In a message dated 10/10/00 6:26:09 PM, lloyd.hanson@n... writes:
<< When we are used to singers who do what actors call "vocal
indicating" it is easy for us to assume that such pops, sobs,
guttural noises, etc. are necessary for the "selling" of a song. But
they are not. It was a real surprise to me to discover how wonderful
a pops song could be when sung without all of these "effects" when
Kire Te Kanawa sang an Andrew Lloyd Webber song on his birthday bash.
She simply sang the song with her usual excellent vowel line and the
song spoke for itself as music rather than as a dramatic vehicle for
the singer. That is opera and that is what song is supposed to be.
A musical expression devoid of the accouterments of dramatic speech
per se but rather a transformation of those "effects" into a music
that exists without such affections.
Emotion is conveyed by the music not by the sound effects nor the
personalities of the performers. Meaning is conveyed by the same
forces but a meaning that is beyond what poor and paltry words can
express. >>
I have to side firmly with Lloyd on this one. I also believe (as Callas did)
that "it's all in the music." As singer-actors, we really don't "invent," we
strive to recreate what the composer has put on the page. Sometimes
extramusical effects and vocal effects can be effective, but they are not
essential to the drama. Overused, I find that they actually get in the way
and become annoying--which is why I'm not a big fan of Renee Fleming. She's
an example of a singer who seems (lately, at least) to refuse to let the
music speak for itself.
Judy
|
|  |
