Gemignani: Three, maybe.

Chris Dieman: Five.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: Yeah, I think around five. 

Jay Adana: From Seattle!

Frankie Dailey: Yeah, five.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: I was there in January. 

Zeniba Now: That was way more than I was expecting. 

Okay. What is the name of the board member at your institution who you most like to remove? [Laughs]

Alexander Gemignani: Ebenezer Scrooge.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: Bye!

Jay Adana: I have a feeling everybody’s going to pass. Is that a pass?

Chris Dieman: I was going to say Javert. 

Jay Adana: Excellent. What piece of art did you reference most often to collaborators?

Alexander Gemignani: Sunday in the Park with George.

Frankie Dailey: The Eras Tour. 

Chris Dieman: Wagner’s Ring Cycle.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: The works of Marina Abramovic.

Chris Dieman: That’s quite a group of answers.

Jay Adana: It’s very telling.

Alexander Gemignani: That’s the most intense version of Hollywood Squares ever. 

Zeniba Now: Jay, what would yours have been for that?

Jay Adana: Mine would’ve been FINNEAS and Billie Eilish.

Zeniba Now: Mine would’ve been Sister Act 2.

Chris Dieman: That’s a great one. 

Zeniba Now: Have you seen – this is a two-part question – part one, have you watched NBC’s Smash?

Neen Williams-Teramachi: Yes.

Chris Dieman: Yes.

Frankie Dailey: Yes.

Alexander Gemignani: Yes.

Jay Adana: And do you find that it accurately depicts developing new musicals?

Alexander Gemignani: Not in any way. 

Frankie Dailey: No.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: Not at all. 

Chris Dieman:  One percent. One percent of it is accurate. And I won’t tell you which one, but it’s one. 

Zeniba Now: Okay. I think Jay should go back to our normal discussion, ‘cause we could do this for the next twenty minutes, and I would delight in it the whole time. If your faces could be published in this magazine on the question about the board member –

Jay Adana: [Laughs]

Alexander Gemignani: Here’s what I’ll say about boards: I think their heart, as a collective heart, is good. I think that — and maybe this is just a result of being any group galvanized around a thing — it’s much harder to change a group’s mind than it is an individual’s mind. 

I think that when you are introducing new ideas or new concepts, whether it be artistic, budgetary, structurally, I just think it takes a very deft and patient artistic director to be able to present a container to a board in a language they understand. They are not in the trenches in the way we are, making the shit, right? So that is a gift that artistic directors must have. I’m not claiming I have it, but I think there are ADs who do have the ability to frame ideas for boards, and I think it’s a translation game. They have a language they speak, and you have a different language, and the best know how to thrive in both spaces. It’s hard. 

The O’Neill specifically is unique because we have multiple conferences. The NMTC corner of O’Neill real estate is one of six conferences, and there’s an executive director, Tiffani Gavin, who’s wonderful and has to balance them all! It’s not unlike working at a university, where I also work, where you don’t want to have to explain your value. You don’t want to be desperate. You want to come to it with an open heart, understanding where the board is coming from. And I think that just requires a lot of practice and a lot of patience.

Chris Dieman: I’m definitely the smallest organization here. I’m very much aware that as we grow, I’ll have to deal with more of what Alex just said. Right now our board is small enough and comfortable enough that I can deal with all of them one-on-one. When I took over the organization in 2020, I brought in some board members that I knew were going to be supportive of this idea. 

But one of the scary things about getting bigger is that the board has to get bigger, and thus, to move the train in a new direction, you’ve got to switch the tracks. And it takes a long time. It ain’t easy. Right now, I’m able to get in the trenches at a micro-level and jump in and out as I wish. That part is great.

That said, you know, if I’m taking these works from a zero to a 9 or a 10 over two years, then it’s two to three works total. That’s it. And that’s very different from everyone else here, because I don’t have the financial resources that a major nonprofit might have. There’s pros and cons to being very small. 

