<EdgewoodVoiceStudio@a...> wrote:
> They have 3 judges for teens and 3 for the college/adult categories.. and 1 of the 3 has to be a "judge in training" and they want me to be the "in training" judge for the college/adult levels. I have never ever done anything like this. I'm nervous and looking for hints so I don't embarrass myself, or even.. horror of horrors, write something that might be discouraging to some poor singer. I barely can write in an intelligent way when I post on Vocalist
Deanna, you write fine. I've found you very articulate on this list. I don't think adjudicator comments have to be highly technical - if only because of the problem Lloyd's been raising that there's not a lot of agreement (or at least widespread usage) in technical terms. I've not adjudicated, but I have written reviews of vocal performances for Classical Singer Magazine when they were carrying reviews. It's hard to write about singing, but the approach I used and which people told me they liked, was I tried to describe what I heard - what I liked and didn't like about the voice and performance.
You might be able to practice this for yourself with recordings or media performances (even American Idol!). Pick a singer, identify your gut reaction to the performance, then think about it in detail to figure out why you liked it (or didn't like it) and then describe that in words.
An example - I went to a local professional production of South Pacific (and liked it a great deal--much more than I expected). Casting was done more for acting than singing, but there was interesting singing going on. The Bloody Mary - incredible acting performance and effective singing performance in that I liked it and the songs came across, but I don't remember that last time I've liked such an ugly sound! So I asked myself why I liked it (the sound was appropriate to the character, diction was excellent, emotions were expressed effectively with the voice), and also what I didn't like about the sound (strangled-sounding, tone not clear, too small for the space, even amplified). The Emil deBecque had the only "real" opera-type voice (appropriate) in the cast, and it was a terrific voice, but strange things happened when he tried to sing loudly. So I would think about what was happening and try to describe it objectively (When he tried to sing loudly, his vibrato got irregular, tone sounded like shouting, it was slightly under pitch. The rest of the time, which was most of the time, the tone was dark, clear, lush-sounding, romantic, and perfect for the character. The restless junior high city school kids didn't make a sound during Some Enchanted Evening!).
Hardly a technical term used, but I think the intelligent reader could understand what I'm writing about.
I sympathize with your concerns about the singers' feelings, and that's why it's great to be as positive as possible. But I think also, it's important that there be feedback on what needs to improve. Otherwise, you get the situation of the woman who just wrote to the list about studying for years and didn't know she was singing flat until some stage director won't let her sing.
And occasional reality checks are important, I think. Myself, I'd be more embarrassed to be led to believe I'm better than I am, because then I might audition for something I'm not suited for and feel much worse than if my teacher or an adjudicator pointed out the areas I needed to improve in before I put myself out there. (I was watching the new American Idol auditions show, and I was amazed (but not surprised) that some singers who really were far, far, far from professional quality, had an image of their singing that had nothing to do with reality. I also got tired of everyone singing the same ornamented musical style - they all sounded alike to me after a while, and I yearned to hear just a straight tune for a change of pace.)
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
|