Dear mike and Fellow Vocalisters;
I selected the thread for this response because I want it to better
reflect the topic of your post of "Mon, 02 Oct 2000 14:09:46 -0400
(EDT)".
You wrote:
"my guess is that dietrich fischer-dieskau and his students might be
different but, close in meeting the principles of sls opera (words
that sound like words, varying timbre from top to bottom more in
keeping with every other instrument as
opposed to the 'one sound fits all' approach)."
COMMENT: Every orchestral instrumentalist attempts to maintain as
similar a tone quality throughout their range as possible. For some
instruments this more difficult than others (the clarinet, for
example). Every classically trained singer attempts to do the same.
The classical ideal is a continuity of tone color that does not
change appreciably from the lowest to the highest notes.
However, words are that additional difficulty for singers. Good
composers for the voice such as Mozart will always repeat words of
importance in a register in which the singer can be easily understood
before having the singer sing these words in the highest reaches of
the voice where they are less intelligible.
Words can be colored and emphasized to make them more meaningful but
there are strong restrictions about the amount of coloration and
emphasis that a singer should use. Too much, and the singer becomes
more important than the music he is re-creating. The singer and
instrumentalist are supposed to be primarily vehicles for the
re-creation of the what the composer wrote, not primary creators
themselves.
By contrast to all of this, most non classical western music demands
that the performer be a co-creator. Most popular song of any age is,
by definition, extremely simple, uncomplicated, and in a sense,
incomplete. It is the job of the performer to complete the creation
by imposing his/her ideas and personality into the "mix" which is the
charm and delight of popular music. Popular musicians are always
personalities, much more so than classical performers.
When classical performers cross the line and become personalities
(Izack Perleman, comes to mind) they run the risk of becoming more
important than the music they re-create. But if the performer is a
singer, there is even more of a risk. Many lovers of opera are more
fascinated with the personalities that re-create opera than of the
opera genre itself and it is most common for even the best of the
opera singers to become enamored with themselves. To the extent that
they do, to that extent they place themselves in the way of the music
they are to re-create.
Opera is such a diverse and all encompassing art that it is seldom
done completely well. Many prefer to only "hear" opera and record
sales support their need. Some find opera interesting only when
"seen". Certainly much of the growth of interest in opera (it is the
fastest growing performing medium in the United States) is due to TV
and Videotape which meets the needs of those who prefer to both "see"
and "hear". But live opera is an altogether different matter. The
reach that live opera has on all of the senses is quite beyond
description, especially when all of the diverse elements come
together as they should.
For all of the above reasons, I often find performances of well
produced opera as done in provincial companies preferable to the same
operas done at the major world houses. I am less likely to be
distracted by the "name" importance of the star on stage and can
become more aware of the many facets being assembled for my
enjoyment. Beside, I thoroughly enjoy hearing young singers at, or
near, the beginnings of their careers.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson, DMA
Professor of Voice, Pedagogy
School of Performing Arts
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
|
|  |
