Second rate composers (was Re: Tchiakovsky)
Roger Knopf 5502
In article <12...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>The trouble with Tchaikovsky (a before i, guys!) is that his pieces are
>misshapen, and rely on hitting you over the head with the Big Tune (or
>tedious preparations for it) again and again. Only the Pathetique
>really escapes this problem.
My limited experience with Bruckner places him in the same category,
except that when he gets to the big tune (which will repeat over and
over and over and over and over...), its no big deal. I find nothing
there to hold my interest other than some nice harmonies and orchestration.
>Now, let's name some second-rate Beethoven. Well, there's Wellington's
>victory.
I heard a story recently: on the program with Wellington's Victory
(first performance) was another first, his Symphony number 7. Because
of the patriotic fervor raging at the time, WV got all the attention
and the 7th was mentioned as being a nice piece. Needless to say,
Beethoven was miffed. He got his due on the second performance of
the 7th when the audience made the orchestra play the second movement
over again, they liked it so much.
>Roger
Roger %^)
Donald J. Barry
Tchaikovsky, intimating that Bruckner's music carries
only passing interest of orchestration and harmonic
device with the occasional "big tune."
Roger,
I can't let you get away scot free with your comment on
Bruckner, even with your admission of limited knowledge
on his behalf.
I've always considered Bruckner's music among the most
difficult of the major composers for an orchestra to pull
off cleanly. Most conductors seem to completely miss the
proper way of presenting the great scale of the works so
that a unity is achieved -- the result is what you quoted,
namely interesting preparations, and the occasional big tune.
But there is SO MUCH MORE in the score. I suggest you
read the delightful volume "The Essence of Bruckner" by
composer Robert Simpson. Listen to some of the recordings
made by major Bruckner specialists, such as Furtwangler
or Horenstein. I would particularly recommend the EMI
release of the Bruckner 4th by Furtwangler, the Fonit Cetra
rerelease of the Bruckner 8th by Furtwangler, or the Bruno
Walter Society issue of Furtwangler doing the Bruckner 5th.
You will find after this that Bruckner is a master of form,
(at least after the fourth symphony), that his methods of
development are like no other, and that the statements
in his music are much more verbalized by the structure than
the melody, capped by the "big themes" rather than stated
in them.
--
Donald J. Barry (404) 651-2932 | don%ch...@gatech.edu
Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy | President, Astronomical
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303 | Society of the Atlantic
R. Wilmer
>I've always considered Bruckner's music among the most
>difficult of the major composers for an orchestra to pull
>off cleanly. Most conductors seem to completely miss the
>proper way of presenting the great scale of the works so
>that a unity is achieved.
>Listen to some of the recordings
>made by major Bruckner specialists, such as Furtwangler
>or Horenstein. I would particularly recommend the EMI
>release of the Bruckner 4th by Furtwangler, the Fonit Cetra
>rerelease of the Bruckner 8th by Furtwangler, or the Bruno
>Walter Society issue of Furtwangler doing the Bruckner 5th.
>
>You will find after this that Bruckner is a master of form,
>(at least after the fourth symphony), that his methods of
>development are like no other, and that the statements
>in his music are much more verbalized by the structure than
>the melody, capped by the "big themes" rather than stated
>in them.
Bruckner is one composer that I find it hard to imagine anyone
changing his mind about. For one thing if you don't really
love those ``big themes'' (I do), I should think you would
be bored to death by those long symphonies.
I believe the conscientious music lover should take Donald's advice
and listen to a great conductor conducting one of the great
symphonies. For the long ones I suggest the fourth, eighth,
and ninth.
Another Bruckner symphony possibility is to listen to one
of the two much lighter and (I think) charming early symphonies:
the nullte (zeroeth) and the first. If you find the last seven
heavy going, you might still enjoy those.
On second thought, though, I should think that listening to
a good recording of the fourth would be enough: that symphony
combines the sweet delights of the early ones with
the vast expanses of the late ones. And I would say that
if a good performance of the fourth leaves you cold, you
can save time and forget about Bruckner. To my mind he
is not an acquirable taste: his music either grabs you
or it doesn't.
Yes, there are problems in performing and in listening to
Bruckner symphonies. Of the live performances I have heard,
the only one that truly realized the greatness of the symphony
was Leinsdorf conducting the Philadelphia in the mighty eighth.
Bruckner needs a conductor with great authority and generalship
who can hold back the long climaxes, who can take
his time laying the blocks of the huge architectural plan,
and who can keep the players in the orchestra quiet and
focused.
Also the listener needs to be in a state of openness and
serenity to take in a big Bruckner symphony. If you
are the kind of person who often says ``Just get
to the point'' or ``Enough, I got it the first time'',
I don't think you will like that music. Bruckner
is not for the impatient.
Richard
Scott Amspoker
>[discussion of Brukner deleted]
May I offer my not-so-academic opinion of Brukner:
The first time I heard Brukner was his 9th. I was lying in a meadow
up in the mountains with a portable CD player and headphones. Somehow,
all the pieces fell together just right. I've been a fan of Bruckner since.
--
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232
unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott
Roger Knopf 5502
>and listen to a great conductor conducting one of the great
>symphonies. For the long ones I suggest the fourth, eighth,
>and ninth.
OK, I have an open mind. I possess the eighth by Inbal and the 9th
by Wand. Assuming that I will not easily be convinced to go buy
another performance of a symphony I am not sure I like, are these
considered good examples of Bruckner?
>On second thought, though, I should think that listening to
>a good recording of the fourth would be enough: that symphony
>combines the sweet delights of the early ones with
>the vast expanses of the late ones. And I would say that
>if a good performance of the fourth leaves you cold, you
>can save time and forget about Bruckner.
Any particular performances to look for?
Roger Knopf
Steven M. Schultz
>
>OK, I have an open mind. I possess the eighth by Inbal and the 9th
>by Wand. Assuming that I will not easily be convinced to go buy
>another performance of a symphony I am not sure I like, are these
>considered good examples of Bruckner?
Yes, especially the 8th by Inbal, although i myself prefer the
recording made by Giulini with the Vienna Philharmonic. The 8th
I would not suggest as an introduction to Bruckner, it is the longest
(although the final length of the 9th is unknown as it was unfinished
at 3 movements) of Bruckner's symphonies and was the last one I began
to really understand.
A suggestion i would make (based on putting a tape in the car's
deck and having my car pool passenger ask "Hey, that is interesting,
what is it?". Oh, he's since begun collecting the Bruckner symphonies)
is Bruckner symphony 7. The recording by Ricardo Chailly
and the Radio-Symphonie-Orchester Berlin is excellent. I've heard/seen
(laser disc) Solti conducting number 7 in a 70's recording. Quite good.
The 4th is (in my opinion) over-recorded. Just because it is one
of the shortest symphonies it is not necessarily the best introduction
to Bruckner. My introduction came with the 3rd - 'twas the massive
brass work that really caught my ear. Over the years the lengthy
adagio movements have become real close friends, just like Mahler's,
but that's another thread on the newsnet i guess...
