What do you think?
Rate this book
Broadway Musicals: The 101 Greatest Shows of All Time
Finally, a book as glorious as its this lush showcase for everyone who loves musicals covers the 101 most influential, popular, and enduring Broadway shows--all of which have toured the country and been performed in theatres large and small everywhere. Each listing includes expert commentary that sets the play in historical and cultural context, plus features on the creators and performers, plot synopses, cast and song lists, production details, backstage anecdotes, and more. Four or five beautifully reproduced photographs from each show--the majority never before published--accompany the text and make the shows leap off the page. Appendices and special features include cast albums, poster artists, revivals, guilty pleasures, Off-Broadway musicals, notable flops, and much more.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2004
3 people are currently reading
448 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
August 23, 2025
Every time, I go into nonfiction books about theater expecting to love them, and many times I am disappointed. This is one of those times. While I am mostly okay with the selection of shows (there are some weird omissions- no Les Mis or Into the Woods?) and appreciate that the authors made the distinction that they are defining greatest shows as not necessarily the best shows, but the ones that have been the most groundbreaking, popular, and influential, I had a lot of issues with this book.
This book tries to present itself as a reference guide, with synopses and guides to the greatest shows of Broadway, and I generally expect reference books to at least attempt objectivity, but the authors' biases shine through almost relentlessly. They focus a lot on Broadway pre-1950, and newer shows (and by that I mean like from the 70s onward) are mostly lauded if they're deliberately transgressive and/or sexualized or hearken back to the 'glory days' of classic musicals (there are only a few modern shows unequivocally praised that don't neatly meet those criteria- one of them is The Phantom of the Opera, interestingly enough).
They make catty digs at the audience of Wicked being “unicorn-loving, text-messaging eighth graders” and sneer at fans of female-dominated shows like Wicked and Legally Blonde by describing them as "ten- to fifteen-year-old girls with whiny voices who are ... imploring their parents for $120 tickets" and generally seem to look down upon the Youth of Today as being pampered little princesses obsessed with political correctness who love kiddie girl power Disneyfied shows but don't appreciate real art because they think it's 'too problematic.' To that, I can only say: yikes. It's weird how much you guys seem to hate teenage girls. Your attitude towards women in general is weird, with inordinate focus on their attractiveness and clothing or lack thereof (there's a whole section called "T&A" about nudity in theater where the authors swoon over boundary-breaking scantily clad chorus girls- and sometimes men- from Ziegfeld onward and declares almost mournfully that the shocking and titillating showing of skin "has become a rarity ... with the rise of modern morality and the Disneyfying of Broadway").
They disparage the rewriting of revivals to be less racist as political correctness run amuck, since there was nothing wrong with the original show's scripts. This attitude is most baffling to me in the inclusion and adoration of the musical Finian's Rainbow, which the book declares to be one of the finest shows of the 1940s?? (For those not in the know, I have a particular burning hatred for Finian's Rainbow for being bizarre, incredibly boring, and having aged remarkably badly despite its desire to make a point against racism- it tries to do that by putting a racist white senator in magical blackface and then giving him a magical personality transplant to make him realize that racism is bad.) They bemoan that the show has gotten a reputation as being racist from people who have never seen it, when in fact the creators were liberals trying to make an anti-racist show. Well, newsflash, I have seen the movie (which they regard as a faithful adaptation of the stage show), and while I recognize that its depiction of an integrated society and trying to teach people not to be racist were progressive and a step forward for the time, it still comes off as very racist to a modern audience because the plot literally hinges on blackface! (The authors even make a joke about the stage show's blackface quickchange.) It's okay to recognize that the things you like sometimes have aged poorly and have problematic elements, authors! It's okay to say that 'this was groundbreaking for the time, but comes off as really racist now, so we need to either seriously rewrite it if we want to produce it today or put the show to rest entirely while still recognizing its place in history'! But no, there was nothing wrong with Finian's Rainbow ever, and it's a shame it isn't being performed today because people are too uncomfortable with blackface... Yuck.
