CATSNY, I think that's just the problem. It shouldn't just be fine. She was chosen to perform a role that requires a strong, lyric soprano voice, which she just didn't have at all when I saw her live, and then a few weeks later on the PBS Broadcast. Just because her character is supposed to have the mental maturity of a young girl, she has the physical maturity of a 26 year old woman, and therefore it's ok that she can speak/sing and act as such. As she grows throughout the show, it's probably even more appropriate.
I did not have the opportunity to hear what she sounded like on tour where most have said she sounded much better. Therefore, I'm going based upon what I heard in the theater and on TV. Regardless of whether she was trying to portray a young woman or a young girl, she just could not handle the role vocally. It always seemed as if she were struggling, whereas when Kelli sang, it was effortless.
Everyone can also come back and say sure, Kelli has the training, experience, etc... and Katie doesn't. But last time I checked, this was Broadway, not a community theater in Podunksville. To me, Katie's acting extent was touching Victoria Clark's face with her pointer finger every time they came together.
This subject has probably been beaten to death, and I know we all have different opinions on it, so we probably won't convince each other to change our opinions. That being said, I still just don't get the whole Katie Clark acting rings around Kelli argument, or that her voice was just fine and even "suited" the part better.
-There's the muddle in the middle. There's the puddle where the poodle did the piddle."
