What makes a good/great musical theatre performer?

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 2:15pm

After reading all the posts today I got to thinking. We all have such varied opinions. What makes a great musical theatre performer. Male or Female? Is it the difficulty of the role?? How easy they make it look?? How they move us?? Or not?? Their voices or their dancing?? What is that special something that makes us all go back again and again to see a performer in any role?? I'd love to see everyone's answers.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 2:18pm

Before vocal prowess or anything, a performer has to have presence, a charisma, an ability to connect with an audience, make them want to watch you. -- and that can't be taught or learned. It is an inate ability. The X/It factor if you will. Without that, technical ability is worthless.

[ShineOn]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 2:41pm

Exactly. Presence is the key. For any performer, no matter what their style... it's just a certain energy passed from the performer to the audience members. It can't be taught... it's not over compensating, over acting, or being overly presentational.

You either got it, or you ain't.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 2:59pm

Also, they cannot have "off" days. They always have to give their audience the best. If they can't, then don't go on.

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 3:21pm

So does that mean presence has to be there before you form an opinion of the performer or the performance. If that is true then if he/she has done half the job by making you "see" them. Then you must judge their abilities after that. Whether you like them in the role or not. Do you really think most theatre goers do that??? I think of the arguments of Ethel Merman. Gawd she had presence. But there were those who hated her. But she lasted or a long, long time. There must be more......

Posted: 9/13/03 at 4:13pm

DaisyHilton, are we on week 2 of listening to Gypsy now? hehe

In my opinion, a good musical theatre performer can turn a role into their own using vocal techniques, different acting methods, and different approaches to it.

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 4:39pm

Of course talent and presence is important. But another really important thing to me is how they interact with their fans. I think performers who really let the fact that they ARE on Broadway go to their heads, aren't really great performers. Did that make any sense?

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 4:46pm

I have never realized that fan appreciation is part of the judgement factor of a performance. Maybe I have misunderstood you???

[DofB5]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 6:47pm

Very good thread, Sharon. Interesting question.

I would have to say that it is a combination of good looks, talent, presence and luck. The best performer in the world won’t get very far until/unless he/she lands a role that showcases them. It’s true that they can take the smallest role and make it their own but again it has to be right. The moment that spark takes hold, they've arrived.

The question at that point is how long it last. Will he/she be able to fan those embers and keep them burning for a long time or will they just turn out to be the flavor of the week?
D

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 6:59pm

I love that response. So what does one have to do in order to keep that flame alive. Move on to a different role??? Try something different??? Do we as theatre-goers allow them to experiment?? Everyone needs a challenge, right, in order to grow??? Or as theatre-goers do we condemm the majority to repeat the same role over and over again to please us.???? Can there be real greatness without variety?? Without our approval??

[jo]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:02pm

Charisma and stage presence are important in a live show like theater - this is what makes an audience focus on you. And once you sense that audience rapport, I think it makes the actor's performance even more memorable.

Talent is of course the most important ingredient. It comes in differing variety and level - and there are those who are naturally-gifted ( such as a beautiful voice, not just vocal prowess).

Also, you cannot be a one-role wonder. It is the ability to take on different roles and to be consistently successful ( artistically and commercially) which makes a stage actor a real musical theatre STAR!


Jo




Updated On: 9/13/03 at 07:02 PM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:04pm

Ideally, an actor should be allowed to do differnt types of roles and experiment with those roles. Sadly, casting directors and, to a huge extent, the audiences, don't allow that. Casting directors want to go the safe route and put someone in a role they KNOW that actor can do. The audiences, as has been displayed her many a time, often say, when an actor does a drastically different character that they should go back to the type of role they usually do. When an actor does a different take on a role, there is often comments that "That isn't how it is suppossed to be played" (::cough:: Kerry Little Shop ::cough::)

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:10pm

Are you saying then, that as an audience, we should allow these performers to try and stretch themselves, and to appreciate the fact that some performers try to do so. No matter the outcome. Allow them to succeed or fall on their faces. But appreciate the endeavor.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:13pm

EXACTLY. Even if a performer falls flat on their face when doing a VERY different role, you have to have some resepect and appreciation that they at least attempted to do that when many people don't try to do that. If you don't like that change of character, so be it -- but at least respect the attempt.

[DofB5]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:16pm

Well, again this is a tricky question. Let me put this way. I can understand that a performer naturally feels that he/she has a lot to offer. I can also understand not wanting to be “locked” into one role–Look at Adam West with “Batman”. He was never allowed to grow beyond that role and could have been perfect in how may other roles? We’ll never know.

On the other hand, should they be grateful that they are allowed to create at least ONE role that lives in the minds and hearts of the fans. Leonard Nimoy as “Spock” fought so hard to leave that character behind, even writing a book called “I Am Not Spock. Yet how many actors of his same age would kill to have the instant recognition that ONE role afforded him? How many doors did that role open and how many did it close forever?

