Has the education system 'broken' vocational training?

How many wannabe actors or indeed their parents have ever read a casting brief? My suspicion is not very many. Let's face it, when you're young and naive you believe that your talent is so great that one of the great directors or producers is going to spot you in a school play/amdram production, pluck you away from your small-town sensibilities, and whisk you off to the 'bright lights'. As a supportive parent, it's unfeasible to think that your child won't succeed. After all - they clearly have 'it' (whatever 'it' is).

In reality, a casting brief is a set of requirements for a specific role/job - what it never asks for, is your qualification. No brief goes out requiring a BA(Hons) in theatre, or a BTEC in performing arts. So why are colleges flocking to hook up with universities in order to offer these golden pieces of paper then? Quite simply it's all to do with finance. All government funding streams or government top up streams require a college to prove via examination results that they are doing a good job. So when the drama colleges suddenly started to offer degrees just over a decade ago, it wasn't because they felt that it benefitted the future careers of their students, as they know (like we all know), that their degree isn't really the 'back-up' that parents seem to think that it is. If you decide on a career swap, you'll be going back to college anyway in order to be trained in the area that you've chosen your new career to be. However what they don't tell you, is that lots of colleges will also allow you to do these educational top-ups with proof of a different kind of education, and with proof of your career to date. Once you're into postgrad education the criteria for entry is more reflective of life. Of course, by this point you've used up all your government-supported financial help, so you are entirely funding your new career path on your own.

However, for many non-vocational colleges performing arts courses are a complete cash cow. We are in an oversubscribed industry, with everybody secretly thinking that their talent will be enough to give them a career, therefore it doesn't matter where they train. I once did some work with some 3rd years on a musical theatre degree course at a regular university. They had recently just finished a self-led project aka cheap to run as it required no staff involvement aka a waste of time. They were paying £27K to train themselves. I auditioned someone from another university who was preparing for their showcase. . . a student-directed showcase, which staff could be called in to assist them in should they have a difficulty. This particular student acknowledged that the showcase was simply an end of course show - there was absolutely no chance of an agent coming to see them in their student-led performance. They had been working on the showcase (and their showcase alone) for the whole of the term. They were also paying £27K to train themselves.

As drama colleges clambered to get affiliated to universities with the promise of better resources, more finance, infrastructure support, what some of them lost sight of was the training experience. As the universities saw the numbers of people applying for these courses they increased their intake, and indeed in a few instances increased the number of courses that they were offering too. What they didn't do though was increase the quality of the training.

I taught in HE when this was beginning to happen. I suddenly found myself teaching an acting to camera class with a cohort of students that included students majoring in things like graphic design, engineering, in fact, you name it, there was probably somebody in the class that was studying it. The module had been diluted from its specialism into a 'filler' module for anybody in the university. I resigned after 1 semester of teaching, having taught the course for 2 years previously. The students that needed that module were fighting to get on it but had to fight people that had no requirement of the skillset.

We know that we're in an oversubscribed industry. We also know that the situation has got worse,
with new courses and colleges popping up every year. The long-established colleges have also been expanding, be that with new courses or just by increasing their numbers. Courses that once operated with 20-40 students can now have in excess of 150 students/year. It's the simple economics of supply and demand, isn't it? If you're auditioning thousands of people every year for a handful of places, why wouldn't you expand your model in order to accommodate more students and create a bigger revenue? With a bigger revenue stream, you can build bigger and better premises, which will attract more students, which increases the demand.

And so it continues.

Suddenly training actors has become a lucrative industry for some. Alongside the weird and wonderful new courses that are springing up, we have the bread and butter courses which create a cunning revenue stream for the colleges. Students not actually ready for a 3-year training course, can now easily find a 'foundation course' which will charge them to get prepared for training. If you've done a degree where you've been primarily self-taught, you'll need additional (aka 'some') training, so pop on a post-grad course as well. The bread and butter of the already lucrative filling of the 'main course'.

Obviously having founded a college which pioneered the 2-year model I already have some questions about the traditional 3-year model (though also completely understand why lots of people need that time to solidify things, I just realise that not everybody does). So I have even more questions now that training to be a performer is taking some people 5 years - or to be more specific is costing people 5 years worth of fees.  Yet those same colleges are being urged to think about the socio-economic diversity of their student intake.