Steven M. Schultz
s...@wlv.imsd.contel.com
R. Wilmer
You have had changed my mind about my first comment, which was that
if you don't like Bruckner at first you probably never will.
Several postings have proved me wrong. What seemed important for
a conversion in favor of Bruckner was a relaxed state of mind and
a pleasant listening atmosphere. Indeed, as this discussion has
progressed, I see that the atmospheric spell that Bruckner weaves
is essential to his power as a composer. To succumb to Bruckner's
magic is like being hypnotized: you can't have a lot of distraction
going on to succumb to the experience.
As I did with Strauss operas, I'll give a ranking of Bruckner
Symphonies (I appreciated the comments that were posted on that
listing--or triage, as one erudite member put it--especially your
comments on Guntram and Die Aegyptische Helena). Here goes:
Great:
8. Sublime, vast expanses. Puts me in another world. Forget your
troubles, come on, get Bruckner. His longest symphony, but I
often ask ``It's over already?''
9. Profound, powerful, and mysterious. The first movement is
inexorably gripping, the second a strange, troll-like, hypnotic dance,
the last expressive of deep yearning. Incidentally I took
a freshman musicianship course where we were
encouraged to learn intervals by associating them with musical
examples. A truly disastrous idea, I think. Anyway I used as
the minor ninth, the beginning of the Adagio of Bruckner's
ninth. That practice never failed to plunge me into the
vast abyss of that movement and distract me from whatever
I was supposed to be sight-singing.
4. The greatest flowering of Bruckner's melodic gift. Imaginative
orchestration.
Beautiful:
3. The symphony in which Bruckner found his true style. Powerful
themes; slow, effective climaxes; and some light touches, reminiscent
of Schubert.
1. Delightful listening, charming melodies. I recommend it for people
who find Bruckner long-winded and tedious.
Pleasant listening:
0. (yes, zero) Sweet and naive. Good melodies.
6. In the style of late Bruckner, but a bit nebulous. Lacks the
direction and intensity of 7, 8, and 9.
Uneven:
7. One of the most popular symphonies, but I find the third movement
blasty and abrasive--a really ugly, vulgar tune. The other
three movements are fine though.
5. Quite different from the rest. The nature of the themes
and their development are unlike the other symphonies.
I find them jagged and craggy; the development seems rough and jerky.
Perhaps if I heard the Furtwangler version that someone
recommended, I would like it better.
Bad:
2. Can anyone say anything in favor of this lead balloon? If someone
insists, I'll give it another try. It was Bruckner's first attempt
at the giant themes and long developments. To my ears the big themes are
bad themes and don't get any better with the Brucknerian
repetition that many of you have remarked on. He tried the
effects that were to be successful in the third symphony, but
here they fall flat.
Richard
Stephen Smoliar
> Incidentally I took
> a freshman musicianship course where we were
> encouraged to learn intervals by associating them with musical
> examples. A truly disastrous idea, I think.
I had a similar experience but would not call it disastrous. Rather, I regard
it as further evidence for my argument about the powerful role of memory. I
remember the first class I had in which we had to sing tritones. The teacher
played a rising tritone interval and then completed it with the "Maria" melody
from WEST SIDE STORY. This may be the only useful thing Lenny ever did.
=========================================================================
USPS: Stephen Smoliar
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001
Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695
Internet: smo...@vaxa.isi.edu
"For every human problem, there is a neat, plain solution--and it is always
wrong."--H. L. Mencken
Robert Coren
> ...The teacher
> played a rising tritone interval and then completed it with the "Maria" melody
> from WEST SIDE STORY. This may be the only useful thing Lenny ever did.
Well, he gave us the major 7th as well ("There's a place for us...").
Never mind that he lifted the melody from the slow movement of the
"Emperor" Concerto... :-)
R
Robert Coren
>> Incidentally I took
>> a freshman musicianship course where we were
>> encouraged to learn intervals by associating them with musical
>> examples. A truly disastrous idea, I think.
>
> I had a similar experience but would not call it disastrous. Rather, I regard
> it as further evidence for my argument about the powerful role of memory.
If you are required to learn "intervals", as such, I suppose that any
mnemonic aid that works is a Good Thing, although maybe it's a little
hard to pull out a particular piece of music to associate with an
interval while sight-singing in an entirely different harmonic
context. What I'm uncertain about is the utility of learning intervals
*as such*, i.e., tests of the form "Sing a minor 7th up from this note
[played on the piano]."
I have been singing for a number of years with a professional-quality
amateur chorus (The Boston Cecilia, if anyone's interested), and for
many of those years I have sat on the auditions committee. This
committee, which consists of mostly volunteer members of the chorus
and the conductor _ex officio_, not only auditions new candidates, but
also reviews every single member of the chorus at the end of every
season. One of the standard parts of the reaudition, at least, has
been exactly such an interval test; usually the chorus is warned in
advance which intervals they are going to be tested on. I have argued
unsuccessfully in the past that this is a curiously artificial way to
test sight-singing accuracy (and I can't think what else it would be
for), and a much more useful approach would be something like "This is
a C [played on the piano], sing the Bb above it." The response from
the conductor has been something like, "Well, then people have to
think about what the interval between C and Bb is -- i.e., a minor
seventh -- and then sing it." Well, I have to do the exact opposite
(Hmm, minor 7th above C, that's Bb, right?), but my argument is not
really personal, since I don't have much trouble one way or the other.
My point is, the notes are what's printed on the page: when you're
sight-singing, you see a C followed by a Bb, and it seems to me to be
an extra mental step to identify the interval by name. The argument
that you can identify the interval by distance (on the staff) doesn't
wash, as far as I'm concerned, because you still have to
remember/notice clef and key signature in order to know whether it's
major, minor, augmented, etc.
(By the way, we also do a sight-reading test, rendering the utility of the
interval test even more dubious to me.)
I have not been able to convince either the conductor or other members
of the committee. What thinks the Net? You singers out there, do you
think knowledge of intervals by name, and testing of same, is useful?
Have you found it so for yourself?
Robert
Robert Coren
>
> Well, he gave us the major 7th as well ("There's a place for us...").
As was pointed out to me by private mail (thanks, David!), this is, of
course, a *minor* 7th. Slight slip of the brain, there...
Robert
Roger Lustig
Minor 7th, but who's counting? Actually, there's another great tritone
example in the show: Cool. "Boy, boy. Crazy boy!"
Does the fugue in the dance section of Cool remind anybody else of the
Grosse Fuge played for laughs?
Roger
Michael Stimac
>amateur chorus (The Boston Cecilia, if anyone's interested), and for
>many of those years I have sat on the auditions committee. This
>advance which intervals they are going to be tested on. I have argued
>unsuccessfully in the past that this is a curiously artificial way to
>test sight-singing accuracy (and I can't think what else it would be
>for), and a much more useful approach would be something like "This is
>a C [played on the piano], sing the Bb above it." The response from
>the conductor has been something like, "Well, then people have to
>think about what the interval between C and Bb is -- i.e., a minor
>seventh -- and then sing it." Well, I have to do the exact opposite
>(Hmm, minor 7th above C, that's Bb, right?), but my argument is not
>really personal, since I don't have much trouble one way or the other.
