"Lloyd W. Hanson" wrote:
> COMMENT: Yes, the singer can make the words clear AND maintain the
> legato line or whatever line is required. But the musical meaning is
> in the LINE not in the words. This is a difficult concept and often
> rejected by many but it is truly the only quality of singing that
> conveys the MUSICAL meaning. Often, because musical meaning cannot
> be expressed in words (if it could we would not need the music) it is
> thought not to exist.
As expressed above, I have to part company with you here to an extent. Musical
meaning is
NOT only in the notes, intervals, rhythms, vowels - otherwise, the singer might
as well be
a violinist or flutist. The words, and the sound of them, and the sensuality
of them, are
very important. I agree that much musical meaning is expressed in the musical
line. But
it far from the only place meaning is expressed by the composer. Otherwise,
why do so
many vocal composers put all those little ink marks on the page denoting
articulations,
etc? (Half the fun is trying to interpret them all, and relate them to text,
dramatic
situation, stage movement, etc.) No, I think the above idea is a little bit
extreme for
me to accept.
As an instrumentalist learning to sing, the role of text was an important
lesson for me to
learn, because at first I didn't see why the text was important at all - I
didn't see why
I couldn't treat a musical line as a singer the same way I might as a pianist
or violist.
I thought a piece like the Rachmaninoff Vocalise was the epitome of vocal
expressiveness.
But I soon learned the error of my ways, and learned to love the extra
wonderfulness that
comes from text, both its meaning and the sensual reality of the consonants and
vowels.
Peggy
--
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
|  |