D

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:19pm

I think that is the response I was looking for. Not sure, but maybe. I mean, if I had the talent, I certainly would not be sitting at this computer. I would be singing or dancing somewhere. So that means greatness is not measured only by the amount of Broadway or West End successes but also by the failures???? You guys are really surprising me with your responses. This is terrific

[jo]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:27pm

But the batting average on successes and failures should be on the favourable side

And as I have said earlier - the ability to sell a show should be as important as the ability to tackle the role.

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:38pm

I truly believe that a musical performer must be good in a fan's eyes. I mean just cause EVERYONE is talking about how fabulous he or she is does not mean they are that good. Alot can be made into hype. People say that about actors all the time. I mean I could list IMHO about 20 or so performers that in one way shape or form are what i consider over rated. And even more so there are actors that may have been perfect for one role but are one hit wonders that continue to be a "star" on that one thing.

I judge my "good/great" muscial theater performers on what my tastes and likes are.
And I am sure there are plent of people who would laugh at my choices. But I made them of my own accord and not cause she or he is the as DOB put it "The Flavor of the Week"

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:38pm

Of course the average should be higher on the success side or they wouldn't get another show. But then that means the audience has to be enlightened, or sophisticated, or whatever to appreciate the differences a performer tries. Right??? Or does it mean the few critics have to be enlightened?? I mean that sometimes they are so brutal about performers they can close a show before most can see it. Or do we rely on word of mouth instead????? What is the answer?? Do we only see shows that have big name performers trying old stuff?? New shows based on the opinion of a few critics??? Or be brave and try everything and make or own decisions about performers and performances????

[iluvny04]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:40pm

Chemistry, with fellow actors and actresses is a big factor in my opinion, then you really believe that the performer your seeing is definitely the character they are portraying and good stage presence. Examples: Louise Pitre and Tina Maddigan in MAMMA MIA! really thought they were actually mother and daugher, Natasha annd Alan really played off each other, and Reba and Brent they did a great job of making me believe they were Annie and Frank. Also, Marin and Brian in Ragtime, KMK, and Man of La Mancha those 2 always do a fabolous job of working off one another. Updated On: 9/13/03 at 07:40 PM

[BillyLawlor]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 7:52pm

I agree with almost everything said so far. DOFB5, I disagree with your good looks comment. I don't care if a performer is good looking or beautiful, as long as he/she has the talent, presence and charisma needed for the role. Their are many actors out there currently on Broadway that I don't find the least bit attractive, but I respect them for their talents. I agree with you to some extent, LilDancer about your fan comment, but that isn't necessarily always true for me. For example, Marc Kudisch, when I met him really didn't pay much attention and wasn't the kindest when he signed autographs and took pictures. Sure, he did it, but his attitude seemed to be a little bit to me like "Here we go all over again" type of deal. But am I still a HUGE fan of Marc because of his incredible talent? Damn right I am. Chemistry with other actors is important, too, as well as the ability to connect to the audience and give thier best each night.

[DofB5]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 8:06pm

Well, it’s always a best to have your own opinion about a show. I think it’s alright to ask like-minded people (as in people who seem to have the same tastes in shows as you) their thoughts and if they enjoyed seeing a show to help you make a decision as to if you want to see it but ultimately, it’s what YOU think that matters.

And yes, I do think that some critics need to a little more enlightened but that’s IMHO.

D Updated On: 9/13/03 at 08:06 PM

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 8:21pm

I think chemistry with the other actors would be a big thing. I mean, you need the feed back during a performance in order to do the part. Therefore is chemistry instamatic or does it grow?? Or can it be both?? It would seem to me that the most important thing is to make what the audience is seeing and hearing believable to their eyes. Swept away is a good term. Do the great ones do it every time???

[Hello Gorgeous]

Posted: 9/13/03 at 10:43pm

Wow this is a tough thread. Hum....

Appeaarence definatly has a part in this question. To me, the performer has to look like they're having a good time and know what they're doing.

Originality is also something to me. It's probably not as important in this category as it is in other aspects of performing, but still, if you sound just like someone else, to me that's a "turn off" (if you will).

I agree that the performers should be their best every night, but if they're having an off night, so be it. They're people too, and they need to rest. Just because the person is having an off night doesn't mean that they're going to be a terrible performer for the rest of the show.

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 9:23am

Appearance is tricky. I believe they have to look the part. At least in my eyes. Not necessarily the same opinion of the person next to me. Originality. I would think that would be part of the equation in order to be great. But a performer as to be allowed that luxury by the producers and directors. Then the ticket buying public has to accept it. Seems greatness depends on a lot of things. Least of which seems to be talent. Am I right or wrong here?????