Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/19/2013, 8:09 pm



"Passing Grade"

In which Coco faces what Rachel is facing right now. And has conflicts with her Dance Instructor.

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  MoviesAreLife on 4/19/2013, 8:43 pm

LOL at walking to the wrong classroom. It's happened to me before. Embarrassing as hell.

I don't understand why students cannot audition for actual, professional work? And why doesn't that same rule apply to teachers, who have an even bigger commitment to their school? I wonder if Cassie will audition for Funny Girl herself, or refuse to allow Rachel permission for the part? Or will she do something else in order to screw up her chances? I hope not. The dance teacher here still seemed very fair, not wishing any ill will toward Coco and her career, even though there was a sense of rivalry there and even though her ex boyfriend was the director. It was not as unfair as it might have appeared to Coco. One is never too old or too young for their dreams.

This rule that I've only ever just heard of is the reason why some kids jump straight into performing without committing to four years of school. In the words of a former classmate of mine: "I wanted to act, not to study acting." Of course, the training is important, but I now see why students lose their patience with the four years of no professional work policy.

MoviesAreLife
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3647
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Colorado
Real Name : Heather

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/19/2013, 9:05 pm

MoviesAreLife wrote:LOL at walking to the wrong classroom. It's happened to me before. Embarrassing as hell.

I don't understand why students cannot audition for actual, professional work? And why doesn't that same rule apply to teachers, who have an even bigger commitment to their school? I wonder if Cassie will audition for Funny Girl herself, or refuse to allow Rachel permission for the part? Or will she do something else in order to screw up her chances? I hope not. The dance teacher here still seemed very fair, not wishing any ill will toward Coco and her career, even though there was a sense of rivalry there and even though her ex boyfriend was the director. It was not as unfair as it might have appeared to Coco. One is never too old or too young for their dreams.

This rule that I've only ever just heard of is the reason why some kids jump straight into performing without committing to four years of school. In the words of a former classmate of mine: "I wanted to act, not to study acting." Of course, the training is important, but I now see why students lose their patience with the four years of no professional work policy.

Well, these are high school students (in Fame), so they are underage and can't just drop out of school. Lydia, also, knows she would have to quit if she got the role.

College kids are adults, so the problem for Rachel is that she'll have to drop out or take a personal leave. Most performing arts programs are very strictly structured, and you often make a "studio" with the people in your cadre. Dropping out and then popping back in is not very good for your education. So you really have to consider weigh your options: is this part worth more than completing my education?

I think there are degrees: it might be possible to do a small show with a short run if you are in college in NYC, but a Broadway show? That's a much bigger commitment.

I'm amused by how everyone seems to be breaking the Fame "no auditions" rule. ;-)

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  MoviesAreLife on 4/19/2013, 9:18 pm

Oh! I spaced the fact that this was a performing arts high school and not a college. The policy makes sense for minor, high school aged kids. Thank you. It doesn't apply to colleges too, does it?

It's tough. Training or working? Why can't a student do both at the same time? Maybe have the regular 9 to 5 theater role, but then attend school on weekends? Is that possible?

MoviesAreLife
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3647
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Colorado
Real Name : Heather

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/19/2013, 9:46 pm

MoviesAreLife wrote:Oh! I spaced the fact that this was a performing arts high school and not a college. The policy makes sense for minor, high school aged kids. Thank you. It doesn't apply to colleges too, does it?

It's tough. Training or working? Why can't a student do both at the same time? Maybe have the regular 9 to 5 theater role, but then attend school on weekends? Is that possible?

Thing is, theatre isn't 9-5. Especially for Broadway. Until you open, you're rehearsing 40 hours a week. After you open, it's 6:30 pm to 10:30 pm Tuesday, 1:30 - 10:30 pm on Wednesday, 6:30-11:30 Thursday, 7:30 - 11:30 on Friday, 1:30 - 11:30 on Saturday, and 2:30 - 6:30 on Sundays.

How can you fit classes into that schedule? It's impossible.

Since I'm not a performer, I don't know what policies performing arts (BFA) programs have . . . my experience with theatre training is that you are already required to rehearse and perform many hours outside of class, in school productions. You are "showcased" in school productions. And to jump ship for a role that isn't a big deal (especially at the beginning of your training) would be a bad idea.

After all, your teachers are going to look at you dropping out and think of the person they liked (personally) even better than you who DIDN'T get admitted to the program because you did.

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  MoviesAreLife on 4/25/2013, 11:01 am

Wow! Okay...thank you for the information! Would it be better for a wannabe performer to...let's say, jump right into auditioning and, instead of being a part of a school program, to just take acting, dancing, singing and possibly music classes independant from a school?

MoviesAreLife
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3647
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Colorado
Real Name : Heather

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/25/2013, 12:08 pm

MoviesAreLife wrote:Wow! Okay...thank you for the information! Would it be better for a wannabe performer to...let's say, jump right into auditioning and, instead of being a part of a school program, to just take acting, dancing, singing and possibly music classes independant from a school?

I'm not a good source for what would be best for performers (as I've never been a performer). I have worked behind the scenes.

I doubt that most people who want to be Broadway stars come out of their small hometowns or small cities with the level of dancing, acting, and singing they would need to make it in NYC. And the cost of *being* in NYC is high enough that getting a day job to pay for that and independent classes would be a considerable drain on your time (when would you have time to audition, practice, perform?). If you're lucky, you have family money to help support you. After all, you have to be free during the day to audition for things!

If you have triple-threat skills, then you may have an advantage if you start auditioning at 18. I cannot tell you how often I see ads for extras who are "18+ to play younger") and there will be parts in musicals that are the same (our local theatre did a production of West Side Story that I worked on over one summer that cast a NYU-TISCH student as Maria).

