I know many successful musical theatre performers who can't dance, can't act, or can't sing. In fact I know some who can't do any of the above but that's another story. My point is that if it is possible to work without being a triple threat then why is it so desirable?
The answer that I seem to keep coming back to is that the more skills you have the more chance you have of getting a job doing something. This seems to be the logic that the majority of training institutions are using when creating their courses. If they give their students a wide enough variety of skills those students will have the ability to fit more brackets and therefore get more work.
I'm starting to believe that this approach could be fundamentally wrong. If this is the way we train our students what we end up with is a lot of generalists. In other words, performers who are quite good at everything but who excel at nothing. In such a competitive industry it is the things we excel at that get us the jobs. Who cares if you are a good singer and actor if you have been cut after the first round of auditions because you didn't stand out next to a group of phenomenal dancers?
There will always be some people who are 'triple threats' and who have talent and skill in all three disciplines in equal measure. It is therefore appropriate that there are some training institutions that cater to this type of performer. I do think, however, that we shouldn't be blinded into thinking that the triple threat mould is attainable or even desirable for every performer.
There are some people who cannot dance. They will never be able to dance and nor should they have to. There is enough musical theatre work out there for them without them having that skill. So why then should we waste their valuable time trying to turn them into a dancer during their all too short training? The answer I am starting to believe is that we shouldn't. Their time would be much better spent perfecting their natural talents of singing and acting.
My conclusion is that although being a triple threat performer seems most desirable it is by no means essential and training institutions should not feel bound to create versatile performers when specialised ones are just as likely to work.
You have a good argument here and I am inclined to agree with you however i still feel that there is no harm for a performer to try to perfect all three skills whist training as it could possibly be the only opportunity they get.
ReplyDeleteOnce a performer has left their training establishment they will naturally begin to peruse a career using their strongest skill and I agree when you suggest this is the skill that they should focus on whilst at college BUT with the industry being so diverse and so many people fighting for the same few jobs surely having confidence in your ability at what ever level of the other skills will help in some way?
Just a thought xxx
I totally hear what you are saying and sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't. My worry is that if at college you are good singer and actor but a weak dancer you could spend a lot of time trying to improve your dance. When you then graduate you wouldn't then be the incredible actor/singer you could have been if you'd focused more on these areas.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that industry decides which route you take for you and the head of a musical theatre course said to me the other day that their job is really just to unlock the doors on people's training so they can carry it on through their careers. I think he has a point but I still can't help feel that with only so many hours in the day a person is better perfecting their unique selling point then trying a bit of everything.
Perhaps a good idea would be to give someone a general education in hteir first two years of musical theatre college and then allow them to specialise in the final year. What do you think?
Did you get my email by the way? x