It's a tough model to break though. Most wannabe performers grow up wanting to go to one of the 'main' colleges. The colleges that they've seen in programmes since they were little. They don't differentiate the fact that they're seeing that college's name so often because they've been going for 50 or more years, or indeed that they're seeing a college's name because that college is spewing out hundreds of wannabe performers every year, so if only 5% of them are doing well, it's enough to make an impact on the programme references. It's interesting to note that none of these established colleges readily publicise their long term stats. How many of the class of 2005, for example, have actually managed to have a sustained career? Instead, they'll (understandably) focus on the alumni that have the more popular public following, even though they might have graduated decades ago.

The market is cornered. You grow up wanting to be a performer going to the college that your idol went to. You're not good enough for that yet, so they pop you on their foundation course (and charge you for the privilege of course). You're happy to be there, as, after all, your idol went there so it's bound to be great, and surely the £10K investment in the foundation course will get repaid when you secure funding for their main course at the end of the year. Of course in reality that only happens for a few people, the others are still unsuccessful at their dream college, but now they're also £10k poorer, their parents have bought into the myth that they need a degree, so off they pop to the nearest university to get the 'golden ticket' degree. 4 years later and over £50K poorer (adding together living costs and tuition costs), they leave college, with no chance of working, haven't got a clue how to get work (as a lot of the university courses genuinely don't teach you that skill, just check a few internet forums for proof of the number of graduates asking really basic questions around working in the industry), are unable to sign up for Spotlight (which automatically limits their career. . . I mean as unfair as that statement is, it is also a fact) and find themselves looking for a new career, with their parents lauding the fact that their 'fall back' degree has proven to be a saviour.

And so it continues.

Meanwhile, for those of us that have resolutely stayed in vocational training, and have remained small by choice, in order to maintain a good staff/student ratio - our students are being hit from all angles. They have the 'grown-ups' getting concerned because they're not getting a formal qualification, financially they are not entitled to any government support at all - even though they are working in excess of 40 contact hours/week. As they scramble around looking for sponsors organisations like Equity and Spotlight, who are quick to take their money to join up to the union and the register, won't put a purely vocational college on their self assessed 'approved' list, which would allow us to at least submit our students for certain bursary awards like those funded by SOLT, solely because we don't offer a formal qualification. Yet we're the only college to maintain an open record of every single one of our graduates - proving that we're more likely to create a sustainable career for our students than a lot of the other colleges on their list. So to recap, the training is valid enough for a career (our students can join both Equity and Spotlight), but we can't knock down the walls of the establishment in order to get closer to some much needed financial help for our students, because we don't offer a 'golden ticket' degree. That'll be the same degree that you never see requested on a casting brief. Where do most of those casting briefs get posted? On Spotlight.

This week we've seen a long-established college that took the poison chalice of a university 'merger' close. We've already seen other courses at other colleges get shut down as unviable. Is this a trend, or just a few much-needed pruning exercises? As the established colleges get bigger and the complaints about the numbers increase, we see no decline in the number of applicants, as parents (and students) accept the 'herd' mentality, as (please refer back to the first paragraph), and believe that the 'cream will always rise', and 'they have to learn to deal with the competition anyway'. Personally I'd rather my child learn to deal with competition at a school sports day, not when they're 16 and I'm being asked to pay £9k-£14k a year, but maybe that's because I don't have access to that sort of money? The college buildings get bigger and better, enticing more and more people that "College X" is the go-to place - just look at the number of rooms it has? Of course, they only need 120 studios because they have so many students, but a college building of that size will also increase its running costs, so best take an extra 50 students a year in order to support it.

And so it continues.

Since I opened The MTA in 2009 I've been shouting about the fact that our industry needs regulating. To be clear - that's not by the old boy network that has been effectively self-regulating since the start of the time. It needs an independent body to look at ALL the courses and ALL the colleges to see who is really delivering what. Audit the staff, audit the finance, audit the true story around pastoral care (don't get me started on that one again), and audit the true facts of sustainable careers. The government should stop funding those degrees that are purely providing 'life skills' yet claiming to be offering a 'career'. I completely buy into the idea that a college education is great, but when funds are short, let's not be funding a degree that isn't worth the paper that it's written on. Fund the courses that are getting the results. In other words let's get some transparency out there and stop the myth that has been co-created by so many people and organisations, all of whom have a vested interest in the findings. Then let's get those facts out to schools and the wannabes and their parents.

Déjà vu

Do you sometimes feel like you're living in a world of déjà vu? Or like you've been banging the same drum for so long that it's just become a noise that people can blot out...yet you KNOW that it's still relevant?


