Isabelle-
I have to disagree with some of your argument here. I certainly agree that
young singers need more than one hour a week of technical training. If it were
economically feesible, I would be taking 3 hour lessons a week right now. But,
this does not ONLY happen at conservatories. I would like to know the name of
ANY college or university that gives any more. SECONDLY, how does one expect
to be ABLE to express the text of art songs without having all the other
"polishing" you speak of that students get in conservatories. I had 4 years of
diction classes, 3 years of language classes, 2 years of acting, and 3 years of
repertoire classes (which consisted solely of correct stylistic interpretation
of art song) at Eastman School of Music. I wouldn't trade these classes for
the world! I believe I am a MUCH more expressive and effective performer for
them. AND, at the age of 18-22, the idea Eastman had was that - the voice will
mature and come with time and work, now is the time to work hard on languages,
style and interpretation.
No, I did not get a great technique from my conservatory experience, but I also
NEVER felt that I was pushed to start performing any sooner than I was able.
At many smaller colleges and universities, young singers are pushed to do full
roles in operas long before they are ready simply because there are not enough
singers to fill out the roster. Singers are pushed into wrong fach's for the
same reason. I would warn against railing against the "conservatory system".
That's my rant for today. :-)
Lisa-Mare
--
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:10:17
Isabelle Bracamonte wrote:
>The economic argument (was that Liz?) is also a strong
>one. But conservatory costs exorbitant amounts of
>money, and gives singers the wrong tools at the wrong
>time (not enough technical training, and too much
>polishing before they are vocally equipped to use it).
>
>
Send FREE Greetings for Father's Day--or any day!
Click here: http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/fathers_day.rdct
|
