lloyd wrote:
<< If a singer produces a tonal quality that conveys the meaning of the text
and, more importantly, the emotional content of the text, that singer is
conveying the essence of that role, regardless of the purity of the vowels
found in any register of the voice. >>
this is exactly the problem i have with opera singing. because of the
attempt to do something other than the singer's speaking timbre, or, as lloyd
might have it, to become an instrument, that which we find expressive in the
tone of the human voice is removed. i don't think there is such a thing as a
'pure' vowel (model, that is) so, dixie, brooklyn, canadian, indian,
anything, including minnesotan and bostonian, would be preferable to
'opera-ese'.
one other thing that bothers me about opera singing is the abandonment
of speech rhythms for the sake of a lugubrious legato. most composers
seemed to have taken some care in the setting of words (handel's 'messiah'
would be a notable exception) yet, most opera singers seem to be more
concerned with a constant flow of 'spinning tone'. i hate to keep picking
on samuel ramey but, his broadway cd betrays what he surely must be doing to
other languages. to me, it sounds as if he learned these songs
phonetically. he is not the only singer guilty of this but, this cd is a
fine(?) example of what i'm trying to point out. (check out his singing of
'how toe hahndul a woe-mahn'.)
mike
|
|  |
