dorisopran@a... wrote:
dorisopran@a... wrote:
> I mentioned the composer on this thread. I said that the performer was a
> channel for the composer, or some such thing.
My apologies - I've just found it - I must have skimmed yours too fast.
I agree about the "channel" idea, and it's one of the words I use
myself; also you're the messenger, and the middle-man. But my main
thrust was at the earlier comments, particularly those which agreed with
the first statement (about which I can now feel poor Lisa panicking in
case she has totally misrepresented Alma whatsername - don't worry,
Lisa, it's given us plenty to discuss even if it turns out she didn't
say it quite that way, so thank you nevertheless!)
I think classical instrumentalists get this much better than singers.
Maybe you have to have a natural arrogance and egocentricity to be a
singer? Maybe you can't succeed artistically if you have none
whatsoever? I don't know. But you hear instrumentalists, far far more
than singers, dropping the composer's name into their discussion of what
they're doing. It's a case of "Schubert does this" as opposed to "I do
this". Admittedly, you as a person are the instrument in this situation,
which makes it almost impossible to be self-effacing about it!
Not sure where superstar conductors fit into this, though! (I am far
from being one)
cheers
Linda
|
|  |