Speaking of blackface, it takes until page 296 for the book to acknowledge that blackface is, in fact, bad and a mockery based in harmful racial stereotypes. Before that, several photographs of various actors in blackface (and one in some pretty egregious yellowface and prosthetics to achieve a slanted-eye look) were presented without comment (well, with a comment about how talented so and so actor was or a neutral comment identifying who they were and what show they were in). I'm not asking for pages and pages of condemnation of racism, and I certainly don't think these authors are hardcore racists or something, given their praise for diverse shows and casts that break down racial barriers, but it would benefit from just a little acknowledgement that, while this was considered normal and acceptable by many at the time, it's definitely not okay now- or even just put a little descriptor in the photograph caption like 'so-and-so in his ill-conceived casting as an Asian man' or 'so-and-so as a racially insensitive caricature of a Black man'. A picture is shown of Al Jolson in his signature blackface act, and the paragraphs below introduce him to readers, lauding him as the greatest performer of all time, with his only flaw being... that he was a massive egotist. Really?? This book was revised and updated (I've seen a couple different dates- the one I read says 2010) around 2000-2010- you should've known better by then!
The editing and revision of the book is also a bit sloppy at times- I caught several obvious typos (“asVsume”), I noticed at least one song title (For Good) missing an ending quotation mark, and there were several references to things as if they were upcoming that had actually happened several years before the latest revision (the 2010 edition still refers to the "upcoming film" of the Phantom of the Opera that came out in 2004).
There is also the requisite treatment of Sondheim as an irreproachable genius (ignoring that he could sometimes be overly pretentious) and Andrew Lloyd Webber as a writer of populist dreck (ignoring that his shows are so successful for a reason, mixing spectacle with a strong emotional core). While the authors praise Phantom and Evita, Cats is doused in remarkable vitriol, proclaimed as Broadway's "first show for the tired Japanese businessman ... [it] struck a chord with prepubescent girls, school trips from places that didn't have their own thee-ay-ter". I'm sorry, but does that not come off as unbearably pompous?? (It continues on in this manner, blatantly looking down upon people from rural areas or who don't speak English as a first language.)
The book also explicitly states that the hype around Cats was probably based on people seeing the show and then being embarrassed that they spent so much money on a bad show, so they just told people that it was good, and then those people went on to do the same thing. Which is outright speculation, if not a blatant lie! Cats is also criticized for being a plotless musical where you leave your mind at the door, despite the fact that many, if not most musicals pre-1940-ish have the barest excuse of a plot that mostly exists to facilitate song and dance, and they never receive criticism for that in this book.
I can't believe this book has turned me into a Cats defender! I don't even like Cats that much- it's fine, some of the songs are good, but it's very far from a favorite or even regular listen! (The movie is awful, but the proshot is okay.) But, no, now I have to defend Cats because some people who claim to be providing an encyclopedic resource for reference forgot to leave their bias at the door and genuinely consider why other people might like a thing that they don't and that you can still find merit in something you personally dislike. You two don't understand the appeal of Cats? I'll tell you why- the songs are fun, the dancing is spectacular, everyone's felt like an outcast at some point or another so it's hard not to feel for Grizabella's plight, and to some extent it hearkens back to the joys and whimsy of playing pretend as a child!
But here, let me acknowledge some merits in this book that I dislike. It does have very effective paragraph synopses and lists of significant songs for each show that it covers, and I appreciate the coverage of often-overlooked early Broadway shows from 1906 through the 20s (several Fred and Adele Astaire shows were present). I liked the joke that, after his sister Adele left the stage to marry a British noble, Fred Astaire went to pursue a solo career and was never heard from again. I liked that Drood was mentioned in passing favorably several times, and that She Loves Me was included in the list despite its relative obscurity, I liked its several pages on Hello, Dolly!, and it did cover Phantom of the Opera very thoroughly, even mentioning the rival Phantom musicals in production around the same time, and including a photo of my beloved Hannibal elephant.
If you're not familiar with many Broadway shows, but want to learn about older ones you've never heard of by flipping through, looking at the pictures, and checking out whatever looks interesting, this might be a decent guide, but its central flaw is that the premise demands some level of objectivity but the execution is irrepressibly, almost obnoxiously opinionated.
This book tries to present itself as a reference guide, with synopses and guides to the greatest shows of Broadway, and I generally expect reference books to at least attempt objectivity, but the authors' biases shine through almost relentlessly. They focus a lot on Broadway pre-1950, and newer shows (and by that I mean like from the 70s onward) are mostly lauded if they're deliberately transgressive and/or sexualized or hearken back to the 'glory days' of classic musicals (there are only a few modern shows unequivocally praised that don't neatly meet those criteria- one of them is The Phantom of the Opera, interestingly enough).
