Which is more important in a musical? is the acting or singing?
Might seem like a silly, bordering on trollish question, but I've seen this discussion pop up several times recently online. So, which is more important for you? Would you rather watch someone with a beautiful voice, or who can't sing but is a wonderful actor?
Correction: is it the acting or the singing?
- HernandoLv 61 month agoFavorite Answer
I'd venture to say that of the two, singing is far more important. At the same time, if a performer can't act well enough to be convincing then the show is going to be a dud. The fact of the matter is that there are a host of multi-talented performers out there not only can sing and act good enough for the Broadway stage but can also dance.
- VerityLv 71 month ago
It really depends on the material. In a show like "Ragtime", the singing needs to
be paramount. In something lighter, say "Spamalot", the dancing (and the
non-dancing King Arthur) needs to be emphasized.
- SpeedLv 71 month ago
The singing is far more important than the acting in a musical, for me. But every member of every audience has their own opinion.
I've thoroughly enjoyed musicals where the musical performance was great and that acting so-so, with muffed lines, poor diction, etc.
- MarliLv 71 month ago
I prefer the story to the songs. The songs in a musical sound so contrived.
Now, if it was a concert or an opera, where most of the dialogue is sung, the singing would be more important.