Isabelle Bracamonte wrote:
>
> Back to Lloyd's original statement: Castrati had rich,
> ringing voices -- modern-day "baroque" practices
> mutilate the meaning of a rich, ringing voice (that
> horrible Emma Kirkby and others of the straight-tone
> "choral" voice come to mind). Let's take these as a
> given. Or debate as you see fit.
>
Battling with a big backlog, I've only just reached this one.
"Let's take these as a given" - well! Considering the epithets that are
usually attached to Ms Kirkby's singing, ("sublime" is the one I keep
reading - I think millions of people would be quite simply astonished to
hear anyone describe her as "horrible") I think you have no right to
take them as a given; in fact I think you'd certainly be in a minority.
If I seem a little sensitive about this, it's because Emma Kirkby's is a
voice I know very well, as I used to duet with her when we were at
university together. This was before you were born. Her singing is far
from "straight" if you listen to it carefully (you have only to speed up
or slow down recordings of her to hear the error of this) and it
certainly rings. As for "rich", well, you may have to define what you
mean by this and why you think it's appropriate for any particular style
of music. And does "pure" have any value for you?
Some points to bear in mind: first, although she has moved on and grown
into "larger" forms, Emma started her recording career singing with
ensembles of lutes and viols. You think her voice is inappropriate for
that kind of music? You think Cheryl Studer would sound better? It's all
a question of scale. Or do you think that someone who doesn't aspire to
the operatic stage is just second-best, however perfect they may be in
their chosen genre? Because I'm sorry to say this, Isabelle, but it
certainly sounds like it at times.
Now, someone in Vocalist, and I think it was yourself, but I hope you'll
forgive me if I've misattributed this, said of voices that they thought
"bigger is better". That epitomises a caricature of American attitudes -
yes, we all know most of you aren't like that, but saying it does
nothing to dispel it.
Have you ever seen the Mona Lisa? It's one of the most acclaimed
pictures in the world - and it's tiny! There are great paintings that
take up half a wall of a gallery, well, they are to be admired too, but
does that detract from the fine qualities in the Mona Lisa? Do you think
it would be better if it were twice the size? Painted in more vibrant
colours? Quantity is not everything. There are great huge paintings and
there are great tiny ones. Music performed on a small scale, as it were,
is no less capable of perfection because it is less expansive.
As far as I know Emma Kirkby has not performed in opera per se, though
she's been involved in early music productions such as masques. She has
recently recorded a set of Handel operatic arias, though, but I haven't
had the chance to hear them yet.
But there's one more very important point. Most of the leading baroque
specialist conductors and instrumentalists - Parrott, Gardiner, Koopman,
Herreweghe, Rooley and so forth, are also musicological researchers. And
the voices they choose to record with are the voices that they feel are
appropriate to the job in hand. If as you suggest Emma Kirkby has it all
wrong, then so has half the Baroque performing fraternity of Europe. To
say nothing of their audience.
How closely have you listened to her? There's more to singing than
opera. It's not the pinnacle. It's just one of many pinnacles. And my
impression is that much of Vocalist has forgotten this.
muted cheers
Linda
|
