Why doesn't the West End create hit musicals anymore?

We had 2 musicals eligible for Tony nomination: Groundhog Day and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Where we do triumph is re-imaganing Broadway classics, where the Color Purple won the Tony last like, like La Cage Aux Folles did. Gypsy is still rumoured to be Broadway bound.

So it is not all gloom and doom and remember Miss Saigon and Sunset Boulevard playing Broadway tonight all started life in London.

I think there's an economic angle too but I see it differently. The cost of producing a Broadway show is more expensive than West End for a whole host of different reasons -- stronger NYC unions, generally (IMHO) higher standards of physical theatre infrastructure in NYC, fewer subsidies in the States, etc. One side-effect of this higher cost is that it's incentivized the network of feeder regional theatres / workshops that incubate so many of Broadway's hits. The upside is that it's a way of managing risk and so makes investors more comfortable engaging with musicals (the downside is that you could argue it homogenizes shows).

Let's remember too that while theatre and cinema are distinct art forms, many skills are substitutable between them and the industries do compete with one another for writing, musical, and production talent to a certain extent. But this is contained in the US by both its large population and also by physical distance. The epicenter of the US film industry, Los Angeles, is on the complete opposite side of the continent from the epicenter of the US theatre industry, New York (fun fact: Baghdad is closer to London than LA is to NY). That doesn't eliminate cross-pollination between theatre and cinema but it has given each industry the elbow room to grow independent talent ecosystems in the US. By contrast, in the UK each of these industries is London-based which I would guess has stunted the growth of each.

People are pretty overweight in this country, maybe everybody's fingers are too chubby to play the piano? Which would explain why Gary Barlow has taken over

Another angle money-wise is in the subsidised sector musicals are funded far less by the various awarding bodies. So there's less of the innovative grass roots stuff happening, work shopping new stuff because there isn't (as above) the commercial money, but also musicals don't generally attract as much of the funding pots in grants either. My personal theory on this is that it comes from both sides- people making musicals don't think they'll be taken seriously for funding, so don't apply, less apply so when the do, it's a more unknown commodity so less likely to make it through in a competitive field...and also a chunk of good old fashioned snobbery from some areas too

The subsidised sector is a relatively tiny area, but if we were nurturing composers the way we do playwrights then we'd have more UK based composers that aren't former boyband members.

Ah yes, because everyone's so incredibly skinny in America.

The irony of all this is that Americans have a deep inferiority complex about the arts in their education curriculum (the film Mr. Holland's Opus captures this). I have little doubt that the average American just assumes that the UK *must* have better arts programs in their schools. Grass is always greener, etc.

But I'm not sure that, in reality, things are significantly better or worse in the US. It varies by state and region of course, but I think it's fair to say that a typical middle-class state-run suburban high school in the US will in all likelihood have a marching band and/or an orchestra, and a drama program that may do a play prior to Christmas and then a musical right before summer. Lacking these options isn't unheard of, particularly in the past or in rural or poorer areas today, but close to cities their absence would probably raise eyebrows among parents nowadays. Larger high schools in and around major cities may have further options, e.g. a dance troupe or a Shakespeare company. 

Quality varies widely, as you'd expect. Medium-to-large cities may have one or two schools particularly well-known for their drama programs, and the others will be... well, passable, but not extraordinary. Some US cities now also have magnet (specialist) state-run schools devoted to the arts, and they tend to be quite good (Lin-Manuel Miranda for example went to magnet state-run high school in New York, though it didn't specialize in the arts per se, it was for smart kids generally).

The actual education component varies even more widely than the actual programs or activities. The US doesn't have a national curriculum and even most US states don't have a state-wide curriculum; it varies regionally. Some schools offer an array of formal classes that students can take in tandem with their arts activities. Other schools don't offer much in the way of classes but may give students equivalent credit for the time they spend participating in each arts program. Furthermore, some schools *require* a certain amount of arts-related credit, others do not.

The other dynamic to keep in mind here that's driving parental demand for these programs is university. US secondary education has become increasingly tailored toward making students competitive for university admissions. This should not be *over* emphasized since the bulk of Americans go to state-run colleges or universities where admissions is minimally competitive. But in the US any state-funded or private university that is at least mildly competitive tends to take a holistic view of applicants: looking not just at standardized testing and academic achievement but also activities. This desire to have kids with a bit of balance fuels some of the demand for, and participation in, US arts programs.

All of this is to say: while there are definitely individual US secondary schools that are stellar at drama, it's not something I'd expect to be significantly better *in the education system as a whole* than the UK.

What on earth is 'Drama personal development', or is that supposed to be two separate subjects?

I was involved in a tour around Illinois/Wisconsin schools some twenty years ago and the theatres in some (though not all) schools were astonishing, serving as the local theatre as well. Double tiered auditoriums, stage sizes that wouldn't be out of place in a medium size West End theatre etc.

Languages are a standard requirement in American high schools, but the years required vary from one to all four years. In general, language education in the US is focused on vocabulary and rules of grammar rather than conversation; in other words, highly frustrating and impractical. Spanish is a bit easier for students to immerse themselves in thanks to the relatively-large US Spanish-speaking population, but it's not like Europe where you can take a train, cross borders, and easily be in a different language area the same day. As a student taking French in California, the only way I had to practice was to watch French films (might have been easier had I lived in Louisiana or northern New England where there actually are native French speakers).

My high schools were both Catholic so we had religious classes all four years. I think that would be highly unusual in US state-run schools due to the First Amendment but I have heard of schools offering classes with a more anthropological rather than theological study of religion.

History is standard and generally three to four years. Instruction is highly influenced by the Advanced Placement (AP) exams, which are subject-specific baccalaureate exams that often give college credit to students who score highly enough. A typical high school curriculum might be World History in year 1, European History in year 2, and American History in year 3 (all of which have AP exams associated with them), with other social science classes like government or economics in year 4.

World History in US schools is quick and doesn't really do justice to anyone, particularly Africa or Asia, but the Roman Empire and the UK are probably the least-poorly covered, though even then we're talking only a rough understanding of broad arcs of history. We Americans would be in big trouble if we had a gun to our heads to explain, say, the Wars of the Roses.

We mercifully don't have a string of dynastic successions to memorize. Forty-five presidents under a single written Constitution over the last 230 years with no coups makes American History, if not "simple", then relatively straight-forward. Probably the most conceptually complex part is understanding the legal and philosophical underpinnings of the American Revolution (the political writings of people like Locke, Rousseau, Madison, and, well, Hamilton (natch)). But I don't think any episode in our history can match the English Civil Wars or the French Revolution for sheer complexity.