Classical Music & Opera Forums

calvert · by **calvert** on 02 Nov 2009, 13:45

Although my own "instrument" is voice, I have to admit that the one field of musical endeavor in which one can be successful with a limited intelligence, is voice. Which is why one can find plenty of not-so-bright opera singers in history, but probably a lot fewer stupid instrumentalists. Among other things, instrumentalists have to be able to count and read music, which qualities, while highly desirable, are not essential for a successful operatic career.

karlhenning · by **karlhenning** on 02 Nov 2009, 14:37

If music were stand-up, singers who cannot count would be the standing gag.

Cheers,
~Karl

PS/ And then there are the singers who can count, but somehow don't, at least not all the time . . . they have to see the need, you see . . . .

karlhenning · by **karlhenning** on 03 Nov 2009, 10:15

An early foray into dance:

[ link ]

Cheers,
~Karl

maestrob · by **maestrob** on 03 Nov 2009, 11:27

karlhenning wrote:If music were stand-up, singers who cannot count would be the standing gag.

Cheers,
~Karl

PS/ And then there are the singers who can count, but somehow don't, at least not all the time . . . they have to see the need, you see . . . .

That inferiority complex is why singers are easily led, i.e., put into the "you MUST follow the conductor" category...however...

This may be an observation for the opera forum, but in my experience there are many fine (even famous) voices out there who haven't a clue as to how their "instrument" works, only knowing that when called upon, it does. In fact, though, the American singers I worked with (who were all recent graduates of one conservatory or another) were without exception, excellent musicians, lacking only in a familiarity with the basic repertoire which would earn them a living. Where I found weakness in musicianship and working habits was in those who came from Russia and formerly Russian satellite countries.

Unlike other instruments, there exists no standard objective technique for developing voice majors: very few learn a technique; most learn by imitating the sounds their teachers make in the studio. Teachers who actually understand the mechanics of vocal production are few and far between (Manhattan School scores high on my list).

That said, I am a great admirer of the American system: it is why our singers are so successful in general. It is an unfortunate attitude of instrumentalists to denigrate singers as "empty-headed." Not so, in my (recent) experience.

karlhenning · by **karlhenning** on 03 Nov 2009, 12:03

Most interesting, thanks, maestrob.

I don't know what it is about rests which seem to defeat some singers' ability to count (or keep time). On Sunday morning I subbed in a choir, and the two pieces we sang were a number from 4 Saints in 3 Acts (The Saints' Procession) and Knee Play I from Einst on the B. The 'process' of the Glass piece I found (as a composer) annoyingly obvious . . . the chorus begins by singing 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4-5-6, 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 . . . and then there will be a rest in place of '1' in the 4/4 measure . . . then, instead, a rest in place of '1' in the 6/4 measure . . . then, instead, a rest in place of '1' in the 8/4 measure . . . and the long day wears on.

The challenge of such a piece is not (strictly speaking) a musical challenge, it's staying alert, engaged, and keeping one's place. I guess it wasn't an awful thing that there was only one place where one of the tenors sang '1' where there was actually a rest. We sang it at a point in the service where parishioners were filing past some exhibit at the front, so we were prepared to stop at the end of the phrase we were singing, on a signal. Honestly, I was pleased that we were drawn to a halt before we had quite reached the half-way point.

There was a different counting issue in the other piece. In one section of the Thomson, the choir sings these short gestures (which repeat and sequence), and in the middle of some measures there is a dotted-half, in the middle of some others, there is a half-note plus quarter-rest. The choir were fine with the half-note plus quarter-rest, I suppose because the rest was an obvious place to breathe, and 'catch up' mentally. What puzzled me was, the way the choir, as one, rushed the dotted-halfs in the other measures . . . it was almost as if the chorister's brain was going, there's no rest here, so it doesn't have to be a full quarter-note value. They were singing longer than a half-note, but not a full dotted-half, and I have no idea how they were agreeing on a musically irrational median between the two. OTOH, fixing them wasn't my look-out ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

maestrob · by **maestrob** on 03 Nov 2009, 12:32

Yes, probably a not uncommon experience with choirs working on short notice on complex music, I suspect.

