mike wrote:
>In a message dated 4/3/2001 11:57:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>johnlink@c... writes:
>
><< But isn't a soloist also a part of a community of performers, >>
>
> not in the way a choral singer is. a chorus is a team. soloists are
>exactly that, soloists. despite the pc notion that soloists are playing
>their part in concert with the greater good, this is not true. a soloist
>who screws up takes all the blame. other soloists are not blamed for their
>mistakes nor are they given credit for the success of that soloist. one of
>the benefits of being a soloist is to stand on one's own and bask in that
>glory and the possibility of screwing up, is the price one pays for the
>chance at that glory. as a soloist is relative to the greater good, the
>greater good in their case is a restriction, not a community.
I agree completely, except maybe with your last sentence.
> choristers are one of several or more covering the same task. there is
>always someone there to cover, and the chorister is there, in turn, to cover
>for others.
This is an aspect of choral singing or orchestral playing that does
not appeal to me. I much prefer a context in which each performer is
the only one responsible for his part. My vocal quintet is such an
example, as was my jazz sextet (guitar, trumpet, sax, piano, bass,
and drums). But there is still a wonderful aspect of community. No
one person can sing a dominant seventh chord with a flat ninth and a
flat thirteenth. But an ensemble can do that, and what a thrill it is
to contribute one's voice to such a chord. What I love about chamber
music (my definition: one person per part) is that it combines the
responsibility of individuality (there's no one to cover) with the
commaraderie of community. I've often heard jazz talked about as a
truly democratic sort of music, and I think that that's what is
meant. A good example would be the Miles Davis Sextet recording Kind
of Blue (if you own only one jazz record, that should be the one). I
think it that is also what instrumentalists love about chamber music.
> success is shared by the team and so is failure.
I think this is true of chamber music as well.
> the chorus and the soloist, by definition, are different creatures like
>members of a herd are different from the lone predator.
Yes, and then there are those that can do both and easily switch from
one to the other. That's what I look for when I audition performers
for my ensembles: performers who can be individuals in the context of
a community.
> and this isn't even going into the ugly back stabbing sub-culture that
>often occurs around soloists. i am merely speaking of the nature of the two
>beasts.
That's the sort of performer that I would never invite to join an ensemble.
> lastly, as i'm trying to unload a bridge myself, i'm not really in the
>market for any other bridges, no matter how fine the artifice might be.
I understand, but I bet you don't have a bridge as beautiful as the
one that connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. Have you ever seen how it
looks with the sun shining on it?
John Link
http://www.mp3.com/JohnLinkFeldenkrais
http://www.mp3.com/JohnLinkVocalQuintet
|
|  |
