It does helps the artists, but in some senses it doesn't. To counter, if there were less shows and they had more of a corner on the market and so made more and ran longer and made more profit etc, people working on the shows might get paid more for the work they do... and the performers and crews would get paid longer. And they would be known to more audiences because there are less to know... same as how being on a broadcast network (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX) up until 10 years ago would mean that you're a national star and name most people have heard of, whereas now you can be the star of a hit tv show and have a majority of tv viewers having never heard of you or seen your show (in some cases you can have a hit show that people haven't even heard of). You have more known stage stars, titles, longer runs, investors can bank and creators more readily, more audiences likely to see the shows that do open in a season, etc.
But then... I think the best time was when shows cost less and didn't need to run 3+ years to be profitable, and most shows ran 9 months - 1.5 years and there were more shows but it took less for them to be worth funding. But I think back then it was less common to have years where they're scrambling to award "new" musicals vs years where good new musicals don't even get nominated because the category is full.
So while I wouldn't limit opportunity in order to maximize the potential of the fewer opportunities, there are two sides to the coin. |
