Actors Who Sing and Singers Who Can't Act

I just wanted to get others' opinions on this subject, do you believe that a person should have a substantial voice to perform in a musical but cannot act very well? Or do you think actors who have an average (or less than average for that matter) voice should be given a chance if they can knock people's socks off in their acting? I think people call this "acting a song", not just singing it.

I wanted to bring this up, partly because I am not the greatest singer, and also because I've watched two revivals of Company and two actors, Raul Esparza and Adrian Lester perform one of my favorite songs and fave Sondheim songs, "Being Alive". While Esparza has a unique, beautiful voice with range, Mr. Lester has a unique voice as well...that sounds like Kermit the Frog sometimes. These are both performances:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_n1KX1bWc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBBPKedba5o&feature=related

Would you rather go see Esparza or Lester? What's your opinion?

Personally, I like Adrian Lester's Bobby very much, and it's a nuanced performance and I like Raul Esparza's very well (his angry "mock me" is a surprise) too. But if I wanted to listen to "Being Alive" casually on my iPod, I would want to listen to Mr. Esparza. But I would go see Mr. Lester, watching him is a treat. A song in a musical is much more than getting the keys right.

---

Updated On: 4/5/09 at 10:27 PM

It is my personal pet peeve to watch singers who can't act. You can have the greatest voice in the world, but if you can't sell it...I won't buy it.

Many people thought Linda Eder was a horrid actress in J&H, but man, did she belt out those melodies and set the bar high.

I would much rather have a better singer who can't act, or at least not as well. But that's just me, and I seem to be in the minority.

---

Ideally I'd like it to be both. I really wouldn't prefer anything, but I'd probably take a better singer.

The funny thing for me is that despite the fact that I consider myself a singer first and have been singing a helluva lot longer than I've been acting, with very few exceptions I tend to get roles that either don't sing at all or only do so in ensemble numbers. These roles are traditionally done by actors who sing. Maybe others perceive me differently than I perceive myself? Anyway, I'd definitely take a singer who acts over an actor who sings, though I would never take a singer who can't act (I actually physically cringe when people sing without emotion).

At my high school it was a lot like that too Schmerg. I remember this one girl got every single lead role from her sophomore to senior year. Her voice was flawless, but she looked like a zombie on stage. Oh and even worse, if you could dance you were stuck in the ensemble. There was no way out even if you were a phenomenal actor/singer. What crap haha

---

Singers are boring. It's all about the acting.

Think about it in terms of the music business with performers like Beyonce or Justin Timberlake. The most successful artists don't just sing, they're performers. They wow an audience with their intensity and passion. That's why I find Norah Jones so damn boring.

If you stand there and sing, 99% of the audience could care less. And if you EVER ask that question in a theatre college, you will be tarred, feathered and CUT. Acting, above all, is what matters. Broadway agrees.

Raul is INCREDIBLE. He is mesmerizing, and I can never take my eyes off of him. I sat 2nd row center for Company and Raul spit on me several times. It was AWESOME.

Fair enough, I didn't know any of that. I was just going off of what was in front of me, not knowing any concept or directorial decisions.

I also didn't mean to imply that I thought of Raul as a ground-breaking actor.. I just meant in comparison between the two he played it more favorable (in my opinion).

While I enjoy his performance in Company, overall I felt that it was almost too blank slate, haha, so the two are kind of at the opposite ends of the spectrum in comparison, I suppose.

It's great that Bobby is such a pliable character though. I love that there can be two completely different interpretations of a character and both be valid.

---

Have you ever seen Raul in an actual play? He is...stunning.

And while that is true about Wicked...the script of Wicked does not lend itself to required fierce acting. You go to see Wicked for the high belting.

But. Luckily, they always cast fierce actor/singers with fierce cheekbones.

An interesting question, for sure. A wonderful actor with a decent voice can sell a show, no problem, and most likely better than a singer who can't really act.

But the strength of singing needed obviously depends on the show. Some could argue that certain roles are written for a singer to shine and that when you place a non-so-great singer in them, no matter how good the acting is, it falls flat. As someone pointed up thread - if Elphie can't belt out DG, well, then she's not right for the part. (Of course, Wicked doesn't really call for any extremely tough acting, either). The same could be said for other shows.

On the other side, there are plenty of shows that need to be acted well, but the singing doesn't have to OMG-Pretty! or OMG-Belting! to sell it.

Perhaps I'm asking too much, but I'd love musical actors to be able to both sing and act well. (For this reason, Audra McDonald is my current favorite musical actress.)

Honestly, if I have to sit through a musical and had to pick the amazing singer to the not as good singer but amazing actor, I would pick the singer every time. I feel like as a director/actor it is easier to get someone to a performance level who can already sing the material because they do not have to focus on sing and can connect with the material. Also acting in my opinion is more of a learned/developed skill where singing while it can be improved you either have "it" or don't. But I do believe there are some amazing singers who even though they are amazing actors will always be seen as singers. I hate that people who sing amazingly alot of the times are just ruled out as good actors. But that is me! Also look at what you do when you got to an audition, you sing. They are looking for the voice first, then they have you dance or read from the script. There is a reason. Its because there are plenty of people who can sing and act the role. They won't pick the better actor if they can't sing. Also Natasha Richardson is an odd example becasue she was mainly cast because she was a "name". But I love her voice!

Also I feel that if the actor can't sing its distracting. In the end, I want someone who can do both well.

---

Updated On: 5/14/09 at 02:21 AM

Yes, they expect you to act but I've been to plently of auditions where even if the person isn't an amazing actor they will call them back to see how they do in a cold reading. I mean my preference is a singer who can act and sing...

---