Vocalist.org archive


From:  LesTaylor@a...
Date:  Wed Jun 21, 2000  8:56 pm
Subject:  Training Methods


Dear Lloyd,
Another brilliant, well though out post. I admire your integrity.

I agree that the most successful model for training singers is the vocal
performance degree as offered in colleges, universities and conservatories in
the US. Furthermore, I feel it is also the best, a slightly different
connotation.:-) Though it is the best, there's room for a gracious plenty of
improvement, especially when it comes to bureaucratic nonsense.

I have personally been involved in five different college and
university programs:
Armstrong State College, Savannah, GA as an undergraduate student,
University of South Florida, Tampa as a graduate student,
Florida Southern College, Lakeland as a voice teacher,
University of Washington, Seattle as a private student
and Armstrong Atlantic State University (formerly Armstrong State College),
Savannah, GA as a Community Music School voice teacher.
In addition to these direct involvements, I have visited and sampled the
cultures of voice departments on campuses too numerous to mention.
In my experience, the value of an education first depends on the student's
desire and willingness to work. Even if they can't afford to go anywhere else
but a local college with a mediocre faculty, if the desire is there, they will
get the education one way or another. Such people usually "trade up" to better
schools with scholarships etc.

The next greatest influence on the value of education is the teacher. Getting
the best fit between student and teacher can be tough, especially if the
institution is encumbered with lots of bureaucracy. Teaching voice is such a
personal and individual thing, that I just can't see it ever becoming
standardized or accountable.

I heartily agree that a singer should be as much of an artist at every stage
of
development as their health, technique and best interest allows them to be.
That
is precisely what makes any kind of study worthwhile and fulfilling.

There has been and indeed still is a desire expressed by young singers for
reasoned, rational and systematic vocal training. I don't believe that desire
has anything to do with any school system. I think that is what all reasonable
human being seek. It doesn't matter who is teaching or where, everyone
attempting to learn anything wants three things; accuracy, consistency and
lucidity. The modern mind does not tolerate nonsense very well no matter its
source.

American colleges and universities have done pretty well in keeping up with
student course demands but TTYTT, I'm kinda glad it's a little slow on the
uptake. If it weren't, all the kids would be learning microphone technique and
how to market CD's. It's difficult to build a good body of knowledge if the
paradigm keeps shifting. OTOH, academia's conservative and slow acceptance of
change can cause it's more entrenched elements to become out of touch with
modern cultural trends (as unpalateable as they may be) to the point that they
no longer live in a real world.

Yes college provides the young singer with a safer environment than jumping
into
an early career would. Some voice types need that nurturing longer than
others,
particularly the more dramatic ones. The hard part of that is knowing what
you've got when you're that young. The only way to find that out is to gain
experience. Sometimes doing a role is the only way to find out if you can and
how well you stand up to it.

Child prodies are only possible in styles in which there is little performance
expectation. No, I'm not going to open that bucket of worms again,:-) but
suffice it to say, those who know what opera really is aren't fooled into
thinking that some cute kid who's really a pops singer is an opera singer
merely
because they can sing an operatic aria.

BECAUSE

Because you can doesn't mean you should
Because you can doesn't make it good
Wise is woman
Wise is man
Who don't do merely 'cause they can

Lloyd wrote:
> The private studio is of prime importance to the development
> of the singing performer.
You don't sound convinced.:-) You usually offer at least once corroborating
proof! Why is the private studio of Prime
importance? I appreciate the head nod but please elucidate.

> Often teachers of acclaim are successful because they are
> able to attract students of the strongest talent.
Absolutely true. I'd rather have my integrity but that's easy for me to say
since I make my living as an engineer.

> How can we teach the greatest number of learners most
> successfully?
We-e-e-ellll, I dunno. It really isn't an egalitarian sort of thing to me. We
all may be born with equal rights but we most certainly aren't born equal in
any
sense when it comes to singing. We have to make the most of what we have.

> Public education should never be primarily concerned with how to
> teach the most gifted.
Agreed. I prefer to work with those who are passionate about singing. The
gifted
often take things for granted. Who the heck knows what gifted really is
anyway?

> Music is not only an art but also a lifelong training of
> the human mind and emotion. In its presence, we all are
> students.
Amen!
Warmest regards,
Les


  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date Size
2613 Re: Training Methods Lloyd W. Hanson   Thu  6/22/2000   3 KB
2626 Re: Training Methods LesTaylor@a...   Thu  6/22/2000   3 KB
2687 Re: Training Methods Lloyd W. Hanson   Sun  6/25/2000   4 KB
2698 Re: Training Methods LesTaylor@a...   Sun  6/25/2000   4 KB

emusic.com