Dear Linda, Karen, Randy and Vocalisters:
I find this discussion helpful. It has varied a great deal around the
concept of singing and how singing differs from speech and how singing is
achieved.
Some thoughts.
It is my impression that operatic singing in the Italian and German
tradition, (especially 19th century opera from these countries) has never
be been particularly popular in England. Please correct me on this
impression if I am in error. The English ideal of tone has seemed to come
from their strong traditions in cathedral singing which does not seek a
sound that is rich in overtones. It is a tone that is ideal for choral
singing but is often lacking in character for opera except in certain
roles. Benjamin Britten explored this tonal preference in a very telling
way and, in my opinion, was most successful with it.
However, once I have said the above I am aware that there are enormous
exceptions such as the wonder of the English contralto which can hardly be
found in such abundance or beauty anywhere else in the world.
But, could the public response to female singing in opera which you mention
be colored in no small part by the English tonal ideal, if one does exist?
Another thought. Public radio stations (that is, publicly supported radio
stations) in the US no longer play classical vocal music in any of its
various forms in any degree of regularity. The reasons given for this
change in programming are polls which have been conducted indicating that
people do not want to hear classical vocal music (choral, songs, opera).
The consequence of this is a populace that is no longer aware of a whole
wealth of musical expression and, eventually, a populace that no longer
cares about classical vocal music.
Yet these same public radio stations began some 25 years ago to play "early"
music (Medieval and Renaissance periods) periodically on their station to
great complaints from their listeners. Eventually, of course, the public
developed a taste for "early" music and it is now at least a quarter of all
the music played on public radio.
To make my point clear, we learn to like what we hear. If we do not hear,
or are not familiar with the singing of the finest artists of the past 50
to 75 years we will, in effect, reinvent the wheel. Many students are
shocked when they hear their first recordings of Caruso or Tebaldi, or
Price. It is a style of singing more removed from their experience.
However these same students will find the singing of Fisher-Dieskau or
Schwartskopf more familiar because these singers display more of their
personalities through non singing effects and this is the style of singing
which is the background of these students. So we teach them to become more
aware.
It is most common for young American opera hopefuls to be told that they
must seek coaching from an expert in Italian opera style if they are ever
to lose the influence of the American musical or pops style from their
singing. What they learn under such coachings is less about avoiding the
obvious qualities of the American style and more about developing the vowel
connections that are the basis of the Italian style.
Opera style is a combination of what the composer wrote and tradition. The
same is true of symphonic style and even choral style. Although attempting
to discover whether a tonal concept was imposed by a composer or by
generations of performances is interesting, it is not an essential
discussion to the maintaining of the art form of opera. The attempt to
limit performance practices to only what the composer wrote or what we
think the composer intended can produce diametrically opposite conclusions
and these arguments have existed throughout opera's history.
Recordings have, however, given our time the opportunity to know more
exactly what the traditions of singing in opera were like nearer the time
of the creation of operatic masterpieces. We learn from the artists of the
past and we learn why they were artists. We are able to maintain a
perspective into which our own artists can be placed if we choose to do so.
Pamina would seem to me to be an ideal role for Upshaw because it would
emphasize the best qualities of her voice. I can hear her doing well in
Handel. Nothing I have said would or should imply that she is not an
artist. But to assume that her qualities should be the model for young
singers to the exclusion of Price, Tebaldi, Freni, etc. is not wise. Her
gifts do not extend into the realm of these singers, nor do theirs extend
into hers.
Vowel coloration is not a new idea regardless of where it occurs in the
vocal range. Upshaw colors vowels a lot, often in ways that I find
unnecessarily fussy, but she is most effective in doing so. The fact that
her lower voice sound is closer to her speaking voice sound is a part of
her charm, I suppose. But not for me.
Female opera singers who produce a tone that is very different from their
spoken tone is only a manifestation of the concept that opera is an art
form, not an imitation of life. Randy's objection that vowel distortion in
the lower part of their ranges are unnecessary acoustically and can confuse
word intelligibility is a proper concern. But this concern should not be
used as a condemnation of the concept of vowel coloration in this area of
the voice. Our concern as singers and voice teachers should be with the
degree of such coloration, not the act of coloration itself.
And to remove all such coloration is, itself, a distortion of what singing
is about. In addition to this there is disagreement about how such
coloration should be achieved. But such concerns become a discussion
about technique and we have stepped out of the area of should we or should
we not color vowels in the lower ranges of the female voice.
Regards
--
Lloyd W. Hanson, DMA
Professor of Voice, Vocal Pedagogy
School of Performing Arts
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
|
