"Lloyd W. Hanson" wrote:
> But I will argue with the opinion that opera can be sung only well
> and not excellently and yet retain its hold in the elevated world of
> art. Opera must, at all times be sung excellently and sung as opera,
> not as some other form of song. We sometimes like to call this
> "opera style" but it is more than that. It is singing that allows no
> quarter but the finest of tone production and intensity done with
> nuance of phrase and accuracy to the composers intentions (as we can
> know them) and it all must appear authentic to the art form, real to
> the emotions and believable within its context. Authentic, Real and
> BElievable. "AREBE" as Wes Balk would say.
How many operatic composers have ever stated that they felt the finest
of tone production and intensity done with nuance of phrase, the
"instrumental" expression of their music in the voice, was more
important to its performance than hearing the words? And, conversely,
how many have ever said that the words _must_ be heard? You mention
accuracy to the composers intentions, but I seriously wonder if this
view doesn't attempt to put the artistry of the singer on a higher level
of importance than that of the composer.
I think there could be a dissertation in there somewhere.
Music that is in itself expressive is expressive even when it's not
being played. I feel very sad that you feel none but the most
superlative voices and techniques are able to bring out that expression.
I have known many sensitive musicians with moderate voices and
techniques who have turned out performances to affect the listener
deeply, in their very personal attempt to convey the expression and
drama in the music. There are no doubt many such on Vocalist. On their
behalf, I do feel somewhat kicked in the teeth.
Linda
|
