Hello, all --
A lister wrote me privately and was curious about what
my personal history is, since I've been pontificating
at such length about how I think training ought to be
accomplished. She very kindly inquired off-list,
since personal information can be, well, personal, but
I thought others might be curious. So having subjected
you all to my opinions and rants, here's where I'm
coming from:
I am in my early-middlish twenties, and am planning to
venture out into the world of auditioning, performing,
and apprenciceships in another two or three years.
I probably sound fairly extreme when defending my
position on the list (lock yourself in a bubble and
study only vocalises, etc.). I performed in a
regional opera while I was an undergraduate (my only
paid singing position to date), but decided that I
really wanted more studio time before jumping into the
job of launching a career. Even graduate schools
don't offer the kind of technical study I felt I
wanted (I'm currently studying four hours a week with
my teacher -- and, yes, working like the devil to
afford it). When I have a piece under technical
control, I do sing in recitals and concerts to test my
performance skills and see how my technique does under
pressure. These are usually in controlled settings in
obscure locations (since I want to keep out of the
vocal scene in the San Francisco area until I am ready
to audition for the house), and are motivated by a
"let's see how this piece does outside of the studio"
mentality, rather than a "let's put together a recital
this spring and find a bunch of music I can please
people with" attitude. And we do sing some song
literature, as well (Gretchen, being more arialike in
its feel, is one of my better pieces -- again,
correctness through survival. There's no way that
song lets you get away with cheating, so the only
other option is to sing it correctly).
And, of course, I don't mean that "technical study"
should turn people into emotionless singers. But I
disagree with Eva's theory that every note needs
musical intention from the beginning. Here is how it
generally works for me:
Teacher says to student, "Okay, let's try this piece."
Student makes it through two lines, teacher says,
"Stop! That's not right. I want you to sing that line
again on "eee-ih-ee-ih-ee-ih."
Student does this; tonal quality is improved. Teacher
says, "Now add the words back in." Then the teacher,
listening carefully, begins the "fiddling" process of
correcting and guiding the line until the phrase is
sung with correct technique. This might take a lesson
-- two lessons -- two months -- who knows. (A lot of,
"Okay, that 'm' is messing you up -- take it out.
Pace, bio dio. That was better. Put the 'ah' of Pace
a little more forward -- make it an 'uh' as in 'cup.'
No, that didn't help. Try sending it straight
forward, and don't let the 'ah' fall back into the
throat at all. Yes, yes! Okay, 'pace bio dio' with
the forward ah, again. Good. Again. Okay, good.
Now put the 'm' back in.")
Singing, for me, takes so much mental focus and
concentration, and if any of my brain power is
thinking about what I had for lunch, or those pretty
flowers across the room, or weighing the repentance of
having deceived my father against the self-sacrifice
of having saved my lover while imagining myself
half-dead in a bag -- that kind of sheer concentration
isn't possible. To fix a line technically, all
thoughts of emotion and musicality have to be put
aside.
Then, after the line can be sung correctly ten times
in a row, teacher says, "Okay, now really move this
line ahead -- feel the intensity of her anguish.
Good. Watch out for the A's, don't push past your
instrument. Good, that was better. Now see if you can
remember all that, and add in just a hint of a tearful
color to the last phrase. No, those were petulant
tears... her spirit is broken. Excellent! Watch
those A's."
So for me, at least, it *is* a case of inserting the
non-technical "extras" into the music after the vocal
part is sorted out. Once the technique is worked into
the voice, you can do anything with the line -- but
before that, all the expression in the world is just
going to get in your way.
Mostly what I object to (aside from the totally
inadequate technical training offered by
conservatories -- yes, all those classes are helpful,
but they should come AFTER a few years of technical
study) is the thrusting of unprepared singers into a
fast-paced schedule of performing, assuring them that
they will learn by doing. Unstable technique can
totally go to pieces under that kind of pressure. I
myself decided to take a few years in the studio to
"perfect" myself vocally before venturing out into the
world -- since the next step I plan to take (if all
goes well, of course, and knock on wood!) are the
apprenticeships like Santa Fe, Merola, Houston's, or
Chigaco's young artists training programs.
From what I can tell from talking to and reading
interviews with casting directors and general
managers, no one wants to take a promising voice that
needs studio time. They want to take a technically
stable voice and teach them the "ropes," whether
that's diction or interpretation or stage presence or
how to dress for a recital. I think singers could be
ready without so much wasted time if they devoted all
that "polishing" time in the beginning to learning
their instrument instead.
Isabelle B.
=====
Isabelle Bracamonte
San Francisco, CA
ibracamonte@y...
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
|
