Dear Friends, Throughout my life I've watched the polarization among the advocates of so called "serious singing" and "popular singing" with regret. I've always loved both, so the conflict has often caused me a lot of grief. It has been particularly troublesome for me to deal with on this list and it predecessor, Vocalist. I understand that it's difficult for passionate people to be objective since I am such a person, especially when it comes to anything about singing. Sometimes, however; in polite society we need to subjugate our passions to approach our conflicts more objectively for the benefit of the greater good.
Bluntly put, there are too many pissing contests on this list that run off nice people. Most of these contests are between those who like serious music and those who like various kinds of "popular" music. The "nice people" belong to both groups.
Let's get it right out in the open; I don't understand why any genre of singing should be cherished as intrinsically superior over any other. Is operatic singing superior to popular singing? I want to know what you think, but I want for us all to respect each others' opinions and not assume just because someone is a rocker that they are uneducated, ignorant or unworthy. Let's also not assume that just because a poster seems to be an opera buff that they necessarily see all other kinds of singing as inferior and feel the need to patronize those poor, ignorant, or deluded creatures.
What can we all say about singing with complete objectivity?
ANY kind of singing is about communication first. There are two kinds of communication, emotional and intellectual. The music tends to communicate emotions better than thoughts and lyrics tend to communicate thoughts better than emotions. An outstanding performer - of ANY kind of singing - is one who communicates effectively. They help us enjoy the singing and that makes us happy.
Technically speaking, there are different requirements and expectations for different kinds if singing. I tend to think of it as a sort of spectrum in terms of formality with opera being the most formal and other kinds of singing less formal to varying degrees.
Formal singing requires that:
1.) The singing be done in a more formal setting such as an opera house, concert hall or place of worship. In other words, places built with live singing performance in mind where the audience dresses and behaves formally by their own choice. Audiences expect the performance to stay within certain formal limits. Note: Such limits are arbitrary and difficult to pin down with any precision, but are generally well understood anyway. In any given era, there are performers who emerge and who expand the formal framework. Sometimes they may even change the whole paradigm.
2.) The singing will not be amplified. The audience expects to hear the singer directly without the interference of a sound engineer. Since a good amount of formal singing is accompanied by orchestra, that means the singer has to be heard over the accompaniment. This requires a special technical ability. Not every singer has this ability (but I suppose that can be said of any kind of singing). Cross-over to another style is rare enough, but cross-over to more than one style is nearly impossible.
3.) The singer must have exquisite control over pitch, rythmn, dynamics and timbre because the audience expects the drama to be communicated to them more through the singing voice than by any other means. Note: Nothing is engraved in stone, even in opera. There is a tremendous range of formality. It seems that there is a general correlation between formality and the technical requirements of the singer as a musician however. The more formal the presentation, the more the musical virtuosity seems to be stressed as opposed to the acting virtuosity. This would seem to hold true for light opera and musical theatre as well.
4.) The singer must have impeccable diction for the words to be understood as they sing over an orchestra.
5.) The singer must have an acting ability appropriate for the size of the venue and the kind of singing they do. For instance, opera can be exasperating for those not acclamated to its culture. It is performed in a formal way, in a formal setting, yet the subject matter is often lurid and sleazy. If this lurid and sleazy subject matter is performed in a large hall, large gestures are required for the audience to understand what's taking place, while in more intimate surroundings, less is usually more. Inappropriate emoting can be unintentionally but disastrously funny.
6.) The singer must be accomplished in all the languages and dialects they are expected to sing. In formal music, that usually includes Italian, German and French.
7.) The singer must have a working knowledge of the cultures they are portraying. Most of these are historical cultures, so some attention to history is required.
Does more formal performance requirements mean that formal singing is intrinsically better than less formal kinds? I don't think so.
Do more formal performance requirements mean the singer must have a better education than one who sings less formal music? I think it's safe to say that a singer needs to be educated appropriately for the kind of singing they do. Whether the education required is "better" than another or not, is an entirely different thing. What matters is that the education be appropriate. Performers need the education necessary to meet the expectations of their audiences. In kinds of singing where audience expectations about the performer's education, language skills and so forth are more relaxed, a delivery that appears to be too studied can actually be a turn off, or worse, inadvertently funny.
Several years ago an argument was put forward on Vocalist that Opera, Art Song and the like were considered "high art", while popular music was not. I really believe that any kind of singing can be "high art", it simply depends on how it fulfills expectation. That's not to say that there really isn't blatant commercialism out there. Of course there is, it's just impossible to know for sure that it is.
They say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". For singing, it could just as well be said that "Beautiful singing is in the ears and eyes of the hearer and viewer." We each must determine what "high art" is for ourselves. For that reason, there will never be a consensus and to speculate about it is interesting but apt to be unproductive.
The real insidious thing is how polarization tends to make us confrontational. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and ultimately opinion is just what we like and don't like. Remarks from others about our opinions reflect upon our ability to judge. Nobody believes they have bad judgement and no one likes to have their judgement called into question. It gets even worse when it is in front of people whom you admire and want to impress favorably. If someone questions myjudgement, I get annoyed with them very quickly. When someone questions my integrity, I can become enraged (or is that outraged?). Sometimes the annoyance is enough that I set out to shoot them down in flames. Every one of us has done that from time to time.
The person on the receiving end of our volley however, may feel as if they're being backed into a corner. They may feel the need to return a torrent of invective because to remain silent could be construed as capitulation. That's OK I guess as long as they stick to the subject at hand but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. Sometimes the exchange degenerates into mud wrestling, then name calling and finally peronal attacks. Later we read a perfunctory apology after the damage is already done. We are then left with a lingering suspicion that it was a deliberate memory lapse arfully covered with a pitifully thin veneer of civility. Most of us like to give people the benefit of the doubt.\we can never be 100% sure. If we stick to rationally discussing the issues things should be OK. Warmest regards, Les
|