Dear Isabelle and list,
I am currently preparing for my Music Theory entrance exam (yep, I want to
STUDY Music Theory), I have to put in my 2 (euro)cents here...I think being
a singer is also being a musician and thus about 'general musicianship'.
Allow me to quote Hindemith at some length, from the Introduction to
'Elementary training for musicians' (which, by the way, I find far from
elementary!), comments between [brackets] by me:
"...It will be said that the book is too comprehensive to be used by
everyone. ... Helpful as it may be for a future conductor to have some
experience in reading the various clefs, it would be a waste of time for a
pianist to bother with such special problems. To sing the right tones at the
right time may prove valuable for a singer, but when will a violinist ever
be asked to do so? ... Essential prerequisites for a player in an orchestra
may be utterly unimportant for a viruoso; increased knowledge of theoretical
facts will not instantly improve a cellist's playing...
There is only one answer to these objections: they are unfounded.
...objections to all-round elementary training for musicians ... can be
voiced only by those who acquiesce in the present wide-spread deterioration
in musical education.
[and then he goes on ranting for a while about times when 'a good musician
possessed a thorough knowledge of the subtle mechanism of music']...
Theoretical knowledge certainly will not directly improve a violinist's
finger-technique; but is it not likely to broaden his musical horizon and
his ability to interpret a composition? If our performers - players,
singers, and conductors alike - had a better insight into the the essentials
of musical scores, we would not be faced with what seems to have become
almost a rule in the superficially over-polished performances of today [i.e.
1946]: either rattling through of a piece without any reasonable
articulation, wihtout any deeper penetration into its character, tempo,
expression, meaning, and effect - or the hyper-individualistic distortion of
ideas expressed in a composer's score.
As for singers [aha!], nobody denies that most of them are launched on
their careers not because they show extraordinary musical talents, but
because they happen to have good voices. On account of this advantage a
singer is usually excluded from any but the most primitive musical
knowledge - knowledge such as could be acquired by any normal mind in a few
weeks of intelligent effort. Rare indeed is the singer nowadays who can do
what you would expect to be the most normal of all the activities of a
singing musicion: hit a tone at any interval, even if it is not part of a
simple stepwise progression or an easily understandable broken-chord melody,
and even if it is not directly supported by its accompaniment. Would a
singer not profit by being led through a severe course of general musical
training? It certainly would not hurt his voice to gain some additional
knowledge..."
Of course Hindemith is being very pessimistic and strict here, but I do
agree with him. Until half a year ago I knew nothing about music theory. I
could sight read a bit, simply through experience, but I could not tell you
how many flats there are in f minor, nor did I know any basic harmony, etc.
Over the past sixth months I have learned many things that may not have
helped me with my singing, technically speaking, but they have greatly
enhanced my understanding of music, thus enabling me to sing 'better'. I
have also become a better listener, much more aware of what is 'going on' in
the music, which gives me an even greater pleasure from something which I
already consider a most amazing and beautiful form of art.
OK, I am probably some sort of freak because I think music theory is fun,
but you know, as long as you immediatly apply the theory and use it in your
daily practicing/listening it can really pay off. I try to look for examples
of 'dry' exercises in music I am currently studying and do some interval and
rythm exercises related to songs I am working on. Or I'll try and analyze
the harmonies in a song or song cycle. It's much more fun to study this way,
and the results are immediate.
On a more pratical note: there is a very good ear training programme
available on-line which is a great help if you do not have a partner or
teacher to practice with. It lets you identify intervals, chords and
progressions; and read and repeat rythms, as well as many other things. A
free demo download is available at http://www.earmaster.com/
Happy singing,
Else Kramer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Isabelle Bracamonte" <ibracamonte@y...>
From: "Isabelle Bracamonte" <ibracamonte@y...>
To: <vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com>
To: <vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:36 AM
Subject: [vocalist] sight-reading: important?
> Nande's posts have been making me reflect on the value
> of being able to sight-read. Outside of choral
> situations, is it necessary for a singer?
>
> The more professionals and young artist singers I
> meet, the more surprised I am that only a small
> percentage of the singers have good reading abilities.
> Most of them say that -- gasp -- they learn their
> roles from recordings.
>
> I know this is frowned upon by the teachers of the
> singing industry. But why? If you listen to more
> than one recording (say, a variety of recordings from
> the 1920s through the 2000s) there is no danger of
> imitating a particular performer's style or
> mannerisms. It is much quicker for singers to go the
> Nande route, simply reading along with score in hand
> while the music gets imprinted into the brian, than to
> spend a lot of time trying to decipher the notes and
> rests and still not know how the orchestration sounds
> -- or spend hours trying to pound out the piano
> reduction on the piano, when half the time could be
> spent with recordings and scores before going off to
> the teacher or coach.
>
> I can see value in being able to sight-read in
> situations where the music has never been recorded,
> i.e. new music. But this music is often terribly
> difficult to read because of atonality, odd intervals,
> etc. Another useful situation might be when learning
> a piece on tremendously short notice -- but, again, it
> is so much more time-efficient for a singer with a
> good, quick ear (as most singers have) to listen
> through a couple of times and then have it.
>
> I work on my sight-singing and I am taking piano
> lessons diligently. I am able to play very simple
> two-handed melodic lines (one line in each hand; no
> chords yet), once I have played each hand separately
> many times over. I try to learn these things because
> it has been drummed into my head that it is better,
> finer, nobler, to be able to learn a role from scratch
> by looking at it than by listening to it first. Now I
> am wondering why.
>
> Isabelle B.
>
> =====
> Isabelle Bracamonte, ibracamonte@y...
> San Francisco, CA
> moderator of Vocalist: the mailing list for singers
> (vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
|
|  |