Jessica Grove made her name as a teen playing Dorothy in Wizard of Oz on tour. She was in the chorus of Millie on Bway (and understudying the secondary female lead) before she was legal to drink in NYC. However, having that star quality and luck isn't common.

If you get into a really good conservatory program (not one of the ones that just sells degrees), then it's good for your skills, I am sure. You have a chance to train at a high level and--if you are in a major city--audition for roles over the summer (summer stock, or the role of Maria in my hometown's Equity-level theatre). You can make contacts while you get better.

As a person who works backstage, the BEST performers to work with (in the creative sense) are those who got an education. Either a college degree, or a graduate degree (sometimes an MFA), or else they are hungry to learn and self-educated. They know about the world and can apply that to their performance. Knowing little about anything but technique is not (IMHO) a good thing.

It's a trend in the USA for performers in theatre to go to college, work in the field for a while, then go back to get their MFA in Acting. The typical age range of acting students in the MFA program I knew well was 26-35.

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  Glorfindel on 4/25/2013, 12:15 pm

MoviesAreLife wrote:Wow! Okay...thank you for the information! Would it be better for a wannabe performer to...let's say, jump right into auditioning and, instead of being a part of a school program, to just take acting, dancing, singing and possibly music classes independant from a school?
That depends.
I don't know how it is on Broadway, but here the people who hire performers for their musicals usually work together with the few musical theatre conservatories we have. Usually the last study year is partly studying and partly already performing in a commercial musical, coordinated by the school and the bosses in the showbizz.
Having your name registered at a conservatory, or having been graduated from one gets you a head start in the business here, not only in the Netherlands but also in other European countries (like Germany, Belgium and Austria). Once your name is in the card-box of an agent or musical production company you are more likely to get work, and an education (at least here) will often achieve that.

And honestly: I get that there are some natural performers out there (like Chris, and e.g. Matt dropped out of his musical education college), but it isn't all talent that makes you good or suitable for the real showbizz: you need some form of proper education, or at least a lot of practice (like community theatre). Just going out on auditions without proper training won't get you very far. For instance: you will have to know how certain dance routines are called, and you will need to be able to read and sing from sheet music, and you will have to be able to dance and sing on a high level. There will be not much patience for a performer who holds back production with his ignorance of basic musical knowledge.
Of course classes outside of a conservatory might do the trick, but you would need many classes in several disciplines, and that will cost tons of money, more than a school education. It does have the advantage of not being bound to school rules and being free to do a production, but will the work you get pay for all your lessons when you don't work?


And lol: thinking that Rachel could work in a Broadway production and still being able to attend NYADA. No way.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Glorfindel
Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 6-550
Glorfindel
Glorfindel
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 8707
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : the Netherlands
Real Name : Marie

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  MoviesAreLife on 4/25/2013, 12:21 pm

Wow! Okay! Thank you! You guys know so much! Smile

Chris actually had no formal training, but he did have so much experience under his belt before he got Glee. I think he mentioned that he was in thousands of school, community and dinner theater productions by the time he reached high school.

MoviesAreLife
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3647
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Colorado
Real Name : Heather

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/25/2013, 12:30 pm

MoviesAreLife wrote:Wow! Okay! Thank you! You guys know so much! Smile

Chris actually had no formal training, but he did have so much experience under his belt before he got Glee. I think he mentioned that he was in thousands of school, community and dinner theater productions by the time he reached high school.

That experience counts, and he strikes me as a "self-educating" kind of person.

That said, the show lucked out with Chris (IMHO). To find a singing voice like that (though untrained), excellent acting skills (at least for the camera--I don't know if he has the training to really shine on stage), and the ability to move really well in a nineteen-year-old is nothing short of amazing.

With all the choreography he's done in the last three/four years, he's gotten better as a dancer, and he certainly has gotten vocal training (right?). I don't know what kind of acting education he's had . . . and we will have to wait and see to find out whether his skill-set is strong enough to transfer to live performance.

Because as good as Chris is, could he do what Daniel Radcliffe did in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying? Does he have the acting skills, the vocal support, and the stamina to do a musical--sustaining a performance for two+ hours?

Does he have the skills to do a two-hour play that rides solely on his shoulders?

I don't know. I do know that acting for camera is totally different. I've seen the work of performers who could not remember their lines through a full *sentence* turned into excellent performanCES by the editor/director.

(None of this is intended as Chris-bashing. He's an amazing find, and obviously is getting trained. But that doesn't mean he'd be stage-ready.)

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  MoviesAreLife on 4/25/2013, 12:46 pm

It's true that a good edit or even a good director can change a film performance. But I also think you can't hide anything from the camera. One false note in the acting, a moment of flatness or overacting...it will be spotted, and it will wreck your performance. Retakes don't matter and don't create a good actor/actress.

Yes, the show sure as hell lucked out with Chris. That level of natural talent is uncommon. He was born to do this. But I also believe he can pull off a stage performance...be it in a musical or a straight play. He was a stage actor first, and didn't even have any professional experience with the camera...he couldn't land a job in TV or film for four years. All of his many performances were on the stage. (And I don't understand why he is so terrified of singing live...because he did it throught his childhood and teen years so....)

MoviesAreLife
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3647
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Colorado
Real Name : Heather

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/25/2013, 1:10 pm

MoviesAreLife wrote:It's true that a good edit or even a good director can change a film performance. But I also think you can't hide anything from the camera. One false note in the acting, a moment of flatness or overacting...it will be spotted, and it will wreck your performance. Retakes don't matter and don't create a good actor/actress.

That is true, but they sure do help.

I've never been a performer in my life, but since I've been an extra I've had Assistant Directors and cameramen commenting on how good I am. Seriously. I had the A Camera Man on a hit show run all the way across the room in the middle of setting up a shot just to tell me how great I am. Freaking weird for that to happen to an extra in a crowded room of extras on a busy soundstage.

