> 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.
Sorry - it's a great sales pitch, but I'm not buying. Having a singer do
nothing but
vocalese for 5-6 years is no different than having a pianist do nothing but
play scales
and exercises for 5-6 years.
Serious work on etudes, scales and exercises for the pianist are very
important. But not
to introduce real music at the appropriate level of difficulty will breed a
musician who's
not REALLY a musician (in my opinion), but merely a technician. The musical
skills beyond
the technical are as important to learn, and as difficult to learn as perfect
technique.
And they take longer to learn in my experience.
Why else does one read review after review of that latest wunderkind that
expresses
admiration for the outstanding technique along with hope that the artist will
mature in
musical expressiveness over the years? And how sad it is to read about or hear
in person
those artists who haven't progressed beyond playing (or singing) the notes.
Peggy
--
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
|  |