In 2020 things changed, right? A lot of the funding has changed. And I don’t think there’s less money in the world overall, certainly not! But it’s harder to get, it’s in different pockets, and foundations have made it more difficult. There’s a bunch of bigger funders that have totally changed priorities, and I wish it would kind of go back to the way it was. And that’s part of the reason I can only commission two to three people every couple of seasons, or as Alex said, the conference can only have a couple weeks with their artists, and so on. We’d all like to be able to do more, but I’m feeling like for me, it would involve a bunch of the funders switching their priorities.

Jay Adana: Can you touch on what those priorities are now?

Chris Dieman: I’m seeing them going more toward individual artists than institutions. Like a foundation that used to give specifically to institutions may now be moving toward just giving to block grants to individual artists. And certainly, I do love that idea, because that’s what I’m doing; that’s what we’re all doing. And for the artists, it’s a great chunk of change to get, but they maybe don’t have the structure to implement the project. And so suddenly the entire project is coming out of their bank account, and they’re trying to figure out how to produce! And so now you’ve told the individual artist, on top of being a writer and a composer, “Now you’re self-produced! Go.”

Developing on your own is near impossible if you’re just one artist. Yes, you can get some friends to come read your stuff, you can get some demos together, but you don’t necessarily have the infrastructure that even a small organization like NMTP has. I wish the funders would realize that it’s in the institutions, where the real support for the individual artists lies. 

Of course, there’s a severe distrust in institutions right now, and indeed, there’s been a lot of mismanagement and a lot of violated ethical values over the past few decades. And so now we’re trying to make up for all of that. But instead of new branding or new values statements, our focus needs to be back on helping people create. We need to pay artists to create new work.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: Because of the pandemic, we’re in between generations right now. While that meshing of old school/new school can pose some challenges, it’s really heartening to see. Especially thinking of my interactions with the new board members, they really are doing their best to champion things that don’t necessarily generate money, the values-based part, the mission-based work that we’re doing in the organization as much as possible. 

Frankie Dailey: Yeah, our board is made entirely of Members, so these are all artistic and executive leaders at their own organizations, and they’re all fighting the good fight ten ways to Sunday on their own. 

I will just say that money and theatre have problems with each other in a few ways. Let’s ignore theatre for a second and look just at the music industry. The IFPI Global Music Report calculates the revenues of the entire music industry globally… that’s vinyl sales, subscriptions, downloads, and even CDs, what’s left of them, but also other formats of consumption.

In 2023, they reported a total global revenue for the entire industry of $28.6 billion, with a B, dollars. Now, the entire capitalization for new plays and musicals on Broadway this season, it’s short of $400 million. The combined operating budgets for the NAMT membership are a little over $600 million. Musical Theatre is very much a niche market, financially. So, while I’m talking to artists lately, I’m thinking a lot about this waterfall of money that’s not necessarily there. But the possibility of it is there when we look at our talents and how we might be able to apply them to bigger-money industries. 

I’m thinking a lot about what the monetization is for writers in the development process of writing musicals. How do we start normalizing documenting the development process? Like running with demos or EPs on Spotify, and not letting producers so much dictate that being preventative to any sort of future opportunity of your show. I don’t think it is. I think content is everything right now. I think it all just adds to fanbase material. Writers really should be marketing themselves to the fans at the end of the day, not the employers or the theatres. Theatres and writers both benefit when the writer has a hold of their fanbase, and so that’s the game I think that we’re playing.

Zeniba Now: I would say when people talk about developing outside of the box, if you are going through Actors’ Equity, you are so far in the box you don’t even know what’s going on. I just feel like eventually that relationship is going to become so far at odds with the reality of, like, content is king, that it’s just going to schism. As a writer, why would I do a 29-hour reading theatrically, as opposed to a concert next door that I can film and release? Why would I do this staged reading in this building, as opposed to this building, if this building is governed by this contract? 

Obviously, you know, I’m not ready to go to war with Actors’ Equity, but I’ve been scheming on it for a while.

