> -----Original Message-----
> From: thomas mark montgomery [mailto:thomas8@t...]
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 5:25 AM
> To: vocalist-temporary@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [vocalist-temporary] learning a role pointers
>
>
>
>
> I have stayed out of this discussion (like I do most...lol) but I feel a
> couple of points should be made here. Absolutely, a MUSIC STUDENT should
> not be learning a role off a recording: if that is their only option,
> they should not be doing the role, rather woodshedding their musical
> skills. Also in relation to the opera chorus/choral program thread: (for
> once, I'm going to disagree with Eva Zuber...and I always agree with
> her ;) ) choral music programs do a lot toward helping young singers (who
> more often than not are behind their instrumental counterparts in musical
> skills--it is not a coincidence that most professional singers of the top
> ranks were instrumentalists first) develop their music reading
> skills.
I realize you were ranting in this message, but this sounds terribly elitist
to me. It sounds as if you are saying that a singer with technical musical
skills is somehow more valuable than one with a great instrument, but
perhaps limited reading ability. Reading can be learned. A certain amount of
technique can be learned. But a passion for the music, a desire to throw
oneself into a role, and a good solid level of talent simply cannot. I find
that singers who started out as instrumentalists are very unsure of their
voices, have little to no stage presence, and have no concept of phrasing on
text rather than notes. They sound like singing robots to me. Perhaps fine
for some types of dry, overdone choral music (If I never do another Mass
again I'll be thrilled,) but modern choral music and especially opera
seriously lack musicality with this approach.
Learning a certain amount of piano skills, sightreading and theory is
definitely a good thing for any musician, regardless of their instrument.
But it's not fair to sidetrack what could otherwise be a promising career
because someone has not had enough education in those areas yet to learn a
role simply from reading and watching a conductor. If someone is vocally and
artistically ready for a role, but perhaps needs to hear it a couple of
times (preferably from more than one source)to get the gist of it before
going in with the paper and conductor to fine-tune it, what, exactly, is the
problem? Not all of us started taking music lessons in grade school, you
know. If you go only on technical skill, you catch the so-so person who
studied piano at 8, but you may miss the fantastic person who only started
learning to read in college. Obviously, it would be nice to have technical
skill *and* talent, but given a choice, I'd pick the talented person. Music
is an art, not a science.
I do agree that choruses can be good places to learn sightreading skills.
One can also gain quite a knowledge of counterpoint and harmony that way as
well. Hearing oneself as part of a chord, especially when you have all the
other parts right around you instead of in a piano or an orchestra pit, can
be very useful. But there's no need to sacrifice good technique for the sake
of whatever "light" sound some choral director is trying to get. College
students are *in* training, not fully trained- expecting them to understand
how to use proper technique under such extreme circumstances is naive at
best, and quite possibly destructive. Their voice teachers have to work
extra hard to make up for those things, and that seems like a waste of time
to me. Sheesh- why not have a "large-voice" chorus, that does larger works
(perhaps opera choruses in concert?!?!) that won't blow out a budding
Heldentenor? The small church choir voices can go do Lauridsen in the
Chamber chorus. Both will be happy. Apples to oranges, folks- you can't
apply the same curriculum and expectations to every singer.
*my rant, now over :)
-Shawna
|
|  |