My friend and esteemed colleague Chris Grady has just written a great blog about the need to create 'celebrities' from Musical Theatre performers.  Here have a read: http://www.chrisgrady.org/blog/whos-in-it-a-challenge-and-maybe-a-solution/. I took the opportunity to remind him of a blog that I'd written way back in Jan 2015 http://www.thereviewshub.com/blog-annemarie-lewis-thomas-new-year-same-problems/ In part covering the same topic that I'd touched on then...and indeed making reference to the fact that I had been speaking about this very subject some 9 years earlier (or was it 8?)!  In fact (as stated in my 2015 blog), the thinking behind The MTA covering acting for camera in a 50/50 split with acting for stage was predominantly for this very reason.  I'm still staggered by the fact that some 2 years on we are still the only Musical Theatre course to genuinely split the focus of our acting course.  In fact next term will see (we hope) the birth of the third MTA short film.  Oh how I wish that I could share the links with you of the first two, as they're genuinely inspired, and indeed, when you think that they were written and shot in just one week, they're truly remarkable too.  Now we can only do this because a) our Head of Acting is Tilly Vosburgh who is in fact a national treasure (except that the nation doesn't quite realise it yet) and b) we have an up and coming award winning director called Alex Warren who has an amazing eye, great vision, and a very generous spirit to edit the film for us.

How many times since I first spoke out about this in 2007 (or was it 2008...I still don't remember) have I seen 'Musical Theatre' performers cross over into the medium of film, blatantly, and wisely IMHO, raising their profile, so that they can cross back into the world of theatre, suddenly being seen for roles, and demanding a much higher salary  (which also means that they can indulge in the occasional off-West End profit share type show too).  It's the perfect win/win.  The world of TV is gaining some great 'names' and the world of theatre can reclaim them, and surprise a whole new audience.  If Celebrity "X" is putting new bums on seats AND being brilliant what's not to like about the arrangement? Right now John Partridge is shocking Eastenders' audiences up and down the UK by staring in Chicago. I'd love to know what percentage of the Chicago audiences are newcomers to the theatre just to see a popular soap actor 'take on' a musical theatre role.  Of course the fact that he trained at both the Royal Ballet Lower School and then Birds just might have passed them by. Just like the fact that for the 20 years before he was the 'newcomer' in Eastenders, he had predominantly worked in Musical Theatre.  However I love that!  Rewind to 1991 and I vividly remember paying my 2nd visit to Into the Woods down at the Phoenix...but this time I had my mum and dad with me. I'd been out of college for a couple of years, and I'd saved up enough money to take them to the theatre for a change.  In retrospect why I thought that my dad would like Sondheim, when he didn't really 'get' musicals at all is beyond me.  Anyway the show starts and my father sits up, all excited to see 'that woman from Fresh Fields' on stage...all shocked (he explained in the interval) that she could sing alright couldn't she?  Of course 'that woman from Fresh Fields' was the amazing Julia McKenzie, half the reason that I had opted to pay a 2nd visit in the first place (the half being Imelda Staunton, who was playing the Baker's Wife, and I hadn't seen her in anything before, but thought that she was really something quite special and wanted to watch her performance again).

So even as I write this blog, the penny drops that psychodynamically maybe I had made the connection way back then that 'celebrity' could actually be a good thing for Musicals, as opposed to the force for evil that it suddenly became in the noughties? Now before anybody shouts about all the stunt casting...well that's a different thing altogether isn't it?? All of the above is clever casting, and clever career progression.  Having a Big Brother contestant playing Billy Flynn is ludicrous, having them playing a pantomime villain is insulting to all those people who trained to do it properly, yet sadly, good business, and last time I checked, the secret to commercial theatre producing was the first word, not the second two(and yes, yes, yes...in the ideal world commercial, good business and integrity all combines, but the world has never been perfect).  Also look at the social change that took place in the noughties - the television landscape suddenly changed overnight.  Big Brother, American Idol, The X Factor, Masterchef, Location, Location, Location, Wife Swap....the list is never ending.  Hours of broadcast time with TV companies spewing out 'the everyman', who let's face it, were much cheaper to populate our screens with, than the 'every actor'!  Ironically we then attempted to turn them into the latter via pantos and 'an audience with..' theatre tours.  The trouble is, as I stated up in Edinburgh however many years ago it was. . . you either moan about it, or beat them at their own game. In the Noughties, everyone was still in the Thatcher glow of you could have anything if you wanted it.  The daughter of a humble grocery store owner could become Prime Minister. We could all become that illusive thing called 'a celebrity'.  This was a different thing to 'celebrities' of old (who we actually called stars not celebs....because they shone a bit brighter than the rest of us, or at least that's my favorite definition of the word).