That same cameraman set up a reaction shot that featured me, too.

All I was doing was listening and thinking. Looking good and performing well on camera has to do with lots of different things. Some of those things are nothing more than having the right features for the camera (which I do). Others include having a face that shows your thoughts in a subtle fashion (CHRIS COLFER).

The thing is that the opposite of what you say is true, too: One false note may wreck a shot, but if you have ten or thirty takes to choose from, you'd have to strike the wrong note consistently for that wrong note to end up in the final version.

MoviesAreLife wrote:Yes, the show sure as hell lucked out with Chris. That level of natural talent is uncommon. He was born to do this. But I also believe he can pull off a stage performance...be it in a musical or a straight play. He was a stage actor first, and didn't even have any professional experience with the camera...he couldn't land a job in TV or film for four years. All of his many performances were on the stage. (And I don't understand why he is so terrified of singing live...because he did it throught his childhood and teen years so....)

That's true. I do think he could do a stage performance.

I also understand his terror, though. He's a celebrity now. And the question becomes--what LEVEL of stage performance is he able to do with his current skill-set? He may have had years of local theatre/amateur theatre under his belt, but that isn't the same as a Broadway house.

What are the chances that he could perform in a modest venue and work on his stage skills before getting thrust before Ben Brantley and the New York Times? No matter what he does, he's going to get scrutinized at that higher level.

He's got a really special voice, and he moves well. But can he deliver his trademark voice at the same time as dancing? Can he hit those high notes while dancing? Whatever the case, he's going to be judged against his pre-recorded performances, not live singing.

At least with Daniel Radcliffe, no one had any idea whether he was a decent singer or dancer. People came to see the show wondering whether he'd be any good at all. Chris will have the opposite problem: people will come to see a star whose performances have been prerecorded and cut together in the most flattering way possible.

And even with all the takes in the world, we still got this in a final product:

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Tumblr_inline_mk4y220rG41qz4rgp

See what I mean?

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  MoviesAreLife on 4/25/2013, 1:24 pm

AnneNeville wrote:
MoviesAreLife wrote:It's true that a good edit or even a good director can change a film performance. But I also think you can't hide anything from the camera. One false note in the acting, a moment of flatness or overacting...it will be spotted, and it will wreck your performance. Retakes don't matter and don't create a good actor/actress.

That is true, but they sure do help.

I've never been a performer in my life, but since I've been an extra I've had Assistant Directors and cameramen commenting on how good I am. Seriously. I had the A Camera Man on a hit show run all the way across the room in the middle of setting up a shot just to tell me how great I am. Freaking weird for that to happen to an extra in a crowded room of extras on a busy soundstage.

That same cameraman set up a reaction shot that featured me, too.

All I was doing was listening and thinking. Looking good and performing well on camera has to do with lots of different things. Some of those things are nothing more than having the right features for the camera (which I do). Others include having a face that shows your thoughts in a subtle fashion (CHRIS COLFER).

The thing is that the opposite of what you say is true, too: One false note may wreck a shot, but if you have ten or thirty takes to choose from, you'd have to strike the wrong note consistently for that wrong note to end up in the final version.

MoviesAreLife wrote:Yes, the show sure as hell lucked out with Chris. That level of natural talent is uncommon. He was born to do this. But I also believe he can pull off a stage performance...be it in a musical or a straight play. He was a stage actor first, and didn't even have any professional experience with the camera...he couldn't land a job in TV or film for four years. All of his many performances were on the stage. (And I don't understand why he is so terrified of singing live...because he did it throught his childhood and teen years so....)

That's true. I do think he could do a stage performance.

I also understand his terror, though. He's a celebrity now. And the question becomes--what LEVEL of stage performance is he able to do with his current skill-set? He may have had years of local theatre/amateur theatre under his belt, but that isn't the same as a Broadway house.

What are the chances that he could perform in a modest venue and work on his stage skills before getting thrust before Ben Brantley and the New York Times? No matter what he does, he's going to get scrutinized at that higher level.

He's got a really special voice, and he moves well. But can he deliver his trademark voice at the same time as dancing? Can he hit those high notes while dancing? Whatever the case, he's going to be judged against his pre-recorded performances, not live singing.

At least with Daniel Radcliffe, no one had any idea whether he was a decent singer or dancer. People came to see the show wondering whether he'd be any good at all. Chris will have the opposite problem: people will come to see a star whose performances have been prerecorded and cut together in the most flattering way possible.

And even with all the takes in the world, we still got this in a final product:

EDIT TO FIX IMAGE

See what I mean?

That's both awesome and hilarious! You must be a natural! And film acting is much more natural and less "big" than theater acting, so some would say it is "easier". But that's not always the case. All of the retakes in the world will not make Megan Fox a good actress, I don't care what her fans say. Soap operas are painful to watch because of the level of acting going on there. There are plently of clunky film performances out there, and it takes just the right amount of perfection (not being wooden, but not going over the top) to pull it off right. A truly good performance takes true talent, no matter what the medium.

I think Chris needs more confidence in his abilities as a performer, but you do bring up a good point about his current level of skills? Is he Broadway ready right now? I'm not sure when you bring it up like that. I think he is damned good, but maybe be does need a little more training before he is Broadway ready. If Darren can do it, surely Chris can? Glee is a great training ground for this type of thing. Film does allow for a performance to be as perfect as possible (editing, retakes, hands on directing, autotune) but on a stage, your flaws will be out there. It's scary. For a perfectionist like Chris, I can see why live performances scare him. And it's true that he, being a celebrity now, will be judged much more harshly than a newcomer would be. High standards, and haters wanting him to fail...and all that jazz.

