Lip Synching - A Moral Question- Page 2

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:07am

"I would tell them that you want the role. THey'll have to choose which is more important - acting and dancing......or singing. This IS musical, I know which one I'd pick."

I was reacting to this comment. Clearly, this poster feels that singing is THE most important talent for an actor in a musical to posess

[jordangirl]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:08am

Oh, ok.

Personally if I had to pick a weaker side as an audience member, if it's a musical, I'd sacrifice a bit of acting talent for the vocal goods. But that's just my opinion.

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:10am

So cool to know that everyone loves a weak actor!

Then you all complain when the bring a TV star into a broadway show, citing that they cant sing!

You guys kill me

[jordangirl]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:15am

A) Would I prefer someone who can do both? Of course. BUT if they have to choose, if it's a musical choose the stronger singer. If it's a play choose the actor.

B) I haven't complained about tv stars being brought in. But that kind of proves the point here. A tv star's acting skills might (MIGHT) be excellent, but if it's a musical and they can't sing, I think people have a right to complain. It's a MUSICAL. Ergo if you can't sing, you should probably stick to plays. I don't pay money to watch someone lip sync or sing less than well in a musical!

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:28am

The song book of Broadway has been sung by hundreds of AMAZING ACTORS who cant sing. Gwen Verdon. Elaine Stritch. Um...gee, listen to just about any cast album and you will see this. BUT IT DOESNT MATTER if the note is hit just right if the performance is there. Is John McMartin a wonderful singer--I dont think so but I love his work. Even Mary Louise Wilson--who I ADORE!!! isnt what you'd call a 'singer' David Hyde Pierce is superb as the LEAD IN A BROADWAY MUSICAL. Sure, he carries a tune...but a singer?

Broadway has changed over the years. Actors ARE better singers..and better dancers now. They have to be. They dont hire singing choruses and then dancers like they used to. You have to be the whole package now. Thats great. Thats just great.

But Musical Theatre is about a musical PERFORMANCE. If there is no PERFORMANCE
then there is no music.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:28am

>> I disagree, Sean, if they can't pull it off this could be what the theater is known for and be laughed at for years.

That's their decision, and I'm sure they're aware of the risks.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:30am

You have your opinion and I have mine. As I said, I'd RATHER have the complete package. But singing ability outranks acting IF I have to choose. FOR ME.

You're free to have your own opinion. Just as I'm free to have mine.

:)

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:41am

I'm not questioning or disapproving of your opinion! Just voicing my own too!
Thats what these boards are about..just opinons. Nuthing personal!!!

[jordangirl]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:44am

Ok. :)

[somuchtodo]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 10:59am

I don't know what theater company you are referring to, but I do know that our local theater company works with a razor thin budget. A bad review i.e. "the lead can't sing!" would put them in a red hole.

Perhaps if they put in a disclaimer...Due to unavoidable circumstances, rather than cancel the performance, we have chosen to enhance the vocals of X with the voice of Akiva.

As an audience member I might be grateful that the show wasn't canceled - but if I just thought the lead was lip synching, I would be furious.

[HumATune]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 11:18am

Look at the bright side, if your name isn't on the program and something does goes wrong..you won't be publicly embarrassed.

[soapguy17]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 11:18am

Akiva, if you don't do it. I sure will. I always wanted to be the male Marni Nixon (Those damn editing voice programs ruined any chances of that!), So this seems like the next best thing.

Updated On: 7/8/07 at 11:18 AM

[DannyBoy82]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 11:22am

Soapguy, I think that would confuse the audience a little too much.

Mommy, why does the skinny white guy sound like a big black man?

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 11:35am

I hate the idea of lip synching in live theatre. It does seem dishonest to me. However, this theatre company is in a major bind and lip synching may be the only way to go. But the audience must be in on this before the show begins, either in the program or by a public address announcement prior to the start of the show. Otherwise it becomes doubly dishonest. If the audience is left to discover this on its own then it would be furious, and rightly so.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 11:56am

I don't think that I could go through with it. If the guy can't sing, they should find someone else.