I think that theatre lost it's way a bit during this time. We were so busy moaning about this new era, we forgot to keep up.  Shows became 'stars' not performers, and our 'stars' faded into the background.
Fastforward 10 years and we're all writing blogs about it!

Then my 2nd déjà vu is the constant 'noise' at the moment around the fact that we have a Mental Health crises in this country.  I've lost count of how many times in the last week alone friends and colleagues who are aware of my fight around this topic (specifically within the drama school sector), have sent me links to articles stating that the Mental Health provision in this country is in trouble. The service is crumbling under the demand.  Well pardon my French but 'no shit Sherlock'? MIND have long stated that 1 in 4 people will experience some sort of Mental Health crises in their lifetime. As my PA corrected my maths just the other day, meaning that in The MTA, which currently has a roll call of 41 students, I should have 10 students either struggling with a Mental Health issue, or who are ticking time bombs waiting to go off later on in life. Now these time bombs could be an almighty explosion or a tiny whiff of smoke, who's to say...but that's a lot of 'tiny bangs' going off in society at any one time isn't it?  I'm currently collecting stories (both good and bad) from people that have gone through a drama school education with a Mental Health issue, plus from staff at the colleges, just finding out what support is really being offered (as opposed to tick box exercises where an administrator says in theory what's going on).  I'm not exactly letting a cat out of the bag when I say that early findings support the Australian findings on this topic (http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2015/09/14/demands-of-acting-hurting-performers--mental-health.html), The Californian findings (http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/jul/18/actors-struggle-resolve-emotional-problems) The Icelandic findings (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3115620/Creative-people-prone-suffering-mental-illness-Actors-dancers-musicians-likely-genes-causing-schizophrenia-bipolar-disorder.html) ....I won't go on but you get the picture.  A little bit like my thoughts around 'celebrity' I hate to say 'I told you so' (although as my students know those are my 4 favorite words)...but I've been banging on about this for years.  Way before The MTA in fact.  Well clearly, otherwise I wouldn't have thought of opening a college with Mental Health Wellbeing at the heart of it.  I mean if I could timetable  the subject in I really would (instead my students have to 'study it' in their own time as and when they find it necessary). That said it's great to see all the various # campaigns designed to raise awareness of this important issue.  Do check out  https://www.facebook.com/events/911328365625354/ if you get the chance, contribute if you can find the time or the inclination...and most importantly of all, if I ever randomly come up with 6 numbers between 1 and 49 write them down and play them in the lottery around 10 years later...as seemingly I'm quite good at predicting the future ;-)

Another Closing, Another Show

Last night another new British musical opened in the West End, whilst ironically, on the same day, the news broke that Stage Entertainment were axing their UK Production department.  Cue a load of people tweeting woefully about the demise of new UK musicals before they've even got started.  

This is just so frustrating though isn't it? Now I might call myself a composer and a lyricist hell <drop that link> MMD even made me a feature of their latest Spotlight feature http://us10.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ec5465f9637ff25801f1e12bc&id=070983c735, which I have to say I'm really grateful for as it's nice to remind people that I have a day job which runs alongside being the Principal of The MTA. However I live under no pretence that I'm ever likely to write a West End mega hit.  More than that, I've never even attempted to.  I'm much more 'functional' than that - I simply write to demand. So I write whatever somebody asks (and indeeds pays) me to write.  I hope that I've always delivered a really good piece of writing that I can look back on with pride.  So far so good.

However I still don't think that the UK is getting it right with new writing.  I'm sorry to be negative, but I really don't.  I think that we try  really hard, but at the end of the day, the Americans seem to be really storming it.  The reason, I believe is rather simple (disclaimer right here...of course, what would I know?).  

Many moons ago there was the inaugural Musical Theatre conference run, back then, by MDM (which morphed into MTN a while later).  It felt like the dawning of a new age - a whole group of writers/directors/producers, sat upstairs in the Old Vic discussing Musical Theatre in the UK. However the bit that really stuck in my mind was a line said by one of the American guests that day. So I'm clearly paraphrasing now, but it was something along the lines of, you have to put on 100 crap musicals to find that special show.  This concept blew my mind, because in that moment I knew that we were fighting a real uphill battle, as there just weren't those opportunities to produce (to stage) that many new shows.