MoviesAreLife
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3647
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Colorado
Real Name : Heather

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/25/2013, 2:22 pm

MoviesAreLife wrote:
That's both awesome and hilarious! You must be a natural! And film acting is much more natural and less "big" than theater acting, so some would say it is "easier". But that's not always the case. All of the retakes in the world will not make Megan Fox a good actress, I don't care what her fans say. Soap operas are painful to watch because of the level of acting going on there. There are plently of clunky film performances out there, and it takes just the right amount of perfection (not being wooden, but not going over the top) to pull it off right. A truly good performance takes true talent, no matter what the medium.

LOL, thanks. I actually look a bit like Anne Hathaway, and have some features that are similar to Chris's (jawline, cheekbones, pale skin, same hair color, big eyes, full lips). Makeup alters my (and I would think, his) appearance a great deal. Moreover, any thought I have--even the slightest change--alters my expression. That's what the camera picks up. I don't know that I'd be able to perform *with lines.* LOL, I'd like to find out what that would be like, though I'd cringe to ever have to hear myself on camera.

I agree that an *excellent* or even *very good* performance on camera requires talent. It's a different skill-set than for stage work. Some of it is stuff you luck out with (like I apparently did--photogenic features that change a LOT depending on what you are thinking). You have to have a much more subtlety expressive style.

Of course, those same expressive features that Chris has would also translate well to the stage. They would be quite visible and emotive. The question is more of "volume," shall we say. Does he have the skill to translate that subtle, interior acting into something effective for everyone in a 2000 seat theatre (from the front row to the back of the balcony)?

It is true that awful performers can't be made good performers just by fancy camera-work (though cameras and inter-cutting skillfully can do a lot of work for us). I will admit that the actor-who-couldn't-remember-a-full-sentence was someone with tremendous talent (so it's not surprising that when they cut it all together and used footage with this person's back turned overdubbed with audio of remembered lines, it came out GOOD).

As for clunky performances in soap operas, I'd suggest this is actually evidence that supports my argument. fanny2 Lots of good performers come out of soap operas (Sarah Michelle Gellar was amazing as Buffy).

However, what soap operas do NOT have is the luxury of time. Daytime serials--unless I am remembering wrong from my childhood!--are aired five days per week. That means they have to produce five times as much air-able footage per week than Glee does. That means fewer takes and simpler set-ups. Very likely they also use longer segments of "film" (fewer cuts and splices and less fancy editing).

So, I guess that all of this is to agree with you. It does take talent to be great on camera--certainly it takes a heck of a lot of talent to be as good as Chris is on camera. And most of the performers I've seen while extraing are talented, too. But they don't *have* to be as good for as long (I'm now talking in terms of sustained performance--longer than a two minute or less take) to look good on screen.

MoviesAreLife wrote:
I think Chris needs more confidence in his abilities as a performer, but you do bring up a good point about his current level of skills? Is he Broadway ready right now? I'm not sure when you bring it up like that. I think he is damned good, but maybe be does need a little more training before he is Broadway ready. If Darren can do it, surely Chris can? Glee is a great training ground for this type of thing. Film does allow for a performance to be as perfect as possible (editing, retakes, hands on directing, autotune) but on a stage, your flaws will be out there. It's scary. For a perfectionist like Chris, I can see why live performances scare him. And it's true that he, being a celebrity now, will be judged much more harshly than a newcomer would be. High standards, and haters wanting him to fail...and all that jazz.

I think that the argument that "Darren could" make it on Broadway is very shaky. VERY.

I heard little good about his performance, and he was only in the show for three weeks. Could Darren have sold tickets for nine months or a year? Would his voice have held up? Did he sound as good--even on pre-recorded tracks--after that hiatus as he did before (vocal strain)? I think Big Brother was the episode that followed Darren's stint on Broadway . . .

Critics were NOT invited to see Darren in How to Succeed. Maybe because he was only going to be there three weeks--or maybe because the producers were not sure they wanted the critics to SEE him.

The problem with celebrity is that you can't get away from the spotlight. Think of Emma Watson at Brown University. She couldn't even do a college production of Three Sisters without it being scrutinized!: What if Emma Watson Starred in Your School Play? They only allowed students and professors to attend, or so says that article.

But it also says this:
As great as it is to hear that Hermione is spreading her wings and experiencing such normalcy, we can't help but wonder if allowing such a star to do a school production isn't unfair to other students in some ways.

Evil or Very Mad SHE WAS A STUDENT AT BROWN. JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS.

So . . . yeah, Chris is great. I am sure he's solid on stage. But could he launch into a show? Or would he need to do the same kind of heavy-duty training that Daniel Radcliffe did before How to Succeed? Or more, because the audience will expect more.

I saw Daniel Radcliffe three times in H2S (and Darren none, because I didn't know who he was aside from having been in AVPM). I can say that:

1) When I was in the top of the balcony, I wasn't sold on the show (subtleties of DR's performance did not reach that far, director was obviously sitting somewhere else when he directed the show, because the "details" of the show were not apparent from that far away).

2) When I was within fifteen roles of the front several months later, I was impressed.

3) When I took my mom near the end of his run, and we were in the third row, we were both VERY IMPRESSED.

He also NEVER MISSED A SHOW, which means that he had trained his voice to the point that he could deliver 8 shows per week without doing harm. Even when he got sick.

So . . . when it comes to Chris doing stagework, we need to know if he can do this:



after an evening of doing this:





. . . but meet the expectations of critics who are primed by Glee, instead of expecting the worst? For a nine-month-to-one-year production? Built around him?

(Daniel Radcliffe has nowhere near the voice of Chris Colfer . . . but he spent *two years* training for this show and delivered what was needed.)

