| From: Michael Gordon Organization: Mr. Chen's Cookies To: vocalist Subject: Lazy Tenors Send reply to: VOCALIST <vocalist>
Dear List:
I have been meaning to respond to the "Tenor who thinks he is a bass" thread of a few weeks ago, and now comes a tie-in to another thread about vocal classification.
But first a digression: I have a very light medium-high voice - classify me as you wish - most teachers think high baritone, less educated ears often think tenor. I am quite comfortable singing bass, although I "disappear" on the lowest notes. Some years ago, because of my clear voice (I project well) and good sight-reading skills, I was hired to help out the bass section of a local church choir while the regular bass pro was absent. Unbeknownst to me, my then teacher was one of the paid singers in that choir. At rehearsal break she marched over to me, and announced to my section, "What are you doing here singing bass? You're a tenor!"
The idea that we all have a "true" classification and that we shouldn't deviate from it bothers me. I have encountered the prejudice that singing in too low a category is harmful, but that singing in too high a range and straining is somehow ok. I disagree - I think that if one sings properly, there is no harm in singing in one's lower range. Conversely, I think it *is* harmful to sing higher than one is comfortable.
With that background, now back to the "lazy tenor" critique of baritones with a lighter quality and or/good range: this critique seems to come around fairly often and I think it is somewhat unfair (same applies to mezzos). Let me acknowledge - yes there are some baritones who might be capable of singing tenor professionally. And vice-versa. So what. As I argue, there is this implicit notion that one has a "true" category and then there is this endless speculation about whether a certain singer is matching it. Is it a horrible crime against humanity or nature for a "true" tenor to have a career as a baritone? Suppose I am a successful flute player - maybe I like the sound of the flute or the flute repertoire. Does it make sense to question whether my lips and mouth might have been even more ideally suited to the trumpet? Now I am being a bit provocative and pushing the point here a bit, but some singers may realistically have options that others do not. I have a friend who is a tenor - period. One cannot imagine him as anything but. There is not a hint of baritone in his voice. For other singers it is not so clear. The goal of singing is not necessarily to satisfy the armchair critics, but to use one's voice as a musical instrument. Myself, I like singing bass and have a great time doing so (and once in a great while even get paid to do so), but I am no bass. So what?
Let us return to Mr. Hampson. As I discuss in my post from 1998 (see above reference), it can be argued that the implicit goal of classification for a classical singer is to perform an optimization: to select that vocal category which maximizes (optimizes) one's competitive advantage in the marketplace. Given that Hampson is one of the world's most successful singers, it seems hard to imagine that his optimization would have improved if he had attempted to market himself as a tenor. Maybe his voice might succeed as a tenor, but perhaps not as well as it does as a baritone, or perhaps Mr. Hampson does not prefer that area of his voice. Maybe he identifies more with the literature and characters available to him as a baritone. Maybe baritone really is his best choice and he just has a good upper range. Who really knows, and why does it matter?
Cheers,
Michael Gordon
| |