On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Margaret Harrison wrote:
> Either you trust your teacher, or you don't. Since you've > not been with her long, and the stakes aren't high, I'd > recommend trusting her for now and taking her advice. And > then do your best and don't worry any more about it. The > worst case, you don't perform the songs as well as you would > have liked to have. The world will keep on spinning, and > you'll keep on singing. > > Or you can decide after singing the songs for your teacher > after she returns to teaching that you're not going to > perform - after all, nobody's holding a gun to your head!
Funny - I feel that exactly the opposite advice is warranted - and for many of the same reasons you came to your conclusion: i.e., This recital is NOT important in the greater scheme of things, and certainly not important enough to warrant all the emotional energy and worry poor Lea has already devoted to it.
This said, there is more involve here, IMO, than Lea trusting (or not trusting) her teacher. There is a question of the teacher deserving that trust. I'm not saying she doesn't. But I am troubled by a few things:
1) Her failure to explain why she feels that none of the music she and Lea have been working on together is appropriate for this recital.
2) Her expectation of Lea's ability to work on her own for a month - without any of the teacher's assistance - on three new pieces of music. As you observed, this teacher has not worked with Lea for very long - and thus has not had long enough to determine, IMO, what Lea may or may not be capable of doing on her own without the teacher's assistance - and moreover (and possibly more importantly) she clearly has not yet correctly assessed Lea's own perception of her (Lea's) abilities, nor her fears. The result is that the teacher, no doubt unwittingly or unintentionally, has been subtly (and not so subtly) intimidating Lea not only into participating in a recital Lea does not feel entirely comfortable about participating in, but doing so with new music Lea does not feel confident about preparing in time for the event. By making such a big deal not just about Lea needing to participate, but her needing to participate ONLY using music that is "approved" by the teacher - particularly when the teacher won't even be around to help Lea prepare that music - the teacher is unnecessarily inflating the importance of this recital beyond all reasonable proportions. No wonder Lea is so frazzled by the prospect.
It would be fine and dandy for the teacher to tell Lea that "Voi che sapete" and "The Turtle Dove" aren't challenging enough pieces for her to undertake for this recital, IF she were going to be there to help Lea deal with the challenges of the deceptively difficult Butterworth song she's pushing Lea to sing. It would also be nice if she would explain to Lea why she feels that none of the music they've already worked on together is appropriate for this recital. Indeed, it seems like this teacher has an aversion to actually explaining herself (NOT a good sign, IMO). [BTW, I don't quite "get" this idea of those songs being "not challenging enough" when it comes to these songs. No, they don't contain a lot of dazzling coloratura, high notes, extremely long phrases, etc. But to sing them really well, with elegance, flawless vocal legato, perfect diction, stylish interpretation, and emotion seems to me to be challenge enough for any student to undertake on her own, without her teacher's assistance, for a month. I say this from experience. I'm currently working on "Ar hyd y nos" (Welsh folk-song), Tchaikovsky's "None but the lonely heart", and "Was hast Du verwirket" by Heinrich Schuetz. All three are pieces without extremes of range, dynamics, emotion, etc. And because of this, all three absolutely force me to concentrate on purity and musicality of line, vocal legato, diction, and expression of *subtle* emotion: I don't know about other singers, but I'm finding these things extremely challenging in ways that more bombastic, dramatic pieces full of such extremes - e.g., O don fatale, Condotta ell'era in cepi, Ortrud's curse, Acerba volutta, Voi lo sapete, Give him this orchid, Iris hence away, etc. - are not. One can divert (distract?) the audience's attention to a great extent with the emotion and drama of the latter as long as you sing them reasonably well. But the sheer simplicity of "Ar hyd y nos" cries out for absolute perfection of technique, because there are no dramatic or vocal fireworks to "hide behind".]
