NYTimes.com: "“We didn’t need dialogue! We had faces!” The famous lines spoken by Gloria Swanson’s decrepit silent-movie goddess Norma Desmond sprang to mind the other night at Avery Fisher Hall during the New York Philharmonic’s concert version of “Company.” I imagined there might be a few old-time Broadway performers in the audience muttering similar sentiments to themselves as they watched Lonny Price’s vocally vacuous presentation of the Stephen Sondheim-George Furth musical. “Back in my day, we had voices!” I could picture one seething through his or her teeth to a colleague at intermission.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Theater Talkback: Are Musicals Losing Their Voices?
NYTimes.com: "“We didn’t need dialogue! We had faces!” The famous lines spoken by Gloria Swanson’s decrepit silent-movie goddess Norma Desmond sprang to mind the other night at Avery Fisher Hall during the New York Philharmonic’s concert version of “Company.” I imagined there might be a few old-time Broadway performers in the audience muttering similar sentiments to themselves as they watched Lonny Price’s vocally vacuous presentation of the Stephen Sondheim-George Furth musical. “Back in my day, we had voices!” I could picture one seething through his or her teeth to a colleague at intermission.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This is upsetting and absolutely not surprising. The trend of using movie stars on Broadway has made a lot of people question whether their acting is good enough. Rarely do I hear the same questions about singing voices. I tend to find that the poor singing is more noticeable than poor acting. Especially in musicals where honestly the music is more important than the acting.
lol @ "Mr. Hayes’s preparation for the role was clearly evident in his carefully tended vibrato"
And I agree with his statement that Daniel Radcliffe's "I Believe In You" was over before it had begun.
That being said, this article just seemed like an excuse for Isherwood to review Company (I did find it odd that a music critic from NYTimes reviewed it as opposed to a theater critic).
Honestly, I don't think musical theater is dying at all. Yes, Daniel Radcliffe's performance may not have been impressive. But the minute Katharine Hepburn opened her mouth in the Tony Awards clip of Coco, I couldn't help but to laugh and I'm not sure if she could even be considered for casting by today's standards for a film star.
I think there is indeed a problem with the ubiquitous crazy belting shows, ever since the era when ALW wrote Evita. And that has now become the norm with lots of new musicals featuring simply a band, as opposed to a full orchestra. And people are less inclined to appreciate shows like Fiddler, Oklahoma, etc when they could go watch the 14th replacement of Elphaba belt her ass off in the 9th national tour of Wicked.
If Company were to debut this season on Broadway and Elaine Stritch were to star as Joanne, people would probably describe her performance as a big mess. The original Broadway cast of A Chorus Line didn't have the most beautiful voices, but at least you can truly experience the thrill of that ensemble, unlike the 2006 revival where they had beautiful singers, but lacked character in my opinion.
Yes, some of the film-stars-on-stage singing is less than marvelous. But there are still plenty of performers (like Raul Esparza, as he mentioned) that can truly deliver. And Isherwood's article just seems like a rambling without much thinking.
I definitely understand where Isherwood is coming from. I don't understand why Broadway roles are just being handed out to celebrities...I mean, Ashley Simpson in Chicago? Really? While I do think that some of these celebrities have legitimate vocal talent, I don't think that most of them are really fit for the Broadway stage. I would much rather see a talented, musical-theatre trained artist in a show than a random celebrity. It's much more exciting to see a Broadway celebrity like Kristin Chenoweth in a Broadway show than a television actor because Chenoweth is in her element. You're seeing her do what she is so famous for. I feel like there are talented performers out there who are not getting their chance to become Broadway stars because they are getting shoved aside for celebrities in order for the show to make more money. It seems to me that, after a while, the talented Broadway star would become more well-known and would be able to pull in money from Broadway fans everywhere. I think they just need to be given a chance.
I agree with Isherwood: Broadway voices are not like they used to be. If a celebrity has some talent, they can be placed in a Broadway show. But while I hope that glorious voices never fade from theatre, what is even more important is the emotion and the performance given. While I want to hear a song gorgeously sung, I don't care about it nearly as much as I do if the acting is good.