Quiery one: Was there a conductor present to convey the sense of the beat?

Quiery two: How many of those singing were music majors with degrees?

I don't expect you to answer #2, but the degree of musical training could have a lot to do with the level of your experience.

David Randolph, as good and thorough a conductor as he was and still is, took approx. six months to train his choir in the Bach B minor Mass when I performed it in Carnegie Hall. I'm just saying......

karlhenning · by **karlhenning** on 03 Nov 2009, 13:05

Conductor was at the piano for the Thomson, so the detail which was for me a mild, observable annoyance, was probably less of a priority than some other matters (on the lines of your remark on short time and complex music).

The larger part of the choir seem to be very experienced singers, though (particularly in opera, though they do a better job at blending as a choir than one might expect of opera folk) . . . two of the sopranos seem to be daughters of the m.d. at the Boston Cecilia, for instance.

But my postscript earlier about their having to see the need . . . I don't think they are inexperienced, per se, only, well, a little lazy.

(I won't say I've never know lazy instrumentalists . . . I still harbor harsh thoughts about the organist who failed to prepare properly for the wedding music I had been commissioned to write ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

calvert · by **calvert** on 03 Nov 2009, 23:55

maestrob:

I should have added that my comments about singers and intelligence (or at least musical knowledge) are far less applicable to singers today, particularly those from the U.S. Almost all singers trained in this country (nd England) are excellent musicians with solid training in other areas of music besides vocal technique.

But the fact remains that it takes less musical training, and intelligence, to be a soprano or tenor than it does to be a violinist.

bricon · by **bricon** on 04 Nov 2009, 05:49

How many truly great singers had/have a music major degree, or equivelent?

karlhenning · by **karlhenning** on 04 Nov 2009, 08:13

That looks like an invitation to argue wherein may consist true greatness, Brian ; )

Taking that as read, though, Ben Heppner's site says he "studied music at the University of British Columbia"; but all the degrees listed on his Awards & Distinctions.pdf file are honorary.

Cheers,
~Karl

A.C. Douglas · by **A.C. Douglas** on 04 Nov 2009, 09:16

The Berlin Philharmoniker's Digital Concert Hall

Link

ACD

maestrob · by **maestrob** on 04 Nov 2009, 10:30

calvert wrote:maestrob:

I should have added that my comments about singers and intelligence (or at least musical knowledge) are far less applicable to singers today, particularly those from the U.S. Almost all singers trained in this country (nd England) are excellent musicians with solid training in other areas of music besides vocal technique.

But the fact remains that it takes less musical training, and intelligence, to be a soprano or tenor than it does to be a violinist.

OTOH, how many instrumentalists do you know that can master a minimum of five languages (English, Italian, French, German, & Russian), a minimal requirement for a career as a singer these days?

I also take issue with your last sentence: what about those singers who performed Dr. Atomic, whose voices were treated as just another instrument, or those who performed Schoenberg's Moses und Aron in Boston? Are they any less challenged by their roles than the instrumentalists involved? I think not.

I'm just saying.....

Sure, Puccini is easier to sing than to play, but not all performances are in such repertoire these days.

maestrob · by **maestrob** on 04 Nov 2009, 11:10

This is an outstanding Bruckner release. I have a special relationship with Bruno Walter's magesterial 1960's release of this symphony on Columbia: Luisi (a conductor previously unknown to me) fully lives up to this version, with the added bonus of modern digital sound and some telling detail work. Luisi keeps a broader pace without losing momentum, and does not didtort tempo anywhere, thus preserving the granite character to Bruckner's music the way I like it. The Staatskappelle Dresden are, of course, no strangers to Bruckner's music, but they have improved greatly as an orchestra since their series with Jochum. An outstanding new release in every way.

karlhenning · by **karlhenning** on 04 Nov 2009, 11:25

maestrob wrote:OTOH, how many instrumentalists do you know that can master a minimum of five languages (English, Italian, French, German, & Russian), a minimal requirement for a career as a singer these days?