Frankie Dailey: Well, maybe it is a little bit the Taylor Swift of it all. This is like  getting your content into people’s lives in more than just that reading, but also…  how can I listen to it on the train? And how can I invest in this story and in these characters and in this world in other ways, so that it’s folded into my life? And now you’ve developed your universe there, and your audience lives in that space, and they didn’t need a Theatre to even do it yet! That’s maybe part of the “professional” part of being a writer. You can be an audience or buyer-of-one for yourself for as long as you like. But, when you synthesize developing an audience or a fanbase to the process of actually creating the dramatic entertainment from your signature tone and style and music and lyrics and character, it’s going to put more super-invested butts in seats when the work gets to the stage. 

Chris Dieman: As for the monetization of theatre, I’m just going to say obviously it needs to be rethought, both commercially and at the nonprofit level. For me, the obvious answer is in profit sharing. That seems to be the light at the end of the tunnel. And the commercial world isn’t quite there yet. Very few people are there. But I think that’s the way it’s going, and in twenty years, that’s how everyone’s going to be making their money. Of course, there will always need to be fair base wages. That’s still important for the unions to focus on. But I think the real way out is for everyone to build a show together. That’s my prediction, at least.

Frankie Dailey: I understand the notion of that; I do, however, tend to question what profit exactly is there to share on a broader basis, except for those incredibly few exceptions? You know, I mentioned that less than $400 million capitalization for new Broadway shows this season… it’s reasonable to say that only 10-15% of that will make it back to investors by the end of the year. So, it’s not a lot of money. It’s just not a lot of money.

Chris Dieman: Because expenses are so high. That’s the real issue. Right? Expenses are so, so high, and there’s just no profit sharing happening at all.

Frankie Dailey: I think that’s part of it, yes. I don’t think that there are enough buyers, though, either. 

Chris Dieman: Well, there it is, the audiences. That’s the real question. That’s a whole other roundtable.

Alexander Gemignani: There are two things that I’d love to respond to. It’s such a great conversation. One is regarding artists as marketers of their work, right? Making demos that they release, as you said, on Spotify – building a fanbase, basically. Which I think in theory is a really good idea. And a lot of people have talked about this, and some people are putting it into action. I personally have mixed feelings, ‘cause I don’t think that model suits every writer. A lot depends on where they are in development. Often, if the piece is theatrically pushing form and content, you cannot always capture that on a demo without context. I think that as a tool for the right writer, [it] could change their life 100-percent. I also think there are pieces that, if you don’t have a framing device, it will be lost in a demo. I agree, though, that the potential power of that tool is undeniable.

Zeniba Now: I agree that changing medium comes with its own set of issues. We struggle often, like with our show, The Loophole. I think we’re trying to go for something very specific, and when it’s like, “come do a song for a gala,” it feels hard for us to pick one song out of context, in a multiverse thing, that doesn’t give people a completely different sense that – like, “Oh, this is a really serious thing about the brutality of slavery,” and it is in this ten minutes, and then in this other ten minutes it’s completely different. 

I do want to say, Frankie, what you said about the contextualization of how niche theatre is, I think that that’s so important for writers to understand. One, if you’re reading this magazine, you’re probably in far enough that you’re already screwed, and you’re going to keep going, so it’s okay. But I’ve had the experience of, you know, as I’m climbing up the ladder, I’m working more and more with people who I think are these colossal superstars. And the closer I get to these people – who I would assume, oh my god, you must be a rich man. Are you not a rich man? When I find out that they are not a rich man, that’s devastating to me. 

Even the people who are writers in the top ten of this industry, they are not even close to the equivalent of the top ten in any other industry. A lot of the power analysis that we’re doing is totally skewed, because we’re all hoping and praying that that person who has that job that I want is getting paid, or, you know, actually seriously got cash. 

Jay Adana: Unfortunately I have to duck out a little earlier than the rest of you, but I have one last question: what is the commonality that you see among musicals that make it? The ones that come across your desk, the ones that you hear about, what are the underlying factors that seem to occur most often?

Alexander Gemignani: When you say “make it” what do you mean?

Jay Adana: We mean cash money for the people who make the shows.

Chris Dieman: So recoupment?

Zeniba Now: We mean recoupment certainly at a minimum. Recoupment or better.

Alexander Gemignani: In a Broadway context? 

