Reg Boyle wrote:
> Dear Linda,
> I understand and sympathise with your view, but I still
> disagree with it. A choice of music at an Eistedfodd that is beyond the
> ability of the singer, invariably proves Lloyds point. I've just last
> evening sat through that. It may sound unfeeling, yet it's correct, to say
> that the extremely poor standard of some performers was nothing short
> of an insult to both the music and the other performers.
> There are dynamics and passion and intensity that can
> affect the listener, but even if they are incorrect in the listeners opinion,
> if they're to be allowed to make their musical impact, then the listener
> must not become disconnected because of technical ineptitude on the
> part of the performer.
> A choice unsuited to the singers technical development invariably
> brings about such a problem. That is, of course unless we mentally
> replay our own recollections of passion and joy as the current
> performance zooms past our ears!
>
> I do my own adjudications of these singers for my own analysis of
> their good and bad singing and try to learn from it. I heard some
> of the best and worst singing I've ever heard last evening and it's as
> good as ten lessons. The 22yo more beautiful and skillful than any
> singer I've ever heard. The tenors who should study their art and not
> attempt such arias for another four or five years, and a magnificent
> professional sounding mezzo with a wooden personality. Then there
> were the other few........ ; ( I'm not being callous, just the closest I
> can get to being objective, which is what every singer must ultimately
> be, irrespect of the apparent artistic sincerity that one hopes to
> project.
I take your point, Reg, but at what point does the choice of material
cease to be "beyond the ability of the singer"? Of course a truly inept
performance can distract the discerning listener from appreciating the
music itself, but Lloyd is making it sound as though none but the _very
best_ can ever do justice to opera.
Several years ago I took part in a performance of Menotti's "The
Consul". It was an amateur performance by a highly experienced group:
amateur in the sense that none of us were paid by the group, but there
were at least two voice teachers in the cast, and our lead soprano was
the sister of one of the UKs top opera stars; then there were four
schoolteachers, one doctor, one accountant,,, All had one thing in
common, in that they were all competent musicians: only one person
needed to use a repetiteur to learn the notes.
And we were aware from the beginning that we were performing in "in
black and white", that is, it was a chamber performance with piano
accompaniment (that's another thread, though, no doubt)
If our audience has all applied Lloyd's - and possibly your own -
criterion of appropriately high vocal standards (ie near perfection), no
doubt they would have found the performance unacceptable. As it was,
most of them were still sitting quietly in the auditorium quite a few
minutes after the final curtain - a very eerie spectacle. Many of them
told us later how moved they were by the production: the music, the
singing, the acting, the staging, in no particular order and all of a
piece.
We generally attracted an educated, discerning and musical audience, not
the sort of folk who would be satisfied with any old rubbish - but then,
let's face it, those who don't have higher tastes in art don't normally
frequent opera productions anyway. This group normally performed at
least two operas during a year, often as many as four, that's without
the G&S and musicals which helped their funds.
Surely the proof of whether the singing is adequate to the job - the job
here being to allow the _music_ to speak/sing through the _performer_ -
is the impact it has on the listener, and in this case - and many others
I have known which would not meet up to the standards Lloyd described -
I think that impact was without doubt. Had any of the audience said they
found that production insatisfying because of the standard of the
singing, that would have meant one of two things: either the singers
were of a truly poor standard, such as some of those you have just
listened to, bad enough to intrude on the message of the music - or they
were less interested in the music than in the performers.
It's a case of not being able to see the wood for the trees. Or not
being able to hear the music for the singing.
BTW, does this only apply to singing, then? And to opera at that? Can
you somehow accept the characterisation, the story (where it exists),
the emotional message in art song from a performer with a moderate
technique? Do you ever listen to a good school or a reasonable amateur
orchestra playing a Mozart symphony thoroughly rehearsed and played with
feeling and sincerity? Can you not appreciate the expression of the
_music_ to any extent at all?
Classical instrumentalists see themselves as the channel through which
the composer speaks to the listener, and this expression can be conveyed
at a multitude of levels. I am sadly coming to the conclusion that, for
some segments of the operatic world, the same does not apply to the
singers.
Sorry to rant - but really, there is a world of difference between the
truly inept and those who sing "merely well" to use Lloyd's expression.
We may just have to agree to disagree, but at least it means I will
_enjoy_ more of what I hear than you will! :)
cheers,
Linda
|
