I think it is important to make a distinction between effort and energy. Björling sang with a lot of energy, and perhaps once or twice allowed himself to step over the line to effortful. But to my ear there can still be ease when singing with a lot of energy. To use your example of Pagliacci, his singing is the most effortless in this work of any I have heard attempt it. Granted I am not familiar with the Gigli, so I have to assume his is also well done. But I wonder if it carries the same umpf of the Björling. Del Monoco had the thrust but he was full of effort, even his voice doctor said he was damaging his voice. On a good day Pavarotti could use his brilliance to sing energetically with ease, but no where near as consistantly as Björling. So my point is just because someone sings with energy and "slancio" it does not necessarily mean they are singing with effort. A singer should be capable of singing both lyrically and drammatically with ease. Björling was the best example of success in both areas. You mention Gedda, he completely lost his ease when he tried to sing drammatically. I thought the world of him initially until I realized his voice was deteriorating. He sang so open to enlarge the size of his voice that he lost the beauty that set him in the same league as Björling. He developed a wobble and sounds as if he is always singing his loudest, unless he is singing something leggiero, which is what he should have always been doing.
>anytime bjoerling sings loud it is effortful compared to his singing >softer.<
This is true of any singer if you mean energetic instead of effortful. Although for most singers it actually is effort that is used to make more sound.
>his vibrato rate increases >with volume, sometimes turning to a bleat.
I'm sorry, but he never bleats. That is a result of too much air being forced through the larynx. Also known as a tremolo. What you hear in his singing is the increased amplification of the thrust and release phases of the tonal spin.
listen to the trio in the verdi >requiem. it is the softest singing i have ever heard him in. i once had >to convince a friend that he wasn't the mezzo.
You should hear some of the opperetta and song liturature. There are some excellent examples of mezza voce which will confuse you as to how he did it. Was it falsetto? Absolutely not.
>i love bjoerling but, i don't understand why some people say his >technique is perfect (i can't understand how 'perfect' could be a judgement >passed in an artform judged subjectively).
That, in a way, is the point. His technique was perfect because he always sang naturally. He always used his voice in a natural way. He never did anything to it to make his expression. Perfect technique does not necessarily mean every note was perfectly in tune or that it could be measured in some way like a perfect circle, although he was almost always in tune and Richard Miller has measured his singing with modern equipment and stated that Björling was the greatest technician we can judge. Björling's technique was perfect because of how he thought about the voice and how to use it. The best statement to descibe this is when he said that vocal technique is not something we impose upon our voices, but observation of the natural behavior of those parts of the body that are used in singing. The voice is not a machine, it is not going to function perfectly every time. But the perfect technique is one in which you think of the voice in a natural way and don't overstep the natural function of those parts that do the singing.
For me when singing becomes effortful it loses its beauty. Björling's common advice for young singers was to "always sing beautifully". This was not a quip, or over-simplification, but a basic fundamental to healthy vocalism.
Thank you for your time, Michael ________________________________________________________________________
|
| |