Shawna wrote:
>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.
And SHOULD! ; )
>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.
As a musician who is both competent and passionate, I resent the assumption
that the two are mutually exclusive. In the competitive world of music,
technical skills like sight-reading and being a quick study are
*essential*. Having the ability to learn difficult music quickly is just
another bow in your quiver and takes nothing away from your passion to
communicate. In fact it enables you to get more chances to communicate
because you will get more jobs!
>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.
And about this I agree! Well said, Shawna.
Naomi Gurt Lind
|
|  |
