Is being an actor over a singer more acceptable than being a singer over an actor?- Page 2

[sondhead]

Posted: 10/1/09 at 4:40pm

Updated On: 11/12/09 at 04:40 PM

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 10/1/09 at 5:15pm

I love a good riff, but it has to be earned and coming from somewhere emotionally. I personally don't think any song in Wicked needs riffing at all. In fact, I appreciated Julia Murney's take on Elphaba because she didn't riff or feel the need to riff on her big songs. She sang songs as written, letting what Schwartz wrote inform her acting. I'm not a huge Wicked fan, but I did appreciate what she did on that stage.

Sondheim surely likes a good actor over a good singer. Even though his songs are crazy hard to sing and learn, he always seems to approve and choose the person who can get the emotion behind the song over the person who can sing it technically perfect. Many Broadway productions of his works (and movies too) show this.

~Steven

[ryantbo2]

Posted: 10/1/09 at 5:33pm

I used to work at Hartford Stage and had the chance to talk to a lot of new York based actors. I heard so many times that they kept seperate resumes - leaving off any of their musical theater experience when auditioning for "straight" shows because the perception of casting people is that singers are not strong actors. So they tended to hide their singing experience

[defscott627]

Posted: 10/1/09 at 6:25pm

Unfortunately (or fortunately for singers), I think that Musical Theatre is revolving more around singing than acting these days. With all of the contemporary musicals that are coming out, acting is getting more and more campy that just about anyone can get through the books if they can sing some high notes (does it really take an amazing actor to get through Rock of Ages, Legally Blonde, etc?). I love great acting; don't get me wrong. I just think today, it is more acceptable for you to be a singer who acts rather than an actor who sings in musical theater.

I don't care if you're the actual Wicked Witch of the West; if you cannot sing the songs in Wicked, the audience is not going to like you.
Updated On: 10/1/09 at 06:25 PM

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/1/09 at 6:35pm

I think there is still much value put on acting. If all that was valued was singing, Linda Eder would have a mantle full of Tonys.

[Pianolin717]

Posted: 10/1/09 at 9:18pm

I LOVE a great singer but when I saw 9 to 5, I came away loving Allison Janney the most. Her singing might not have been "the best" but her acting was spot on and her comedic timing was spotless. If you look at SJB, her singing was great, but her acting could not carry her through the show.

[snl89]

Posted: 10/1/09 at 11:39pm

I'm definitely one of those people who does value acting over singing. Don't get me wrong, I am blown away by amazing singers, and when someone does an amazing vocal job I am definitely likely to gush about it.

BUT, the thing is NO show really works if it doesn't make you feel something, you know? I don't think any show could really be THAT great if you cast people who can see their butts off but don't get you to feel anything for the characters.

Preferably you would have people who can both act AND sing their butts off. But it IS sometimes possible to get away with having not-as-spectacular singers if their acting is incredible. It's a lot harder to still have an effective show if the cast can sing like crazy but are weak on the acting.


Of course it also depends on the show and the character- certain characters in certain shows don't really drive the emotion behind the show but yet have some really memorable musical numbers. In that case, the vocals might override the need for perfect acting. But MUCH of the time, I just find myself much more invested in shows where the acting is strongest and the singing follows.

That's why Idina will always be my favorite Elphaba- I DON'T think she's the strongest Elphaba vocally, but to this day the vulnerability with which she played the role strikes a chord with me in a way that no other Elphaba (except maybe Eden) has.

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 10/2/09 at 12:57am

Absolutely - 100%.

You can be a phenominal singer and have no presence, because you don't know how to be present.

What gives actors "star presence" is the fact that they act.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 10/2/09 at 1:15am

Acting is the most important element of any performance. Of course, there are times (ie Elphaba in Wicked, Christine in Phantom) that the actor must also possess a magnificent voice. But overall, if the Christine can't act, I'm not going to care.

Jennifer Hope Wills, who has a lovely, strong, GORGEOUS voice, is not particularly the best-sung Christine because she sacrifices pretty trilling for some bold acting choices that make performance the most thrilling of any Christine in some time. In a way, I think I may have preferred her more subtle vocals...it made the richness of her character's cadenzas and vocal development all the more thrilling to hear.

Updated On: 10/2/09 at 01:15 AM

[legally_popular]

Posted: 10/2/09 at 1:58am

I LOVE a great singer but when I saw 9 to 5, I came away loving Allison Janney the most. Her singing might not have been "the best" but her acting was spot on and her comedic timing was spotless.

I agree with this 100%. I was thinking of her too when I mentioned the other two examples in my initial response. Allison is not even close to have the vocal power as Stephanie or Megan, yet her acting was spot-on and made me like her character the best. And the fact that she knows she's not the greatest singer, yet still puts all that effort into "One of the Boys," her other songs, and the entire show made me love her even more.

[sondhead]

Posted: 10/2/09 at 4:49pm

Updated On: 11/12/09 at 04:49 PM

[Craww]

Posted: 10/2/09 at 7:54pm

It depends. Like, with some of the local theater I've seen, the singing was so bad I would have chosen good singing over good acting any day of the week. However, in that realm, most of the best singers I've seen have also been the better actors. People with more confidence in one ability often feel freer to succeed with the other requirements of the role.

I've rarely seen performances on Broadway with truly bad singing, though. I've seen singers whose range was unimpressive, but could still handle the role they were cast in. I've seen singers whose tone I didn't appreciate, but that's subjective. I've seen few singers on Broadway who botched a note or sang off key or were consistently sharp or flat or what have you.

So, if we're talking literally bad singing? In a musical, I'll say singing is more important. However, as long as the person cast can sing the role? Then I focus more on acting, yes.

[beagle]

Posted: 10/3/09 at 1:18am

I would say that I value acting over singing in general, but I still think singing is important. It is a musical, after all. I wouldn't want to see a truly *bad* singer in a musical, no matter how good an actor the person is. I would, however, prefer a good-but-not-great singer who is a great actor over a great singer who is a so-so actor. There are a few roles where the voice *has* to be great, but I think in most musicals a great actor who is able to carry a tune and sell the song despite not having a spectacular voice is preferable to a fabulous singer who doesn't have the acting ability or stage presence.