You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:02pm

David O'Hare says he doesn't sing. Yet he's been in Assassins and now Sweet Charity.
Richard Kind says he's not a singer, but he's the lead in The Producers.
Harvey says he's not a singer but he's doing everything.

It seems that we're seeing a shift in musical theater. Roles and casting that puts he emphasis on acting rather than how pretty you sound. Sure, there are some roles that do reqiuire singers (I don think Harvey would make a good Billy Bigalow), but many new works are saying we want a personality over musicality.

Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity last forever. Watch out BWW... HE'S BACK.

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:05pm

Hey, if you can carry a tune and pull it off....

Who said that Elaine Stritch was ever a great singer?

"I know now that theatre saved my life." - Susan Stroman

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:09pm

I for one like this idea. I think acting is the most important part when playing a role, and then the singing should come second. That's not to say you can sound like a cat being skinned alive and still get a part, but a somewhat decent, I-can-carry-a-tune voice coupled with wonderful onstage personality, character and chemistry should be the thing most directors are looking for.

Haven't you ever seen a show where the actor's singing was amazing but their acting fell flat? It really stinks...

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:10pm

Not a new phenomenon. Look at Robert Preson, Rex Harrison, Maurice Evans...

"Gif me the cobra jool!"

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:32pm

Well, I saw Richard in THe Procducers - he is definitely NOT a singer - but it's not like he was missing notes.

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:36pm

i think you mean dennis o'hare.

well seeing an actor trying to sing through a musical is much nicer than seeing a singer who can't act. in my opinion...

also, after seeing john lithgow in drs, he's by no means a great vocalist, but he acts amazing and so you don't care.

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:39pm

I agree! I would very much prefer to see an actor or actress who is really, truly entertaining and has a good stage presence than one who is just an amazing singer.

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:43pm

Lithgow seems much more at ease in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels than he did in Sweet Smell of Success. He doesn't have the voice to pull off that Act Two ballad in DRS, but otherwise, he seems to be really enjoying himself up there.

"Gif me the cobra jool!"

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:46pm

I agree with you all.

But I wish the actor over singer were something the most directors/producers actually did.

I find too may times that one is not cast for their acting but maily for their singing. I have seen numerous Christines in POTO who can hit a high C but are a blank everywhere else. I've seen Harols Hills cast cause they can knock home "Til There Was You" but wouldn't know comedy if it bit them.

I agree with you but I don't see many Broadway shows casting as such.

Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity last forever. Watch out BWW... HE'S BACK.

#10

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:49pm

Mr. Tuttle -

Maybe you should tell the producers, "Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity last forever." And to cast good actors...

#11

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 1:57pm

I'm astonished at how singing is blown off here. I guess we don't live in an age where it's as respected as it used to be.

Fifty years from now, people won't be listening to acting on a stage from one of today's productions, they'll be listening to singing on a cast recording.

Updated On: 3/19/05 at 01:57 PM

#12

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 2:05pm

Magruder is right (as usual) this is nothing new.

Carol Channing? Gwen Verdon? Lucille Ball? Katherine Hepburn? Zero Mostel? Alexis Smith...heck even Angela Landsbury. None of them considered singing their strong suit. It has been happening since the beginning of Broadway.

PEACE.

#13

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 2:09pm

"Fifty years from now, people won't be listening to acting on a stage from one of today's productions, they'll be listening to singing on a cast recording."

But when I pay $101.25 for a performance, I'm looking for the overall performance, not just a voice in a box. Plus someone with an ok voice who can act *through* their voice is just as good IMHO. As someone mentioned above, this is nothing new...I could listen to the OBC of My Fair Lady all day.

"Some of us have it worse, you know, Dana. Some of us are dating lesbian men. Okay? C'mon."

#14

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 2:28pm

Dobn't forget:
Richard Burton in Camelot
William Daniels in 1776
Phil Silvers in High Button Shoes, Top Banana, Do Re Mi,...Forum
Lauren Bacall in Applause, Woman of the Year

#15

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 2:32pm

In my day, we had people that we called triple threats. They could act, sing and dance. (Since I'm listening to Crazy for You, I'll say that Harry Groener is one of those, and not used enough).

If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

#16

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 2:44pm

I could listen to My Fair Lady all day long as well.

The likes of Rex Harrison, Richard Burton, etc., had classically trained voices which were beautiful to listen to, and those musical roles were written with them specifically in mind. They are exceptions that many actors today can only dream about sounding like.

Let me say that if all singing actors were like Richard Kiley then we wouldn't have a problem. I'm just surprised that everybody has the "Oh, definately go with the actor" attitude. It's as if no singers should be considered.

Updated On: 3/19/05 at 02:44 PM

#17

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:01pm

Hmmm...I'm torn on this one. I've sat through productions featuring amazing vocalists with no personality and others featuring wonderful actors who can't carry a tune. I'd have to say that, at least for a musical, *I'd* prefer the former. Most people go to musicals for the music and there's nothing I hate more than sitting through an ear-splitting rendition of a good musical number. I would, however, prefer a triple-threat that could do it all.

Just my two cents,
Joshua

My lip gloss is poppin'...

#18

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:21pm

Depends on the role
I mean, Jennifer Holliday is a phenomenal singer but not the world's greatest actress. But you wouldn't just cast a regular actress to play Effie Melody White. You HAVE to sing to play that part.
Then you have Nathan Lane, who is an amazing actor but not the world's greatest vocalist. But he was such an amazing Max, was his "carry a tune voice" so horrible?

#19

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:26pm

Cristy Carlson Romano can't sing. She can't do very much...

#20

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:36pm

I have no idea why singing is getting so pushed over here. I agree with everyone that acting is becoming more important nowadays, sadly enough, but in response to paying so much to go see a musical, I payed 200 to see Idina belt and it was all worth it. Acting is important and it moves the musical along, but take opera for example, they do it simply through music. I think both are important, but neither should be taken as more important since both need to be exceptional to have a truly wonderful production

#21

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:37pm

Not in The Producers, but Nathan Lane singing "Ariadne" in The Frogs was really bad. But then I thought he and Roger Bart should have switched roles. Of course, Nathan was the 800-pound gorilla on The Frogs, so you know THAT was never considered.

Updated On: 3/19/05 at 03:37 PM

#22

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

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

I think that this shows the shift of movie actors over to broadway.

#23

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:44pm

TenorGod, have you been to an opera lately. It used to be true that the music was the most important aspect and it still is. However, more and more emphasis is being put on the acting and today's generation of "singing-actors" who are Opera's biggest names are also quite good in the acting department.

PEACE.

#24

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:47pm

I am an opera major thank you very much, and yes acting is becoming important, but what makes a musical different from a play is the fact that it has the element of the song, its what makes a musical a musical. I'm not saying that a focus on acting isnt happening, I'm just saying that I wish it wouldn't

#25

re: You Don't Have to Sing..It's a Musical!

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:54pm

ACTING the song is a big, if not bigger, part of performing a song than actually SINGING it. You can have an incredible singer get up on stage and sing the song beautifully, but if they can't act, it will still be crap. Sure, it works vice versa, but if you can *act* the song spectacularly, then your ability to sing it will be less important.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71