Jay Adana: Not necessarily.

Zeniba Now: Any recoupment context.

Alexander Gemignani: Very few musicals I see at that level that have made it in a financial sense are asking me to lean into them as an audience member. That is the unifying factor. It’s a production value thing, like in the same way you know you’re at Universal Studios. Which I was just at, which was really fun. And it can be fun. This is not commercial theatre shade. If you’re just asking me what I noticed as a commonality, there’s a polish, there’s a sheen. The final coat of paint has been put on. Which is hard for me artistically, in my heart, because I like to see things in process. And I believe that live theatre should always be in process. 

So, when you go see a Wednesday matinee of Six, I have hopes that those six fabulous performers and that kick-ass band still feel and work from a place of process, not finality. 

Oh, and they’re all much too loud.

Chris Dieman: Ugh yeah, the sound. They all blast you away. 

I don’t have an answer. But I’m thinking about specifically this conversation I had with a rather well-known director. We were talking about two musicals that are doing “really well” on Broadway right now. But they are just meeting their nut every week. Some weeks a few thousand under, some weeks a few over. So, here’s the thing: they will never recoup. They will absolutely never be a financial “success.” It’s actually financially and mathematically impossible. They are making over $1 million a week, and they will never recoup. Horrifying.

That’s why it’s broken. That’s why something’s wrong. ‘Cause they should be hits! Those should be bona fide hits, but the expenses are so high that no one will ever make money on that. Hopefully they’ll make money on the road, and if not, hopefully they’ll make money licensing. But that’s so far down the road that you just don’t know. And ten years ago, twelve years ago, these shows probably would’ve already recouped. But right now, the model does not allow for that. 

Frankie Dailey: I think it’s important for writers to have two operations running: you absolutely must find a place to be a big fish in a small pond any time you are also a small fish in a big pond. When you’re able to start bringing your small pond community and know-how as a big fish over into your small fish scenario, you can reach further and make more happen. Your powers as a creator in this field are a nexus across so many industries and pursuits. If you’re thinking about financial success, musical theatre as a pool is not a very rich one. However, your experience in this a small pool is going to set you up with major velocity and vision through larger, richer, more opaque pools. 

Chris Dieman: I agree. Many of these multifaceted artists have released EPs. So, in the recording artist world— I won’t speak for those artists, but there’s likely more of a model for financial success there.

Zeniba Now: I think for the readers, it’s uncommon. Even though I view myself as somebody in the multimedia space, doing short films, doing albums, all that stuff, that is not a common skill set among musical theatre writers. It’s a more common skill set among actors and performers. I think that the vast majority of people reading this magazine are not equipped to do that, nor necessarily interested [in doing] that. And it’s very painful to hear that there’s very little prospect of financial success. It’s a hard pill to swallow, and I feel like I keep swallowing that same pill, and somehow I’m just crazy enough that I just keep believing it’s going to work out. 

Chris Dieman: And it may. I mean, that’s the thing, is you have no clue, right?

Zeniba Now: Well, and it will, but I’m also totally cuckoo sold on my own shit.

Chris Dieman: As you should be.

Zeniba Now: But in terms of providing an honest reflection back to hundreds of writers who are maybe unaware… they’re always looking at these next people and they’re assuming, “Oh, well, I assume this person is getting paid x, y, and z for this.” I’ve been in the room with actors where they are saying something, and I’m realizing they don’t realize I’m not in charge here and I’m not getting paid. Like this person fundamentally does not understand the role that I’m in right now, that I am, in many ways, the most vulnerable person in this room. And there are also producers who are risking it all, but me and this person are on the brink of death. Someone’s going to come around on Thursday and give you a check. 

Of course, there’s people having artistic success all the time. The reason why we are asking about the finances, I want to clarify, is not because we are these heartless people obsessed with making commercial cash. Obviously if we just were cash hungry, we’d go a different way. But I think there comes a point when you become afraid, when sometimes your delusion starts to crack and you need to ask, “Is anybody getting paid?” And I’m very bluntly asking theatre writers that all the time, “What were you paid on this?” So far I have not heard an answer that causes a lot of relief.