It's just so bloody expensive to put on a musical, and therefore nobody was going to take a punt when funds are stretched already.  We workshop shows really well over here, we spend years developing them...but we always fail at that last hurdle of getting them into production. There are literally a handful of provincial producing houses, and the West End is blocked by the long runners, so we haven't got the physical space let alone the inclination.

Then the poor shows that actually do make it into production have the weight and the expectations of the world on their shoulders, as immediately everybody's waiting, hoping for that next great British 'hit'. Seemingly though the playing field has also changed as to what constitutes a hit. A point made beautifully I thought by Howard Goodall the other day.  Nowadays you have to have been running for at least a decade before people consider the show successful.  It's like a musical maternity ward....some of them come out a bit, well, ugly and under developed, but you can't say it, so you smile sweetly and congratulate the writers on its birth anyway. You might even say a slight fib to help them on their way, and even compliment the new born, whilst walking off, thinking something very different.

When the new show closes, everybody gets annoyed that 'we didn't support our own', and then moan once more in a typically British way about how it's not fair and things needed to be given a chance. Yet the Americans were saying that a closed show isn't a disaster...you just get up, brush yourself down and put on another new show...and so it goes on, until you find the one that's perfectly formed, and bingo...THEN you have you mega musical, ready to be franchised out around the world (if indeed, that is the definition of a 'hit').

Over the years I've seen some UK shows that have closed early and genuinely been amazed (and indeed disappointed for the writers) that they've never taken off.  Really well crafted pieces that for some reason, didn't spark the public's imagination enough to support it.  Similarly I've seen some bloody awful shows that everybody else seemed to be raving about, running for far longer than I would have put money on.  I guess I'm saying that there's a bit of luck involved here too isn't there? The show has to hit the public's imagination at exactly the right time e.g. the happy go lucky musical in the middle of a depression, the musical that has enough star power to raise the Titanic, and that alone can keep a bad show afloat for longer than its craft might really dictate.

In spite of Stage Entertainment's news, we are really trying.  The upcoming BEAM event is definitely a new departure for the UK, and it will be really interesting to see how quickly the successful pitches get their shows actually up on their feet and produced at a theatre.  

It's not the lack of material that's holding us back, nor the lack of writers, however it might be the lack of good material.  Plus the chemistry has to be just right doesn't it? That lethal cocktail of a storming book that holds up to scrutiny, lyrics that are clever but not too clever leaving an audience fully understanding the reason for the song,  a kick ass score well arranged,  a cast and a creative team that do the work justice and finally a society that is ready to 'tune in' to your show at the exact same moment that it's produced.  

When you think of it like that, then there's little wonder why shows close. I think that my gripe really is the fact that we don't jump up and write another one, we throw all our toys out of the pram and sulk for a few years before trying again.  Performers are the worse for this on twitter, moaning about people not supporting new musicals and therefore what else could we have expected.  Of course within a few months they're onto their next show, and whilst they might still be cross about the closure of the 'amazing new piece of UK writing that they championed', they are fundamentally over it, living 'the dream' on the next piece, whereas the poor writer has another few years of purgatory ahead of them as they 'start again', and this time it's even harder as the royalty cheques have dried up and they're having to 'earn a living' too.   

I go to see an American transfer, and I instantly seem to get why it's a success (even if I don't personally like it). Before your eyes you see all the components fit smugly together like a well oiled machine. I seldom get that vibe from a new British show...one of the ingredients just didn't work out, but we just can't admit it as that's like musical blasphemy; or it's the other extreme and the writers have been so clever that those of us that that love this art form seem to just adore it, but you know instantly that there's no real commercial future for the show.  It's the show that's too clever for it's own good (at which point everybody talks about the writers in terms of 'Sondheim'...they are always 'the next Sondheim', as opposed to the 'first them')

The answer is, that we need to produce more shows, and get that turnaround of new material out there. It's getting better for sure, and if there were a road to follow, it seems obvious that we've gone the right way....however, we're playing catch up, and I suspect that it'll be another few years before some of the amazing writers out there really get the break that they so richly deserve.  In the meantime though let's keep it real - we're all capable of writing a turkey (they're seemingly much easier to write than a hit), and if it so happens that our turkey gets produced with none of the right components to turn it into a hit, why don't we just quietly acknowledge the truth that you can't polish a turd...and just go straight back to our computers and attempt to write another one. Meanwhile the performers can 'act out' their annoyance that nobody supported the show (when in reality they're cross that their contracts have ended sooner than their landlords needed them to)

So with this most insightful of realisations, feel free to go to the Pheasantry this Sunday to hear Jordan Langford singing Romantic Notions from Dangerous Daughters, courtesy of Snappy Title who are producing the evening.  See whether from that snippet I should be buying some polish in an attempt to keep that song and show alive.

