I work for a weekly newspaper in rural Connecticut. I’m editing an article about the new production team at our local summer stock theater. Ziemba appeared there two seasons ago.
In the interview, they said they hoped to bring in more “celebrity-level” talent like her.
While she is very well-known in theater circles, hers is not really a household name, so I want to convey to readers that she is, in fact, “celebrity-level.” At first I wrote, “on par with actors like Broadway legend Karen Ziemba (who starred in “Gypsy” two summers ago).”
But I’m wondering about the term “legend.” Yes, she’s been in 11 Broadway productions, starring in at least four of them. She’s been nominated for a Tony twice, and won one of them. But does that add up to legendary?
So, my question: Is “Broadway legend” an appropriate modifier?
My second question: If not, what would you go with? “Broadway stalwart”? “Broadway regular”? “Broadway mainstay?” Something else?
Of course she’s a legend. You don’t know that she’s a legend? Why would you think that? Well, then you just don’t know when you see a TRUE LEGEND!
All kidding aside, it makes for good copy. After all, don’t you want to promote that your theater features “Broadway Legends!”. Whereas “Stalwart” sounds like someone who unloads the trucks.
I think you made the right choice. I work in the Broadway industry and even I wouldn’t call her a legend. Chita Rivera, Bernadette Peters, yes, but not her (yet).
She will be 60 in two weeks. Seems to me that she has longevity. Not that I ever heard of her until today but Broadway isn’t what it used to be (a lament for the last half-century).
I meant longevity in one’s career. Ethel Merman, Bea Arthur, Elaine Stritch, etc. I’m sure Karen Ziemba is a lovely lady, but I honestly can’t think of what she’s been in besides Steel Pier, and that was not much of a success.