>My point is, the notes are what's printed on the page: when you're
>sight-singing, you see a C followed by a Bb, and it seems to me to be
>an extra mental step to identify the interval by name. The argument
>that you can identify the interval by distance (on the staff) doesn't
>wash, as far as I'm concerned, because you still have to
>remember/notice clef and key signature in order to know whether it's
>major, minor, augmented, etc.
>
>of the committee. What thinks the Net? You singers out there, do you
>think knowledge of intervals by name, and testing of same, is useful?
>Have you found it so for yourself?
> Robert
Hi Robert. I sing with Masterworks Chorale in San Mateo, California.
I agree with your point of view 100%. It would take a Long Time for
me to think of every interval explicitly and then translate that
into a sung interval. I also am of the opinion (but have no hard data
to support me) that singing "by intervals" is exactly the way to
slowly get out of tune, as insignificant interval errors accumulate
over time.
A related topic was discussed some time ago, which has to do with
solfeggio. I can't imagine anything slowing a singer down more than
having to figure out that "this is fa (the fourth note) and fa
sounds like this (sings it)". I find that even thinking of
the letter name for the note is a distraction. What I (think I)
do is, I just sing what is printed: if the note is on the 2nd
line, I sing that pitch, if the next note is on the 3rd space,
then I sing that pitch, and so on. No need to think of note
names, intervals, etc. I'm considered to be "pretty good" at
sight reading music, according to my teacher. I do NOT have
perfect pitch, but I can remember pitches for a short period
of time, such as the duration of a performance.
I'm glad that our conductor (Galen Marshall) eshews such things
as solfeggio, fanatic attention to intervals, etc in auditions.
He is much more concerned with issues such as tone quality.
Michael Stimac
....sun!oliveb!tymix!stimac
Scott Amspoker
> I
>remember the first class I had in which we had to sing tritones. The teacher
>played a rising tritone interval and then completed it with the "Maria" melody
>from WEST SIDE STORY.
The standards we used to help us with our intervals:
minor 2nd: ti-do
major 2nd: do-re
minor 3rd: Lullabye
major 3rd: "doe, a deer" (Sound of Music)
4th: Bridal Chorus (Here Comes the Bride)
tritone: Maria (West Side Story)
5th: Also Sprach Zarthustra (sp?) (2001 Theme)
minor 6th: The Entertainer (Scott Joplin)
major 6th: N-B-C (bell-tone network motif)
minor 7th: There's a Place for Us (West Side Story)
major 7th: Bali Hai (South Pacific)
octave: Bali Hai
I agree that this is a "crutch" that is best dispensed with at the earliest
possible time - but it *did* help.
Stephen Smoliar
>Grosse Fuge played for laughs?
>
it! So does this make Lenny "agglutinative;" or was he just shameless when it
came to "borrowing?" Enquiring minds want to know.
Leon Traister
Lustig) writes:
>
>Does the fugue in the dance section of Cool remind anybody else of the
>Grosse Fuge played for laughs?
>
It sure do! Knowing Bernstein's propensity for pastiche, I would guess
it was deliberate.
========================================================================
<Usual Disclaimer> "The best is the enemy of the good" - Voltaire
Leon Traister (lm...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com)
c/o Amdahl Corporation (408)737-5449
1250 E. Arques Ave. M/S 341
P.O. Box 3470
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3470
Robert Coren
Actually, as we've been demonstrating, _West Side Story_ is a positive
goldmine of educational examples (and also, IMO, contains a lot of
neat music). If you ever have to explain hemiola to one or more
relatively uneducated musicians, I recommend the song "America". (I've
never tried this myself, but I don't see how it could miss.)
Noam Elkies
>[...]
>major 6th: N-B-C (bell-tone network motif)
I had heard that this motif was actually the signature of
General Electric Company---as in G E C. :-)
(Sort of like Boston's Channel 56 using the call letters WLVI...)
--Noam D. Elkies (elk...@zariski.harvard.edu)
Department of Mathematics, Harvard Univ.
Noam Elkies
:From article <11...@venera.isi.edu>, by smo...@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar):
Indeed it works---I used this example last year for the same
purpose. But, like the interval paradigms, this one's best used
only as a crutch until the hemiola feeling becomes second nature;
stopping to recall "America" each time a hemiola comes up is
about as ludicrous as bringing up "My bonnie..." for every
major sixth...
David B Halm
>In article <5...@bbxsda.UUCP> sc...@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>>[...]
>>major 6th: N-B-C (bell-tone network motif)
>>[...]
>
>I had heard that this motif was actually the signature of
>General Electric Company---as in G E C. :-)
>
This is where the motif actually came from.
David
------------------------- -------------------------------------
/ David Halm \/ "Where do the actors go \
\ ha...@crd.ge.com /\ after the show?" /
------------------------- -------------------------------------
MCJOHN
In article <31...@tymix.UUCP>, sti...@strider.uucp (Michael Stimac) writes:
> I agree with your point of view 100%. It would take a Long Time for
> me to think of every interval explicitly and then translate that
> into a sung interval.
> A related topic was discussed some time ago, which has to do with
> solfeggio. I can't imagine anything slowing a singer down more than
> having to figure out that "this is fa (the fourth note) and fa
> sounds like this (sings it)". I find that even thinking of
> the letter name for the note is a distraction. What I (think I)
> do is, I just sing what is printed: if the note is on the 2nd
> line, I sing that pitch, if the next note is on the 3rd space,
> then I sing that pitch, and so on. No need to think of note
> names, intervals, etc.
>
The whole point of solfege is that you don't go through that whole
conscious process--you just automatically sing fa ('cause that's
how far it is from the line or space for doh) and out pops the
right note. Solfege has the advantage of helping the singer to stay
in tune, because doh never moves. Since I've only used it for medieval
music, I don't know how well it handles chromaticism or modulation.
It's fabulous for unaccompanied (especially solo) chant--which
is, after all, what Guido devised it for.
Similarly, intervallic reading becomes automatic. I don't say
"hmm, d-flat to f to G: major third, whole tone"--I just do it.
Purely intervallic reading can indeed lead to exactly the intonation
problem you describe--but presumably the singer is listening as
well as singing, and makes corrections on the fly, before the
small errors become noticeable.
In either case, the process is automatic. It has to be--I have
more important things to do! I only consciously use these devices
when I go back to the mistakes I circled to figure out what I did
and what I should have done.
What you've noticed is that you've been able to bypass a lot
of the learning process. The whole point of sight-reading methods
is to produce a music machine who just looks at the page and cranks
out the notes. Most people need to approach this by stages, and
the various sight-reading methods provide reasonable steps and
achievable intermediate goals.
The real method is this: DO WHAT WORKS!
> I'm glad that our conductor (Galen Marshall) eshews such things
> as solfeggio, fanatic attention to intervals, etc in auditions.
> He is much more concerned with issues such as tone quality.
>
Well, I hope he _does_ pay close attention to intonation.
But as far as sight-reading goes, the 'how' of it is the singer's
problem, and none of the director's business. (Especially
during an audition!) All the director should care about is
the result.
