Isabelle Bracamonte wrote:
> Actually, I am advocating having a young singer spend
> 5 or 6 years in the studio, concentrating on NOTHING
> but technique (and perhaps language study, if they
> have extra time) so that the technique is the first
> thing to learn. Once the technique is under control,
> the singer can begin to study acting, movement,
> diction, audition techniques, phrasing, musicality,
> history, and all the other aspects of a successful
> performing career.
I find this idea quite ridiculous, sorry. The purpose of learning to
sing is to become a musician, to perform music. 5 to 6 YEARS? Starting
at what age? And at the end of that time, possibly to find that the
singer has a great instrument and a great technique but lacks the
artistry, or the musicality, or the sheer interpretative power to make a
career of it? For every perfect singer created that way, how many will
find they have wasted five years? There _has_ to be involvement with
"real" music all the way down this road.
Five years into training is far, far too late to start to learn to
communicate - and why are you singing, if not for that?
Linda Fox
Cambridge, UK
|
|  |