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/25/2013, 2:46 pm

For comparison, let's look at Darren Criss. Imagine you are not a big Darren fan, but you buy the hype that he's a great performer. (If you'd gone to see DanRad, you'd be wondering if he were even capable of singing/dancing/being anyone but Harry):







Is Darren *significantly* better than Daniel Radcliffe in terms of overall performance? He is not as nasal, that's true--he has a pleasant tone to his voice and sounds better than I expected. But he also doesn't get thrown back and forth on the table in Brotherhood of Man like DR did, so the choreography was changed, at least for this night (why?).

And Darren has a BFA in performance.

Would he hold up to a year in the show? And fill seats?

And, when you're in a revival, you have to live up to the original:



(Neither Daniel nor Darren do, but I think the whole concept of the show was altered to create a different Finch, so that's less of an issue)

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  Glorfindel on 4/25/2013, 3:04 pm

i think Chris can do a Broadway show, if it does not involve too much dancing, and if he gets enough time to rehearse beforehand. H2$ would be a good role for him.

Chris was a stage actor before he was a tv actor, so I don't think he'll have problems transitioning his acting skills to the stage again.

As for his singing: he's got good breathing control, so in principle light choreography during singing would not be a problem. But Chris is audible nervous when singing live, at least he was during the Glee live concerts, and nerves wreck your breathing control. He would need to find a way to keep that in line.
However, he sang as a kid on stage all the time, and I think he wouldn't have done that if he didn't love it or thought he was not good enough. Plus he is ambitious as hell. Razz

Imo Chris was extra nervous during the Glee live tours, because he was singing with professional Broadway singers, and I'm sure he was aware how polarizing his voice can be for the Glee audience. OTOH he couldn't match up to the female power voices and OTOH he was not one of the hot guys like Mark and Cory who could get away with a rock song on stage, while Chris had to tackle a slow Beatles song and Broadway standards (which are on a total different level). With what we know of Chris' tendency to self-deprecate his skills, especially his singing and looks (at least still in 2011) no wonder he was nervous during the tours. OTOH he was very confident while performing 'Single Ladies', and that was dancing not singing! He surprised me there.
I think he's more confident now, especially if he gets cast on Broadway in a completely different role than Kurt. 'I Have Nothing', 'Not The Boy Next Door' and 'Being Alive' were all oozing with confidence in his own skills: I think Chris is ready for Broadway now. fanny2

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Glorfindel
Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 6-550
Glorfindel
Glorfindel
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 8707
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : the Netherlands
Real Name : Marie

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/25/2013, 3:14 pm

Glorfindel wrote:i think Chris can do a Broadway show, if it does not involve too much dancing, and if he gets enough time to rehearse beforehand. H2$ would be a good role for him.

Chris was a stage actor before he was a tv actor, so I don't think he'll have problems transitioning his acting skills to the stage again.

As for his singing: he's got good breathing control, so in principle light choreography during singing would not be a problem. But Chris is audible nervous when singing live, at least he was during the Glee live concerts, and nerves wreck your breathing control. He would need to find a way to keep that in line.
However, he sang as a kid on stage all the time, and I think he wouldn't have done that if he didn't love it or thought he was not good enough. Plus he is ambitious as hell. Razz

Imo Chris was extra nervous during the Glee live tours, because he was singing with professional Broadway singers, and I'm sure he was aware how polarizing his voice can be for the Glee audience. OTOH he couldn't match up to the female power voices and OTOH he was not one of the hot guys like Mark and Cory who could get away with a rock song on stage, while Chris had to tackle a slow Beatles song and Broadway standards (which are on a total different level). With what we know of Chris' tendency to self-deprecate his skills, especially his singing and looks (at least still in 2011) no wonder he was nervous during the tours. OTOH he was very confident while performing 'Single Ladies', and that was dancing not singing! He surprised me there.
I think he's more confident now, especially if he gets cast on Broadway in a completely different role than Kurt. 'I Have Nothing', 'Not The Boy Next Door' and 'Being Alive' were all oozing with confidence in his own skills: I think Chris is ready for Broadway now. fanny2

I would LOVE to see him do Broadway. I hope my posts above don't give the impression that I wouldn't. I'm considering the different kinds of training required for different kinds of performance. I think CC has the talent, and I hope he has the training to carry a whole show. If he's not ready for that, he could go the Neil Patrick Harris route. Concerts of musicals (Rent) to Broadway plays (forgot which one--Proof?) to replacement in Broadway revivals (Emcee in Cabaret) to a lead role in the revival of Assassins . . . that way he could build up more gradually.

You are a voice teacher, right? Is there any way to tell from the recordings whether Chris has the support he needs to project (though there are mics, now, or Darren/Daniel couldn't have done Finch) and the ability to deliver comparable quality vocals live, without damaging his voice?

I expect CC will end up on Broadway. But I have a strong feeling he'll do a play first.


AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  AnneNeville on 4/25/2013, 3:36 pm

Back to Fame 1x2 . . .

What did they get right in terms of the entertainment industry (IMHO):

  • It is clear that if Lydia or Coco get the Broadway role, they will have to make tough choices: Coco would have to drop out of high school--and she's broken school rules. If Lydia gets the role, she has to quit her teaching job. They don't act like either woman can have both.
  • The director has a candidate in mind (Lydia) and thinks he can promise it to her. But he's a new director and doesn't have that kind of power compared to his producers.
  • Lydia and Coco ARE the same "type", though one is seven years too young and one is seven years too old. What glimpses we see of the others are . . . well, sort of 'ethnic.' Except that singer who goes right before Coco.
  • The show does not make Coco and Lydia's competition look or sound bad just to pump up their leads. What we hear and see of the other candidates shows them as quality.
  • If Bruno hadn't stepped in and rushed the audition past Coco's experience right into her song, she'd have been out on her ear.
  • Producers interfere and short-circuit the director's choice and the director can't say anything about it, no matter his preferences.


