What makes a good/great musical theatre performer? — Page 2

Talent plus TECHNIQUE to begin with. A personality ( the charisma factor) is a real element. Chemistry is a more unique "flavour" more important when casting a show & seeing how the "flavours" mix. And while yes a performer should be allowed to grow & stretch you still have to play to your strengths OTHERWISE we should not have condemed Ms Mellie for her ( albeit lousy) turn on the stage! Pretty people are nice to look @ but unless you are mirror breaking in looks a lot can be done with make up lighting staging and a more "unique" look helps to seperate you from the generalized herd. Just my thoughts!

I know they don't have the final say.... I work in this business. i also know that what a casting director recomends/has to say can weigh heavily with the creative team. I also know that "better safe than sorry" is a common opinion/point of view taken. I know of several actors who play the same role five different times in five different shows with five different directors.

Gawd, I can't believe all the responses to the question. So who decides who is great??? The ticket going public right??? So in the past when there was no internet, no tv, how did people get to know performers like Ethel Merman. Radio, right??? Wouldn't it be "great" if we could have a weekly Radio show from the West End and Broadway that would showcase all these unusually talented people that most people don't know. I have to dig to find anything that plays show music on the radio. My digital cable tv has show tunes. That is a good thing I guess.

I don't believe at all that technical ability is worthless. The great, legendary performers all have the X-factor. But they've also worked all their lives at mastering techical ability. It's wonderful to have natural talent, but you can't do anything without hard work and training. That said, I believe it's possible to be a Broadway performer and make a living without the X-factor. You just won't be a star, but you will be a solid, respected performer, one who people realized have made it by themselves because of their hard work and passion.

Such an interesting and thought provoking topic.

Society now often confuses celebrity with ability; good looks with good performance; popularity instead of originality. A true star is able to make us BELIEVE....whatever. Take for example Judi Dench possibly the greatest British actress. She's not conventionally good looking, tiny in stature and no great singer...but she can turn even a musical role into something wonderfully believable. Even manages to convinces us in James Bond films that she is the boss... when she's knee high to a grasshopper!

Great performers have a chameleon quality...they can manipulate an audience making it blind to the obvious and accept the improbable. They lift the script from the page and give it wings. And they surprise us. Or at least that's how it should be.

Unfortunately, greatness is often measured by fame and image. Producers bring film stars to the West End stage because they are popular. I'd say much of it is more like merchandising than performance. You take a brand name and sell it. But that isn't necessarily Art. It's the PR hype people who are great at their jobs, not necessarily the performers.

Then you have performers with a great talent who simply do the same songs or the same type of roles and never come up with anything truly original. Greatness isn't just about hitting the right notes or looking good on stage. It's about creativity and being innovative. Not simply covering other peoples work that has gone before. Many stars tread this safe route and rely on their fans. But I think it stops them far short of the "truly great" bracket.

I'd like to see more opportunity for new work and less revivals, pop tribute shows or stage versions of films. If we're to spot the new stars of the future, great performers also need great work to play.

This is quite an interesting thread. And for the most part, I agree with a lot of what has been said. I definitely agree that a performer has to have some kind of charisma, and presence and it must be magnetic. When that person walks on stage all eyes should be on him/her, and the audience should be in the palm of their hands.

Talent is also a big factor too, but that is also very relative. Who someone might consider as talented, may not neccesarily be talented to someone else. But if that person is still able to put on a good show, and somehow entertain while doing so, that's another matter. For a quick example - Marissa Jaret Winokur. I love her - but I have had friends who didn't think she was worth all the hoopla being made about her in Hairspray. Did their opinions really detract from their enjoyment of her contribution to the show overall? Not really.

As for "chemistry" with other cast memebers.....I don't know if that can really be taken into account when determining "star capability". As a performer/actor, I have done shows where everyone was spot "on" most/every night, or where a few cast members always seemed to either not be with, or be on the same level as the cast performance wise, or just seemed to outshine them. And, it wasn't because they were hamming up, it was because the other memebers of the cast just weren't there. So chemistry is, in my opinion a moot point. It's great if you have it with the cast, but that is something that is not always going to be achieved.

As for looks - I find that to be a moot point as well. However, if a certain role requires one to be a looker, then that is different and is an important factor. But if not, if you can convincingly play a part, and your looks don't detract from your performance, who cares what you look like?

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

---

Where does professionalism come into the equation. Is is important?? Does it mean anything???? Does it exist anymore???

Sorry, I oopsed on the computer at work

I have always said -- a great performer should be able to do the part naked and still be believable.

Rlb,

It's my favorite Christmas special

'The MC Who Stole Christmas'

---

From all reports, Mary Martin was pretty good to work with. Almost saccharin. Yet, even those that were put off by her "saccharinity" always said she was a pro -- almost to a fault.

I guess all I am trying to do is find an end to my question. But there is probably not an end. Right???? There is so much that goes into being great in musical theatre. Maybe that is why there are so few "great" ones and a lot of really good ones. Ya think??? We all have our favorites, past and present. Not everyone will agree on how great they are. Right?? But maybe we will all know and appreciate it when we see it. Or not?????