That thought tripped my hyperbole sensors ; )

I haven't known any singer who mastered those languages (or, any more than one of those languages, as a foreign tongue). They need to pronounce the languages plausibly in singing them, and need some understanding of what they are singing in a stage work; but most use which the singers in my acquaintance have for the several languages is external enough, and casual enough, that I could not in clear conscience call it mastery, as any generality.

We want youtube vérité of opera singers forced to function conversationally in Italian in an Umbrian village! We want it now! : )

Cheers,
~Karl

pczipott · by **pczipott** on 04 Nov 2009, 11:52

Recent listening: some oldies-but-goodies:

(1) Klemperer's Philharmonia recording of the Eroica, along with the string-orchestra arrangement of the Grosse Fuge.

(2) Rattle's CBSO live recording of Mahler's 7th. Why on earth do critics routinely describe this symphony as problematic? I find it the most lovable of them all (except, perhaps, for the 4th).

kashania · by **kashania** on 04 Nov 2009, 12:56

maestrob wrote:

This is an outstanding Bruckner release. I have a special relationship with Bruno Walter's magesterial 1960's release of this symphony on Columbia: Luisi (a conductor previously unknown to me) fully lives up to this version, with the added bonus of modern digital sound and some telling detail work. Luisi keeps a broader pace without losing momentum, and does not didtort tempo anywhere, thus preserving the granite character to Bruckner's music the way I like it. The Staatskappelle Dresden are, of course, no strangers to Bruckner's music, but they have improved greatly as an orchestra since their series with Jochum. An outstanding new release in every way.

I was really impressed by Luisi's work a couple of years ago at the Met, where he conducted Die Agyptische Helena and Turandot in the same season. The Strauss was particularly impressive -- beautifully shaped.

cliftwood · by **cliftwood** on 04 Nov 2009, 14:38

My guess for the next permanent conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra/

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnis ... _game.html

calvert · by **calvert** on 04 Nov 2009, 14:44

maestrob wrote:
calvert wrote:maestrob:

I should have added that my comments about singers and intelligence (or at least musical knowledge) are far less applicable to singers today, particularly those from the U.S. Almost all singers trained in this country (nd England) are excellent musicians with solid training in other areas of music besides vocal technique.

But the fact remains that it takes less musical training, and intelligence, to be a soprano or tenor than it does to be a violinist.

OTOH, how many instrumentalists do you know that can master a minimum of five languages (English, Italian, French, German, & Russian), a minimal requirement for a career as a singer these days?

I also take issue with your last sentence: what about those singers who performed Dr. Atomic, whose voices were treated as just another instrument, or those who performed Schoenberg's Moses und Aron in Boston? Are they any less challenged by their roles than the instrumentalists involved? I think not.

I'm just saying.....

Sure, Puccini is easier to sing than to play, but not all performances are in such repertoire these days.

Please remember that I am speaking generally. And speaking generally, I think my point is a true one. The number of singers who sing in world premieres like Dr. Atomic are a very tiny portion of the international pool of singers. BTW, you will note that all of the performers in Dr. Atomic's premieres in San Francisco and at the Met were Americans, which singers I specifically exempted from my generalization.

ScottMorrison · by **ScottMorrison** on 04 Nov 2009, 15:40

pczipott wrote:(2) Rattle's CBSO live recording of Mahler's 7th. Why on earth do critics routinely describe this symphony as problematic? I find it the most lovable of them all (except, perhaps, for the 4th).

I thought I was the only one who felt that way. Nice to know there are at least two of us.

ScottMorrison · by **ScottMorrison** on 04 Nov 2009, 15:51

cliftwood wrote:My guess for the next permanent conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra/

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnis ... _game.html

I've been extremely impressed by Jurowski. See my reviews: here and here. However, I didn't much like his recording of the Shostakovich Symphonies Nos. 1 & 6.

Classical Music & Opera Forums

Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)

Re: Current Discussion (Classical Music)