'Our Imelda'...(nothing to do with shoes)

I've loved Musical Theatre for as long as I can remember.  Who cares why I fell in love with it (certainly not with some of the poor versions of shows I have in my memory bank anyway) - but love it I have and do.  Like most performers, musical theatre has become my short hand, it's become my life soundtrack.  Feeling  happy? On goes the Herman as I sing, dance (AKA March) around the room.  Wanting to let off steam....on goes either an angst song, guaranteed to make me sit and blub or the Book of Mormon telling me to 'get over myself...and quickly'.  And so it continues. Basically I've found that Musical Theatre creates a coherent soundtrack for my life.  If there's a gap, then my own 'trade' means that I end up writing my own.

Whilst growing up this was not such a good thing.  I was supposed to like all the latest chart music....but to be honest I didn't even know who was in the charts...let alone what they were doing there.  Not such a great thing for the 14 year old girl from the local comp, who rather enjoyed practising the piano during a lunchtime instead of pushing boundaries, and hanging out with the cool people.  I then did the cardinal sin....I ended up going out with someone equally as 'dull'.  Of course in reality they weren't dull at all, they were really interesting (and have gone on to be a multi award nominated graphic designer working in the glamourous world of cutting edge TV special effects.) So two outsiders...both with teenage dull interests(a good lesson there if you've stumbled upon this blog during your 'cool age' - the people that you once considered dull and boring, might just have had their eye on a bigger prize.  Of course...they might also, just have been dull and boring ;-) )

Being Welsh I got a bit lucky at 16 when things got serious with the school Eisteddfod...which basically meant that my 'dull' hobby became my strength, I suddenly became much more acceptable, as the school was put into houses which had to provide a 'house choir, a house 'soloist' and so it went on. I literally went from loser to winner overnight.  I became truly 'useful', I was no longer the last person waiting to be picked for the team (a familiar picture for many a musician).

I shan't bore you with the rest of my history...suffice as to say that Musical Theatre has gone on to play a rather huge part in my life....some might say that it's even gone on to define who I am as a person. For the past 30 years I've managed to make a living out of it, and nowadays I even inflict my 'hobby' on groups of  students hoping that I can enthuse them to also follow their passion and make it work for them.

With that sort of legacy, it's quite hard work watching shows. Some are enjoyed and restore your belief that you were were right to devote so much time to the art form, others leave you frustrated at wasted opportunities...then once in that proverbial blue moon, one comes along that you just HAVE to see.

This year for me it was the Chichester Festival Theatre production of Gypsy staring our very own Imelda(let's face it, there's not a performer around that doesn't want to be her mate, we've all heard countless times that she's as lovely off stage as she is powerful on stage...therefore for that reason alone she's 'our very own').  Surely one of the most unassuming great actors of our generation?  From Vera Drake to Sweeney she just delivers...and then some.

I first saw her many moons ago when she was playing the Baker's Wife in the original West End production of Into the Woods.  I knew even then, as a fresh (ish) faced young twenty year old that her Moment in the Woods was better than good...it was exquisite. The use of the head and chest voice was like a masterclass to the young singer watching (that was me by the way).  In fact to this day, I use the recording of that song as a reference to singers struggling with the concept of using the voice in different ways (apologies to the Estill people out there who will be explaining her nuances in a completely different way).

Too many shows in between to mention...but every time I saw her she was just brilliant. Then came the whisper that she'd be playing Mama Rose, not so quickly followed I should add, by the public announcement of a) the Chichester run and then b) the West End transfer.  In 2 and a half years of being a mum, myself and my long suffering OH and I have managed 1 afternoon off together to have a 'date'. however when this show went on sale, we bought our tickets knowing that we just had to have one more date to catch 'our Imelda' in the ultimate role of "Rose'.  We had the added bonus that Louise was going to be played by The MTA's Patron Lara Pulver too...so we knew that the date would be rather special.  The final cast and creative team were announced, and it was just obvious that this wasn't just going to be a production of Gypsy...it could very well be THE production of Gypsy for some of us.