Neen Williams-Teramachi: I think specifically speaking as someone not based on the East Coast right now, often the measure of success is whether the show has a subsequent commercially successful run in NYC. Which of course is not everyone’s goal, and I have a whole thing about trying to decenter NYC as the only place art can survive. 

In any process with writers, there needs to be a conversation, “What does success mean to you? Where would you like to see this to go?” That answer varies, as you know, and it can change depending on where in the process you are, and what opportunities you’ve been able to receive along the way. I’ve seen people “make it” based on their answers to those questions. Even if it’s not necessarily a commercial run, the new models we’re seeing, like most recently with Cambodian Rock Band or Islander, these regional mini-tours/super co-productions have been really encouraging. Or also regional licensing as a whole.

It is also absolutely the organization’s responsibility to be constantly vetting, talking to other organizations, unions, guilds, wherever else to make sure we are meeting the moment when it comes to fair pay. Commercial theatres thrive on the fact that pay is so secretive, and we at the regional level don’t have to feed into that and can actively dismantle by just talking to each other. I know this is a huge paradigm shift and might take time. We also have to be sure that to the best of our ability we are making reasonable judgement calls in our ethical storytelling practices, that we are making financial space for all forms of labor that creatives require. This needs to be happening in the administrative level, in budgeting, even before artists get brought in. 

Alexander Gemignani: You said the commercial theatre thrives on the secrecy of what everybody gets paid, [and] I completely agree. And it’s used as a power play by general managers, by actors, by writers, by everybody. And it creates fear of talking about “I made $2,500 doing this job. I made $16,000 doing this job,” or whatever. 

I do think the road to transparency is very long. Talking to each other is how change starts.

Zeniba Now: And I do think it’s perfectly fine to do a charitable exercise. I don’t know that anybody is here for the money. ‘Cause what money? But I do think if I could make one request of you all, it would be that you try to speak as straightforwardly with writers about money as possible. When someone says, “How do you think people are doing financially as writers?” don’t switch to talking about emotional things. Answer in a very straightforward way, because I think as a collective of artists, we are in serious trouble. And it is very hard for us to get straight answers from producers, from institutions. We’re being handed the contracts to things day-of regularly, sometimes months after, years after. It is very hard for us to get transparency. So, just say we can only pay in lunch stipends and exposure. Because most of time we’re down anyway. But then we can say, “This is all a passion thing. I’m going to keep my other job.” 

That would be my request. Be as straight up as possible. I’m nearing that point of talking to 50 writers about this, just casual, backstage, very bluntly, “What’d you get on that? What’d you get on that? What’d you get on this?” and we all throw numbers out. And we’re starting to see very clear delineations, [and] I can’t believe I’ve gone this long not knowing any of this stuff. It’s very strange.

Chris Dieman: One of the greatest sins of BFA/MFA programs is that they don’t prepare artists in the training world for that reality, as it’s rarely discussed when you’re in your training and mentorship programs. It’s all about the art and the emotional aspect, but the actual models that we’re discussing right now, the ones that don’t work, are rarely, if ever discussed.

Alexander Gemignani: I think the biggest shift has been that the group with the biggest pockets who have traditionally given to the arts have not traditionally been asked to tie their value system to their monetary contribution. And we’re living in a world now where we’re asking people to attach their value system to the things they support financially. 

That presents a problem for people who have not ever been asked to do that. And that should be the thing that people do if they’re going to philanthropize, if they have money to spend. But I think it’s why the people who have traditionally supported organizations are more reticent because they don’t want to be judged for their donation. 

Early when I moved to New York, I went to some party for MTC [Manhattan Theatre Club] with my wife, and we were chatting up some couple at the cocktail party beforehand. And this woman said to me, “Oh, my husband got me shares in Jersey Boys for Christmas. Isn’t that fun?” And no one was asking her or the husband, “Why Jersey Boys? Do you believe in this project? Do you think it has potential?” It was purely a financial relationship that had nothing to do with [a] value system. 

