At 12:04 AM 12/30/01 EST, Greypins@a... wrote:
> so gwendel, you're suggesting that singing, at it's best, is a form of
>self satisfaction and that the role of the audience is that of voyeur? as a
>view of singing, if this is your view, i certainly agree. it is certainly
>more feasible to satisfy oneself and allow the audience the option to share
>in that enjoyment than it is to vomit (continuing the logic) that expression
>at the audience which, would make the equation - 'you are what you throw'.
Gee, mike,
I'm not so sure I would have stated it so flatly. But, mostly I do sing for
me [as do most other amateurs]. And, on occasion, others do come by and
listen in, and make requests. I believe the attitude of professional
singers was discussed in earlier posts. Some said they sing primarily for
their audiences; but I believe they still enjoy the chemistry of that
interaction when it's good. That's the nature of performance. Some of my
voice teachers are professional singers, and I occasionally catch them
singing to themselves as well. My point is only that not everything
expressed is consumed by the singer him(er)self. That's where the algebra
breaks down. In this regard, 1+1 = 11. There's plenty to go around.
Yours in new math,
GWendl
|
