#26
Posted: 8/24/04 at 5:17pm
Acting talent:........John Tartaglia!!!
The Caliber/Amount of Acting in Broadway Musicals — Page 2
#27
Posted: 8/24/04 at 5:21pm
To me the level of acting AND singing AND dancing talent on Broadway is extraordinarily high. A bad performance in any category is the exception, not the rule.
Faced with these Loreleis, what man can moralize!
#29
Posted: 8/24/04 at 5:26pm
well, i hate to say this, NBRISBY, but alot of people in the business are not good performers for one reason or another. Sure, many people have great voices and are great actors, but rarely do the twain meet. I personally would prefer a great actor over a great singer....which is why angela lansbury is my hero(ine). I have sat through many auditions and (i'm no great singer by any means) i'm shocked at what people do--i want to pull them aside and ask them why they would ever attempt a career in a field in which they have no flair for at all. you don't see me trying out for the knicks, you know?
#30
Posted: 8/24/04 at 5:37pm
I think in some shows singing is more important and in others, acting matters more. It depends on the amount and type of music and dialogue. Look at Rent, it's entirely sung so you need strong voices to do it, but if the acting is so-so it's less noticiable than in a straight musical or play. Some shows or even particular roles need singers who can act, others need actors who can sing.
#31
Posted: 8/24/04 at 5:49pm
Denis O'Hare in Assassins. Not the strongest singer - but his acting took the part over the edge. He was amazing.
In the past it has been preferable to have an "actor who sings" and gives a great overall performance. In recent times, I've seen many shows suffer at the hands of a great vocalist that stands on the stage like a piece of funiture when it comes to their lines.
In the past it has been preferable to have an "actor who sings" and gives a great overall performance. In recent times, I've seen many shows suffer at the hands of a great vocalist that stands on the stage like a piece of funiture when it comes to their lines.
Everybody goes down well with beer.
#32
Posted: 8/24/04 at 6:02pm
you're totally right about o'hare--plus i thought he did very interesting vocal things that really set him apart from hadary on the album...
#33
Posted: 8/24/04 at 6:26pm
In this name game, I'm surprised no one mentioned this one:
RAUL ESPARZA
He completely blew me away in The Normal Heart, and I didn't even know he sang and did musicals until I came to the board (even though I owned the Rocky Horror BCR, I didn't know it was him).
RAUL ESPARZA
He completely blew me away in The Normal Heart, and I didn't even know he sang and did musicals until I came to the board (even though I owned the Rocky Horror BCR, I didn't know it was him).
BlueWizard's blog: The Rambling Corner
HEDWIG: "The road is my home. In reflecting upon the people whom I have come upon in my travels, I cannot help but think of the people who have come upon me."
#34
Posted: 8/24/04 at 6:40pm
We're missing it. Everyone keeps talking about the old stars like Merman, Martin, Andrews...they were great singers/actors/dancers. We just dont notice all of them now cuz they're right in front of us. I know it sounds weird but its true. Who do you think will be remembered and hopefully still working lol in 30 years. Idina Menzel will always be known for Wicked, similar to Ethel Merman in Gypsy. That was by far her most memorable performance. Hugh Jackman for Boy From Oz. Heather Headley will be remembered by Aida. They are all great. It's a shame though. I think some of the best talent (singing/dancing and im sure acting) comes from the ensemble members. I love watching stars being born.
I forgot Sutton as well. they're all here people lol, we just argue so much about the shows they're in, we miss their real talent
I forgot Sutton as well. they're all here people lol, we just argue so much about the shows they're in, we miss their real talent
#35
Posted: 8/24/04 at 6:42pm
I have never believed a performance I have seen in a musical. Ever. I don't expect it. They're singing and the acting is cheesy and overdone because of it. If you want good acting and writing, all you can do is go to a movie or a straight play.
#36
Posted: 8/24/04 at 6:47pm
Bronx,
I laughed out loud when I read your post. You can't possibly be serious? If you are, baby, we gotta get you edumucated.
I laughed out loud when I read your post. You can't possibly be serious? If you are, baby, we gotta get you edumucated.
#37
Posted: 8/24/04 at 6:50pm
If you want good acting and writing, all you can do is go to a movie or a straight play.
All of Sondheim has just been erased by that statement.
All of Sondheim has just been erased by that statement.
#38
Posted: 8/24/04 at 7:57pm
I feel Brent Barrett is the Mandy Patinkin of this generation...is so busy showing off his lovely voice (and it IS lovely) that he can't waste time with character development.