What the show got wrong (IMHO):

  • You only get to sing 16 bars (or less) of a song at an audition, not a full number.
  • I can only imagine Coco getting into this audition from an open call, in which case she would not run into the director's first choice, who would be professional/union/probably scheduled for a slot at a different time than the open calls. This might be hinted at by the SM's "you just made it" line and the fact that Lydia showed up after Coco's audition.
  • It's unlikely that--even with Bruno's interference--a high school student would get called back for the dance audition.


Bonus points:
Character building and lines that crack me up.
The teachers teach.
Goodbye Garcy, Hello Danny--a much better wannabe stand-up comedian/actor.

What do you think?

AnneNeville
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 1635
Join date : 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  Glorfindel on 4/25/2013, 6:01 pm

AnneNeville wrote:I would LOVE to see him do Broadway. I hope my posts above don't give the impression that I wouldn't. I'm considering the different kinds of training required for different kinds of performance. I think CC has the talent, and I hope he has the training to carry a whole show. If he's not ready for that, he could go the Neil Patrick Harris route. Concerts of musicals (Rent) to Broadway plays (forgot which one--Proof?) to replacement in Broadway revivals (Emcee in Cabaret) to a lead role in the revival of Assassins . . . that way he could build up more gradually.
If Chris really would want a Broadway career the gradual climb route would be advisable. As you said: when live on stage he would be compared to the standard set by studio recordings on Glee, and during Glee or right after Glee ended that would not be wise, unless he'll get a role he's comfortable in.

You are a voice teacher, right? Is there any way to tell from the recordings whether Chris has the support he needs to project (though there are mics, now, or Darren/Daniel couldn't have done Finch) and the ability to deliver comparable quality vocals live, without damaging his voice?
Yes, I think Chris can project without damaging his voice. He's got the needed techniques and breathing support.
But because he often sings as a countertenor he might need a mic anyway, as the male falsetto is naturally not that loud as the belted low register.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Glorfindel
Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 6-550
Glorfindel
Glorfindel
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 8707
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : the Netherlands
Real Name : Marie

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  MoviesAreLife on 4/28/2013, 1:15 am

AnneNeville wrote:
MoviesAreLife wrote:
That's both awesome and hilarious! You must be a natural! And film acting is much more natural and less "big" than theater acting, so some would say it is "easier". But that's not always the case. All of the retakes in the world will not make Megan Fox a good actress, I don't care what her fans say. Soap operas are painful to watch because of the level of acting going on there. There are plently of clunky film performances out there, and it takes just the right amount of perfection (not being wooden, but not going over the top) to pull it off right. A truly good performance takes true talent, no matter what the medium.

LOL, thanks. I actually look a bit like Anne Hathaway, and have some features that are similar to Chris's (jawline, cheekbones, pale skin, same hair color, big eyes, full lips). Makeup alters my (and I would think, his) appearance a great deal. Moreover, any thought I have--even the slightest change--alters my expression. That's what the camera picks up. I don't know that I'd be able to perform *with lines.* LOL, I'd like to find out what that would be like, though I'd cringe to ever have to hear myself on camera.

I agree that an *excellent* or even *very good* performance on camera requires talent. It's a different skill-set than for stage work. Some of it is stuff you luck out with (like I apparently did--photogenic features that change a LOT depending on what you are thinking). You have to have a much more subtlety expressive style.

Of course, those same expressive features that Chris has would also translate well to the stage. They would be quite visible and emotive. The question is more of "volume," shall we say. Does he have the skill to translate that subtle, interior acting into something effective for everyone in a 2000 seat theatre (from the front row to the back of the balcony)?

It is true that awful performers can't be made good performers just by fancy camera-work (though cameras and inter-cutting skillfully can do a lot of work for us). I will admit that the actor-who-couldn't-remember-a-full-sentence was someone with tremendous talent (so it's not surprising that when they cut it all together and used footage with this person's back turned overdubbed with audio of remembered lines, it came out GOOD).

As for clunky performances in soap operas, I'd suggest this is actually evidence that supports my argument. fanny2 Lots of good performers come out of soap operas (Sarah Michelle Gellar was amazing as Buffy).

However, what soap operas do NOT have is the luxury of time. Daytime serials--unless I am remembering wrong from my childhood!--are aired five days per week. That means they have to produce five times as much air-able footage per week than Glee does. That means fewer takes and simpler set-ups. Very likely they also use longer segments of "film" (fewer cuts and splices and less fancy editing).

So, I guess that all of this is to agree with you. It does take talent to be great on camera--certainly it takes a heck of a lot of talent to be as good as Chris is on camera. And most of the performers I've seen while extraing are talented, too. But they don't *have* to be as good for as long (I'm now talking in terms of sustained performance--longer than a two minute or less take) to look good on screen.

MoviesAreLife wrote:
I think Chris needs more confidence in his abilities as a performer, but you do bring up a good point about his current level of skills? Is he Broadway ready right now? I'm not sure when you bring it up like that. I think he is damned good, but maybe be does need a little more training before he is Broadway ready. If Darren can do it, surely Chris can? Glee is a great training ground for this type of thing. Film does allow for a performance to be as perfect as possible (editing, retakes, hands on directing, autotune) but on a stage, your flaws will be out there. It's scary. For a perfectionist like Chris, I can see why live performances scare him. And it's true that he, being a celebrity now, will be judged much more harshly than a newcomer would be. High standards, and haters wanting him to fail...and all that jazz.

I think that the argument that "Darren could" make it on Broadway is very shaky. VERY.

I heard little good about his performance, and he was only in the show for three weeks. Could Darren have sold tickets for nine months or a year? Would his voice have held up? Did he sound as good--even on pre-recorded tracks--after that hiatus as he did before (vocal strain)? I think Big Brother was the episode that followed Darren's stint on Broadway . . .

