<p>I posted this in the CCM sub-forum but realized it would be of interest to anyone considering a career in musical theater:</p>
<p>[Cincinnati</a> Magazine](<a href=“http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article.aspx?id=90010]Cincinnati”>http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article.aspx?id=90010)</p>
<p>Excellent article mommusic! Thank you for sharing!</p>
<p>I also wish to thank you for posting this well written article. I am copying it to my daughter immediately!</p>
<p>It is an interesting article!!</p>
<p>Among the points…pay attention to the point that this field involves a lot of LUCK. That point belongs on the current thread about the MT audition process making sense topic where someone is suggesting that programs may not be getting the best talent with their current audition process and notes how few graduates are on Broadway. Making it on Broadway, in my view, isn’t related to that…and in fact, it involves much luck, on top of talent. Glad to hear Aubrey Berg mention the “luck factor” even for his very talented graduates who may all have what it takes to land on Broadway, but not all will.</p>
<p>Terrific article…and to relate it to other posts about BA’s vs. BFA’s and spending zillions of dollars on schools that you need to take loans out for–how many of these points would change if you DIDN’T go to that big named BFA program?</p>
<p>Thank you for this article! It makes me feel very very privileged to have been accepted into CCM MT. I’m sending it to all my MT friends.</p>
<p>This was really fun to read! Interesting to see how many aspects of life(health,positive attitude, faith/good karma) all factor into your success. Really got me inspired to start working on a few of those things now :D</p>
<p>Loved the article! Thanks! The sex appeal part worried me, but those aren’t the parts I’m going for haha.</p>
<p>Sex appeal?! Huh. Interesting. I’m not sure that is true. In fact, I would argue that it isn’t.</p>
<p>^^Not necessarily sex appeal, but a certain je ne sai quois…
the face the camera loves, the face you can’t stop looking at because it has that “something”–whether a dimple, or a slightly assymetrical smile, great eyes. </p>
<p>I would say it’s better to look “interesting” than to look perfect. MHO.</p>
<p>^I agree completely. I think you do need to be somewhat attractive, but “hot” isn’t the word I would look for. The real stars are breath taking, different, stunning, striking, and most especially memorable- they stand out. A look no one else has is always more wanted, I would think. You can be sexy and still forgetable.</p>
<p>^^Maybe that’s why I can’t tell the difference between people sometimes when I watch a movie or TV drama…if someone thought casting 3 dark-haired guys and 3 stunning blondes was a good idea. They all have perfect features and they all look alike to me! I get so confused… :D</p>
<p>Stage presence is not the same as sex appeal. I just hate the idea that excellent actors are somewhere being rejected because someone doesn’t find them sexy. I’ll take talent over looks every day, I’ll also take casts that reflect reality over the ridiculousness of TV. And I go to see enough theatre around this country and others to know I’m not alone.</p>
<p>Is charisma maybe a better choice than sex appeal? It is that charisma that is sexy, rather than straight looks. There are a lot of very pretty people out there, who I find bland to watch, and others who if looks were the only judge would never catch my eye, and yet I find them and how they play a character to be very appealing. And I think both of these are different from stage presence.</p>
<p>Charisma is fine, so is je ne sais quoi. Sex appeal leads to height/weight charts and people discounting talent based on their version of “pretty” or “handsome.” I’d be happy to supply a very long list of very successful actors/actresses who would never be described as “sexy” by anyone but their spouses.</p>
<p>I don’t think of sex appeal as having anything to do with height/weight charts, or even with conventional “sexiness”…but an energy, confidence, grace, an inner intensity that shows through and exerts a pull on the audience. It’s mysterious–so many very attractive people have none, and plenty of odd ones have lots. I do think it’s terrifically important in a performer.</p>
<p>This article is frightening. </p>
<p>It’s sad to me that a very specific, “cookie cutter” type of performer is being bred with no regard to one’s personal artistic values and tastes. The article is glorifying and encouraging blandness. There is a place and a need for standard chorus types but it’s already obvious that “Broadway legends” don’t exist anymore (or have yet to come into view), so schools should be allowing students to explore their artistic essence while they’re in school rather than making them fill in a pre-determined mold. The current crop of “Broadway stars” are more like blank canvases that don’t have any particular flair or style and are working because of their versatility, not their contribution to the culture (a la Ethel Merman, Chita Rivera, Gwen Verdon, Jerry Orbach, Joel Grey, Ben Vereen, Elaine Stritch, Carol Channing, Angela Lansbury, Dorothy Loudon, Barbara Cook, Nell Carter, Debra Monk, Betty Buckley, Bernadette Peters, Liza Manelli, Patti Lupone, Len Cariou, Mandy Patinkin,etc…Audra, Kristin, Raul, and Michael might be new and rare exceptions).
