In a message dated 11/10/2002 7:04:32 PM Central Standard Time, lloyd.hanson@n... writes:
> Theatre > does not need electronics to create music and colors and volume. All > this is available to the well trained and artistic actor. And to add > these effects beyond that which the actor can create is to reduce the > primary agent of theatre to little more than a necessary puppet. >
It does if electronic music is being used and most modern scores lean heavily towards that. In addition, there has been a big change in what people will accept in pop, theatrical singing and art. We live in an era where most art involves some technology. It's about the marriage of humanity and technology to create new sounds, sights and atmospheres. We can yearn for the days of past but it will not change anything.
I personally like amplification in theatrical singing. It allows more intimate (and in my opinion more human) sound to be made in singing ... much more closely related to speech. It also allows for huge sounds to be heard over a thunderous rock score which would not be possible even with the best damn singer's formant in the world. Amplification also saves many a voice. Is there crappy singing on Broadway? Yes, but there always has been, but there's crappy singing everywhere.
Anyway, the original point of this thread was the prejudice against a chesty sound in NATS Broadway divisions which is still true no matter how erudite of an argument we make about yearning for the days of Shirley Jones ... who I also like. Here's a question Lloyd. You're judging a NATS division for Broadway singers and you have someone like Shirley Jones or Julie Andrews and someone like Linda Eder or Heather Headley. You can only chose one, although both sing their repetoire equally well. Who do you chose?
Randy Buescher
|