Critics were NOT invited to see Darren in How to Succeed. Maybe because he was only going to be there three weeks--or maybe because the producers were not sure they wanted the critics to SEE him.

The problem with celebrity is that you can't get away from the spotlight. Think of Emma Watson at Brown University. She couldn't even do a college production of Three Sisters without it being scrutinized!: What if Emma Watson Starred in Your School Play? They only allowed students and professors to attend, or so says that article.

But it also says this:
As great as it is to hear that Hermione is spreading her wings and experiencing such normalcy, we can't help but wonder if allowing such a star to do a school production isn't unfair to other students in some ways.

Evil or Very Mad SHE WAS A STUDENT AT BROWN. JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS.

So . . . yeah, Chris is great. I am sure he's solid on stage. But could he launch into a show? Or would he need to do the same kind of heavy-duty training that Daniel Radcliffe did before How to Succeed? Or more, because the audience will expect more.

I saw Daniel Radcliffe three times in H2S (and Darren none, because I didn't know who he was aside from having been in AVPM). I can say that:

1) When I was in the top of the balcony, I wasn't sold on the show (subtleties of DR's performance did not reach that far, director was obviously sitting somewhere else when he directed the show, because the "details" of the show were not apparent from that far away).

2) When I was within fifteen roles of the front several months later, I was impressed.

3) When I took my mom near the end of his run, and we were in the third row, we were both VERY IMPRESSED.

He also NEVER MISSED A SHOW, which means that he had trained his voice to the point that he could deliver 8 shows per week without doing harm. Even when he got sick.

So . . . when it comes to Chris doing stagework, we need to know if he can do this:



after an evening of doing this:





. . . but meet the expectations of critics who are primed by Glee, instead of expecting the worst? For a nine-month-to-one-year production? Built around him?

(Daniel Radcliffe has nowhere near the voice of Chris Colfer . . . but he spent *two years* training for this show and delivered what was needed.)

Everyone hates the way they sound on camera/on the phone. Something about technology distorts one's voice. It's weird. This one time, I called 911 because my mom's boyfriend at the time was threatening suicide, and the operator thought I was 10 years old! I was 20 at the time. I do NOT sound like that in real life! Hmmmph! Btw, you do look like Anne, Anne! Wink I know that it is nearly impossible to go from an extra to a speaking part with lines and a SAG card, but wouldn't it be cool if you were one of the NYADA teachers?! Especially teaching Kurt Hummel, of all things! Of course that is only if Glee moves to NYC. You know what? Just ignore that whole paragraph. I am hyper tonight and I'm letting my brain run wild...*ahem*

I think that Chris can successfully tackle stage acting and project himself into the back row if he wanted to. Granted, I have never seen his stage performances. The only glimpse we've ever gotten of Chris doing a play was the 6 minutes he got in "8". And what a wonderful six minutes they were! Wink

SMG...a good actress? Ehhh. I have to disagree. I've never cared for her, not even during the Buffy craze in the 90's. But I did not know that about soap operas, and how they have to work much harder and work at a much faster pace in order to produce so much product. Perhaps that is why everything is so...unpolished? The acting especially suffers greatly, as does the writing. Lord know how much those things mocked for the melodramatic acting and corny plotlines. But they are working at breakneck speed.

It's true that Darren's Broadway stint was pure stunt casting, and that critics and audiences alike may accuse Chris in a Broadway role of being the same (thus, being more hard on him and more cynical). However, Chris is talented, very hard working and very much a profectionist. He would never allow for a show to be altered to whatever his abilities may be...he would work that little non-existent butt off, and he would raise his skills to match the Broadway veterans around him. He would never pull a Melanie B. (from the Spice Girls) and butcher a role, like she did for Mimi in RENT. (Seriously, they lowered the key for her part in "Another Day"...taking the pleading urgency and emotional punch right out of the song!) Chris would never allow himself to be made a laughing stock that way. He takes what he does very seriously. Remember, Chris never missed a show on the last Glee tour, either...even when he was sick and throwing up! Wink He is dedicated.

I'm sure people would flock to see Chris in a Broadway show because he is loved and respected by so many. People just need to realize that a live performance will never be as flawless as a filmed performance, and that this ain't Glee.

I had no idea that Daniel trained for two years for his role! Is that normal? I'm sure Chris wouldn't have to train quite as long (more experience and more natural talent), but he would need to train at least a little bit. Maybe improve on that belt of his? Chris also sang on the most recent Glee tour, despite being scared to. You could hear the nerves and he did sometimes let the nerves influence his voice. He's going to need to feel more confident as a live performer if he's going to pursure a Broadway role someday. But I think he can do it.

BTW, I love your fic on Archive of Our Own.

MoviesAreLife
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3647
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Colorado
Real Name : Heather

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  Glorfindel on 4/28/2013, 9:11 am

AnneNeville wrote:I think that the argument that "Darren could" make it on Broadway is very shaky. VERY.

I heard little good about his performance, and he was only in the show for three weeks. Could Darren have sold tickets for nine months or a year? Would his voice have held up? Did he sound as good--even on pre-recorded tracks--after that hiatus as he did before (vocal strain)? I think Big Brother was the episode that followed Darren's stint on Broadway . . .

Critics were NOT invited to see Darren in How to Succeed. Maybe because he was only going to be there three weeks--or maybe because the producers were not sure they wanted the critics to SEE him.

From what I heard (saw some youtube videos) and read Darren wasn't so great in H2$. And his voice was definitely damaged when he returned to Glee. He had only been singing on Broadway for 3 weeks! No way his voice would have lasted much longer.

