"Lloyd W. Hanson" wrote:
> I am aware that I am repeating myself when I say that in opera the
> music is the dramatic element but, regardless of our personal
> preferences, this is true. It is important for all of the elements
> of opera to be observed and performed well. That includes words,
> scenery, lighting, special effects, acoustics, orchestra, stage
> direction, conducting, etc. but if the elements that create the music
> are not well executed, there is no primary dramatic element and the
> opera is a failure.
>
> Any singer who is easily understood and acts well but does not sing
> the continuous vowel line that is required by the music is not
> performing opera sufficiently to convey the concepts of the form.
> However, if that same singer acts well and sings the vowel line
> required by the music written for her but is not easily understood,
> the art form still stands and stands well regardless of a loss of
> word content.
I was wondering, do you apply the same principles to other forms of
classical singing? and in fact to non-vocal music? Is not this idea of
the "vowel line" equally valid in Lieder, Oratorio and other art song?
Last night I was listening on BBC radio 3 to Berlioz' Damnation of
Faust. Admittedly not intended as an opera, but often staged and
absolutely no different in style from Berlioz' "intentional" operas.
Because much of it is translated directly from Goethe's German, is there
any difference between presenting "D'amour l'ardente flamme" and
"Gretchen am Spinnrade", considering they are both the same text?
Similarly the song/aria about the King of Thule? Is it equally important
to hear the words in both cases? Does the difference in accompaniment
texture alter the vocal stylistic requirements? Is the "vowel line" of
equal priority in both cases? If the answers are yes, no and yes,
respectively, then what is the big deal about opera singing over and
above other classical singing?
And is it something about Italian opera singing in particular?
cheers,
Linda
|
