> Perhaps by "technical study" I should better have > written "technical vocal study in the studio, made up > of vocalises and repertoire work without the added > distraction of interpretation, diction, phrasing, et > al, until the student can add in those aspects without > compromising her technical integrity."
I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more (except about opera for beginners, but that's a dead debate in here, or at least, it should be - caveat emptor.) Anyway, I digress. Technical study as defined in the above paragraph will never produce an A-team singer. Technique and interpretation, diction and phrasing should be taught from a gestalt perspective. "Technical integrity" compromised by what singing is all about? I think not. A singer must always sing "in the present" and an approach as limned above is what I call "singing in the past". Singing in the past produces dead singing without a whit of spontaneity, the essence of singing. One does not learn a technique and then apply it to your singing. Any good choreographer will tell you that you have to learn the body, arms and legs at the same time if you want to really learn how to dance. That does not exclude isolation exercises, but these isolation exercises are not dancing. They are exercises. Same with singing. Your vocal technique has many components and they must all be built at the same time if you ever expect them to function as a unit.
Mark Montgomery
|
| |