(Daniel Radcliffe has nowhere near the voice of Chris Colfer . . . but he spent *two years* training for this show and delivered what was needed.)
Daniel really impressed me with his devotion and the skills that emurged after all his training. I have a lot of respect for his professional attitude, and for him as a performer.


MoviesAreLife wrote:
I had no idea that Daniel trained for two years for his role! Is that normal? I'm sure Chris wouldn't have to train quite as long (more experience and more natural talent), but he would need to train at least a little bit. Maybe improve on that belt of his? Chris also sang on the most recent Glee tour, despite being scared to. You could hear the nerves and he did sometimes let the nerves influence his voice. He's going to need to feel more confident as a live performer if he's going to pursure a Broadway role someday. But I think he can do it.
What you have to take into account here is Chris not being comfortable singing when he has to be 'Chris' the singer. He needs to hide behind a character/role to feel comfortable and confident. That's why he tried to stay in character of Kurt during the tour, except for when he sang IWHYH. Chris wanted IWHYH to be personal, him reaching out to the audience, his fans, and that's why he went out of character. But being out of character meant more nerves for him, as he feels uncomfortable (being judged) as just 'Chris'.
His performances in character, like HD/GH and 'Single Ladies' were much more confident and solid, especially 'Single Ladies'. 'Although Single Ladies' was dancing, not singing, but Chris has said several times that he himself ('Chris') could not have done that dance: he needed Kurt to take over.
Here's an interview in which he talks about that:

[Chris:]Oh, no! I don't sing unless I have to. Or in the shower.

Seriously?
Honestly, singing is my biggest fear. I never participate in group singing activity.

Hello — Glee?
Okay, but I do that to conquer my fear, my fear of public singing, and I never actually do conquer it. Even on the live Glee tour, where we have to sing live every single show. I wish I did, but I just force myself to go out there, even when I'm shaking. It's so different to sing in the studio, to record a song with just you and the engineer. That I can do. What I would love is if it could just become muscle memory for me, but it's such a complex mindset, because I think about how the judgment is on me, and how I sound alone. It's nerve-racking. Being part of Glee is like being in musical-theater school, with people singing and doing duet-offs in between scenes. I just save it for on-camera.
source

This is actually a very common thing amongst performers. A lot of singers don't feel comfortable being 'themselves' on stage, so they adopt a role, whether that role is scripted (like in a musical) or whether that role is invented as a larger than life stage persona (like Freddie Mercury: "You can be anything you want to be: just be who you want to be.").
I know I feel very uncomfortable being 'me' while singing (feeling judged, not pretty enough, how pretentious am I to think that I'm a 'real' singer, etc.), unless I pretend to be someone else: a wedding singer, a piano bar singer, the character of the song I'm singing.
It's a mindset trick. I think Chris will do better singing live when he is able to play a character in a musical. neutre

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Glorfindel
Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 6-550
Glorfindel
Glorfindel
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 8707
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : the Netherlands
Real Name : Marie

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  brisallie on 4/28/2013, 1:46 pm

MoviesAreLife wrote:

Everyone hates the way they sound on camera/on the phone. Something about technology distorts one's voice. It's weird. This one time, I called 911 because my mom's boyfriend at the time was threatening suicide, and the operator thought I was 10 years old! I was 20 at the time. I do NOT sound like that in real life! Hmmmph!...

I also hate my voice everytime I heard it on camera or phone. I sound like a young boy too,because my voice is slightly deep and sometimes even sounds husky (especially when I catch a cold) but still like a girl. So I was shocked.

I think that Chris can successfully tackle stage acting and project himself into the back row if he wanted to. Granted, I have never seen his stage performances. The only glimpse we've ever gotten of Chris doing a play was the 6 minutes he got in "8". And what a wonderful six minutes they were! Wink

As the text in bolded: Have you ever gone to the American Right Equality channel? If I don't remember wrong, Chris part is the only one who has a video itself Smile I'm so proud of him.


Glorfindel wrote:
(Daniel Radcliffe has nowhere near the voice of Chris Colfer . . . but he spent *two years* training for this show and delivered what was needed.)
Daniel really impressed me with his devotion and the skills that emurged after all his training. I have a lot of respect for his professional attitude, and for him as a performer.

Can I be biased? When I read Daniel put so much effort in his role, and he trained for two years, I felt proud of being his fan. He proved you can get your goal if you work hard and I'm sorry if I offend anyone (I'm sure I'm not doing it) but I think that was Darren had to do. I'm not saying it was only his fault, but also the tight Glee schedule, but he should have done more for his role. Sometimes you can't rely only on your fame, because I know he was supported by all his fans, but also on other stuffs like singing,dancing and acting skills. Improve those skills.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 250px-Muhte%C5%9Fem_Y%C3%BCzy%C4%B1l_Logo
I currently obsessed with this
brisallie
brisallie
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 5797
Join date : 2012-02-20
Location : latinamerica
Real Name : Romina

http://CalmaInestable.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  MoviesAreLife on 4/28/2013, 2:52 pm

Marie, yes, I have noticed that some damned good singers are actually a bit shy when it comes to singing outside of a performance. It's really weird. I guess they don't want to flaunt their skills? I remember Melissa seemed almost embarrassed to sing "The First Noel" in a BTS Glee video a while ago, and she has a beautiful voice. So it makes sense that Chris, even though he's sung live before and even though he has a great voice, is a bit more shy when it comes to singing live nowadays. And yes, I remember reading in an interveiw that he had to let Kurt take over the Single Ladies dance, as he was just too embarrassed to do himself. Very interesting!

Brisallie, I know that his entire performance is up in several videos (a few by fans, and one video from the official YouTube channel of the official organization) but I didn't know that his performance was the only one they had up! Wow!

MoviesAreLife
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3647
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Colorado
Real Name : Heather

Back to top Go down

Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2 Empty Re: Fame vs. Glee: Fame 1x2

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum