Broadway vs. Touring Company

[Peter Pirate 2]

From those more knowledgable than myself I'd like to know if play quality is significantly superior on Broadway than the touring Companies travelling the US or in Chicago or San Francisco? Any thoughts?

 

[pilikia97]

I have seen both versions for Rent and Aida and the shows were identical in quality in my experience. Voice talent, choreography, even set designs adapted for different sized stages and theaters were excellent. In fact, in Disney's Aida the "Stongest Suit" scene and number were BETTER in the touring company version I saw here in Denver than it was on Broadway in my own opinion!

 

[amy4bruce]

A national touring company probably dips from the same talent pool that the Broadway show does, so, except maybe for star power (and some stars do tour), quality of actors will be the same.

The only difference would be in the sets, which would now be designed to take down and put up quickly. However, there are people out there who are extremely good at that, and the difference in quality is negligible.

The professional stuff that comes through Pittsburgh is just as good as the stuff that stays on Broadway.

 

[singingpixie]

I don't think there's a significant difference. Sometimes, the touring cast might be slightly younger (touring tends to burn people out after a while, especially those w/ families), but not much and it doesn't seem to affect the talent much if at all. You're less likely to see a huge-name person on tour, but often these people aren't any better than their lesser-known counterparts, just better known.

Sometimes there is a noticable difference in the set design, just because some broadway shows of late have actually modified the theater they're playing in- obviously touring shows can't make structural modifications to each and every stop! Still, touring sets are often spectacular, just on a slightly less extravagant scale than a Broadway production.

Enjoy the show!

 

[Aristocath]

I would have to say the theater has a lot to do with touring productions. As an earlier poster mentioned, some shows have such elaborate sets that they can not be reproduced in a venue for just two weeks. Les Miz and Phantom are two that are good examples of how sets are modified to tour. Plus, the acoustics at some touring venues are horrible.

As far as the cast is concerned, usually touring companies are actors/singers that have not gotten a role on Broadway yet. The road is a place for them to learn and broaden their abilities. This is not always the case but it often is.

Shows will often open in Chicago, LA or SF to work out the bugs before they open on Broadway but will retain much of the same cast.

I think if you can't see a Broadway show, a touring production is great. But I think it is Broadway for a reason and that makes it worth a trip.

Cathy

 

[salmoneous]

I disagree with the others. There are a handful of shows I've seen both on Broadway and the touring version, and there has always been a noticable difference in quality. The touring versions are great, but they aren't the same IMO.

 

[RadioNate]

I've seen good touring companies and really bad touring compaines. Lately I've been not very impressed with the last touring comapnies I've seen. The Lion King and Rent. The Lion King's problem was definately sets, costumes, etc not the quality of actors. Rent, it was actors...plain and simple.

However, according to a friend from HS that works on broadway a lot of the shows are continuing to do the type of stunt casting that was popular after 9/11. They will bring in a name star for a several week run. The traditional Broadway stars who would have gotten those parts are now taking lesser parts and touring company parts so they believe quality of performer in touring companies has gotten better.

 

[caitycaity]

i haven't noticed a significant difference between the shows i have seen touring and on broadway.

 

[RUDisney]

I hadn't seen a difference until I saw Aida on January 26th in Scranton. We'd seen that on Broadway with the original cast and we saw it in Ogunquit, ME with a touring company. I thought the man who played Radames in Ogunquit was even better than Adam Pascal.

Well, 2 weeks ago, I didn't like the touring company. First of all, there were no sub-machine guns in Ancient Egypt, but there were on this stage. Secondly, this was the sexiest version of Aida that we'd seen. Radames was trying too hard to be Adam Pascal. Aida was nowhere near as strong a voice as Heather Hedley or the woman who played in Maine. The one thing I'll say for this play though, was that the woman who played Amneris was the best one that we've seen.

So, to answer your question... usually it doesn't matter, but it depends.

 

[rockbottomsound]

I've actually only seen the touring shows, haven't seen a bad one yet, all have been very good.

 

[arminnie]

I disagree with the others. There are a handful of shows I've seen both on Broadway and the touring version, and there has always been a noticable difference in quality. The touring versions are great, but they aren't the same IMO.

I'm with you. I can usually tell a difference - especially if it is a drama. But I also feel that the London West end tops Broadway most of the time.

But I'm also a big supporter of local theatre. I generally prefer local stuff to touring companies, not because the touring companies aren't great, but because they are usually only just the "blockbuster" musical stuff. I personally prefer drama.

When I lived in the San Francisco area I had season tickets to five different local groups.

 

[Imzadi]

If you get a company that actually says National Broadway touring company, it should be of the same caliber. The actual Broadway producers, muscial director and stage managers will have final approval over the cast.

If you get an older show coming through by XYZ Touring Company, then, well yeah, you will get lesser talent.

A dear friend of mine is a Broadway actor who has also starred in tours. Many Broadway actors go on tour as there are only a limited number of roles they can play on Broadway at any one time, but there could be 3 National Broadway Touring Companies out on tour at the same time, with the same show, in various regions of the country.

My friend has told me he's been able to negotiate to later play the same role (or better) in the Broadway show when they need a replacement, once he comes off the tour.

Broadway producers, when casting, give first dibs to people who've done various Broadway touring companies because they know these actors understand & have been through the similar rigors of 8 performances a week, as on Broadway.

Likewise, when a tour needs to be cast, they will cull Broadway actors first, as they don't want someone dropping out unexpectedly in the middle of a tour because he didn't understand how demanding it would be. In the end, they all know each other and are true Broadway gypsies.

 

[scanne]

Most, if not all actors that are in a National Tour of a Broadway show are covered under AEA - Actor's Equity Association. To become a member of AEA you have to be cast in a professional production or earn points working in an equity house. The National Tours are of the same caliber as Broadway and were probably conceived to offer people in other parts of the country the opportunity to see a Broadway show. I have seen many, many National Tours and Broadway shows. I've seen Les Miz and Beauty and Beast both in NYC and on tour and you could place the touring cast on the stage in NY and never know the difference. They are all trained professionals. I think the fringe benefits of being on a National Tour are great. Room, transportation costs, plus a salary plus you get to see our great country! If I didn't have kids, I'd be on the road in a heartbeat! (I should have done it right out of college but chose the traditional life - not that I regret my choice - I just have a yearning to perform on Broadway!)

Sorry to ramble...