Dear Lloyd, Another brilliant, well though out post. I admire your integrity.
I agree that the most successful model for training singers is the vocal performance degree as offered in colleges, universities and conservatories in the US. Furthermore, I feel it is also the best, a slightly different connotation.:-) Though it is the best, there's room for a gracious plenty of improvement, especially when it comes to bureaucratic nonsense.
I have personally been involved in five different college and university programs: Armstrong State College, Savannah, GA as an undergraduate student, University of South Florida, Tampa as a graduate student, Florida Southern College, Lakeland as a voice teacher, University of Washington, Seattle as a private student and Armstrong Atlantic State University (formerly Armstrong State College), Savannah, GA as a Community Music School voice teacher. In addition to these direct involvements, I have visited and sampled the cultures of voice departments on campuses too numerous to mention. In my experience, the value of an education first depends on the student's desire and willingness to work. Even if they can't afford to go anywhere else but a local college with a mediocre faculty, if the desire is there, they will get the education one way or another. Such people usually "trade up" to better schools with scholarships etc.
The next greatest influence on the value of education is the teacher. Getting the best fit between student and teacher can be tough, especially if the institution is encumbered with lots of bureaucracy. Teaching voice is such a personal and individual thing, that I just can't see it ever becoming standardized or accountable.
I heartily agree that a singer should be as much of an artist at every stage of development as their health, technique and best interest allows them to be. That is precisely what makes any kind of study worthwhile and fulfilling.
There has been and indeed still is a desire expressed by young singers for reasoned, rational and systematic vocal training. I don't believe that desire has anything to do with any school system. I think that is what all reasonable human being seek. It doesn't matter who is teaching or where, everyone attempting to learn anything wants three things; accuracy, consistency and lucidity. The modern mind does not tolerate nonsense very well no matter its source.
American colleges and universities have done pretty well in keeping up with student course demands but TTYTT, I'm kinda glad it's a little slow on the uptake. If it weren't, all the kids would be learning microphone technique and how to market CD's. It's difficult to build a good body of knowledge if the paradigm keeps shifting. OTOH, academia's conservative and slow acceptance of change can cause it's more entrenched elements to become out of touch with modern cultural trends (as unpalateable as they may be) to the point that they no longer live in a real world.
Yes college provides the young singer with a safer environment than jumping into an early career would. Some voice types need that nurturing longer than others, particularly the more dramatic ones. The hard part of that is knowing what you've got when you're that young. The only way to find that out is to gain experience. Sometimes doing a role is the only way to find out if you can and how well you stand up to it.
Child prodies are only possible in styles in which there is little performance expectation. No, I'm not going to open that bucket of worms again,:-) but suffice it to say, those who know what opera really is aren't fooled into thinking that some cute kid who's really a pops singer is an opera singer merely because they can sing an operatic aria.
BECAUSE
Because you can doesn't mean you should Because you can doesn't make it good Wise is woman Wise is man Who don't do merely 'cause they can
Lloyd wrote: > The private studio is of prime importance to the development > of the singing performer. You don't sound convinced.:-) You usually offer at least once corroborating proof! Why is the private studio of Prime importance? I appreciate the head nod but please elucidate.
> Often teachers of acclaim are successful because they are > able to attract students of the strongest talent. Absolutely true. I'd rather have my integrity but that's easy for me to say since I make my living as an engineer.
> How can we teach the greatest number of learners most > successfully? We-e-e-ellll, I dunno. It really isn't an egalitarian sort of thing to me. We all may be born with equal rights but we most certainly aren't born equal in any sense when it comes to singing. We have to make the most of what we have.
> Public education should never be primarily concerned with how to > teach the most gifted. Agreed. I prefer to work with those who are passionate about singing. The gifted often take things for granted. Who the heck knows what gifted really is anyway?
> Music is not only an art but also a lifelong training of > the human mind and emotion. In its presence, we all are > students. Amen! Warmest regards, Les
|