This of course runs up against the director's earnest desire
to help singers improve. Sometimes this works and sometimes
it doesn't--for the most part, I'm past the point where I want
a director to instruct me in technique--that's why I take lessons,
after all. On the other hand, I accept the responsibility to
produce the tone the director wants, which may not be quite the
sound my teacher usually wants me to make.
Bill McJohn
Robert Colwell
>> ... This may be the only useful thing Lenny ever did.
>
>Actually, as we've been demonstrating, _West Side Story_ is a positive
>goldmine of educational examples (and also, IMO, contains a lot of
>neat music).
Not to change the subject, but Santa brought me a CD of Carlos Barbosa-Lima
and Sharon Isbin playing selections from _West Side Story_ that I just
fell in love with. I listen to it over and over.
They also do a duet of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue. If you like classical
guitar, don't miss this one.
Bob Colwell ..!uunet!mfci!colwell
Multiflow Computer or col...@multiflow.com
31 Business Park Dr.
Branford, CT 06405 203-488-6090
John W. Lamb
>
> Essentially, this Coach said the same things that I've heard many vocal coaches
> and voice teachers say: that there is only one vowel, that there is only one
> correct tone (which is produced *thus*), etc. etc.
>
> To me, this is lunacy. It would be like telling a violinist that he is playing
> incorrectly if he doesn't always use the same breadth of vibrato, same bow
> pressure and angle (with contact at the same point on the string), and so on.
> No room for expression that fits the music.
When singing with others, it usually helps to agree on things like
pronunciation and tone. This is more like telling a group of
instrumentalists that they should use the same sort of expression
when playing together at any one time. The expression can and
should change to fit the music, but there should be agreement on when
and how it does. It is up to the director, often with input from
other musicians, to make sure agreement is reached. It is then each
musician's responsibility to abide by the agreement or convince the
director that there is a better way.
> Some directors seem to buy into this theory; others don't. Unfortunately, I
> find that choirs composed of trained singers (i.e. those who study voice) can
> often sound much worse than good untrained amateurs--they insist on singing
> "correctly" (the way they've been taught) at all times. I can remember doing
> a piece with a 'pppp' dynamic marking. The director's instructions were "If
> you can hear yourself at all, you're too loud". Now, there is no way to sing
> that softly in the established manner, unless you are Elly Ameling. Many of
> the best singers in the group had real problems following the direction.
>
> Hypotheses:
> (1) Most "voice lessons" teach 19th century operatic (solo) style, and
> (at best) do little to improve skills at choral singing. At worst,
> formal voice training can sabotage the singer's ability to sing in
> an effective ensemble.
In my limited experience directing choral groups, I have sometimes
found it necessary to exaggerate to get singers to do what I want, and
I have seen experienced directors use this technique to good
effect. Perhaps the director you mentioned was doing this.
Many voice teachers indeed start with 19th century operatic
arias and art songs. Mine certainly did. The fundamentals you pick up
from these lessons can serve you well in singing any kind of music,
provided you know which techniques to use for the music you are
trying to sing. I agree that a well-rehearsed group of
untrained amateurs can sound much better than a group that has
been trained so poorly that they insist on singing Josquin the
same way they sing Verdi. I'd take musicianship and common sense over
technical proficiency and insensitivity any day, but why settle for
musicianship or proficiency when you can have both.
> Observation:
> (1) If I'm right, this is crazy. Only the tiny minority of musicians
> will ever do extensive solo work. One would think that we would
> concentrate early training on the vast majority of chorus/orchestra
> members, rather than the sprinkling of solisti.
In the first few years of voice training, the emphasis is generally
on such basic skills as proper breathing and sound production, i.e.
the physical aspects of singing. These lessons are directly
applicable to both choral and solo singing. The mental aspects,
like musicianship and a knowledge of music history, are all too
often neglected.
Voice lessons alone will not make you a good chorister, nor will
the lack of them necessarily make you a bad one. They are merely
one way to pick up some of the skills all good singers must learn.
Anne Pfohl
time today... such is the world of hardware problems.
In article <21...@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>In article <10...@microsoft.UUCP> bil...@microsoft.UUCP (MCJOHN) writes:
>>
>>On the other hand, I accept the responsibility to
>>produce the tone the director wants, which may not be quite the
>>sound my teacher usually wants me to make.
>>
>>Bill McJohn
This can be true - I once had a choir director ask me if I could
"supress [my] vibrato". At first, I took exception to this (pretty
haughty of me ;-), but I realize that, in my opinion, in ensemble
singing, a "whiter" sound, less vibrato, can be desireable for purposes
of blending.
I think it is up to the individual singer to decide if he/she wants to
alter their sound, depending on the gig or situation, whether or not it
goes "against their training".
>
>(We're doing the Rossini "Petite
>Messe Solenelle"; if you don't think that's opera, you haven't heard it :-) ).
You get no argument from me! As a mezzo, I'd *love* to sing the Agnus
Dei, some day.
>Unfortunately, I
>find that choirs composed of trained singers (i.e. those who study voice) can
>often sound much worse than good untrained amateurs--they insist on singing
>"correctly" (the way they've been taught) at all times. I can remember doing
I agree with you here, David. Again, as a singer, if I want to get
gigs, I have to make decisions about what I will and won't do with my
voice. If the job is to be a member of an ensemble, I have to be
willing to drop some of my solo-style singing and find ways to blend
with the other voices. My voice is large, and if I don't moderate it,
learn to hold back without hurting myself (and there are ways to do this)
I stick out like a sore thumb and ruin the effect the conductor may be
striving for.
Many of the trained singers I have worked with do not know how to sing
with others, whether in a duet or in a large choir. They have lost the
art of listening, they cannot blend well with other voices. All they
know how to do is open up and blast it out.
>a piece with a 'pppp' dynamic marking. The director's instructions were "If
>you can hear yourself at all, you're too loud". Now, there is no way to sing
>that softly in the established manner, unless you are Elly Ameling. Many of
>the best singers in the group had real problems following the direction.
I think there are ways to still sing correctly (supported, from the
diaphragm, open throat, et al) but not lay on as much vibrato, so the
sound will blend more easily. It's not a sound I produce in my voice
lessons often, but I do it in choir to blend with the other voices,
particularly in 'p' or 'pp' passages. If I tried to sing that with the same
"warmth" or tonal quality in ensemble as I do when I sing Eboli from
Verdi's _Don_Carlo_, I'd sprain a chord.
>
>Hypotheses:
> (1) Most "voice lessons" teach 19th century operatic (solo) style, and
> (at best) do little to improve skills at choral singing. At worst,
> formal voice training can sabotage the singer's ability to sing in
> an effective ensemble.
Agreed, by me at least. I think formally trained singers can learn to
sing with choral technique as well (we are "trainable" ;-) - but I agree
with your premise that it is a different beast, by nature. Choral
singing is not taught in voice teachers' studios.
> (2) Choral directors who are *not* also voice teachers are, in general,
> able to extract more musical variety in timbre, attack, etc. from
> their groups.
