I'd like to reply on two threads:
First, I find the scientific versus kinesthetic/imagery arguement quite
interesting. I think we need both. In learning to sing, we are dealing
with the nervous system. That deals with sensation. How it feels is one of
the best roadmaps we have, and it conveys an enormous amount of information!
If that was not the case, why would so many singers find Feldenkreis and
Alexander techniques so useful? I have experience with both, and they were
as helpful as any voice lesson I ever had.
The problem is in the describing of these sensations. Everyone will
describe them in different ways. One of the challeges for teachers is
"cracking the code" - figuring out how the students describes things, and
what ideas would help them. Imagery is only useful if the teacher
understands how and why they work. It is usually best if the student comes
up with the image his or herself. This is where the science comes in.
Knowing how things really work gives enormous insight to why certain
thoughts and approaches work. For instance, an image will help someone
relax and let go much better than saying "relax." Again, images can be used
wisely or unwisely.
As to the opera conversation on NPR - I heard that,too. Perhaps what the
head of Opera America was saying was that we need to put on more operas,
period. If we only produce what we think will be masterpieces for all time,
that's going to be a pretty slim list. A lot of new operas won't get
written or produced. Many masters of the genre did not make masterpieces
the first few attemtps. But they had the opportunity to write more, and
write quickly. So many new works have to be "deep" and "artistic" and
"innovative." The masters didn't give a flip about that stuff, they were
concerned with putting on a good show that people would like! Not every
opera has to be "perfect" in order to be worth writing and producing.
So that's what I think.
Jean Marie
_________________________________________________________________
|
