Dear Randy and Vocalists:
I have no interest in defending any contest result. They represent
personal tastes as much in classcal singing as in other kind of
singing. I have seen superior students in classical singing
contests, NATS especially, be passed over for reasons that have
nothing to do with their possible success as professionals nor for
the quality of their performances but only because they did not
display some particular vocal technique that was important to at
least two of the three voice teachers doing the judging. Thus the
comments will center around such things as not displaying proper
belly breathing, voice placement was to far back or too far forward,
larynx was allowed to move, vowels were not consistently pure, not
enough pharyngeal space was demonstrated, lack of evidence of singing
into the mask, etc.
In my opinion, the only real value of contests or auditions is the
opportunity to hear the other singers and discover what is going on
with them and how you do or do not match up. And the opportunity to
share singing ideas with other students and teachers.
But when you touch on the qualities that are NOW being sought in
Broadway singing I began to wonder what has happened to this kind of
singing. Broadway for me used to mean a singer with a quality voice
who could also act and move. The voice was not far removed from what
we now choose to call a classical voice and it was heard in the
theatre without the aid of amplification. The primary difference in
the singing of the Broadway voice and the Classical voice was much
more one of style and presentation. Vocally there was little
difference.
In the Broadway of "NOW" there is an enormous voice difference.
Voices are amplified and are able to create any sound desired without
as much concern for vocal health because the voices do not need to
project and, therefore, are not put under us demanding a physical
activity. In addition to this, it is my opinion that the demand for
what the method acting school calls "naturalism" has found its way
into the Broadway musical theatre such that many singers are
requested to sound less professional and more amateur in vocal
quality. A clear sign of this approach to the Broadway voice is the
appearance of some form of yelling in the production of almost every
song. In some cases it appears as a kind of belting (which some
would call a form of yelling) and in other cases it is nothing short
of a bad yell.
As voice teachers we are placed in the position of having to teach
our students how to achieve this yell if they are to have careers in
what now passes for Broadway theatre. A significant sign of this is
the inclusion of the Broadway category in NATS competitions and the
fact that NATS has sponsored a number of workshops on the Belting
Voice. For the past many years there has been a featured column in
the Journal of Singing, NATS official magazine, that deals primarily
with Broadway and Pops singing techniques ("The Bach to Rock
Connection")
But, what if Broadway's tastes are not good taste?. What if what the
Broadway audience appears to want because they have had nothing else
for so many years is not only poor theatre but dangerous for the
singer/actors? What if, in spite of the fine work of those teachers
who have addressed these problems directly, the fact is that such
singing is at best dangerous singing, and at worst lethal singing?
It is one thing for the recording industry to producel anything that
will sell and for the public to buy anything that is exciting, new,
different, rebellious, naughty, etc. But it is another thing
altogether for the knowing voice teacher to allow such demands to
control what they teach and how they teach it.
I am not suggesting that only classical singing style should be
taught. There have been many horror stories of badly taught singers
ruining their voice attempting opera arias when they do not have the
technique to do so. But that is exactly the point; in such
situations it is easy to define the lack of skill necessary to
attempt the demands and vocal complexities of an opera aria or a
great art song.
But in the present milieu of vocal utterance passed off as singing,
there is little if any possibility of suggestion that what the singer
does is not good for the voice and is not artistic. Just because the
singer feels the song and is able to convey that feeling to the
listener is no assurance that what has been produced will stand the
test of time and become considered as art. Knowing what we like is
not the same as knowing what is best. To paraphrase Conrad Osborne
from his excellent series of articles in the old High Fidelity
magazine entitled "Singing in the Pain", "I may know what foods I
like and I might argue with a Nutritionist about the relative value
of that food for me, but the reality is that the Nutritionist's list
of better foods is more correct, and, deep down, I know it too. We
don't need someone else to tell us what is best but we do need to
exercise or discretion in selecting what is best if we are not to
loose our sense of "taste" altogether.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson
|