There is always a pressure on a date....especially when you literally have one a year. So we'd gone out for a nice meal beforehand, but both of us were still in that parent trap of wondering if our child was OK, had we remembered everything...parents amongst you will know the sort of thing.

But then things changed....we got to the Savoy (always a special theatre to me, as I'm a bit of a G&S bore too...I mean it really is no wonder my school friends and I had nothing in common)

Can there be any argument about the Gypsy overture summing up the best of a Broadway overture? As soon as that infamous overture started (and what a band I should add)....we were transported into the magical world of MT one more time. However this time it was like a vortex that dragged us in and just would't let us go.  As that brass section kicked in, all thoughts of my chil disappeared into the more rational brain compartment of 'well the babysitter will tell us if there's something wrong'.

The show was everything you would have hoped for and a million times more.  I've never, ever felt the need to give someone a standing ovation in the middle of a show before. However to be honest on this occasion I just didn't have a choice. Roses's Turn was painful, and heartfelt, and bitter, and angry...and....and.  I mean you name it 'our Imelda' went through it.  There can be little doubt that Imelda deserves every award going for that performance. However let's not forget (as a wise man once told me)...that for every 'star' they are elevated by the people around them. The 'Gimmick' girls, so brave with their choices, and so brilliant throughout. Peter Davidson supported 'our Imelda' as she kept rising above everyone, whilst maintaining a humour and humanity in Herbie,  which made it all the more powerful when he'd had enough. Then Lara Pulver as Louise was just simply stunning. So I have a disclaimer of knowing her (only insomuch as she's the college's Patron)...but I didn't recognise the person that I knew up on that stage at all.  As she transformed into the Diva that was Gypsy Rose Lee...to hear the vocal quality change, the posture slowly evolve...just so inspiring.  I've said since I saw the show, that had she not been playing in the same show as 'our Imelda' then all the plaudits would be thrown at her.

Some date it turned into...my OH and myself walked to Covent Garden without saying a word. Every time we went to say something on the tube we just let it g['p[o.  For once...the theatre had said it all.

I don't think that the West End has ever got it quite so right.  How brilliant then that the BBC opted to film it before it closed, and then broadcast it over the Christmas period.  The West End had hit social media...I didn't read one negative comment on twitter last night about the show, and I have never see that before.  People were shouting that it should have been on BBC 1 but what difference does it make...it was ON...we could ALL watch it again.  Never have I been so proud of our industry - we really do celebrate excellence.

A week earlier we had a more mixed reception to the extraordinary feat of The Sound of Music Live...but again Musical Theatre was on the TV.  Our art form had returned to the masses....indeed from where it started way, way back!  Of course nowadays the masses have a bigger choice, but as long as a few people stepped outside of their comfort zone it was job done.

I was saddened by the instant twitter frenzy of 'what should we do next?" Those bloody polls started popping up, as if someone had a hotline to the BBC or ITV ready to say 'thanks..we've now chosen....' Personally (and indeed I did voice this on twitter) I felt that the night belonged to the cast of Gypsy (a bit like the week before actually...when it belonged to the SOM Live cast).  In the case of Gypsy, it wasn't filmed just to get a bit of MT onto our screens, it was filmed/archived because everyone knew that what was being created on that stage was a once in a lifetime performance.  I very much doubt that I will see a better Rose than 'our Imelda'...and you know I very much that I'll see a better supporting case, or band, or technical crew than that particular production.  For me, personally, it was a definitive, career defining performance....that's why it was filmed.  The world of theatre remains magical if we only see those performances every so often.  It doesn't mean that we have to rush to find the next one.

For days, weeks, even months later I honestly still think about that show. I still get goosebumps thinking of 'our Imelda' doing the 11 O'Clock number.  I can't wait to be able to watch it over and over when/if they bring out a DVD (notice how the teenage geek, grew up to be a 'what the hell..I'm a geek' geek) I'm not ready to search for the next show to be filmed...I hope that we don't rush, and I hope that we wait until the next definitive performance hits the boards...and then, and only then, should we film and archive it.  I know that most shows are unofficially archived but may the British theatre be quite to publicly archived for its excellence...not just for some TV ratings....and never for a twitter poll.