Barry Bounous wrote:
> Diane's comments reflect very accurately my experience as a Met judge.
> (If I can crow a little and say that one of our 3 local finalists -
> Lindsay Killian - was one of the five national winners this year!) I
> would also add that with so many of the singers being similar in skill,
> it often will come down to a 'gut' instinct about who has "the right
> stuff" for a career. Very suprisingly, on that point (as subjective as
> one can get) the three of us were unanimous in our 'feeling'.
I observed my first Met auditions this year (local Regional finals), and my
friends and I
had a hard time understanding the judges' choices (though the singer I thought
the judges
would choose "won"; I thought this singer gave most polished and effective
vocal and
dramatic performance that day, although that singer was not the one who I
thought had the
best potential of the singers for of a big-time opera career, because I thought
other
singers had better voices for opera in a big-time opera house). I and my
friends who were
also there (voice teacher, coach/accompanist, experienced voice student, avid
opera-goer)
had no consensus on the singer who should have "won" and those who were placed
second and
third, though we all agreed on the five singers who were the most accomplished
of the
those who sang that day.
So my question for those who have judged Met auditions - what are you supposed
to reward?
The singer who gives the most effective and accomplished performance on that
day, or the
singer who displays the most potential for a big-time operatic career? Or are
completely
different criteria used?
Peggy
--
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
|  |