They make catty digs at the audience of Wicked being “unicorn-loving, text-messaging eighth graders” and sneer at fans of female-dominated shows like Wicked and Legally Blonde by describing them as "ten- to fifteen-year-old girls with whiny voices who are ... imploring their parents for $120 tickets" and generally seem to look down upon the Youth of Today as being pampered little princesses obsessed with political correctness who love kiddie girl power Disneyfied shows but don't appreciate real art because they think it's 'too problematic.' To that, I can only say: yikes. It's weird how much you guys seem to hate teenage girls. Your attitude towards women in general is weird, with inordinate focus on their attractiveness and clothing or lack thereof (there's a whole section called "T&A" about nudity in theater where the authors swoon over boundary-breaking scantily clad chorus girls- and sometimes men- from Ziegfeld onward and declares almost mournfully that the shocking and titillating showing of skin "has become a rarity ... with the rise of modern morality and the Disneyfying of Broadway").
They disparage the rewriting of revivals to be less racist as political correctness run amuck, since there was nothing wrong with the original show's scripts. This attitude is most baffling to me in the inclusion and adoration of the musical Finian's Rainbow, which the book declares to be one of the finest shows of the 1940s?? (For those not in the know, I have a particular burning hatred for Finian's Rainbow for being bizarre, incredibly boring, and having aged remarkably badly despite its desire to make a point against racism- it tries to do that by putting a racist white senator in magical blackface and then giving him a magical personality transplant to make him realize that racism is bad.) They bemoan that the show has gotten a reputation as being racist from people who have never seen it, when in fact the creators were liberals trying to make an anti-racist show. Well, newsflash, I have seen the movie (which they regard as a faithful adaptation of the stage show), and while I recognize that its depiction of an integrated society and trying to teach people not to be racist were progressive and a step forward for the time, it still comes off as very racist to a modern audience because the plot literally hinges on blackface! (The authors even make a joke about the stage show's blackface quickchange.) It's okay to recognize that the things you like sometimes have aged poorly and have problematic elements, authors! It's okay to say that 'this was groundbreaking for the time, but comes off as really racist now, so we need to either seriously rewrite it if we want to produce it today or put the show to rest entirely while still recognizing its place in history'! But no, there was nothing wrong with Finian's Rainbow ever, and it's a shame it isn't being performed today because people are too uncomfortable with blackface... Yuck.
Speaking of blackface, it takes until page 296 for the book to acknowledge that blackface is, in fact, bad and a mockery based in harmful racial stereotypes. Before that, several photographs of various actors in blackface (and one in some pretty egregious yellowface and prosthetics to achieve a slanted-eye look) were presented without comment (well, with a comment about how talented so and so actor was or a neutral comment identifying who they were and what show they were in). I'm not asking for pages and pages of condemnation of racism, and I certainly don't think these authors are hardcore racists or something, given their praise for diverse shows and casts that break down racial barriers, but it would benefit from just a little acknowledgement that, while this was considered normal and acceptable by many at the time, it's definitely not okay now- or even just put a little descriptor in the photograph caption like 'so-and-so in his ill-conceived casting as an Asian man' or 'so-and-so as a racially insensitive caricature of a Black man'. A picture is shown of Al Jolson in his signature blackface act, and the paragraphs below introduce him to readers, lauding him as the greatest performer of all time, with his only flaw being... that he was a massive egotist. Really?? This book was revised and updated (I've seen a couple different dates- the one I read says 2010) around 2000-2010- you should've known better by then!
The editing and revision of the book is also a bit sloppy at times- I caught several obvious typos (“asVsume”), I noticed at least one song title (For Good) missing an ending quotation mark, and there were several references to things as if they were upcoming that had actually happened several years before the latest revision (the 2010 edition still refers to the "upcoming film" of the Phantom of the Opera that came out in 2004).
There is also the requisite treatment of Sondheim as an irreproachable genius (ignoring that he could sometimes be overly pretentious) and Andrew Lloyd Webber as a writer of populist dreck (ignoring that his shows are so successful for a reason, mixing spectacle with a strong emotional core). While the authors praise Phantom and Evita, Cats is doused in remarkable vitriol, proclaimed as Broadway's "first show for the tired Japanese businessman ... [it] struck a chord with prepubescent girls, school trips from places that didn't have their own thee-ay-ter". I'm sorry, but does that not come off as unbearably pompous?? (It continues on in this manner, blatantly looking down upon people from rural areas or who don't speak English as a first language.)
The book also explicitly states that the hype around Cats was probably based on people seeing the show and then being embarrassed that they spent so much money on a bad show, so they just told people that it was good, and then those people went on to do the same thing. Which is outright speculation, if not a blatant lie! Cats is also criticized for being a plotless musical where you leave your mind at the door, despite the fact that many, if not most musicals pre-1940-ish have the barest excuse of a plot that mostly exists to facilitate song and dance, and they never receive criticism for that in this book.
