mike wrote:
>(george london recorded the part of mandryka in 'arabella' taking >unauthorized options. 'what was the point?', i wonder.)
I'm not familiar with this particular recording, nor with this role, nor with this opera, but I suppose it depends how you view the "point" of a role. The range? The notes? The acting challenges? The message a particular character brings to the work as a whole? The chance to work with a conductor or director or colleague whom one admires? The money? The chance to enhance ones recorded legacy?
Are you acquainted with the concept of open score & closed score? It's a terminology I've picked up in my work in new music theatre. Open scores are those whose notation leaves room for interpretation -- lead sheets, aleatory works, da capo sections of Baroque arias. Closed scores are those whose notation is very specific -- many Elliott Carter scores, for example. You can think of it as a continuum, though. Most scores are somewhere in the middle. It occurs to me that even opera scores are more open than we often define them as being. Yet classically-trained singers (and instrumentalists to a certain degree) have it drummed into our skulls that the printed page is inviolate. I find that more often than not, it's a road map rather than being the road itself.
(Yes, mike, I'm aware I just used your rhetorical question to launch an entirely different discussion! I hope you'll forgive me!)
Naomi Gurt Lind
|