Here's the real problem with "measuring" all of these qualities, and I'm actually re-thinking my opinion on this...
Do we MEASURE these performing arts by level of skill or level of artistry? It seems that they are two entirely different things. I'll probably get bashed for this, but here are some examples:
For singing... Some people have terrific vocal instruments (usually chorus singers), but can't sell a song with enough star power and personality to sustain a lead successfully on Broadway. It takes way more than just a good voice. Others have far less vocal ability (Verdon, Reinking, Lahr, Mostel), but can "put over" a song better than a chorus kid with ten times the training and skill.
For dancing... Some people can kick higher, leap farther, and do quadruple turns... but they can't "sell" a dance with personality better than Vereen, Butz, Foster or Murphy. (Take a look at the chorus dancers in Fosse. They put me to sleep after about 20 minutes. They are not "star" dancers, but their skills and abilities are undeniable.)
For acting... There are performers that can read lines well, have studied extensively with all the right people, and perhaps have played a defining role on Broadway that totally fits their abilities and personalities. But there are not too many break-out actors "stars" around like Cherry Jones, Meryl Streep, Marlon Brando or Jessica Tandy. They rise above their skill and take the human art of acting to a whole different level.
I guess given the choice, I would rather hear Verdon sing than a beautifully trained, technically perfect (but otherwise boring) opera singer. I would rather see Butz dance than watch the bland, yet seemingly perfect ensemble in Fosse. I would rather listen to Cherry Jones read the phone book than listen to a monologue done by many that are fresh out of their prestigious acting schools.
...But, hey, that's me.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 11/9/05 at 05:53 PM