Vocalist.org archive


From:  LesTaylor@a...
LesTaylor@a...
Date:  Sun Oct 22, 2000  6:39 pm
Subject:  Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops


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


  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date Size
5840 Re: Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops RALUCOB@a...   Sun  10/22/2000   4 KB
5841 Re: Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops LesTaylor@a...   Mon  10/23/2000   2 KB
5843 Re: Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops Caio Rossi   Mon  10/23/2000   3 KB
5861 Re: Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops Takeshi Oda   Mon  10/23/2000   2 KB
5893 Re: Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops Reg Boyle   Tue  10/24/2000   4 KB
5894 Re: Warning. Reg Boyle   Tue  10/24/2000   2 KB
5873 Re: Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops Caio Rossi   Mon  10/23/2000   5 KB
5876 Re: Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops Tako Oda   Mon  10/23/2000   2 KB
5881 Re: Entrenched Thinking or Pops VS Ops Caio Rossi   Mon  10/23/2000   4 KB

emusic.com