You asked for both vantage points, so here goes:
As a singer:
What worked:
The piece that always went well (Largo al Factotum from Il Barbiere
di Siviglia)
"Pushing the edge" just a bit (singing things that were a little
dramatic)
Showing contrast: legato vs. marcato, Mozart vs. Verdi, dramatic vs. l
lyric
What didn't:
Doing something really obscure becasue I was bored with my usual
repertoire.
Being too conservative (and watching the people who defied the
conventional wisdom win!)
As a teacher/judge:
What works:
SHORT! If it's too long (like the whole "Ah, fors' e lui/Sempre
Libera" scene) we will just get annoyed unless you are FABULOUS!
Your best stuff, regardless of the familiarity, etc.
Contrast. You would not believe the number of people who come in
singing pieces that are so similar that they might as well have not
sung one of them!
What doesn't:
Repertoire that is REALLY obscure. We want to judge your voice, not
your ability to go to the library and find pieces. (When you do a
doctorate you can do all the obscure repertoire you want, in fact
it's a requirement!)
Stuff that is obviously too easy/hard for you.
Arias that are from completely different "fachs". A lot of singers
miss this, and just look foolish. It tells the judges, "I haven't
figured my voice out yet and was hoping you could."
A final thought- do what you think you do best, and don't be afraid
to take chances. I thought about before one competition this way, "If
I sing what I like and lose, oh well. But if I sing what I don't like
and lose anyway, I will feel like an idiot!"
-Jeff Snider
|
|  |
