sopran@a... wrote:
> One singer in particular, though--who has more dramatic training and
> experience than the others--somehow seemed less genuine than the others. I
> don't mean to criticize her too harshly, because she does have talent and
> some of what she did was quite affecting. Her performance just seemed more
> calculated to me.
>
> So what is it that makes this difference? Is it personality, or training? And
> which singers do you consider to be the most giving of themselves (vocally
> and dramatically) and which are the most calculating performers?
I have observed this sort of thing myself, and my teacher and I share these
observations
and discuss them from time to time. I call that sort of performance - not bad,
but one
that I don't believe: "ACTING". Portraying, not being; pretending, not
believing. This
kind of performance can work to a certain extent, but when it's me in the
audience, I feel
unsatisfied, cheated almost. As if the performer is holding something back
from me. This
doesn't mean that the actor that can make me "believe" lacks technique or a
degree of
calculation or artifice, just that the real part of the emotions comes through
to me all
of the time.
As to what makes the difference? I suspect whole schools of acting are based
on it.
Perhaps the performer who's done a certain role or aria 25, 50, 100 times has
lost their
ability to really believe it. Or if the balance between the technical and the
visceral
gets skewed too much toward the technical I will sense something false.
And maybe I am different from many audience members. Some performers I like
have been
criticized by some for being cold or wooden, but I appreciate their
performances because
even though they are reserved, there is a sincerity of feeling that I like.
And an
entertaining "chew the scenery" performance that many people adore can leave me
unsatisfied because it seems to be done for show.
Peggy
--
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
|  |