I can't believe this book has turned me into a Cats defender! I don't even like Cats that much- it's fine, some of the songs are good, but it's very far from a favorite or even regular listen! (The movie is awful, but the proshot is okay.) But, no, now I have to defend Cats because some people who claim to be providing an encyclopedic resource for reference forgot to leave their bias at the door and genuinely consider why other people might like a thing that they don't and that you can still find merit in something you personally dislike. You two don't understand the appeal of Cats? I'll tell you why- the songs are fun, the dancing is spectacular, everyone's felt like an outcast at some point or another so it's hard not to feel for Grizabella's plight, and to some extent it hearkens back to the joys and whimsy of playing pretend as a child!
But here, let me acknowledge some merits in this book that I dislike. It does have very effective paragraph synopses and lists of significant songs for each show that it covers, and I appreciate the coverage of often-overlooked early Broadway shows from 1906 through the 20s (several Fred and Adele Astaire shows were present). I liked the joke that, after his sister Adele left the stage to marry a British noble, Fred Astaire went to pursue a solo career and was never heard from again. I liked that Drood was mentioned in passing favorably several times, and that She Loves Me was included in the list despite its relative obscurity, I liked its several pages on Hello, Dolly!, and it did cover Phantom of the Opera very thoroughly, even mentioning the rival Phantom musicals in production around the same time, and including a photo of my beloved Hannibal elephant.
If you're not familiar with many Broadway shows, but want to learn about older ones you've never heard of by flipping through, looking at the pictures, and checking out whatever looks interesting, this might be a decent guide, but its central flaw is that the premise demands some level of objectivity but the execution is irrepressibly, almost obnoxiously opinionated.
September 27, 2024
More like 3.75 stars.
Overall, a really good brief synopsis of some of Broadway's shows. Amazing picture and some great behind the scenes facts and stories.
What I didn't like was the inconsistency of how much was written on each show. Some got a lot, others got a little.
Also, the authors got the fact (and it's often reported but still, do your research people!) that Marilyn Miller was the first person named Marilyn. That's not true, that would be Marilyn Spencer Foster in the 1500s...
Overall, a really good brief synopsis of some of Broadway's shows. Amazing picture and some great behind the scenes facts and stories.
What I didn't like was the inconsistency of how much was written on each show. Some got a lot, others got a little.
Also, the authors got the fact (and it's often reported but still, do your research people!) that Marilyn Miller was the first person named Marilyn. That's not true, that would be Marilyn Spencer Foster in the 1500s...
March 17, 2016
What a treasure! I don't agree. with all of the authors' choices and am perplexed by the omission of "Les Miserables," but this volume is packed with enough essential info about the shows to be a true resource. It also contains enough "inside scoop" and photographs to feel like a guilty pleasure. My only complaint: it's too big and heavy! I have the hardcover version and struggled mightily to hold it. I'll classify the effort as physical therapy and rate it as more than worthwhile!
January 19, 2009
I couldn't believe my eyes when I spotted this book. The old MGM and Broadway musicals belong to my more, well, unconventional hobbies. This book brings them to life in a fascinating way. It contains a huge amount of pictures and many interesting background information from the involved persons. For each of the 101 selected musicals a short summary is provided together with a list of songs.
The admiration and love is recognizable on every page and I am grateful to hold such a book in my hands.
The admiration and love is recognizable on every page and I am grateful to hold such a book in my hands.
February 10, 2018
This was my bathroom book for, I think 6 to 8 months. It takes a long time to read a book, when you are reading only 1/4 to 1 page a day. I learned a lot. A number of stars I've known only for their movies or TV shows have done Broadway musicals. Some of my favorite Broadway stars were in shows a lot sooner than I had thought. Besides showcasing the musicals, the book also showcases individual stars, directors, producers, designers, some off-Broadway and even some flops. Among the flops were some shows I adore the music of though I've never seen the show: Applause, Dear World, Here's Love, (actually I've seen Here's Love and Stop the World I Want to Get Off--only two musicals I've ever seen on Broadway) among others. Though newer books will, I am sure, be more complete, this particular edition ended with Wicked and did not include Rent or Alexander Hamilton. Oh, well. What I get for being old and having old books.
December 24, 2017
This is one time that book design matters enormously: The book was set in tiny print, which might have been okay with a sturdy typeface, but instead it was set in a "Modern" or Didone-style typeface. That is to say, a typeface with a large contrast between the thick and thin parts of the letters, such as Bodoni. (It might even be Bodoni, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodoni.) In the tiny print used, the thin strokes break up, making the book all but illegible--I couldn't even read much of it, which was so disappointing.