>
I guess IMHO, I would temper this with a choral director who has a
working understanding of vocal production, but as it applies to their
craft, not necessarily 19th century operatic solo-style. Of course, any
choral director worth his/her salt has this understanding, as well as a
lot of other knowledge about ensemble work, music, etc. etc. that a
voice teacher may not necessarily. (badly constructed sentence, sorry)
>Observation:
> (1) If I'm right, this is crazy. Only the tiny minority of musicians
> will ever do extensive solo work. One would think that we would
> concentrate early training on the vast majority of chorus/orchestra
> members, rather than the sprinkling of solisti.
Maybe (this is pure speculation on my part) the need is not so much to
change vocal training as it exists, per se (if that's what you're
suggesting - maybe I'm missing the point), but rather to encourage the
knowledgeable authorities on choral music to work with singers more, to
teach them proper methods of vocal production in ensemble. I know
choral directors themselves often go to workshops, etc. to learn more
about directing and working with choruses. Is the idea of directors who
can train their choral singers in the proper vocal methodology too much
of a luxury?
Those who train for solo singing, IMHO, often need to be convinced of
the benefit and satisfaction that can be had from singing in a choir. I
find it very fulfilling. I think many voice teachers would be hard
pressed, whether due to experience, inclination, or knowledge, to be
able to train singers in vocal production as it can often apply in
choral situations.
For my money, a choral director who knows vocal pedagogy, and can apply
his/her experience with ensemble work is the person I'd want to learn
choral singing from. My voice techer can prepare me for the Alto
soloist part in the Bach _Magnificat_, but she can't and probably never
will prepare me, beyond basic common sense things, to blend as a member
of a choral group. I don't believe that's what I pay her for.
That's just my opinion.
>--
> David M. Tate | DISCLAIMER:
> dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu | "Hey, that's *my* dis!"
Roger Lustig
>In article <10...@microsoft.UUCP> bil...@microsoft.UUCP (MCJOHN) writes:
>This is related to a subject I've been musing over for a while now. Just last
>night, the choir I'm singing with at the moment had to sit through 20 minutes
>of semi-comprehensible dogma from a Special Guest Coach, about the way one
>should sing 19th C. Italian operatic music. (We're doing the Rossini "Petite
>Messe Solenelle"; if you don't think that's opera, you haven't heard it :-) ).
>Essentially, this Coach said the same things that I've heard many vocal coaches
>and voice teachers say: that there is only one vowel, that there is only one
>correct tone (which is produced *thus*), etc. etc.
>To me, this is lunacy. It would be like telling a violinist that he is playing
>incorrectly if he doesn't always use the same breadth of vibrato, same bow
>pressure and angle (with contact at the same point on the string), and so on.
>No room for expression that fits the music.
Well, the violinist isn't playing WORDS. If you're singing Italian, you
SHOULD try to correlate one vowel to one sound; corrections as needed to
keep your voice going. The Rossini mass is in Latin, I know; but for a
piece like that, those rules apply.
This is especially important for non-native-Italian-speakers. There ARE
only very few vowel sounds in the language, and they are best kept pure.
Moreover, none of them corresponds entirely to standard English vowels
(or American ones). American vowels tend to be very impure and
diphthongy; you do NOT want this sound in your Italian or Latin.
Next point: you are singing in a chorus. Don't you think it's best if
everybosy starts out with the same set of vowels? "Room for expression"
is a concern of the choirmaster, not of yours. I he/she wants a
different vowel, you'll find out soon enough.
>Some directors seem to buy into this theory; others don't. Unfortunately, I
>find that choirs composed of trained singers (i.e. those who study voice) can
>often sound much worse than good untrained amateurs--they insist on singing
>"correctly" (the way they've been taught) at all times. I can remember doing
>a piece with a 'pppp' dynamic marking. The director's instructions were "If
>you can hear yourself at all, you're too loud". Now, there is no way to sing
>that softly in the established manner, unless you are Elly Ameling. Many of
>the best singers in the group had real problems following the direction.
Well, choirs of professionals who WORK together as a choir tend to sound
pretty good. The Met's chorus is fairly together; ditto the CSO chorus,
the Ambrosian Singers, etc.
As far as singing softly goes, yes, trained singers can do that, too.
What the problem in your group was, I don't know.
>Hypotheses:
> (1) Most "voice lessons" teach 19th century operatic (solo) style, and
> (at best) do little to improve skills at choral singing. At worst,
> formal voice training can sabotage the singer's ability to sing in
> an effective ensemble.
Since when do people unlearn thir choral skills in voice lessons?
Voice lessons use 19th century Italian material as a base for the first
few years, for several reasons: you learn pure vowels, you learn
support, you learn to resonate, you learn to open up, to relax.
These skills are NOT unique to 19th c operatic style (in fact, 19th C
SONG style is the repertoire closest to most voice lessons); and they
are all valuable to a choral singer. I know of no singer who was unable
to sing in a choir because of voice lessons. If they were the only
singer with a trained voice, they might stand out; but this would also
be true of somebody with an excellent voice and no training. Most
non-professional choirs have a mixture of trained and untrained voices,
rarely all of one or the other.
> (2) Choral directors who are *not* also voice teachers are, in general,
> able to extract more musical variety in timbre, attack, etc. from
> their groups.
I'd say it has nothing to do with that. Training in choir direction
should teach you how to get a choir to do those things. Alas, many
choirmasters are poorly trained as such.
A good voice teacher should be able to learn how to conduct effectively,
how to get the message across.
>Questions:
> (1) Am I way off base?
> (2) Does this problem exist for instrumentalists?
1) I think so.
2) They have different problems. For one thing, there are no untrained
instrumentalists in orchestras. Everybody there has had at least SOME
lessons.
>Observation:
> (1) If I'm right, this is crazy. Only the tiny minority of musicians
> will ever do extensive solo work. One would think that we would
> concentrate early training on the vast majority of chorus/orchestra
> members, rather than the sprinkling of solisti.
Well, the key to being an effective ensemble member is versatility,
imho. Learning widely differing pieces is a way to gain this.
Moreover, the concentration one learns when preparing a solo is one of
the hallmarks of a professional, whether in a chorus or orchestra, or a
soloist. JUST learning to be part of the group is no good.
Finally, nobody aspires to be a chorister or a back-stand violinist.
Since one should be ABLE to sing alone, or play alone, and since
music-making can happen in very small groups, individual performance
should indeed be te focus of training.
Roger
David M Tate
>
>to help singers improve. Sometimes this works and sometimes
>it doesn't--for the most part, I'm past the point where I want
>a director to instruct me in technique--that's why I take lessons,
>after all. On the other hand, I accept the responsibility to
>produce the tone the director wants, which may not be quite the
>sound my teacher usually wants me to make.
>
>Bill McJohn
This is related to a subject I've been musing over for a while now. Just last
night, the choir I'm singing with at the moment had to sit through 20 minutes
of semi-comprehensible dogma from a Special Guest Coach, about the way one
should sing 19th C. Italian operatic music. (We're doing the Rossini "Petite
Messe Solenelle"; if you don't think that's opera, you haven't heard it :-) ).