I’m not saying everyone needs to be so unique, but with the demise of the training of individuals also comes the demise of an American art form that has morphed into a commercial entity. There are few shows on Broadway and coming to Broadway that still try to hold on to a smidgeon of true artistic value rather than commercial value, and it does lie in the hands of the producers, but if there was a wave of artists demanding shows to match the needs of performers then we might experience a resurgence in the confluence of Broadway to popular music and culture.
I ADORE musical theatre and I love Broadway culture and history, but I am truly saddened at the ever-approaching death of the art within “new” Broadway shows and performers. Perhaps the future of musical theatre is abroad, where the new crop of musical theatre performers are full of life, not afraid to be different, and far from “plastic” and “industrial”:)</p>
<p>BRbway–looking at your list of stars, these are greats from the past 60 years! They were/are few and far between…of course we don’t have that many artists like them now, all at one time!</p>
<p>It may be that the musicals they have to work with are commercial pabulum (Phantom II?) but so were many in the past (Follies, anyone?)</p>
<p>Wait a minute…I think BRbway has a good point. Throughout this process, I have worried that my S will land in a program that plays to HIS strengths and does not try to put out a “cookie cutter” product or a “blank canvas.” </p>
<p>But looking around the audition rooms, everyone seems very attractive and all-american looking, and I think those are the types that get encouraged to audition, because they have the “look.” But a rich Bway culture needs ALL types, and I hope that in my S’s MT class, wherever he lands, is a broad spectrum of types… beautiful & complex leading ladies, handsom manly men, and quirky funny types that maybe lack a conventional “sex appeal” but lend so much to a good story (there are far more of those quirky types in real life, than the pretty people!)</p>
<p>Many of the people on BRbways list would not be considered classically good-looking, or even broadway types by today’s audition standards. But they had that SOMETHING…and represented a good cross-section of real life people. </p>
<p>I often look at the “geeky” guy in a TV show or a movie, and wonder how they got into the business. Did they go the conventional route even tho they didn’t have “THE LOOK”…or is that why so many Playbills list no school for their college training? Maybe they were forced to go another route.</p>
<p>I’m not the only one who noticed…I overheard a dad say to his son at UMich, “Everyone is so PRETTY. Where are all the character actors? When I went to theatre school we had ‘ugly’ people, too.” I totally ‘got’ what he meant.</p>
<p>P.S. My S is also one of the all-american types! But I worry that the competition will be so similar, it will be harder for him to stand out…</p>
<p>I see your point, and many of the unusual types now on TV did go another route or fell into acting by accident…but so did some of the “perfect looking” ones. There are many paths to success, as we all know. Many lucky ones begin as child stars and, IF they can cross the hurdle into adulthood successfully, have a resume & connections ready-made.</p>
<p>And I have seen the actual students at CCM (for instance, but that is the school I am closest to) and believe me, they are all talented but NOT all “beautiful people.” Some look better/photograph better after they are made up, and some are just geeky or quirky looking.</p>
<p>:cool:</p>