Which is more important, better acting or better singing

[carpal]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 2:33pm

All the discussion about Wicked et. al and the various talents of the different Elphabas got me to thinking. If you could select a performer for a musical lead role, and assuming they were very good in both areas, would you give up some acting talent for better singing ability or vice versa?

Personally I think it depends primarily on a more comedic role versus dramatic. I think lighter roles need better actors while dramatic roles need better singers.

For example I would prefer and strong actress with good comedic timing playing Elphaba (Wicked) or Lady of the Lake (Spamalot), but if it was a Mark/Roger in Rent or Eponine/Jean ValJean in Les Miz I'd prefer a better singer over a better actor.

Other thoughts?

Updated On: 8/19/05 at 02:33 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 2:35pm

i agree it varies with character, but to me it's more about the nature of the role/show than simply comedic vs. dramatic. If It's an operetta like Les Miz or Phantom, you're pretty screwed if you don't have a good singer...then again...very heavy book shows...Piazza, Gypsy, not that it would be great if they couldn't sing since the scores are very hard but I think acting is slightly more important there.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 2:37pm

To me it totally depends in the role, but the best is to get someone who can sing act and dance.


See I'd rather have an Elphaba that can sing because that part has no major acting involved wiht it.

[Calvin]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 2:39pm

Right. Cunegonde in Candide might be considered a comedic role, but you certainly wouldn't want to hear a non-singer croak through "Glitter and be Gay."
Updated On: 8/19/05 at 02:39 PM

[keggss23]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 2:41pm

If we are talking about any professional production than I expect a person to be equally good at acting and singing. If we are talking community theater, than it depends on the show/role.

[jam_man]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 2:42pm

I, too, believe that it depends on the character. However, if they both are good at both like you said, I'd take the better actor nine times out of ten. If they can sing well AND they're the better actor, then that's all you could want most of the time.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 3:06pm

I definitely agree that it depends on the show and the role.

However, I think I am better able to sit through a show with poor acting than a show with dreadful singing.

As a music director, we often cast based on singing over acting. I have found it's much easier to teach someone to act (at least so they're not painfully bad) in a few weeks than to teach someone with no talent/ability to sing within a few weeks time. But, again, it does depend on the show and the role.

[musicnmath]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 3:10pm

"signing" maybe not as important...

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 3:17pm

Neither, being hot is the most important thing.

[carpal]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 3:23pm

This also begs the question about "celebrity" roles and whether you put actors or singers in those spots. Examples are Joseph in JATATD or the Wizard in Wicked. It seems like those roles are always filled with a recognizable name regardless of whether they are the best singer or actor for the role.

Adding this third element of "celebrity" status ticks me off even more than the singing versus acting discussion.

[forget regret <3]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 3:41pm

ya it depends... if we're talking wicked i'd say for elphaba- singing and for glinda- acting. they really have to be good at both though, obviously.

[timmetzner]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 3:43pm

If I go to a show, and the actor on stage convinced me that they believed what they were doing and saying, and played the character with the complete conviction, I'm satisfied. It doesn't matter how mediocre the singing was. If you can't be believable on stage, then it isn't theatre, it's a concert.

[Tap16]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 3:48pm

Well Singing can be easily faked, but you can't fake bad acting you know?

[JayKid]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 3:55pm

Well if they are on Broadway, they better be effin great at both, or else they shouldn't be there.

If I had to choose one, I'd say acting, as long as they were on key and sounded at least decent. If they could make themselves be that character and at least express all the emotion well, they'd be fine if they were decent singers.

If they were great singers and jsut stood there and sucked at acting, I wouldn't be drawn into the story and it'd be damn boring. As someone said, if they are all great singers, but noone can act, then it's a concert and I came there to see a show and get sucked into a story (that happens to have singing) not just to hear some talented singers sing and show off pathetic acting for 2 hours.

That's my opinion on it...

[jam_man]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 4:04pm

I think it's the same as "what's more important - the book or the score?"

They both should be good. But seperate them, and the score makes a musical pleasent and 'popular,' but the book makes it good or bad.

[CurtainUp]

Posted: 8/19/05 at 5:49pm

COMPLETELY depends on the role. I don't mind if Mme Thenardier misses a few notes, but I don't mind if Roger is a little flat. I always look for acting first though, simply bias because I'm an actress who can't sing. :-P