Essentially, this Coach said the same things that I've heard many vocal coaches
and voice teachers say: that there is only one vowel, that there is only one
correct tone (which is produced *thus*), etc. etc.
To me, this is lunacy. It would be like telling a violinist that he is playing
incorrectly if he doesn't always use the same breadth of vibrato, same bow
pressure and angle (with contact at the same point on the string), and so on.
No room for expression that fits the music.
Some directors seem to buy into this theory; others don't. Unfortunately, I
find that choirs composed of trained singers (i.e. those who study voice) can
often sound much worse than good untrained amateurs--they insist on singing
"correctly" (the way they've been taught) at all times. I can remember doing
a piece with a 'pppp' dynamic marking. The director's instructions were "If
you can hear yourself at all, you're too loud". Now, there is no way to sing
that softly in the established manner, unless you are Elly Ameling. Many of
the best singers in the group had real problems following the direction.
Hypotheses:
(1) Most "voice lessons" teach 19th century operatic (solo) style, and
(at best) do little to improve skills at choral singing. At worst,
formal voice training can sabotage the singer's ability to sing in
an effective ensemble.
(2) Choral directors who are *not* also voice teachers are, in general,
able to extract more musical variety in timbre, attack, etc. from
their groups.
Questions:
(1) Am I way off base?
(2) Does this problem exist for instrumentalists?
Observation:
(1) If I'm right, this is crazy. Only the tiny minority of musicians
will ever do extensive solo work. One would think that we would
concentrate early training on the vast majority of chorus/orchestra
members, rather than the sprinkling of solisti.
Let me know what you think.
--
David M. Tate | DISCLAIMER:
dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu | "Hey, that's *my* dis!"
_____________________________________________________________________________
Statistics is the science of inferring the obvious and the false.
MCJOHN
>
> Hypotheses:
> (1) Most "voice lessons" teach 19th century operatic (solo) style, and
> (at best) do little to improve skills at choral singing. At worst,
> formal voice training can sabotage the singer's ability to sing in
> an effective ensemble.
The problem that you've noticed is that choral musicianship is a set
of skills distinct from those required for solo singing--particularly
opera.
There are a number of basic techniques common to both--good breath
support and proper intonation will make anybody sound better. On
the other hand, there are some radical differences in technique.
A soloist's principle concern is to make a (usually) beautiful
sound that expresses the intent of the music and fully holds the
listener's attention. A chorister's main goal is to blend into
the group sound and make the overall sound beautiful.
A choir of well-trained voices will sound better than a choir of
untrained voices--if the singers are also well trained choristers.
But (as many of us have, I am sure, heard) a mob of soloists
singing at the same time can sound just awful.
Real problems arise with singers who do not recognize (or refuse to
admit) this difference. Ensembles are groups of people acting
together to achieve a common goal. When I join an ensemble, I
accept the fact that I will have to subsume my goals into the
group's goals; this means doing my best to produce the sound
the group wants. In a large choir, this means giving the director
the sound he asks for. A singer who does not accept that fact
doesn't belong in an ensemble. (Note that this doesn't necessarily
mean producing that sound in the way the director suggests.)
It's amazing how fast an ensemble's sound can be destroyed
by one recalcitrant singer using his big voice 'just the
way my teacher taught me'.
A related problem is that the difficulty of good choral singing
is often underestimated. This is in part due to the attitude
that 'anybody can sing, right?' Since it's generally accepted
that standards for choral singers are pretty low, they don't
get any higher--the status quo preserves itself. A second
factor is the preponderance of large choirs--choral musicianship
really comes into its own in the small choir, whereas in a
large choir the core of big, idiosyncratic voices and the mass
of small, undistinguished ones even out into a reasonable sound.
(In a really big section, as long as you don't do anything
really bad, you're OK.) People often just aren't aware of
how good choral singing can be, and therefore don't aspire to
do it that well. Hence, the vast majority of people making a
serious study of voice want to be soloists--so that's what
gets taught.
A final problem is that some teachers are not interested in
teaching anybody but future opera stars. (And some don't
care how many voices they ruin in the process, but that's
another story.) This can be an especial conflict in schools
where voice majors are required to sing in an ensemble. The
director beats the student up for doing what the teacher
demands, while the teacher beats the student up for doing
what the director wants; here, you can hardly blame the
student for having a bad attitude. On the other hand, good
teachers recognize that there are different styles of singing.
I study with one of the best teachers in Seattle. Many
(perhaps most) of her students sing opera, and I expect that
many of them will be successful at it. But I'm perfectly
happy studying with her because she's teaching me things I
need to know to improve myself as a choral musician and as
a singer of early music.
All of these issues tie into taking choral singing seriously
in its own right--which, to my mind, is an obvious prerequisite
to doing it well.
Bill McJohn
R. Wilmer
>
>Hypotheses:
> (1) Most "voice lessons" teach 19th century operatic (solo) style, and
> (at best) do little to improve skills at choral singing. At worst,
> formal voice training can sabotage the singer's ability to sing in
> an effective ensemble.
>
I believe that a good voice teacher teaches vocal health above all.
Her job is to help the student find the natural quality of her
voice and then develop that to its greatest possible beauty and
expressiveness.
I don't see why a voice teacher would teach a particular style except
when teaching music written in that style.
Richard
MCJOHN
(Anne Pfohl) writes:
Lots of things that are so true, I just had to remark on them.
> This can be true - I once had a choir director ask me if I could
> "supress [my] vibrato". At first, I took exception to this (pretty
> haughty of me ;-), but I realize that, in my opinion, in ensemble
> singing, a "whiter" sound, less vibrato, can be desireable for purposes
> of blending.
Your initial reaction is an extremely common one, especially (it
seems to me) for mezzos--especially young mezzos, especially if
they're being made to sing alto parts. And your conclusion is
exactly right: vibrato complicates blend tremendously. There's
also the question of style--in certains types of music, a
vibrato-laden sound is simply inappropriate, blend or no blend.
So, if you respect the director, you listen to him.
> I think it is up to the individual singer to decide if he/she wants to
> alter their sound, depending on the gig or situation, whether or not it
> goes "against their training".
>
I would go a little further, and say that if the singer isn't willing
to modify his/her sound, it's time to walk. (I think you can tell
I don't make a living off my voice!)
>
> Many of the trained singers I have worked with do not know how to sing
> with others, whether in a duet or in a large choir. They have lost the
> art of listening, they cannot blend well with other voices. All they
> know how to do is open up and blast it out.
>
She's right. And it's exactly the skill of listening that makes up
a large chunk of musicianship.
> I think there are ways to still sing correctly (supported, from the
> diaphragm, open throat, et al) but not lay on as much vibrato, so the
> sound will blend more easily.
Yes, there are. As an early music specialist, I can tell you as
pure fact that it's possible to sing with good support, relaxed and
open throat, loose tongue, and good placement, and still produce
a nice sound that will blend easily. It probably won't be as loud
as one would produce to sing fortissimo in a Verdi aria, but that's
life. It is, incidentally, a sound that's very useful for singing
lieder.