Have I ever shown you my Shattered Dreams box? It's in my Disappointment Closet. - Marge Simpson
#39
Posted: 8/24/04 at 10:27pm
The job of the actor is to activate material, whether it's a monologue or song (which is essentially a heightened, stylized monologue).
Opera, with its emphasis on vocalism above everything else, is a science, demanding a cultivated vocal precision from its practitioners and an adherence to the score, even at the expense of dramatic credibility. Watching the obese Jane Eaglen pathetically struggling to execute the simplest staging while gloriously negotiating the vocal demands of Wagnerian opera is a case in point.
Musical theatre, however, places greater emphasis on the coherent dramaturgy of its script, with its songs, arising from the text's narrative action and character. The well-written musical extends its action through the songs and provides the actor with something to play throughout the song and, as an art, allows a greater leeway of interpretation and psychological nuance. Hence, it requires performers who are able to negotiate the vocal demands of the music as well as provide credible motivation, subtext and behavior in their delineation of character.
The canard that "musical theater actors stop acting when they start singing" is a long-outmoded prejudice from the days when musicals had librettos with flimsy constructions, ludicrous situations, and unbelievable characters (the sit-coms of their day). That attitude is fostered today by ignoramuses, be they directors or casting agents, who have no understanding or perception of the nature of musical theatre in the first place. Singing actors like Donna Murphy and Malcolm Gets, to name two, are exceptionally talented singing actors who leave such notions behind in the dust.
Of course, there are roles like Billy Bigelow or Momma Rose which have come to be associated with a certain vocal prowess. Needless to say, there is a sense of diminished expectations or disappointment when less-than-stellar vocalists essay those roles. Yes, I would have preferred Tyne Daly to soar on the "I-I-I-I at least gotta try" bridge of SOME PEOPLE and Michael Hayden to rise to the vocal heights in the SOLILOQUY. But, nonetheless, there were other pleasures to be found in both of their well-acted performances that perhaps eluded their predecessors. And, in case someone thinks they don't make performers like they used to, I suggest you listen to Gertrude Lawrence in any number of performances available on record. For all her charisma and magnetism, she had one of the most unreliable singing voices ever, thin and poorly-intoned on most occasions. But none of that seemed to matter due to her great glamour and appeal.
Opera, with its emphasis on vocalism above everything else, is a science, demanding a cultivated vocal precision from its practitioners and an adherence to the score, even at the expense of dramatic credibility. Watching the obese Jane Eaglen pathetically struggling to execute the simplest staging while gloriously negotiating the vocal demands of Wagnerian opera is a case in point.
Musical theatre, however, places greater emphasis on the coherent dramaturgy of its script, with its songs, arising from the text's narrative action and character. The well-written musical extends its action through the songs and provides the actor with something to play throughout the song and, as an art, allows a greater leeway of interpretation and psychological nuance. Hence, it requires performers who are able to negotiate the vocal demands of the music as well as provide credible motivation, subtext and behavior in their delineation of character.
The canard that "musical theater actors stop acting when they start singing" is a long-outmoded prejudice from the days when musicals had librettos with flimsy constructions, ludicrous situations, and unbelievable characters (the sit-coms of their day). That attitude is fostered today by ignoramuses, be they directors or casting agents, who have no understanding or perception of the nature of musical theatre in the first place. Singing actors like Donna Murphy and Malcolm Gets, to name two, are exceptionally talented singing actors who leave such notions behind in the dust.
Of course, there are roles like Billy Bigelow or Momma Rose which have come to be associated with a certain vocal prowess. Needless to say, there is a sense of diminished expectations or disappointment when less-than-stellar vocalists essay those roles. Yes, I would have preferred Tyne Daly to soar on the "I-I-I-I at least gotta try" bridge of SOME PEOPLE and Michael Hayden to rise to the vocal heights in the SOLILOQUY. But, nonetheless, there were other pleasures to be found in both of their well-acted performances that perhaps eluded their predecessors. And, in case someone thinks they don't make performers like they used to, I suggest you listen to Gertrude Lawrence in any number of performances available on record. For all her charisma and magnetism, she had one of the most unreliable singing voices ever, thin and poorly-intoned on most occasions. But none of that seemed to matter due to her great glamour and appeal.
Updated On: 8/24/04 at 10:27 PM
#40
Posted: 8/24/04 at 10:43pm
Wow, MusicMan. I think we agree on something. :)
#41
Posted: 8/24/04 at 10:45pm
Fantastic post, MusicMan.
BlueWizard's blog: The Rambling Corner
HEDWIG: "The road is my home. In reflecting upon the people whom I have come upon in my travels, I cannot help but think of the people who have come upon me."