I’m not trying to shame anybody. I’m just saying that organizations that are trying to push things forward and open their minds around how new work gets made have to understand that there’s also a translation for contributors who have never been asked those questions before and are now saying, “If I’m going to give my million dollars to something, why should I give it to two writers I’ve never heard of before, when I could give it to the same six writers who write every motherfucking Broadway show?” 

Chris Dieman: Love that. Love that.

Alexander Gemignani: And if we are going to have 36 new Broadway shows in a season, how exciting is that? But I would offer, don’t they all kind of have the same rate of success or closing these days? Don’t they all kind of live in this new marketing and financial model that nobody has really cracked yet? Now that advanced ticket sales are a thing of the past. I’d say if that’s all true, then why aren’t we taking more chances and producing more writers nobody’s ever heard of before, to get their voices out into the world?

Chris Dieman: There’s no reason not to be making money, or losing money, with new work and new artists, if it truly is all the same at the end of the day. 

Alexander Gemignani: And this is also to your point, Chris, about partnering. I love that idea, but I think it’s very hard—even within organizations, let alone collaborating with other organizations—to agree on a piece to develop together. And then also, the way that piece should be developed. Which has nothing to do with what the writers want to do. There are so many ways along the path that can go awry.

And, Z, to your point about transparency… I don’t know what JRB [Jason Robert Brown] made on The Connector, [but] what I do know is that writers make money when their shows get licensed. Like, real lasting money that can change your life and give you an upswing and a financial portfolio… The idea of getting a Broadway show that runs for 50 years and recoups—you might as well play the lottery, ‘cause the odds are the same. 

Zeniba Now: [Laughs] I’m going to still go for that, but— I’m going to go for that repeatedly.

Alexander Gemignani: No, I think you should. 

Zeniba Now: But no, even when you’re winning all the awards, and you’re moving along with the trajectory, you’re getting up there and you’re starting to go, “Wait a damn minute. Everybody’s broke. What the fuck is going on? Are you rich, sir? You’re not rich.”

Okay, so very last question. Is there a thing that you guys need that could help you do what you’re doing better? Like, what is that request you want to put out into the theatre community?

Neen Williams-Teramachi: We need people to enthusiastically show up. Be local fans. Like, I love going to Mariners games because I love the team and I want to be part of the community in sharing collective joy. In the same way, I want our audiences to be fans of local art institutions. I’m not a financial genius, but I know that we need butts in seats, and supporting the work that we’re doing on the mainstage will then allow us in New Works to be able to do the things we need to do. I know at least in producing houses, new works are only a tiny fraction of the overall operating budget, and we’re always clamoring for more programming money. We live and die by word of mouth, and talking about theatres that excite you, the shows you’re seeing, and the programs they offer— it all helps. 

Frankie Dailey: Credit. Alumni, NAMT really does need credit and we need it in every iteration of your future development and production in that crazy small type at the bottom of a title page or a program. I will never argue with that; we will never complain. NAMT takes no ongoing financial stake in a musical we present at the festival or award a grant. We ask for your time in this process, but we’ll never ask for part of what you earn on this show in the future. We do fundraise for our organization using that credit, though. We bring the next generation of writers into this experience on the promise that this mission can fulfill itself. It’s important not for the grants we award, but the ones we apply for. It’s part of how we approach donors, with the proof that this works. It’s not an exaggeration to say that it’s a huge deal for the sustainability of our programs. It has been wonderful seeing so many NAMT Festival shows in production this season; I’ve seen four in three states over the last month alone. Unfortunately, only one credited NAMT, and part of me worries that lawyers, agents, producers, and theatres make this more difficult of an issue than it needs to be in an absence of money to offer instead. Developmental credits in a program are not cumbersome. Seems like a hiccup in our ecosystem to me. 

Alexander Gemignani: I mean, I don’t know an organization that exists right now that is saying, “We’re financially solvent.”

Chris Dieman: [Laughs]

Alexander Gemignani: But there’s a chance that it’s not about the amount of money. It might be about knowing how to empower that money to do the thing that supports what you want.

