In a message dated 11/15/2002 12:24:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lloyd.hanson@n... writes:
> A close friend often complained to me about the lack of volume of the
> singers in live professional performances and how much more he
> appreciated listening to these performances on recording. When I
> explained to him that it was his job as a listener to pay better
> attention and not expect the sound to be in his back pocket he simply
> said he preferred to listen to performances that did not have such
> elevated expectations of its listeners.
>
lloyd,
i have no problem going to a foreign movie and working to understand
what is going on either in a language i have no knowledge of or, a language i
should have worked harder at (them foreigners have a different word for
everything). hearing an opera in a house that is too big for the singers
with an orchestra that is twice the size of the original intent, playing at
today's dynamic levels (loud and louder), is too much work to be fun (i could
probably add to the experience by lip reading, if the singers weren't so far
away from the seats i can afford). it is one thing to have a 'correct'
performance, expecting the listener to adjust to the situation but, to expect
that to happen in an 'incorrect' situation, is unreasonable. even so, the
work of the listener is best concentrated on the appreciation of what is
happening rather than struggling to hear it.
even in a 'correct' performance, the idea of singing unamplified with
an orchestra was a necessity, not a great accomplishment of western
civilization. objectively speaking, it is a goofy idea and it is remarkable
how well the obstacles have been diminished. the same goes for theater, for
a different reason. there is a thin line between 'developing a taste for'
and pretending to like something. the harder one has to work to enjoy
something, the closer it comes to being the latter.
mike
|
|  |