February 6, 2020
As someone without much background in this genre of music, I picked this up to get a quick survey of the Broadway canon – what are the essential shows and songs that I should know about and seek out? The book is good at providing this information. For the connoisseur, the vintage photographs and details on show dates and cast should also be of interest. The author is clearly a true fan, and offers opinionated commentary on most of the shows.
August 8, 2017
Excellent reference book.
January 8, 2018
A must own for any Broadway theatre fan. This coffee table book is filled with illustrations, anecdotes and memories.
April 23, 2021
Regardless of selections or omissions that I disagree with, this is an especially wonderful resource for production photos.
May 21, 2017
I’ll be honest: if you aren’t a theater buff, you won’t like this book. But then again, you probably wouldn’t be reading this review in the first place.
Calling all theater buffs! This fantastic, glossy-paged hardcover is a must-read. Usually I’m wary of lists that rank the “100 Greatest…” because everyone’s opinion is different, but this book is incredible. All the shows are in alphabetical order, so if you think The Pajama Game is the greatest Broadway musical of all time, you can go right on thinking that with no argument from the authors!
This 330-page book is humongous, perfect for your coffee table, and a guaranteed conversation starter when you have like-minded friends over. Each musical is showcased equally, featuring the basic facts (composer et al credits, number of runs, theater name and date of opening), synopsis, list of songs, and original cast. Glossy pages include a combination of backstage trivia, onstage photographs, and an occasional highlight to honor a famous Broadway star.
I absolutely loved reading this book, and even though I consider myself to be quite the musical aficionado, I learned new stories, and even new musicals. This is a perfect gift for your theater friend, or for yourself. You’ll be so happy to add it to your collection.
http://hottoastyrag.weebly.com/broadw...
Calling all theater buffs! This fantastic, glossy-paged hardcover is a must-read. Usually I’m wary of lists that rank the “100 Greatest…” because everyone’s opinion is different, but this book is incredible. All the shows are in alphabetical order, so if you think The Pajama Game is the greatest Broadway musical of all time, you can go right on thinking that with no argument from the authors!
This 330-page book is humongous, perfect for your coffee table, and a guaranteed conversation starter when you have like-minded friends over. Each musical is showcased equally, featuring the basic facts (composer et al credits, number of runs, theater name and date of opening), synopsis, list of songs, and original cast. Glossy pages include a combination of backstage trivia, onstage photographs, and an occasional highlight to honor a famous Broadway star.
I absolutely loved reading this book, and even though I consider myself to be quite the musical aficionado, I learned new stories, and even new musicals. This is a perfect gift for your theater friend, or for yourself. You’ll be so happy to add it to your collection.
http://hottoastyrag.weebly.com/broadw...
November 23, 2016
This is one of my favorite books about musicals, and I have many. Lots of information complimented by gorgeous pictures and fun anecdotes about everyone's favorite shows. My one tiny gripe is that some of my favorite shows aren't included (Sunday in the Park with George, for example), but this book taught me so much about musicals I already knew and musicals I should know. A must for any theatre geek.
July 8, 2016
Like a lot of other reviewers have said I don't agree with a lot of the musicals listed in this book, but it's an informative book nonetheless filled with nice pictures and plenty of information about each musical picked.
Read
April 4, 2012i've been reading this one for a while. it sits by my bed. eventually i will know everything about all shows! boo-wa-ha-ha!!!
October 14, 2008
A theater lovers dream come true!!!! :)
June 3, 2010
A great and informative look at Broadway. Very interesting!
March 24, 2011
A book not notable for its text, but for the treasured cavalcade of photos from Broadway's illustrious history.
July 10, 2011
A fun coffee table book. Great pictures. I disagree with some of the choices included but overall a fun read for the Broadway Musical enthusiast.
July 29, 2011
Not as good as I thought it may be. One for the fans
May 11, 2012
Positively brilliant! I felt like i was in production for each show, privy to anecdotes and inside jokes.
November 27, 2012
A 'must-have' for any fan of Broadway... be a part of it New York New York!
July 11, 2013
I got this book when it first came out.
Coffee table size. The pictures are beautiful.
And the history is theatrical without be snarky.
Coffee table size. The pictures are beautiful.
And the history is theatrical without be snarky.
May 22, 2014
This book is magnificent! It is the perfect coffee table book.
December 26, 2014
A musical lover's dream with just a few flat notes and missed steps. Where is PIPPIN?
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews