> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Harrison [mailto:peggyh@i...]
> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 9:21 AM
> To: vocalist-temporary@egroups.com
> Subject: [vocalist-temporary] Re: We all gotta get better
> Does anyone seriously believe that a singer doesn't need good
> musical skills? And that a
> school environment is a great place to acquire them?
Of course singers need good musical skills, and schools are a good place to
learn them. The error in judgement I've been seeing is that far too many
administrators, and especially choral directors vastly overestimate their
students' technical musical knowledge and knowledge of singing technique.
They also treat all singers, with vastly different voices and career goals,
exactly the same in determining requirements. Which I think is a crying
shame.
>
> But for technical AND artistic growth, I think one must focus on
> weaknesses and strengthen
> them, not bury our collective heads in the sand and say what we
> don't do well is not
> important.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, what I was complaining about is that
technical skill tends to be overvalued in some schools and other
environments to the detriment of the art and individual artists.
>
> I wish the word "elitist" could be banished from people's
> vocabularies when they're
> talking about acquiring knowledge. It means nothing - it's a
> loaded word that implies to
> many a glorification of ignorance and to others the idea of
> exclusion of those with a
> lower level of pre-acquired knowledge. Can't we all agree that
> more knowledge and skill
> is better than less, and that it would be a good thing if
> everyone devoted their lives to
> getting better and learning more? And that everyone should have
> an equal opportunity to
> sources of knowledge? And forget about attaching a label like
> "elitist" to this process?
>
What I meant by my use of the word, which I will stand behind, is that
frequently colleges structure their music programs almost exclusively to
favor those who have sometimes years of previous musical experience,
regardless of whether said person has talent, a joy for the music and
reasonable goals. That practice is most *definitely* elitist because it
implies that people who, for reasons of poverty, lack of opportunity or poor
previous education, were not able to study before college are somehow less
important, and less worthy of following a musical career path. I worked my
tail off trying to play catch up in my freshman and sophomore years with my
sightreading and technique, and I still ran up against problems. Several
other students had the same issues. They got tracked to "adjunct" voice
faculty, weren't allowed in Chamber choir, and frequently didn't even get
into the yearly opera productions. Those who already had 5 years of piano or
voice, plus an "in" with some of the faculty because they went to the same
churches or whatever, got far more performing opportunities than many of us
with much greater skill and enthusiasm. Opera auditions, for instance, were
not about who would have been best for a particular role, or who needed the
performance opportunities. It was about giving perks to the students of the
most prominent teachers- even those students who were on a Mus Ed. track and
had no desire for a performing career! We had a Pamina one year who stated
several times that her post-college intentions were to get married and have
children and not have a career at all! Several other highly capable sopranos
that year got really shafted because they weren't the world's best
sightreaders or whatever. Expecting that a freshman year voice student
already knows how to sightread, has piano skills (don't get me started on
piano proficiency requirements) and solid enough technique to not hurt
themselves singing piannissimo acapella works in the Chamber choir is
ludicrous. If it were Julliard or some of the other major schools doing
this, I could believe it, but a state university? One that doesn't even
audition for admission to the program? That's insane. Several, to my ear,
very promising voices got discouraged by these practices and dropped out
entirely, changed majors or graduated, but went on to be an office slave
after school. Had there been a larger policy of inclusion and fairness, that
would never have happened. In my case, it took me 3 years after school to
have enough courage to start studying again because I was so discouraged by
the favoritism, etc. that I was convinced that regardless of skill or desire
to learn I'd never get anywhere. It's entirely possible I still *won't* get
anywhere, but I still believe I have potential, which I'm going to exhaust
any way I can now that I'm outside of the restraints of college social
politics.
-Shawna
|
|  |
