Dear Vocalisters:
In the process of attempting to define some of the differences between acting for non music theatre and acting for opera or music-theatre I have used the example of an actor preparing a monologue. In the preparation the actor makes decisions about the tempo of the speech, the pitch of the voice, the timing of the gestures, the pauses, the amount of stage used, etc. All of these decisions or choices must be made by the actor based on the text he is uttering. If his choices are appropriate he has been true to the text, if they are delivered with skill he displays his knowledge of his craft, and if they are original and inventive he becomes an actor of originality.
Now, if that same text is set to music by a composer of merit and must be sung, all, or most, of the actor's decisions are made by the composer. The actor can no longer decided the tempo or tempo variations, the pitch of the voice, the timing of the gestures, the pauses and, because the timing of the music must be considered, even the amount of stage to be used. An actor who displays all of the attributes mentioned in the previous non-music-theatre example now must acquire other skills or greatly modify existing skills because the music has co-opted or greatly limited the choices left to the actor in non-music-theatre.
It is necessary for the singing actor to acquire skills that are specific to the demands of both the text and the music and since music, by its nature, more definitely controls time (including pauses) and pitch and tonal color etc. music becomes a stronger dramatic element than the choices normally available to the non-music-theatre actor. Only when the singer-actor addresses these needs does acting for music-theatre become effective, emotionally "natural" in appearance and appropriate for the medium.
-- Lloyd W. Hanson
|
| |