I've been too busy to participate recently, but I felt I had to jump in on
this one.
I happen to be a long-time student of the "study only technique for x years
before performing" school--the theory that when one day all technique is
"perfect", you can be launched straight onto the international stage. I
also happen to be a product of the "study Lieder" school.... I have come to
agree with the latter, but not the first.
Yes, at the beginning technique is key. But when overdone, we turn into
robots, not artists. I'm sorry to have to say it, but I find today's
American singers, on the whole: boring. Yes, they have great technique but
there's a key element lacking: a living energy that the true artist has
that one just can't put their finger on.
Isabelle wrote:
>that's an hour they
> could have been spending doing their take-home
> vocalises to strengthen that G, or smooth out the
> passaggio,
I just can't agree with this. I believe we learn best--both to be
technicians and artists--by working through the repertoire. It's the
demands within the repertoire that bring forth the skills--both interpretive
and technical. If we all learn to sing a perfect G, then a perfect A, then
a B, etc., we'll stick these into our repertoire note by note. And that's
all we get: note after note of perfect singing that means *nothing*. And
that's exactly what we're hearing out there these days.
Now, there's a huge difference between *working on* repertoire, and
*performing* repertoire. I believe a lot of the Lieder rep. does lend
itself well to work with a novice singer. For starters, you can sing in
whichever key is more comfortable at the time for that singer--tessitura
alone is a reason to hold back on a lot of opera rep.
Isballe wrote:
> Plus, the nature of lieder is that the text is the
> most important thing to communicate, whereas in opera
> it is the vocal line.
I disagree. The nature of each is clearly different, but to say, for
instance, that the vocal line in a Brahms Lied is less important than the
text is just not true. Brahms had a fabulous sense of phrasing for the
singer, which is why I believe this is some of the best repertoire to start
studying with. Isabelle argued against Lieder using the example of Wolf,
"Auch kleine Dinge". I agree with much of what she said about this.
Therefore I find this particular song unsuitable for training purposes. But
I can't think of anything better--for any voice category--for training vocal
line than Brahms' "Wie Melodien", for instance.
Now, who says a beginner has to sing that perfect pianissimo high note? Who
says the beginner student even has to look at the *words* of "Wie Melodien"
while using it as an exercise? Remember, I'm advocating learning rep, not
necessarily running out to perform it all....
>In my understanding of training, a
> singer has to learn to sing the line before adding in
> the consonants -- this often involves vowel
> modification, dropping out or mutating certain
> consonants so they don't hurt the tone quality, things
> like that.
Exactly.
>Arias -- people are more willing to listen
> someone bastardize the words for the sake of vocal
> beauty. Lieder -- it's almost sacrilege for suggest
> sacrificing the text for the technique.
In the end, I don't think one has to be sacrificed for the other in either
arias or Lieder. I realize, though, that a lot of people have this opinion
about Lieder, but I can't agree. Again, it depends somewhat on which
song--or which aria--in particular you choose.
> If you don't sing the A's and B's
> correctly in Caro nome, you'll never make it to the
> high E -- survival through correctness. You won't be
> able to sing straight through the aria for x number of
> months, as you practice and are corrected and guided
> at every note, but you'll always be on the path to
> technical correctness.
I'm afraid I've heard too many squeaky sopranos struggle through this aria
to agree...
Now, as I said originally, I know first hand what it is to sit at home and
practice technique, aiming towards that elusive goal of "perfect technique".
As with someone's comparision to Communism, I just don't think it works.
As I said at the beginning, I have been a "long-time" student. That's the
key. You can go on and on with technique, even applying it to rep. etc.
But until you actual *perform*, you just don't get the full concept of what
it's all about, nor do you have the natural push to work on that repertoire
at the same polishing level. Of course, one should choose their early rep.
and performance opportunities wisely. But my singing--and specifically my
technique--have taken 2 huge leaps through my training career. The first
was after I performed for the first time. And I've seen this same
phenomenon time and again with other students.
The second was when I spent a period of time in a program among highly
skilled singers. Up until then, I was being taught about my body--how to
make each part work, how to put it all together. But when I find myself
amongst great singers, I fully absorbed for the first time, what it was that
I was striving for. I had a *concept* of the sound and singing I wanted to
create. And I started learning by osmosis....
All this to say, I agree with Reg that it's about balance. A teacher has to
carefully balance the introduction of technical elements with the correct
repertoire, the incorporation of interpretive ideas, and the right nudge to
try out performing, under safe conditions.
Sorry to be so long about it. I rarely write so much. But I felt in needed
to be said. Thanks.
Alleson Aering
kandahar@i...
|
