even though i don't like her, i wish to defend her crooning on
recordings. i think singers like upshaw, dfd, prey, bostridge, etc. singers
who use a wider pallette of vocal 'effects', i'll call them, are judged on a
criteria more suited to the judgment of opera singers. as has been
discussed frequently in recent posts, the prime concern of an opera singer is
to be heard above an orchestra and it has to be. if the singer is not
heard, it matters little what else they do.
it is my contention that the need to be heard over an orchestra limits
the singer to a very small pallette of vocal 'effects'. that need being
removed, as is the case in the songs of schubert, the singer is no longer
restricted to that smaller pallette. schubert's songs were originally
performed in the parlor (what the hell is a parlor?) with pianoforte, a
situation that allows for many sounds that just would not be heard over an
orchestra. recordings allow for this intimate type of performance to be
listened to those of us not lucky enough to find a seat in the parlor. what
then seperates opera, in the opera house, from the artsong, is its relative
lack of intimacy.
those of you who are still reading this are probably aware that i have
been struggling with my feelings about opera and how it is sung. it occurs
to me that the answer lies in the above. it is the lack of intimacy, as i
percieve it, in those operatic moments that are so intimate. the idea of
the first act of boheme ending without the final 'amors' appeals to me for
that very reason.
the introduction of amplification allows for intimacy, whether it be in
pop, jazz or maybe in opera (i mean effectively so) someday. what lloyd
calls 'personality' but i call 'intimacy, has a place when people are singing
about love and death (not to mention jealousy and taxes). otherwise,
listening to those tender moments, sung as they are, will continue to be, for
me, like getting a drink of water out of a firehose.
mike
|
|
|  |
