|
However, there are technical questions related to emission, or ways of using vibrato, which are quite specific in some styles.
I think no one has ever sung with a completely set voice. You can sing with a lot of vibrato, little vibrato or with a vibrato that is not noticeable; with a voice that seems fixed, but is not. The set voice is an effect used a lot in Wozzeck, for example. It is a sound that is a bit scary, threatening and unfeeling. The monks of Solesmes sing with a very special vibrato that is almost goat-like. And when some in the baroque era said there should be no vibrato, who knows what they meant? Which vibrato were they rejecting? All of them? Some of them? There are two ways of understanding vibrato, as a variation in amplitude or in frequency. The first does not alter the intonation, and is a personal thing for each singer. Each has his or her own way of doing it, and I would say this is not only inevitable, but rather desirable. And then there are simply things you are good at and others you are not. I think I do Italian baroque well but as I am not a specialist, I don’t know why.
In the case of the classical-romantic music, often it is the theaters which decide what the singer will incorporate into their repertoire, depending on which operas are scheduled. It seems artists have more freedom with Renaissance or baroque. And a certain need for novelty. How, for instance, did the idea to record Erlebach come about?
The idea came from Friederike Heumann (a viola da gamba player with Stylus Phantanticus). At first it scared me a bit because earlier, in countless concerts, we had done a program dedicated to Orpheus, not just Monteverdi’s, but all the baroque Orpheuses. This was an area I knew much better and seemed in theory closer to me, especially because I am Latin. But I was convinced by what Friederike told me. She told me the music was so sad only I could sing it. We even changed the tone, making it much deeper. We took it down to the depths.
Your answers seem to contain a strong argument in favor of intuition over academic knowledge. However, in your performances, there is a subtlety and precision that have little to do with intuition. Or at least they are quite different from what common sense identifies as intuition.
I am not talking at all about singing without thinking, or simply opening my mouth and letting sounds come out. It turns out that I am not particularly well cultured. The people I make music with know much more than I do, and always surprise me with knowledge I lack. I am not calling this a merit on my part, but rather a limitation. That said, despite the limitation I sing. And it is there where I think I substitute some kinds of knowledge with things that come from my intuition and which those who know more eventually tell me were fine. I approach a work through the score. Initially, for me there is nothing more than that text and that music. Later, as I work with Jacobs, with Garrido, with Savall, I ask, for instance, “How should I do the trill?” They answer me and I do it the way they tell me. The rest is determined by my drive to sing. DIEGO FISCHERMAN
|
|
|
|