On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Isabelle Bracamonte wrote:
> > One has to look no further than the
> > career of Susan Dunn to
> > realize the potential PERMANENT harm of singing
> > beyond your means.
>
> I would point out the difference between performing
> heavy repertoire and studying it, under constant
> monitoring and scrutiny, as a technical exercise.
> Many of the examples sited here have to do with
> performing.
What do you think happened to Susan? When she went to college,
her first voice teacher was so astounded at what he heard that
he gave her rep far beyond her dramatically and technically.
There is FAR too much rep to be dabbling in something you cannot
currently sing publicly. We all know the psychology of desire as it
relates to young vocal students and dramatic voice types. All operatic
singers have to watch their entire lives against pushing - why cultivate
this inherent characteristic singers battle with constantly. And I wish
I had a dollar for every singer (especially American) who thinks they
are a spinto or dramatic because:
1. They have the largest voice in their school.
2. They can't blend in choir.
3. They can only sing loud in the higher register (I love that one!)
> But we're talking about *learning* on bigger music.
> As a technical exercise. In the studio. That means
> you don't sing it outside of the studio (even to
> practice, in the beginning phase), that means that you
> don't try to sound like Zajick or Nilsson, that means
> you don't yet add interpretation or emotion into the
> technique, that means your teacher doesn't let even a
> note come out of your mouth that is strained or
> pushed, and that means that you end up singing a
> healthy, young-sounding version of it.
Technique and interpretation must be learned hand in hand. Any attempt to
separate them is a short road to vocal problems IMO.
> sing it youthfully BUT HEALTHILY at first). Muscle
> memory gets you most in trouble when you initially
> learn something incorrectly, rather than simply with
> young technique that you can build on. Your teacher,
> one assumes, is giving you a solid understanding of
> your instrument and your technique -- you ought to
> know how to pick up a piece you haven't sung in two or
> three years, and work through it over the course of a
> few days so that it ends up the best piece in your
> repertoire.
As the voice matures, the technique must adjust to this maturation.
Vocal technique is not a static coordination that you learn and hold in
stone for the rest of your career.
> I would also point out that saying that a 20-year-old
> should never sing Santuzza, as a blanket statement,
> fails to take into account both the skill of the
> teacher and the particular instrument of the student.
> For all we know, you wouldn't be able to tell Molly's
> voice from Ponselle's if you heard it on the street.
Actually I am basing my observations on Molly's posts for the past two
years, describing her vocal problems and frustrations and on 15 years of
teaching and adjuticating at the college and professional levels. When I
read and hear certain things from a student, it is not the first time I
have heard that set of circumstances. As many different students as there
are, the vocal problems remain relatively common.
And as for the 'ina' fach, the healthy repertoire for young lyric singers
is much broader than that. And broad enough not to have to reach into too
vocally ambitious territory.
Mark Montgomery
|
|  |
