In a message dated 12/30/2001 12:31:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gwyee@r... writes:
gwyee@r... writes:
<< mostly I do sing for
me [as do most other amateurs]. And, on occasion, others do come by and
listen in, and make requests. I believe the attitude of professional
singers was discussed in earlier posts. Some said they sing primarily for
their audiences; but I believe they still enjoy the chemistry of that
interaction when it's good. >>
although i have gotten caught up in this as much as anyone, myself,
unless the material is about me, i feel it is my role as a performer to
'state' the point of the material. if i am playing a character, i still
have to make the point the character is making, even if the character is
making a statement about himself. in the context of a theatrical piece, to
whom that statement is being directed is determined by its function in the
play. is the character talking to another character? himself? or,
making an aside to the audience?
even without a theatrical context, to whom the material is directed, is
often implied. so, to sing for/to oneself where the material clearly
indicates it is intended to be directed to the audience (or, to the distant
object of one's affection, as it is so often), is incorrect or, at least,
missing a point and, vice versa.
like a heated argument, concerning a subject for which the participants
have great passion, i believe the performer should be so caught up in the
specifics of the material, which includes 'to whom it is for', that the
performer should forget himself/herself in favor of the point of the
material. that is not to say that the performer is not allowed emotion but,
those emotions are in response to the material, just as in a heated argument.
naturally, because of the differing roles of audience and performer, their
respective emotional responses could be quite different. even brecht
eventually realized that it is not possible to give 'objective' performances
as, one can't help getting caught up in the material.
mike
|
|  |