I also know from my own experience after more than eight years as a voice student that it has only been very recently that I have come to trust myself to be my own teacher for any stretch of time: i.e., that I am able to take on new vocal challenges on my own without risking developing bad new habits that I will have to UNlearn when I get together with my teacher again. This was NOT the case for at least six of those eight years. I could not be trusted - nor trust myself - not to slip back into vocally damaging old habits, or to pick up new vocally damaging habits in an effort to AVOID the old ones - when left to work on my voice without benefit of my teacher for more than a week or two at a time. Not all students have this problem, and not all students have it to the extreme that I feel I had it. But the point is, that if Lea is worried that she might be like me with regard to "self-teaching", wouldn't it be better for her NOT to take on too many new challenges on her own, and to load the pressure of an anticipated public performance on top of them?
Finally, my impression is that Lea is a very accommodating person who wants to please her teacher. But she needs to remember that a voice teacher is like any other consultant: the voice teacher is there to provide expert advice. She is not there to DICTATE. (And, to put it bluntly, it's Lea paying the teacher, not the teacher paying Lea.) Yes, Lea should trust her teacher - to the extent that she can given they HAVE had so little time to work together. This is not a matter of BLIND FAITH. Lea will come to trust the teacher when the teacher shows that she actually DESERVES that trust.
And even given all the trust in the world, there is another element that is just as important: respect - not just Lea's for the teacher's judgement, but the teacher's for Lea's judgement...particularly given she (the teacher) has not had long enough to learn Lea's working habits, her sense of self-confidence, her fears, etc. That respect - teacher for Lea - means that if at a given point in time, under a particular set of circumstances, Lea feels uncomfortable taking a particular piece of advice from her teacher-consultant, the teacher should not respond by trying to subtly (or not so subtly) badger, browbeat, intimidate, or bully Lea into changing her mind. If she feels Lea's decision is wrong, she needs to communicate more than just "You're wrong." She needs to fully explain what her intentions were in giving that piece of advice, and why she feels Lea should reassess her response to that advice. It doesn't sound like Lea's teacher has done this. And perhaps she feels she shouldn't have to: but if she does, this is even more evidence of her lack of understanding of Lea's needs as a student, and possibly her lack of respect for Lea - and also more indication of why I think Lea may be right not to completely trust this teacher, at least not yet.
I don't get any sense that Lea is a chronic "recidivist" when it comes to refusing to take on new challenges her teacher sets for her. Indeed, if anything, I suspect that Lea may take on challenges despite not fully understanding WHY she is being asked to do so - because I am coming to suspect (as I've said earlier) that her teacher isn't very good at explaining WHY she teaches what she does. This isn't a unique problem: I've got lots of friends whose voice teachers don't feel the need to explain WHY they teach what they teach, and others whose explanations are superficial, confusing, or based in bizarre understandings of acoustics or anatomy. These are teachers I have avoided like the plague because I'm the kind of student who wants to know the heck why I'm being told to stand on my head and touch my toes at the same time before I actually try to do so. And I want that explanation to be not just credible, but scientifically sound.
It sounds to me like Lea - as a new student put in an awkward situation - has some very reasonable concerns, and that her teacher may be understandably so distracted by her own medical problems (and I too have had a friend who had to spend months in bed when pregnant, due to soaring blood pressure and the risk of septicemia) that she is unable to focus on Lea's fears and concerns: this is obvious - the teacher has gone into temporary "retirement" and left her students to deal on their own until after the baby's delivery; that's perfectly all right. What's not all right is her apparent expectation that every one of her students will be able to cope with this situation with the same amount of "grace under pressure".
In her teacher's absence, Lea has been left to take her own decisions - and she must feel free to do without some sense that she will somehow be "letting the side down" ("the side", in this case, being her teacher). If this recital realy isn't that important, then the teacher should be happy to have Lea either decline to participate, or participate using music they have already worked on together. Indeed, I'm a bit puzzled why the teacher wants Lea to perform in a class recital pieces that won't reflect the fruits of their joint labours (i.e., working on Lea's vocal technique together). Furthermore, if Lea chooses not to do the recital, she should of course continue to work on her voice, but only in ways that she feels will not jeopardise the progress she has already made with this teacher.
Karen Mercedes http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html *************************************** In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. - Proverbs 3:6
|