As an aside, you might experiment with reducing the degree of openness
in your throat. (Obviously, you don't want to introduce tension, but
just don't open as wide as you might.) This will reduce the richness
and warmth (and volume) of the voice, but may also result in a sweeter,
brighter sound that blends more easily. Or it might just result in a
weak, reedy sound.
> Choral singing is not taught in voice teachers' studios.
>
Very true.
> Maybe (this is pure speculation on my part) the need is not so much to
> change vocal training as it exists, per se (if that's what you're
> suggesting - maybe I'm missing the point), but rather to encourage the
> knowledgeable authorities on choral music to work with singers more, to
> teach them proper methods of vocal production in ensemble. I know
> choral directors themselves often go to workshops, etc. to learn more
> about directing and working with choruses. Is the idea of directors who
> can train their choral singers in the proper vocal methodology too much
> of a luxury?
>
Unfortunately, this isn't entirely practicable. On the one hand,
choir directors often are hard pressed for rehearsal time, and just
can't spend a significant amount of time on vocal coaching without
drastically reducing the group's performing schedule. On the other,
learning technique in a large group situation is very difficult.
From my experience, I'd say that there is no substitute for individual
attention from a good teacher. I finally understood how diaphragmatic
support should work when I started with my present teacher--after
singing in professional choirs for five years, and eight years of
high school and college before that. Similarly, my previous teacher
was able to teach me to place my voice. I had heard directors talk
(incessantly!) about these things--now I can truly do them.
A good teacher teaches you to understand your voice, so you can
produce with it whatever sound you need. She helps you develop
the instrument and explore the possibilities it offers, and gives
you the technical skills to take full advantage of it. She
helps you expand your expressive arsenal and vocal palette.
She may also be a coach, teaching you the demands of particular
styles (usually operatic) and letting you in on little devices
that will make particular pieces more effective.
A bad teacher says: 'I can make you sound just like...'
But neither of them will teach you musicianship.
Bill McJohn
MCJOHN
>
> Well, the violinist isn't playing WORDS. If you're singing Italian, you
> SHOULD try to correlate one vowel to one sound; corrections as needed to
> keep your voice going. The Rossini mass is in Latin, I know; but for a
> piece like that, those rules apply.
>
you're singing Italian or italianate Latin, you follow the rules of
those languages.
> In article <21...@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu
> (David M Tate) writes:
> >Hypotheses:
> > (1) Most "voice lessons" teach 19th century operatic (solo) style, and
> > (at best) do little to improve skills at choral singing. At worst,
> > formal voice training can sabotage the singer's ability to sing in
> > an effective ensemble.
>
> Since when do people unlearn their choral skills in voice lessons?
>
The problem is not so much that they unlearn choral skills as that
they never acquire these skills in the first place. Instead, some
opera-singers-in-training develop an attitude that they only need
to produce one sound, and resist any and all attempts to 'compromise'
their sound. At the same time, they develop a large and very
noticeable sound, and the ability to throw an ensemble seriously
out of whack. This, of course, conflicts directly with the
director's desire to achieve a specific effect for stylistic
purposes.
I can actually understand how this happens. A young singer goes to
the illustrious teacher (and pays him good money) to be taught in a
very specific style. He learns many arias and develops a big, rich,
colorful voice. He is repeatedly told 'you should always do this'.
Then he gets a church job (needs the money) and the director tells
him he's singing too loud, has too much vibrato, and isn't matching
the section's color. And, on top of it all, he can't follow the
beat. Naturally, he's a little put out. After all, he's a
_good_ singer, and he worked hard to get where he is. Who does
this director think she is, to criticize him like this? If she
doesn't like his voice, why did she hire him. The sad part is,
she loves his voice, but can't understand why he won't blend.
Add to this the fact that his teacher specializes in opera
(Northwestern's voice department, for instance, was really
the opera department--choral organizations were under a different
department altogether). Now, if our hypothetical young singer
were really excited about choral music, he might be able to
separate out the things he's learned which are useful for choral
music from those that are only really good for opera, but that's a
tough job. And who's going to help him? Some opera singers try--
and succeed, and are delightful to sing with; others just don't
bother. ("I'm a Tenor!" he says, "Let the world adjust
itself to Me!" :-) )
So, I would say that voice lessons can improve a choral singer
(they drastically improved my technique!) but only if the
singer is sensitive to the demands of ensemble singing and of
the various styles the ensemble approaches.
> Voice lessons use 19th century Italian material as a base for the first
> few years, for several reasons: you learn pure vowels, you learn
> support, you learn to resonate, you learn to open up, to relax.
>
Well, my voice lessons used 17th and 18th C. German and English
repertoire for much the same effect. I even developed vibrato--
used tastefully, it makes a beautifully expressive ornament. There's
nothing magical about the Italian language or the 19th C. idiom, but
it dominates vocal training because such training seems to be mostly
aimed at producing singers of Italian opera. Certainly the techniques
you list are useful to any kind of singer, and choirs would be better
if more choral singers developed these skills.
The problem comes in when these basics of good tone production become
inextricably wedded to a particular style. I view inability to adapt
to the stylistic demands of the music (as expressed by the director,
in a choir) as a serious defect. A smooth legato and warm, expressive
vibrato are important equipment for 19th C. opera, but if the singer
can't abandon them when they aren't appropriate, he's got a problem.
> Well, the key to being an effective ensemble member is versatility,
> imho.
And my complaint is that too many supposedly trained singers
lack versatility, and don't even consider it a virtue. Instead,
they have the attitude that 'singing is singing': one size and
color fits all. Only, their one outfit is too big and too purple.
(Obligatory aside: this doesn't mean _all_ or even the vast majority
of singers trained for opera are insensitive boors; it's just that the
bad ones really stick in my mind. So at this point I should add that
I have had the pleasure of knowing certain singers whose training in
opera, together with their musicianship and native good sense, made
them true gems and a tremendous asset to any group they sang in.)
(Second aside: I should be careful where I throw stones. I rely
pretty heavily on my 'all purpose early music voice'; a little more
focus for Dufay, a little more color for Schubert. One of my teachers
had to convince me that vibrato isn't always a bad thing, and another
finally got me to consistently sing legato phrases. I'd probably be a
disaster on wheels in a Verdi opera. But the music I choose to do,
I do well.)
> Finally, nobody aspires to be a chorister or a back-stand violinist.
> Since one should be ABLE to sing alone, or play alone, and since
> music-making can happen in very small groups, individual performance
> should indeed be the focus of training.
>
Depending on how you define terms, I might take violent exception
to this. If I could sing in a choir of the size and caliber of
the Tallis Scholars, my musical ambitions would indeed be satisfied.
(Does this mean I'm a nobody? :-) ) Singing one on a part is fun,
but singing two or three on a part with really good singers
is heaven.
You're right that the solo repertoire does offer a good path
for learning, simply because the best way to learn is one-on-one
with a good teacher. However, I don't think musical training,
especially vocal training, need necessarily have solo performance
as its goal. In the right circumstances (lots of time, an excellent
teacher with a perceptive ear cooperating closely with an excellent
director, time for individual attention, and little or no pressure
from performance schedules), a small choir could be the ideal vehicle
for training choral singers.
