What is it with musical production companies putting varying grades of celebrities into the musicals?

I've seen very few "celebrities" that have performed better than the rest of the cast. Ok, before this gets out of hand, I'll stop using quotes for the word celebrities from now on, otherwise it'd get quickly get tedious. By celebrity I mean the type of name found on mid-afternoon TV or in a soap, not the names that feature in major blockbusters or art films. Often, a minor member of the cast will out-perform the celebrity. Yet, it's the celebrity that has the headline, their name in lights and usually the roles that everyone associates with the show. However, I see the star as getting in the way, taking the role from someone who deserves it more.

There are thousands of arts and drama school graduates, so why does the job go to a tv star? Some of the stars may have also worked their way up, so it's not a clear line to draw between the two. I've also seen a few celebrities that were able to hold their own against the professional musical cast.

So the star has public appeal or at least gives the production company more opportunity for press releases where they can feature the star's name.

But does the celebrity convince people to go to see the show? How many people will go and see Rent because Jessie Wallace is in it? She may be good in the role, I don't know - I will be finding out though. But had I known there was a celebrity in it, I'd have thought twice about getting tickets. About a year ago, I was in London and we went to a few of the musicals. We were lucky in the nights that we'd chosen (at random). None of them had the type of celebrity I refer to here. In fact, we saw the stand-in at one show for the celebrity who wasn't performing that night. That was a close shave.

But a quick look at the top 20 or so musical theatre shows currently in London and we find that the majority have stars in them.

Chicago is one of the main culprits especially if we look at the list of actors in the principal roles over the last few years.

So what was the selection process for those roles? Was it talent?

Judging from what I've heard a few of them do, I doubt it. And it gets worse if the production travels elsewhere in England other than London. It becomes a game of how many celebrities can you fit into the production. Local celebrities seem to earn more points for the production company than the national celebs. Many have a minor celebrity cast list to rival a Blackpook pantomine.

The current rash of "create a celebrity out of a host of auditionees" shows prove that there can be talent and I'm sure that if the focus were on auditioning and not on making profitable tv, it could be done quicker and cheaper.

So I'm left confused, I can't see what benefit they really bring. I don't see the financial benefits of taking a second-rate celebrity and putting them in the limelight like that. I don't see any cultural benefits either, I actually think it has the opposite effect and acts as dumbing-down musical theatre.

Maybe they just have great agents.