sopran@a... wrote: > One singer in particular, though--who has more dramatic training and > experience than the others--somehow seemed less genuine than the others. I > don't mean to criticize her too harshly, because she does have talent and > some of what she did was quite affecting. Her performance just seemed more > calculated to me. > > So what is it that makes this difference? Is it personality, or training? And > which singers do you consider to be the most giving of themselves (vocally > and dramatically) and which are the most calculating performers?
I have observed this sort of thing myself, and my teacher and I share these observations and discuss them from time to time. I call that sort of performance - not bad, but one that I don't believe: "ACTING". Portraying, not being; pretending, not believing. This kind of performance can work to a certain extent, but when it's me in the audience, I feel unsatisfied, cheated almost. As if the performer is holding something back from me. This doesn't mean that the actor that can make me "believe" lacks technique or a degree of calculation or artifice, just that the real part of the emotions comes through to me all of the time.
As to what makes the difference? I suspect whole schools of acting are based on it. Perhaps the performer who's done a certain role or aria 25, 50, 100 times has lost their ability to really believe it. Or if the balance between the technical and the visceral gets skewed too much toward the technical I will sense something false.
And maybe I am different from many audience members. Some performers I like have been criticized by some for being cold or wooden, but I appreciate their performances because even though they are reserved, there is a sincerity of feeling that I like. And an entertaining "chew the scenery" performance that many people adore can leave me unsatisfied because it seems to be done for show.
Peggy
-- Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA "Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile" mailto:peggyh@i...
|
| |