Lloyd wrote: > > The above statement describes an art that has as its basic goal a > recreation of life as it exists. This point of view assumes that art > is the same as every day life rather than art as a "reflection" or > distillation of life. >>
I think opera is, after all, not anything else but a 'sung play'. That is, as well as in a 'spoken play', the words MUST be understood by the audience. Italians speak Italian ( OHHHHHH!!! ), therefore they can understand what is sung ( or most of it ). That's what opera was meant to be. It makes no sense to have a play that can't be understood. Of course, as it is sung, the way people deliver the text, not only what the text is about, is important too, but I don't think it justifies what opera singers do to the text.
And Mike wrote:
> operatic singing has replaced the history of our vocal expression with an > artifice of tone production whose primary concern is to be efficient in being > heard over an orchestra.
But that's the same concern actors have in a play! As we say in Brazil ( and maybe everywhere ), they must be heard by the deaf old lady sitting in the last row. But they still CAN'T distort the sound! Maybe opera should use a 'pocket' orchestra or be miked ( "AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!" I can hear you!!!! ) I agree that they go the wrong way, artistically saying, by equating their voices to a 'mere' instrument. IT'S THE VOICE OF A CHARACTER! BTW, any actor with such cliched emotions opera singers display would be considered a ham actor.
That's it,
Caio Rossi
|