Karen Mercedes wrote:
Sorry I'm late on this one - been unable to get to e-mail -
but I'm much too interested in this subject not to weigh
in...
I'll respond to the second question first:
> I'd be interested in hearing what people think - both in terms of
> technique and artistry and musicianship - of some of the other lyric
> mezzos currently active in comparable repertoire/roles,
> Also interested in how people view Bartoli compared with some mezzos
> recently but no longer active in the same repertoire
I refuse to write about a singer, or any artist/musician, in
comparison with another. I like to deal with each as a
unique individual and talk about strengths and weaknesses,
or what I like or dislike about them, or how they make me
feel. But I refuse to allow myself to yield to the
temptation to rank them against each other. There are far
too many "top ten" lists, or "one to five stars" lists. I
like to go the theater or listen to a CD with as fresh ears
as possible, and I try to experience the artist, and the
work, as if I'd never heard it before. This is clearly not
possible 100% with artists and works I already know well,
but I try anyway.
So I'll decline to answer this question, but ask another -
does the practice we students are so prone to - of
attempting to evaluate an artist by totting up the
measurable, factors, one-by-one, blind us to the effect an
artist can have on an audience? Sort of, to use a couple of
cliches, like the whole being greater than the sum of its
parts, or not being able to see the forest for the trees.
That's why, in my opinion, the judgement of the mass public
must be respected, if not agreed with, because they ARE
reacting to the "whole package". Those of us who denigrate
and minimize the Charlotte Churches, Andrea Bocellis, etc.,
as student of the art form, risk missing something important
about how an artist can touch an audience.
And this is why I like Karen's first question so much:
> One question that nags me occasionally is this: What is it that Bartoli
> has got that makes us put up with all the facial contortions, etc. -
> particularly given there are so many other good mezzo sopranos out there
> who don't have the same technical issues but who must be lacking something
> or we wouldn't bother with Cecilia.
And my answer is - she moves the audience, including me. (I
include myself - but I know many other discerning and
experienced opera-goers who feel the same way I do about
her, so I'm confident that my reaction is not an
aberration.) As a member of the public, I pay my money, I
invest my time, and I therefore want the artist(s) to move
me or I consider it a waste and I get angry.
I don't care how the artist does it. It may be by beauty of
the instrument, or perfection of technique, or amazing
virtuosity, or acting talent, or incredible good looks, or
sheer charisma, or a compelling commitment that makes me
take notice, or the ability to communicate a
profound/unusual understanding of the music/work. These and
other characteristics can be present to greater or lesser
degress, in combination with each other in infinite
variation. But the result is I am moved or not moved. I
feel fulfilled or cheated. If there were a known forumla to
produce the result the audience wants, I would package it
and sell it and be a multi-millionaire and donate money to
the arts like Alberto Vilar!
In Bartoli's case, I think what makes me feel it's "worth
it" when I hear or see her (and I have seen her perform live
and in person) is a combination of her unusal and beautiful
tone quality, her excellent vocal technique and overall
musicianship, her profound understanding of the music and
her ability to communicate that understanding, and an
indefinable artistic intensity that all the great artists
(of any genre) have.
Peggy
--
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
|  |