I guess I would say that money is only valuable if you make it work for you in the right way. I think the people who give you money need to trust that you will execute those things that you promised, that align with personal and organizational values, and that do the thing, which in our case is finding pieces we believe in by writers we are passionate about and saying to the world, “You should be paying attention to this, universe.”

Chris Dieman: I need the sponsors, producers, audience members… all stakeholders to invest in new original work from new artists, and invest early in the process. And the investment can be financial, but it also should be emotional.

Alexander Gemignani: Real philanthropy looks like, “I don’t expect to see this money back, but I believe that what I’m doing will do something good for this world.” If I can’t convince you to share a value system with me, I have to find another way for you to give me your $1 million or for you to come to the reading or whatever it is. Because everybody gets hip at their own rate. Right? I think that’s the crux. It takes resilience and patience to have that conversation over and over and over again. 

Zeniba Now: I also believe that, hopefully, we find ways to restructure the profitability of this work still within the medium of theatre. Given what’s going on with AI and everything, eventually these people are going to leave their houses and their screens, and they’re going to be dying to see something like in real life.

Frankie Dailey: There’s an incredible competition for your attention just to get you out of your apartment right now. There’s a lot of marketing money that’s spent just to make you do that. And so, in the meantime, in this absence of cash, the most impactful but equalizing-for-artists thing that we could do is just go see something live. Go see something, take your friends. Go see something early in development, go see something late, but go see something. Go leave your apartment and get others to, as well. Normalize it right at home, that live entertainment is saleable and interesting and can be profitable and a good time, whether in-process as a new work or otherwise, and start there.

Zeniba Now: That’s the perfect quote to end this, “Go see something.” [Laughs]

Alexander Gemignani: We didn’t ask you what you need from us as writers. 

Zeniba Now: Oh. 

Chris Dieman: Yes.

Zeniba Now: What do we need from you as writers? I think my answer for the general writer is that writers need a lot more transparency around financials. And we need open discussion about that. I’m not trying to call for radical change. I think gentle change in the right direction is perfectly fine, but I don’t want to hear talks about “We are a family,” about emotions, about our shared values of blah blah blah, if we don’t even have the basics of honesty about pay on the table. 

For Jay and me personally, I think that we are in a sort of place where we are focused completely on gaining brand awareness. And so, if there are organizations, anybody who asks you, you know, “Who’s writing something? Who’s doing something? We need somebody new and fresh to perform something at our gala or something at my rich aunt’s house.” I will be up in the Upper East Side singing my titties off for grandma for dinner.

Chris Dieman: [Laughs]

Zeniba Now: Gee, my girlfriend won’t like that answer – for a stipend that meets my worth.

Chris Dieman: Right. There you go. 

Zeniba Now: [Laughs] Thanks for that question. That’s helpful to us. Thanks, everyone.

 

CHRIS DIEMAN is a composer and performer. Beyond performing in NYC and regionally as an actor, he has written three full-length musicals. In addition, he works as music assistant to legendary composer John Kander. Chris was named artistic director of New Music Theatre Project in 2020.

FRANKIE DAILEY is the New Works Director for the National Alliance for Musical Theatre, a membership of the leading producers and presenters in the musical theatre field, where he oversees the Annual Festival of New Musicals, the Frank Young Fund for New Musicals granting programs, and the Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge for High School Students.

NEEN WILLIAMS-TERAMACHI manages all things new works at The 5th Avenue Theatre including the development processes of the new musical commissions and special projects. In the community, they are a teaching artist, producer (most notably of Yoko’s Husband’s Killer’s Japanese Wife, Gloria), and a multi-hyphenate Japanese-American artist based in Seattle.

ALEXANDER GEMIGNANI Music Supervisor/Conductor: revival of West Side Story, Merrily We Roll Along (Fiasco Theater/Roundabout, also penned new orchestrations) and Here We Are, Sondheim’s final musical. Associate Professor of Instruction at Northwestern University and Artistic Director of the American Music Theater Project. Artistic Director of the National Music Theater Conference at the O’Neill since 2018. His greatest joys are his wife, Erin Ortman, and their beautiful daughter.