I also feel that singing is very important to musical theatre, but I need some acting ability too. Namely, people who know how to act with their voice. It's the difference between sounding like a choir solo or, say, Jesus the night before he's about to die (that's a real life example, btw: I saw a JCS production where the Jesus had a good voice, but it was entirely expressionless.)

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 1:10pm

Bertandrew: I assure you. I can act and serviceably dance the role. I have been a lead for this theatre company several times before. The reason they can't offer me the actual role is because of scheduling conflicts (aka...I will be across the country during the run of the show working on two other shows).

Thanks everyone for their opinion. Again, I can't even begin to make a decision until I have a big talk with the producers. I think what I will essentially tell them is that I am willing to record my voice (hell...I need the money, and I love the recording studio), but that quite frankly it just won't work. I mean...I took a sound design course in University. I know acoustics. I know the layout of this theatre (or actually...lack of theatre since its outdoors) and the distance from an actor to the closest audience. There is no way the closer members will be fooled. Having said that I think I will be a horrible person and record my voice for them if they still want to, and let them suffer the consequences, whatever they might be, with not much guilt actually since I will have given them full warning.

Akiva

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 1:36pm

What is the show, Akiva?

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 3:31pm

Quick question...maybe even a stupid one, but how did they even wind up in this mess to begin with? Didn't the understudy have to audition for the role? How are they now figuring out that the guy can't sing the role?

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 5:09pm

Rotel: I'm not entirely sure hoe they got in this mess (i haven't had any relationship to this company for 2 years now, although prior to that they essentially helped pay my way through college). All I know is they had to let go of their lead, and they can't seem to find a suitable replacement in the short amount of time that they have left.

Akiva

[mikem]

Posted: 7/8/07 at 5:38pm

Akiva, if the company is well-known enough that the inevitable scandal when the truth comes out would be picked up by the press, I would think about declining. It would be very easy for a reporter to write a story slanted towards the idea that the theater was tricking its audience, and if that happens, you don't want to be in the article as someone who was an active participant in a plot to deceive innocent people who paid hard-earned money to see live theater, only to be fooled by the theater management.

If it's a small theater that is completely off the radar screen, then it's a slightly different situation, but if not, I think the theater is crazy to entertain this idea. As you've pointed out, it won't work, and the theater will lose any audience base it ever had.

[junkyard]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 9:35am

You must be kidding..........this theatre company must be real 'minor leauge'.........no way should an audience have to pay for a 'recorded' live performance.......shame

[holdmetouchme]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 3:37pm

What part of "live" theater don't you get?

Lip-synching for any reason is a sham and plain wrong (I want to hear an actual performance, not a perfect one - for that I can listen to the OBC).

Several years ago a local theater wanted to use synthesized music to save costs - I and mnay other supporters told them that our subscriptions and donations would be cancelled if they went ahead with their plan - the result, live music only.

So unless the piece calls for an obvious recorded segment (e.g the taped playback in "Hey There"), I'm paying for and expect live performances.

[twogaab2]

Posted: 7/12/07 at 9:59am

To be absolutely honest, I would rather that they would put excellent voices in the pit (or back stage) and watch the dancers on stage lip-sync than have to put up with some of the catterwalling that we have been subjected to on stage ever since "A Chorus Line:. Esp. as of the idiotically rising prices of stage shows.

Just my opinion, I may be wrong.

Updated On: 7/12/07 at 09:59 AM

[friedrichVT]

Posted: 7/12/07 at 1:50pm

Lip Synching,or "sweetener" is used ALL the time in shows. The title number in Phantom of the Opera is almost(if not completely) pre recorded and Lip-synched to. Of course it is their voices on track. The audience will know in your case,so they won't be fooling anyone. The should just come clean.

[somuchtodo]

Posted: 7/23/07 at 11:08pm

Did this get resolved? Spill!