<p>Thank you to everyone for the amazing advice and insight. </p>
<p>I will pick up that book, for sure. Any more advice is greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>i have often found myself thinking that the reasons behind all the rejections was because I was not pretty enough for musical theatre.</p>
<p>Liz - Barbra Steisand is not pretty. Meryl Streep is not pretty. Bette Midler is not pretty. Ethel Merman…Mary Martin… I could go on and on. What makes someone attractive in another’s eyes is confidence. It fakes out the brain. Talent comes across as down right beautiful.</p>
<p>Liz: You’re going to Point Park, right? We know someone who was a BFA acting student who minored in dance at PPU. He must have done some voice, too, but I’m not sure how it fit in. Now he performs in straight theater, dance shows, musicals. . .he’s very competitive for roles, locally at least. We’ll see where he goes from here! You’ll make it work for you!</p>
<p>I think the issue here is not about “pretty”. It’s about weight and being a matching castable package. Yes, there are plenty of people who are not standard pretty or do not have a standard weight. However, out of all of those are maybe 5 who really made it to the top. Compared to the thousands who are also pretty good and worked very hard to try and get anywhere - but don’t possess the star quality of the named ladies above. Star quality is a very rare thing, and if you have a one in a million voice then you don’t need to look like a super model (see Ella Fitzgerald for another example). I was talking about the “normal” MT casting that goes on professionally, working actors that make a living doing MT and other related performing work - but never become million dollar earning stars whose popularity outlast their own lifetime. That said, nothing wrong with aiming for the top if you think you have what it takes.</p>
<p>Sara Ramirez…definitely more on the full figured side, very talented vocally, stage AND television star!</p>
<p>Re: CCM and Sharon Wheatley. Read the book; in it, she discusses what was said to her about her weight while at CCM and how that affected her. She also discusses how she eventually came to terms with her body type.</p>
<p>Re: Meryl Streep not being pretty. Maybe not in a conventional sense. But both she and Barbara Streisand had a unique kind of beauty when they were younger, especially. Having that kind of beauty is far better for an actor than being conventionally “pretty,” because what they had made people want to look at them. I have noticed that when I am attending a play, at least, I seem to prefer to look at those who are unique and interesting, rather than those who are your typical pretty people. But perhaps that’s just me.</p>
<p>No, I think that’s a very good point and definitely true.</p>
<p>I’m sure there are many examples. Kim Stengel - who I think is the longest running Carlotta of Phantom is one. She isn’t slender and yet look at the leading roles she has had. [Kim</a> Stengel](<a href=“http://www.lacarlotta.com/shr/stengel.html]Kim”>Kim Stengel)</p>
<p>The one thing that struck me about Georgeanne’s post is you said you have equal passion in MT and opera. I know traditionally we think of women in opera as having fuller figures - although my daughter’s voice teacher is a tall thin blonde and I know other thin women currently in opera. If it truly is equal to you, maybe it is a consideration. Certainly if you have the talent there will always be roles like Carotta and Rizzo but if you are only interested in leading roles, maybe there is more opportunity in opera. Studying opera didn’t hurt Chenowith’s career in MT. Do whatever you truly love the most - I really believe from that we do our best.</p>
<p>“Kim Stengel - who I think is the longest running Carlotta of Phantom is one. She isn’t slender and yet look at the leading roles she has had.”</p>
<p>Yes but that’s an older woman’s lead (older meaning 35 plus, not ingenue). That was the point I made earlier, lead roles played by someone like Kim Stengel are for women of a certain age and larger girls often have problems being cast in young ingenue type roles.</p>
<p>You mention opera and MT- you might want to check out programs that offer both - like OCU (Where my D goes) or BaldwinWallace. At OCU, MT’s and VP(Opera) are togehter fro 2 years so you get a chance to get your feet wet and see where you might fit best. Many opera stars these days are also NOT larger. I do think directors are looking for fit people who have the stamina and the stage presence to do the job. Many characters are not blonde and skinny but some are so there are some doors which may never open for you.</p>
<p>If you read all the other advice on this board and chose carefully, you will find your way!</p>
<p>Good luck</p>
<p>This is a very touchy subject but an important one for many students preparing to audition and be a part of the MT world. I have had a voice student for years who struggled with being a “larger” type. She is an AMAZING dancer and a phenomenal singer. For years she has played the “larger” girl-ie Jan in Grease, Wendy Jo in Footloose etc. and missed out on a lot of other great opportunities. She has been working steadily in NY for over a decade but still struggling with accepting her size. The best advice she got, which finally changed her whole attitude and landed her her first Broadway show is to embrace who SHE is and be the best that she can be. KNOW YOUR TYPE, and embrace it. If you are a larger girl and are comfortable with yourself and don’t plan to make any changes, be the BEST larger girl and you too will be a winner. I think it is denial to not recognize the average to smaller size girls have more opportunities, but there are a whole lot more of them to choose from, so if you do the math, you are in good shape!
Keep working and embrace your uniqueness…</p>
<p>Pohsmom that is beautifully put. I coach a girl who frets about her appearance constantly. She is a powerhouse dramatic actress and honestly if she was a little cute ingenue that power would be diminished, plus she would never be able to play the roles where that kind of talent can shine-they will not cast little and cute in Brecht or O’Neill. So I would simply add: fall in love with the roles you fit well, you should be able to identify with those characters the best, and those roles are waiting for the right actor to breathe life into them.
I can also say from personal experience that little and cute isn’t much needed after the age of 35, and it’s one’s WHOLE career that matters, not just the first years.</p>
<p>I have read more than a few interviews with ingenues who confess that they quickly tire of playing those roles and long for parts with more meat.</p>
<p>Pohsmom, thank you. :)</p>