Dear mike and Fellow Vocalisters;
I selected the thread for this response because I want it to better reflect the topic of your post of "Mon, 02 Oct 2000 14:09:46 -0400 (EDT)".
You wrote: "my guess is that dietrich fischer-dieskau and his students might be different but, close in meeting the principles of sls opera (words that sound like words, varying timbre from top to bottom more in keeping with every other instrument as opposed to the 'one sound fits all' approach)."
COMMENT: Every orchestral instrumentalist attempts to maintain as similar a tone quality throughout their range as possible. For some instruments this more difficult than others (the clarinet, for example). Every classically trained singer attempts to do the same. The classical ideal is a continuity of tone color that does not change appreciably from the lowest to the highest notes.
However, words are that additional difficulty for singers. Good composers for the voice such as Mozart will always repeat words of importance in a register in which the singer can be easily understood before having the singer sing these words in the highest reaches of the voice where they are less intelligible.
Words can be colored and emphasized to make them more meaningful but there are strong restrictions about the amount of coloration and emphasis that a singer should use. Too much, and the singer becomes more important than the music he is re-creating. The singer and instrumentalist are supposed to be primarily vehicles for the re-creation of the what the composer wrote, not primary creators themselves.
By contrast to all of this, most non classical western music demands that the performer be a co-creator. Most popular song of any age is, by definition, extremely simple, uncomplicated, and in a sense, incomplete. It is the job of the performer to complete the creation by imposing his/her ideas and personality into the "mix" which is the charm and delight of popular music. Popular musicians are always personalities, much more so than classical performers.
When classical performers cross the line and become personalities (Izack Perleman, comes to mind) they run the risk of becoming more important than the music they re-create. But if the performer is a singer, there is even more of a risk. Many lovers of opera are more fascinated with the personalities that re-create opera than of the opera genre itself and it is most common for even the best of the opera singers to become enamored with themselves. To the extent that they do, to that extent they place themselves in the way of the music they are to re-create.
Opera is such a diverse and all encompassing art that it is seldom done completely well. Many prefer to only "hear" opera and record sales support their need. Some find opera interesting only when "seen". Certainly much of the growth of interest in opera (it is the fastest growing performing medium in the United States) is due to TV and Videotape which meets the needs of those who prefer to both "see" and "hear". But live opera is an altogether different matter. The reach that live opera has on all of the senses is quite beyond description, especially when all of the diverse elements come together as they should.
For all of the above reasons, I often find performances of well produced opera as done in provincial companies preferable to the same operas done at the major world houses. I am less likely to be distracted by the "name" importance of the star on stage and can become more aware of the many facets being assembled for my enjoyment. Beside, I thoroughly enjoy hearing young singers at, or near, the beginnings of their careers.
-- Lloyd W. Hanson, DMA Professor of Voice, Pedagogy School of Performing Arts Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ 86011
|
| |