Threaded Order Chronological Order
| First vs Second National Tours | |
| Posted by: ablankpage 12:00 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe this question is more about the good old days of lucrative tour contracts and not the contemporary SETA contracts, but is there a pay gap between first and second (and third) national tours? Mainly I'm curious why first nationals close first and often have much shorter runs. It also seems like casting for second or third tours tend to cast a little younger/greener and don't have as direct a line of promotion to the Broadway production. Curious if anyone has any insights here. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: First vs Second National Tours | |
| Posted by: bowtie7 06:29 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
| In reply to: First vs Second National Tours - ablankpage 12:00 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
|
|
|
| Using the original tour of Phantom of the Opera as an example. Los Angeles got a sit down run which then took a little time off and moved to San Francisco where it ran a very long time. Toronto and Las Vegas (much later in a short version with a specially designed theatre) also got sit down runs--these productions were not designed to easily move. The first national tour started in Chicago (I believe for 9 or more months) and initially played longer runs--this company's set was about 36 feet deep. The second national tour's set was about 30 feet deep--this tour played just about everywhere and forever. The first may have had a short run because in wouldn't fit in many theatres. I know at least the Fox Theatre in St Louis after having the 2nd national tour play a run--moved the back wall of the theatre back about 20 additional feet in order to be able to book a return of the first national tour (also well as in anticipation of additional upcoming blockbuster tours. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: First vs Second National Tours | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 05:50 pm EDT 05/21/23 | |
| In reply to: re: First vs Second National Tours - bowtie7 06:29 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
|
|
|
| If memory serves the sit down run in Toronto was a licensed production so it doesn't really count, I think, in the exploration of national tours. Whereas all of the others you mentioned were tours of the Cameron Mackintosh production. Vegas was its own animal too. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| San Fran orpheum theater | |
| Posted by: dramedy 10:11 am EDT 05/21/23 | |
| In reply to: re: First vs Second National Tours - bowtie7 06:29 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
|
|
|
| Stage was expanded to accommodate bigger shows around 2000. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Toronto Phantom. | |
| Last Edit: portenopete 03:07 am EDT 05/21/23 | |
| Posted by: portenopete 03:03 am EDT 05/21/23 | |
| In reply to: re: First vs Second National Tours - bowtie7 06:29 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
|
|
|
| Shocked to realise it's been 24 years since Phantom CLOSED! (34 years since it opened.) Colm Wilkinson opened it and was it Paul Stanley who closed it? [Just checked OVRTUR and it was Paul Stanley who closed it, but he is listed as having only done a few months but I thought I remembered him being in it for at least a year or two? And the only other actor listed is Peter Karrie. Curious if anyone remembers when Colm Wilkinson left and did Peter Karrie play the majority of the run?] |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Toronto Phantom. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:40 pm EDT 05/21/23 | |
| In reply to: Toronto Phantom. - portenopete 03:03 am EDT 05/21/23 | |
|
|
|
| The info I'm finding in a fairly cursory search of the ProQuest database is that Stanley played it for only ten weeks at the end of the run. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: First vs Second National Tours | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:35 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
| In reply to: First vs Second National Tours - ablankpage 12:00 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
|
|
|
| If we go back to the 1940s through the 1970s, I think first tours often played longer. Every show was different. Some very big shows sent out only one tour, at least as far as I know. These would include Carousel, South Pacific, The King and I, My Fair Lady, The Music Man. For the last year or so of its long tour, My Fair Lady simplified the physical production to enable split-weeks to be played. Some would send out a tour and if it closed before or around the time that the Broadway production closed, a second tour went out right after the Broadway production closed, sometimes with members of the closing cast. Guys and Dolls, Plain and Fancy, Bye Bye Birdie, Cabaret all did that. A good many shows even as late as the 1960s did not tour till after the Broadway production closed. Usually these were the medium hits but The King and I is an example of a very big show that didn't tour till the Broadway production closed, perhaps because the big cities wanted to see Brynner. Some shows that were not massive hits, like Carnival!, Bye Bye Birdie and Half a Sixpence, sent out two simultaneous tours, while some massive hits (some mentioned above) either sent out only one or at least only one at a time. Back in those days, the second tours often lasted shorter periods of time because almost all of the major markets had seen the show. So a bus-and-truck might then go out for six months or so, playing one-night stands and occasional full weeks and very occasionally more than one week, but mostly one- and two-night stands and split weeks. I can't really speak to the pay during this period, except that I do think bus-and-truck tours paid less. So it's hard to generalize, at least if we go back to that period. Before Oklahoma! it was rare for a musical to tour before the Broadway production closed. Not quite unheard of but rare. This is in the days when 9-18 months was a long run. Even as big a hit as Show Boat did not tour till the Broadway production closed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Some guesses | |
| Posted by: dramedy 01:05 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
| In reply to: First vs Second National Tours - ablankpage 12:00 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think first national tours went to major cities with subscription base sales. That was a guarantee of x weeks for y dollars in those lucrative markets. Plus the theaters were older and more uniform in size (probably built for vaudeville and broadway size) so sets could be moved from theater to theater. Second tour would be for smaller cities with shorter runs so a smaller movable set for a few days or week run. Plus a lot of variety in size of stage and overall theater. I assume a short run is grueling schedule so probably less seasoned actors are willing to do it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some guesses | |
| Posted by: tealady 02:14 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
| In reply to: Some guesses - dramedy 01:05 pm EDT 05/20/23 | |
|
|
|
| someone called Annoying actor friend wrote this long long article on this subject here is the fist paragraph... check the link for the full story best T In the Roman Catholic religion, there are artifacts known as “relics.” Relics are items closely associated with saints. If you are lucky, one day you’ll meet someone who toured the country on a Full Production Contract, and that person is known as a First-National Relic. If you come in contact with this rare entity, I suggest you spend significant time in its presence. The First-National Relic is sacred. They are an ancient national treasure. They existed in a time when people actually went on the road to save money. They indulged in superfluous luxuries they didn’t even need. The First-National Relic owns an apartment. They may even own a second property in a foreign location such as The Poconos. The only confirmed whereabouts you can witness this endangered species in action is in whatever city Wicked, The Lion King, Jersey Boys, or The Book of Mormon is playing – where they hide safely within their holy sanctuary. |
|
| Link | http://annoyingactorfriend.com/tag/seta/ |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
Time to render: 0.042051 seconds.