#43
Posted: 8/25/04 at 12:20pm
I'd be curious to hear from musical theatre performers on this topic (I know you're out there). Some questions for you:
Do you find well-written musical theatre scripts provide you with more or less acting challenges than a legit play in the creation of character?
Are contemporary musicals more or less interesting for you to play than the classics of the Golden Age?
Have you personally experienced condescension at the hands of a casting agent, director, etc. because your resume primarily listed musicals?
Chime in, folks.
Do you find well-written musical theatre scripts provide you with more or less acting challenges than a legit play in the creation of character?
Are contemporary musicals more or less interesting for you to play than the classics of the Golden Age?
Have you personally experienced condescension at the hands of a casting agent, director, etc. because your resume primarily listed musicals?
Chime in, folks.
Updated On: 8/25/04 at 12:20 PM
#44
Posted: 8/25/04 at 12:43pm
Do you find well-written musical theatre scripts provide you with as many acting challenges as a legit play in the creation of character?
NO. They provide me with MORE of a challange than most scripts nowadays. They are akin to acting Shakespeare...mainly because you work on two levels. In Shakespeare, you must balance the emotion with the text (i.e. show off the character AND the script...by pointing out cool stuff like meter, entendre, etc.). And, in Musical Theatre, the same thing is required...you show off both the character AND the music. THe hard thing about musicals is that most of the choices have been made for you...i.e by the tempo, rhythm, and pitch (among other things)...so, you have to be true to that.
As far as the creation of character...that is only one of the many aspects of acting, but...creating one is tricky in theatre cause youe got to justify why you've decided to break into song. So many musical theatre actors don't know how to do this...and it is the reason many people get turned off to musical theatre.
Are contemporary musicals more or less interesting to play than the classics of the Golden Age?
They are just a different beast. I think the songs in modern musicals on the whole are more specific (requiring less of a subtextual work from the actor)...e.g. instead of the lyric being "some enchanted evening, you will see a stranger walking across a crowded room", you get "if you had a tatoo, that wouldn't matter. if you had a shaved head, that'd be cool...id say hey hey shiska goddess, i've been waiting for someone like you."
Have you personally experienced condescension at the hands of a casting agent, director, etc. because your resume primarily listed musicals?
Most musical theatre actors, I would venture, have experienced not being taken seriously by casting directors. But, I would venture to say that most casting directors (there are very few exceptions) are idiots with no creativity whatsoever. So, they want someone who has done the aprt or a part similar to it...and if you haven't and you aren't Rosie or someone akin, you aren't worth them paying attention for long enough to consider you seriously.
That's my two cents. Well, maybe it's worth 3.
NO. They provide me with MORE of a challange than most scripts nowadays. They are akin to acting Shakespeare...mainly because you work on two levels. In Shakespeare, you must balance the emotion with the text (i.e. show off the character AND the script...by pointing out cool stuff like meter, entendre, etc.). And, in Musical Theatre, the same thing is required...you show off both the character AND the music. THe hard thing about musicals is that most of the choices have been made for you...i.e by the tempo, rhythm, and pitch (among other things)...so, you have to be true to that.
As far as the creation of character...that is only one of the many aspects of acting, but...creating one is tricky in theatre cause youe got to justify why you've decided to break into song. So many musical theatre actors don't know how to do this...and it is the reason many people get turned off to musical theatre.
Are contemporary musicals more or less interesting to play than the classics of the Golden Age?
They are just a different beast. I think the songs in modern musicals on the whole are more specific (requiring less of a subtextual work from the actor)...e.g. instead of the lyric being "some enchanted evening, you will see a stranger walking across a crowded room", you get "if you had a tatoo, that wouldn't matter. if you had a shaved head, that'd be cool...id say hey hey shiska goddess, i've been waiting for someone like you."
Have you personally experienced condescension at the hands of a casting agent, director, etc. because your resume primarily listed musicals?
Most musical theatre actors, I would venture, have experienced not being taken seriously by casting directors. But, I would venture to say that most casting directors (there are very few exceptions) are idiots with no creativity whatsoever. So, they want someone who has done the aprt or a part similar to it...and if you haven't and you aren't Rosie or someone akin, you aren't worth them paying attention for long enough to consider you seriously.
That's my two cents. Well, maybe it's worth 3.
#45
Posted: 8/25/04 at 1:00pm
hamlet said it best, "speak the speech"...i don't think there is any difference in acting in a musical or a play, just using a different set of muscles. it's my opinion that if you approach a show, any show with the attitude that's it's a real story with real people, otheriwse it's a cartoon production, not grounded in reality--that goes for "Grease" to "King Lear"
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95