Now there’s a real danger here that I am going to stray into the realm of pompous rambling, but hey, if you can’t do that on your ‘blog, then where can you do it? In short, I’ve being trying to figure out how to improve my singing – or more specifically, my performing and therefore, after a suitable period of wine-induced navel-gazing, I have captured a few fairly random thoughts on the business which I now inflict on you, dear reader.

You’ve probably heard the question – “if a tree falls in the jungle and no-one is there to hear it, does it still make a noise?” Or perhaps the more recent version (which I prefer), “if a man says something and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?”

I don’t think for one moment that anyone seriously thinks a tree doesn’t make a sound when it falls in the jungle - although if you apply some aspects of quantum physics to the question, you might end up with some strange results (try asking Shrodinger’s cat!). But what about performance? You see, I contend that performance is not possible without an audience. For me, the interaction is a defining part of the whole experience which also guides my approach to performance. Performance, it seems to me, is fundamentally about communication: first, between composer and performer; then between performer and audience; and finally between audience and performer. Generally speaking feedback to the composer is rather more problematic unless you take the view that the great and good (but mainly long-deceased) cohort of classical composers look down on us from above, beaming with benevolent approval (or otherwise) at our efforts! So this view of performance leads me to the opinion that when I am performing, I am acting as an interpreter for the composer, librettist or poet (or possibly all three, which can make life difficult!). Now I could simply rely on the power of their writing to carry the day (indeed, many a poor artist has been saved by the quality of the material he is using), but the whole point about human communication, particularly when we are trying to express ideas or emotions, is that we use our whole body to communicate. Facial expressions, hand gestures, body movement (in other words, non-verbal communication) is hugely important and I remember reading somewhere (probably in Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals) about the extent to which we all rely on non-verbal communication in our every-day lives. Albert Merhabian’s famous experiment also seems to indicate that specifically when dealing with emotions, about 55% of the communication is non-verbal! Which is why I don’t subscribe to the school of static singing. I’ve been told that I tend to go too far the other way when performing, and this is a valid criticism which I am trying to address. Hopefully in doing so I can perform more successfully. (Note to self: Stop pacing around like an angst-ridden buffoon and doing demented windmill impressions when on stage.)

But what do we mean by a 'successful performance'? Is it just 'to sing something beautifully' (define 'beautifully'), to sing something with technical perfection, or is a successful performance one which communicates in the most effective manner possible the ideas and emotions that the original artists had tried to portray through their writing? Okay, it’s a leading question, but you see where I’m coming from. I will never sing as well as Pavarotti or even Paul Potts, so using all of my skills to communicate and interpret composers’ music is the best hope I have as an amateur of ever producing a really successful performance. But then some composers deliberately introduce ambiguity. That’s tough, because my interpretation could deny the audience the choice which the composer intended. Thankfully it’s not that common and being an amateur, I am allowed occasionally to play the “too difficult” trump card!

As my favourite genre is opera, I think I’m on fairly safe ground because most directors these days absolutely expect performers to put as much effort into non-verbal communication as they do into their singing. Only occasionally (when over-zealous direction has a singer performing complex gymnastic manoeuvres while delivering strings of faultless and sustained top c’s) do the requirements of singing and acting come into conflict. So there is no excuse: all-round successful performance (according to Guy Edwards) combines 'beautiful', technically perfect singing with a full range of non-verbal communication skills… and most crucially, engages the audience! I’m still trying, but at least I think I know where I’m trying to get to!