Opera is as much acting as it is singing. No truer component of that is Catherine Malfitano. She acts on stage in a role & she acts just as much in recital (have seen her twice in recital & in at least a half dozen or more operas - live & on tape). I think that was part of the complaint about Bocelli's performance in Detroit...no acting.
It is interesting that you bring up Mozart's "Figaro". I've seen it twice @ Lyric Chicago. The first time I was bored to tears, the second time it was a laugh a minute because the singers had a sense of comic timing in addition to being able to sing. I've also seen "La Triviata" there twice. Hated it the first time, enjoyed it the second time. Once again, it had more to do with the acting ability & timing of the singers than the way they sang.
We have to remember that some works get unfairly judged because of a poor performance, poor sets (I'm guilty as charged in regards to Lyric's "Meistersinger" - had a hard time getting past how awful the sets were. ACK!) or lack of understanding on the part of the audience, which can because of any number of reasons. You can do "Barber of Seville" without super titles & the audience will still laugh if the comic timing is right, other works don't come off as well. I can't help but think of a college performance of "Don Giovanni" that I saw several years ago. The performance was just plain boring but I know that others have seen different productions & have thoroughly enjoyed it.
So, are those of you in opera programs learning acting as well as singing? IMHO, it will make all the difference in a performance if the singers can act too.
Pat Smith
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:36:56 EDT ODivaTina@a... writes: > > Viva la difference. Wagner is the one composer whose operas are not > too long > for my blood. Fours of Walkuere vs. Nozze di Figaro? Walkuere by > miles. > TinaO >
________________________________________________________________
|
|
| |