Is being an actor over a singer more acceptable than being a singer over an actor?

It much be amazing to see someone act their way through a sow. I've personally never seen it done before.

---

Put it this way... to this very day, Barbra Streisand never includes the title singer when describing any portion of her talent.

Though her roots began in theater (summer stock, etc.), she technically began her professional career singing in nite-clubs. Her first professional acting job came about AFTER her singing career brought attention to her.

In other words... La Streisand still finds acting more acceptable than singing.

A weak actress has little right to be acting. Record an album, get a nightclub gig. But if you cannot bring the character to life....I don't want to see you.

You can act through the song and as long as you don't make my ears bleed, I'm with you.

---

As an audience member, the acting is most important to me personally. No matter how amazing their voice is, the acting must be good to make the character believable.

Not to start a whole debate again over Alice Ripley, but I am not a big fan of her voice. However, it's her acting that wows me and is what make her performance in Next to Normal so incredible. Another example is Karen Olivo. I know not everyone thinks she's the greatest dancer, but I was blown away by her performance in West Side Story because of her acting.

It depends on the role, IMO. But I tend to value singing over acting.

---

"It depends on the role, IMO. But I tend to value singing over acting."

Agreed. For example: Linda Eder in Jekyll & HYDE. Greatest actress? No. But for that role particularly, it's the songs that move her character's story, not necessarily book-parts.

Truly depends on the performer. As long as an actor(ress) can really act, I can easily get past a so-so singing voice. An extraordinary singer who can't act? Only in an opera, please.

Personally, I feel that acting is very important BUT, if you're going to be a musical you should be a great singer in ADDITION to your acting skills.. someone who is a great actor or actress but cannot sing, should not be in a musical.. for that you should have both.

I think the reason people seem to be more accepting towards subpar singing rather than acting is because singing requires more physical training and conditioning. You can still learn to act if you're tone deaf, or if smoking has ruined your voice, etc. Singing well requires correct use of the diaphragm, throat, tongue, lips, lungs, etc. You've gotta train your muscles to be good at it. Some people are naturally talented actors, but no one ever has the inborn ability to belt or hit high Es or perform coloratura.

I'm not sure if my point's coming across right, but what I'm trying to say is that you can still be an actor if you're missing a lung or if you can't read music, or if you have a breathy voice. You have to have the right physical requirements and training to be a good singer.

I'm not saying singing is harder, I'm just saying it's a different kind of thing. Acting is emoting and singing is muscle manipulation. Emoting can come naturally, but you have to condition your muscles to move a certain way to produce the right sound in singing.

It's far easier to pick out an untrained singer than an untrained actor in a professional production.

Updated On: 10/1/09 at 10:39 AM

Here's my personal criteria:

If I'd never want to see the performer in a part unless he or she is singing, then that person is a singer and not an actor (LuPone, Peters).

If I'd never consider buying a CD by a performer, then that person is an actor (Lansbury, Stritch).

For me, there are few performers I enjoy acting in straight plays/movies/etc, musical performances, and CD (Streisand).

---

^ Christine is exactly who I thought of as well. If you're not a trained singer, FORGET IT.

Though I adore London's current Phantom, who is both an untrained singer and actor. I'm such a hypocrite.

Updated On: 10/1/09 at 11:03 AM

I definitely value acting over singing if I had to choose. So do, apparently, the Tony Awards since their awards are for acting and not singing (or so the individual awards are titled).

And I disagree with WhizzerMarvinetc... I'd rather have a well acted Billy than a well sung Billy (although having someone who can both sing and act the heck out of it is ideal of course). "Soliloquy" especially is all about the acting and journey of the character, even if there is that high G at the end. Billy is very complex and a hard role to grasp, and if the person playing him doesn't fully understand the character, he will lose me.

~Steven