In response to Ian Belsey:
Bravo, you've put words most coherently to what I am
beginning to believe more and more as time goes by.
>
> Now then, here we go! Please bare in mind. One of the
> reasons Maria Callas' voice was shot to Hell; apart
> from the fact she lost all the weight etc, is that she
> believed what she was doing to be real. BIG mistake!
>
Exactly right: It's important for people to remember, when
trying to decipher the Callas phenomenon, that some of La
Divina's best singing and, remarkably, most convincing
acting, was done while she knew the meaning of the word
"restraint." When she believed her interpretation was
top-of-the-line (as in the infamous Paris performance of
Norma) vocally and dramatically she was unsteady. The two
kind of go hand in hand.
>
> Dame Nellie Melba once said if you allow yourself to
> become emotionally involved with the music you are
> performing, you are lost!
>
Yup, because the minute you become involved, emotionally,
with the music, you lose control of all the magnificent
faculties at your disposal for entrancing an audience.
A singer's best friend is (this sounds like a
hammer-over-the-head remark) HIS/HER VOICE. The minute you
allow the health and comfort of your voice to be
jeopardized because you feel drama should be !realistic!,
you are no longer doing justice to the composer or the
music. I believe this issue to be the only area in which
Callas was tragically wrong. In the interview with Edward
Downes she claims that a singer is a servant of art, and
that the voice must be *dominated* to perform necessary
tasks. She clearly did not understand the value of
treating the voice with the same respect one gives to the
composer.
>
> Dame Joan Sutherland likewise: you must make the
> people in the audience believe you, you yourself must
> be removed, after all, you are 'acting'
>
Right again. However, we must also remember that
Sutherland, although vocally splendid, was one of the worst
actresses to ever grace the lyric stage. A singer should
be able to act, which, I suppose, brings us back to the
original issue addressed here.
A great performer is obviously one who can sing
proficiently and act convincingly. The ability to act can
perhaps be attained through courses and concise
instruction. I am 16-years-old and have never been
involved in theater or drama study so unfortunately do not
have any direct experience to add to this discussion. I
will say, however, that in my listening experience, singers
who have the ability, naturally and without study in
acting, to trick an audience into being moved by their
singing (key word in this sentence: AUDIENCE---the singer
should not be so involved that he/she tricks him/herself!)
are more subtle and, hence, convincing. An excellent
example of a natural actress is Marian Anderson, who,
although not an operatic singer, infused concert repertoire
with one of the most realistic and moving modes of acting I
have ever heard.
That's my 2 cents :) I completely agree with you, and hope
you will be more confident when stating your obviously
intelligent opinions in the future.
-Kate
__________________________________________________
|
|  |
