Dear Vocalisters:
I have read the many points of view and discourses on the performances of high profile singers who perform with, for lack of better terms, a classical technique. Some have appeared in opera and some have not. Some aspire to appear in opera and time will tell if that happens. All have benefited primarily from recordings as their avenue into a career in singing. Of course, without any doubt, recording makes possible the correction of those parts of any performance that are less than desirable. Each of these artists have had their work improved through such techniques. It also must be mentioned that those who have developed a career and become famous as live performers in concert or opera have also benefited from the advantages of recording technique when they have made records. Few, in any, recordings today are without such modifications.
The point here is that only those who have made their career through live performances without the benefit of amplification and modification can truly be considered "classical" singers, though I find that term woefully inadequate. In acting the live stage actor who is un-amplified is called a "legitimate" actor. This has some equally bad connotations but it is a term that is traditionally used.
The acting metaphor might be a good one to help clear our thinking. Many actors cross over from stage work to film but not without considerable alterations in their presentations and, in some cases, technique. But I think few viewers would expect a Rock Hudson to have appeared live on stage with any success during his career. We would expect it from an actor who began on stage and moved to film. Few have ever began on film and moved successfully to stage. Stage demands a projection of acting and voice that is anathema for film. Film acting is personal and intimate and it appears it is easier for the stage actor to reduce to the personal level than it is to move in the other direction.
So it is with classical singers and, for lack of a better term, "pops" singers. Because the classical singer must be possessed of at least the basic fundamentals of an efficient and healthy vocal technique it is easier for such a singer to move into other fields with some degree of success. For the same reason, because the "pops" singer (please excuse that inadequate term) is not required, or not as required, to be in possession of the fundamentals of an efficient and healthy vocal technique there is less, if any, chance for such a singer to move into the classical field. In fact, it is often the very lack of an an efficient and healthy vocal technique that makes a "pops" singer successful. "Pops" singing seldom attempts to refine the voice into an instrument and more often uses the singing metaphor as a communication device that does not require of the listener an acquaintance with any particular art form.
The above is not meant as derogatory toward either classical or pops singing, only some attempt at a definition of difference. When the differences are not considered, we get the multitude of opinions that have occurred on Vocalist for the past three week (and many times before) but which are often self contradictory and degenerate into a "I-like, you-like" discussion. I would wish that we could have a discussion that is more concerned with concepts and ideas and less with personal likes and dislikes.
The Vocalist has not, before, been so concerned with such issues for such lengths of time. It is a wonderful e-mail discussion site and I would not like to see it become a venting of only personal opinions in lieu of a sharing of ideas and delights.
-- Lloyd W. Hanson Flagstaff, Arizona
|
| |