Opera is as much acting as it is singing. No truer component of that is
Catherine Malfitano. She acts on stage in a role & she acts just as much
in recital (have seen her twice in recital & in at least a half dozen or
more operas - live & on tape). I think that was part of the complaint
about Bocelli's performance in Detroit...no acting.
It is interesting that you bring up Mozart's "Figaro". I've seen it twice
@ Lyric Chicago. The first time I was bored to tears, the second time it
was a laugh a minute because the singers had a sense of comic timing in
addition to being able to sing. I've also seen "La Triviata" there twice.
Hated it the first time, enjoyed it the second time. Once again, it had
more to do with the acting ability & timing of the singers than the way
they sang.
We have to remember that some works get unfairly judged because of a poor
performance, poor sets (I'm guilty as charged in regards to Lyric's
"Meistersinger" - had a hard time getting past how awful the sets were.
ACK!) or lack of understanding on the part of the audience, which can
because of any number of reasons. You can do "Barber of Seville" without
super titles & the audience will still laugh if the comic timing is
right, other works don't come off as well. I can't help but think of a
college performance of "Don Giovanni" that I saw several years ago. The
performance was just plain boring but I know that others have seen
different productions & have thoroughly enjoyed it.
So, are those of you in opera programs learning acting as well as
singing? IMHO, it will make all the difference in a performance if the
singers can act too.
Pat Smith
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:36:56 EDT ODivaTina@a... writes:
>
> Viva la difference. Wagner is the one composer whose operas are not
> too long
> for my blood. Fours of Walkuere vs. Nozze di Figaro? Walkuere by
> miles.
> TinaO
>
________________________________________________________________
|
|
|  |