In conclusion, while a good choral singer will benefit from training
as an operatic soloist, such training by itself is not sufficient to
produce a good chorister.
Bill McJohn
David M Tate
>(Roger Lustig) writes:
>>
>> Finally, nobody aspires to be a chorister or a back-stand violinist.
>> Since one should be ABLE to sing alone, or play alone, and since
>> music-making can happen in very small groups, individual performance
>> should indeed be the focus of training.
>>
concentrate on training soloists? I'm guessing that Roger means that, in a
sufficiently small group, individual performances can be distinguished, and
these performances should be good enough to bear such scrutiny. I certainly
can't disagree with that, but I fail to see the link between that and a focus
on solo performance. Anyone who has ever heard a hastily-assembled quartet
of famous soloists knows how bad it can be, despite the superb solo skills of
the individual members.
I deny that solo performance is more demanding than ensemble performance. It
is true that the average aria is more technically demanding than the average
corresponding vocal part of a chorus. However, no one sings the chorus part
alone. You have to synch it with the other people in the chorus, not just
rhythmically, but in pitch, timbre, color, dynamics, accent, attack, diction,
and so on. Let's take a concrete example that I'm familiar with: Haendel's
"Messiah". I've sung all the choruses, sung all the bass arias (and an alto
aria or two), and played the 1st- and 2nd-violin parts of the orchestration.
Which was the hardest movement? Well, "Why Do the Nations..." is sure hard on
the soloist, but it's harder on the violins (who have to follow him!), neither
part is as hard as any chorus part of "Since By Man Came Death" (which is easy
to sing, impossible to sing well/together/beautifully) or "His Yoke is Easy"
or "Let Us Break Their Bonds Asunder". I found that I had a much easier time
as soloist than as chorister. Why do you think a choir works on such a piece
for _months_ even after they know all the notes?
I read a very bad science-fiction story once, in which there was a musical
competition between two musicians. One was a virtuoso; the other was merely
talented. The competition involved each playing a solo piece, and then the
two of them playing a duet. The virtuoso took the lead in the duet, and was
magnificent. The other player accompanied him unobtrusively. As you have
guessed by now, the prize went to the second player--the judges recognized that
perfect accompaniment requires more musicality than perfect solo, and that the
superb performance of the soloist was only made possible by the flawless
support of his rival.
Just goes to show you--even Piers Anthony can sometimes be right. (Well, even
a *blind* pig _occasionally_ finds an acorn... :-) ).
--
===============================================================================
David M. Tate | "I do not know which to prefer: the beauty
dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu | of inflections, or the beauty of innuendoes;
| the blackbird whistling, or just after..."
Linda Ann Seltzer
>context. What I'm uncertain about is the utility of learning intervals
>*as such*, i.e., tests of the form "Sing a minor 7th up from this note
>[played on the piano]."
The musicianship teacher whose class I was in for a year and half
at Berkeley emphasized the singing of intervals. We used the following
names:
la, half, whole, mird, third, 4, tri, 5, mix, six, mev, sev
We started out by singing individual intervals, both up and down,
and then went on to sight singing examples like the bass parts of
Bach chorales. Eventually we had to prepare assignments like singing
melodies from the Book of the Hanging Gardens, or Berg's Seven
Early Songs.
Singing intervals was definitely useful for atonal music. Generally
I have found it quite helpful.
Jon Conrad
would not say that this proves that "trained singers don't work
for a chorus" or anything like that. Rather, I would point out
the following.
(1) Choral directors are a highly competitive lot. They all go
to college and get graduate degrees and take advanced classes and go
to Aspen and pay homage to Julius Herford and Robert Shaw and heaven
knows who else. (Usually not Margaret Hillis, alas, because she
actually insists that people have to prepare and work.)
Anyway, my point is that rather than working on a good choral sound
and a musically effective and appropriate performance, these days
choral conductors have to outdo each other in Singing German Latin,
or Singing the German that Bach Knew, or Singing Czech Latin (I am
not making any of this up), or your example, Producing the Right
Sound for Rossini. All of which is basically nonsense, and beside
the point.
(2) The problem with most people who study "real singing" is that
they don't quite finish the job. (Sometimes, nowhere near.) If
you have truly mastered your vocal instrument, then you can vary your
sound and dynamics easily, as your technique is equal to the task.
But the usual result is that you have a lot of people who've learned
how to sing loud, probably have a wobble, and can't quite control
their intonation. (Learning how to sing really well is HARD, and there
are a lot of incompetent voice teachers in the world.) That of
course produces a much worse sound than you'd get from a roomful of
amateurs.
But listen to the good professional choirs, made up of trained
singers: Margaret Hillis's Chicago Symphony Chorus, for instance. Or
the British John Alldis Choir (which has such an uncanny blend, I once
asked a former member how Mr. Alldis achieved it; I was told he never
talked about it at all, just hired good people and let 'em sing).
So no, you're not off base, but the reasons why things are as they are
are a bit complicated. I'm not sure what you as a choir member can
do about it.
Jon Alan Conrad
Bonnie R. Hiller
> (1) Most "voice lessons" teach 19th century operatic (solo) style, and
> (at best) do little to improve skills at choral singing. At worst,
> formal voice training can sabotage the singer's ability to sing in
> an effective ensemble.
> able to extract more musical variety in timbre, attack, etc. from
> their groups.
David, there *are* two different types of singing, solo and choral,
with different techniques required for both. I think that anyone who
takes voice lessons is learning how to be a solo singer. I learned
choral singing from my choir director in college.
I sing with an 180 voice choir, a 20 voice choir, and I do solo work.
I have to adapt my voice to each situation. I have to do the most
adaptation in the small choir, since individual voices aren't supposed
to stand out in choral singing. Also the small choir most often does
pieces requiring a straight tone, etc.
As to your questions:
Questions:
(1) Am I way off base?
(2) Does this problem exist for instrumentalists?
1) Voice lessons teach solo singing, not choral singing.
2) In my 25 plus years of singing in choral groups, the conductors
who have had no understanding of the voice are the WORST! And the
worst of those were people who weren't really conductors at all, but
solo violists or some other instrument. The best conductors have an
understanding of the requirements of choral singing, not just solo
singing.
Observation:
(1) If I'm right, this is crazy. Only the tiny minority of musicians
will ever do extensive solo work. One would think that we would
concentrate early training on the vast majority of chorus/orchestra
members, rather than the sprinkling of solisti.
No everyone wants to do solo work. There are people who have trained
themselves to be choral singers. I take exception here with Roger's
statement about no one wanting to be a back-stand violinist or choral
singer forever. That's assuming that solo singers are somehow better
than choral singers. I agree with the person who wrote that many
soloists only know how to open their mouths and blast out a huge tone,
magnificent though it may be. As to blend, ensemble, dynamics, etc.
they have simply lost the flexibility and agility required of a good
choral singer.
Choral singing is an entirely different field of study from solo work,
and it is not a course followed exclusively by frustrated soloists.
You can do both if you've got the ear for it.
-Bonnie