There are performers who do not have the best singing voices, but place so much emotion into their performances that the effect is even more powerful.
The problem is not just that celebrities don't have the best singing voices, it's that decent or worse voices paired with sub-par or inexperienced stage acting lessens the overall quality of the performance. Give me Judi Dench or Elaine Stritch anyday over today's latest celebrity or Broadway over-belter.
As I've mentioned before in other comments, Broadway's marketing tool is geared now towards the non-theatre goer and is therefore losing it's entire meaning, purpose, and art form identity. Of course, it's "fun" to see a celebrity that we are so accustomed to see on the big screen up on stage reciting monologues that we've known for years. However, that's not the purpose for this art form. Being here in CMU rigorous drama program, we see see and experience the training needed in order to succeed in such a world we work in. Therefore, when I sere an vocally untrained movie actor surrounded by a chorus of Juilliard grads, it's disheartening. Not that I'm all for sticking in one area of art and stay with it, but when I'm surrounded by hard working performers everyday, it's tough not to feel disappointed when that talent is overshadowed by fame or marketing tools.
Although many of these movie stars are nowhere near as great at singing "show tunes" as someone like Brian Stokes Mitchell or Patti LuPone, saying that they are musically untrained isn't always fair, because I don't think that this is always true. I'm sure a large percentage of big movie stars have a decent musical background. I appreciate that Isherwood pointed out that movie stars in musicals has always existed (Rex Harrison being a great example, see not only My Fair Lady but the Dr. Doolittle film as well), there still are stars making a name for themselves because of musical performances. Although it wasn't a stage performance, Jennifer Hudson won an Oscar, in my opinion, in large part because of her performance of "And I'm Telling You...". The lack of big Broadway stars is correlated right now to the lack of big Broadway shows, but there are still a few names who will make it out and make a name for themselves.
And the fact of the matter is, oftentimes a great performance CAN overtake "decent" singing. Hiro's example of "A Chorus Line" is a great one. The show was a huge success, and is remembered largely for Paul's story of his childhood and Cassie's dancing. Nothing has changed now.
A musical requires the ability to sing and to act. There was always a "battle" in my high school when it came to the musical. We had the vocal department and the theatre department. When the theatre department ran the musical, the acting was considered most important. When the vocal department ran it, it was the other way round. I think they are both equally important. I really appreciate the Broadway stars of old with their incredible pipes, but I think the shame in bringing in big names is not only a lament to the vocals. It's a compromise of the entire role.
I agree with the general tenor of the comments posted here. Unfortunately it is a catch 22. Hollywood stars bring audiences but often decrease the overall production value of the show. Almost every report I've gotten from a person who has seen a celebrity musical sound similar. "It was great to see them in this role but they just didn't have a Broadway presence." The difference between a Broadway voice and a celebrity for hire is distinct but it is not valued.
I think this all goes back to the problem of trying to turn theater into in cinema. I do truly want to hear great voices but as Hiro pointed out the greats of old were not always so perfect as we might think. Often the type of singing they did has fallen out of fashion. However there was always a compensation. For example I agree that Radcliffe's "I believe in you was not the most wonderful, however the boy held his own, he is still a great actor and his dancing talent surprised me. I feel that all and all the show was great and a true example of what Broadway is supposed to be. It wasn't about flash but performance. Broadway is not just about the singing but about the songs and to often in new musicals the songs feel like an after thought. I see theater as being about people and not effects. That is often forgetten. If I want to see effects I go to a movie, theater is a different experience. By trying to make it the same I feel theater is destroying its own audience. There is something special about the actors being there in the room with you and being able to respond to the performance that movies don't have. Big flashy effect remove that, so does using big name stars, especially ones that really don't have the singing capacity. Some do well others do not, but it is not so much the using of them that I think is the problem but instead way they are chosen: to appeal to the audience by making theater more like TV. This is what I feel is wrong, not their singing.
Post a Comment