> -----Original Message----- > From: thomas mark montgomery [mailto:thomas8@t...] > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 5:25 AM > To: vocalist-temporary@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [vocalist-temporary] learning a role pointers > > > > > I have stayed out of this discussion (like I do most...lol) but I feel a > couple of points should be made here. Absolutely, a MUSIC STUDENT should > not be learning a role off a recording: if that is their only option, > they should not be doing the role, rather woodshedding their musical > skills. Also in relation to the opera chorus/choral program thread: (for > once, I'm going to disagree with Eva Zuber...and I always agree with > her ;) ) choral music programs do a lot toward helping young singers (who > more often than not are behind their instrumental counterparts in musical > skills--it is not a coincidence that most professional singers of the top > ranks were instrumentalists first) develop their music reading > skills.
I realize you were ranting in this message, but this sounds terribly elitist to me. It sounds as if you are saying that a singer with technical musical skills is somehow more valuable than one with a great instrument, but perhaps limited reading ability. Reading can be learned. A certain amount of technique can be learned. But a passion for the music, a desire to throw oneself into a role, and a good solid level of talent simply cannot. I find that singers who started out as instrumentalists are very unsure of their voices, have little to no stage presence, and have no concept of phrasing on text rather than notes. They sound like singing robots to me. Perhaps fine for some types of dry, overdone choral music (If I never do another Mass again I'll be thrilled,) but modern choral music and especially opera seriously lack musicality with this approach.
Learning a certain amount of piano skills, sightreading and theory is definitely a good thing for any musician, regardless of their instrument. But it's not fair to sidetrack what could otherwise be a promising career because someone has not had enough education in those areas yet to learn a role simply from reading and watching a conductor. If someone is vocally and artistically ready for a role, but perhaps needs to hear it a couple of times (preferably from more than one source)to get the gist of it before going in with the paper and conductor to fine-tune it, what, exactly, is the problem? Not all of us started taking music lessons in grade school, you know. If you go only on technical skill, you catch the so-so person who studied piano at 8, but you may miss the fantastic person who only started learning to read in college. Obviously, it would be nice to have technical skill *and* talent, but given a choice, I'd pick the talented person. Music is an art, not a science.
I do agree that choruses can be good places to learn sightreading skills. One can also gain quite a knowledge of counterpoint and harmony that way as well. Hearing oneself as part of a chord, especially when you have all the other parts right around you instead of in a piano or an orchestra pit, can be very useful. But there's no need to sacrifice good technique for the sake of whatever "light" sound some choral director is trying to get. College students are *in* training, not fully trained- expecting them to understand how to use proper technique under such extreme circumstances is naive at best, and quite possibly destructive. Their voice teachers have to work extra hard to make up for those things, and that seems like a waste of time to me. Sheesh- why not have a "large-voice" chorus, that does larger works (perhaps opera choruses in concert?!?!) that won't blow out a budding Heldentenor? The small church choir voices can go do Lauridsen in the Chamber chorus. Both will be happy. Apples to oranges, folks- you can't apply the same curriculum and expectations to every singer.
*my rant, now over :) -Shawna
|
| |