On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Margaret Harrison wrote:
> But I usually hate it in Broadway-style shows, because it's too loud
> and hurts my ears and amplifies whatever bad singing is present.
I can blab all I want at an abstract level about it, but the truth is
you're right that most forays into amplified theatre HAVE been truly
abysmal. (I had a huge headache after RENT) I just hope we can keep an
open mind, though. It is a period of growing pains, and eventually, a
composer will come along and use the new technology brilliantly, creating
a new operatic form this LIVES COMFORTABLY (and without headaches) in the
21st century.
> Composers have
> > always used whatever technology was available to them to make the best
> > impact possible. They're not interested in arbitrary rules, they are
> > interested in how effective their work will be.
>
> Yes, but I don't have to like it.
Very true (I admit, I can't say I like it either :)
> With amplification, a composer may use a 100,000
> > watt rock band instead of a string orchestra, or samples, or electronic
> > music... a singer with perfect technique may choose to use a breathy tone
> > and have it heard. Or get spooky off-stage voice effects. Drama is first,
> > technique and technology exists only to serve it.
>
> If that's what it's for, I have no argument, as noted above.
I know you don't like ALW, but just as an example, I like Jesus Christ
Superstar better than Phantom because I feel like the rock band makes
sense in context, and the singers are rock singers - it jives better. It
is jarring to see opera singing with mics and synthesizers - too many
associations. Phantom seems like it's pretending to be something it's not,
and it seems that's one of the things that irks you.
Tako
|
|  |
