Currently, I am exercising a minimum of 30-minutes daily.  I’ve discovered several really great Wii programs with which to do this (so I can exercise and supervise my daughters’ getting ready for school at the same time!), and I’m having a lot of fun.

The Wii programs I love are the Wii Fit Plus  for the balance board and the EA Sports Active: More Workouts.  They both give me a good workout (the EA Sports more of a gym/trainer type experience), and I can feel the muscles in my body responding.  I’ve been doing this for the past 3 weeks (yep – it started as a Lent thing, but I’m planning on continuing it as a lifestyle change).  I’ll be trying out 2 new games in the next week or so, and I’ll keep you updated.  One game that I tried, on a friend’s recommendation, and just DIDN’T like was “The Biggest Loser” workout.  Yes, I worked out & it took energy, but it ended up telling me I’d only used about 40 calories for 45-minutes of hard exercises, after which I was sweating.  Also, the pointer for controller is super-sensitive and jumps all over the place.  This biggest problem I had though, was that if wouldn’t let me change the time of day in which I work out.  My first session was in the afternoon – I had extra time because of a student cancellation and so felt I could spend time learning a new game.  But, after that, it wouldn’t unlock my daily exercises UNTIL the afternoon.  As I’ve said, I exercise in the morning, so this was the final straw and, after only a week, I’ve given up on that program.

I am in love with sugar.  Unfortunately, it also loves me.  So, that’s the 2nd of three things I decided to do for Lent – give up refined sugar.  Yes, I’m still drinking diet soda – that’s my main source of caffeine, but….. When I feel the urge to snack on something sweet, I’m taking the time to think about WHY I’m wanting this.  Often, it’s an emotional reason that I need to think through.  So, I have a handful of raisins and I hit the Wii Step aerobics (I also got a platform that raises up the balance board so it’s more of a workout).  Frequently, while I’m exercising, it becomes clear in my mind WHY I wanted that sugar.

The third thing that I’ve committed to is eating a large salad once a day as part of my meals.  By large, I generally mean 6-8 cups of leafy greens, plus added assorted raw veggies.  This is going VERY well and I love having salad.  Plus, it fills me up quite a bit and I don’t feel hungry for quite a long time (I usually pair it with 100 cal of hummus and some pita chips).

So, I’ve added this on top of all the other things I do!  Needless to say, I haven’t blogged for a while, but I’m going to be trying to get back at it!!!

Thanks for everything!  What are YOU doing to keep your instrument in million-dollar shape?

In the email, a colleague who works tirelessly for our local NATS, is instrumental in the organization of our NATS Student Auditions (Music Theater and classical) for the past many years, and for whom I have the utmost respect, brought several concerns to light.  This teacher does not read blogs, but my posting was brought to the teacher’s attention by “a concerned colleague.”

I felt that, instead of responding directly to the email (although I will send this posting to my colleague via email), I needed to respond via my blog.  Apparently the blog is the cause of this concern.  PLEASE, if you have any issues with what I say here, there is a reason that I post in public – I would love to have a dialogue among my colleagues and provoke discussion so that we all become aware of each others’ thoughts and can grow and improve as teachers.

1.  The point was made that the Student Auditions are for educational purposes.  I completely agree with this.  I frequently have a students “audition” who has no expectation of (nor talent for) a professional career.  Many of my students take lessons so as to be stronger members of their choir.  The process of preparation of multiple pieces and presenting them in front of others for comments is invaluable, no matter their personal level of singing.  Awards are never expected (although often hoped for), even from the most talented of my students.

I try not to ever judge the efforts of young and inexperienced performers harshly.  I do, always, judge critically.  I have heard some amazing singers while adjudicating NATS here in Arizona.  Last year (2008) at the Music Theater auditions, I was in TEARS at the potential I heard in one of the young voices.  Neither the voice nor the performance was perfect, but the possibility that I heard was extraordinarily moving.

I know that I frequently give students lower scores than those of my colleagues, but I am trying to judge on the spectrum of possibilities.  I am doing students a disservice if I give scores that I feel may be easily surpassed by another singer.  I believe, in the history of my judging, I have rarely given above a 95 (95-100 is listed as exceptional).  I reserve these scores for those I feel have a true possibility of having a professional career.  This doesn’t mean that the students I hear aren’t competent, but that I don’t hear that they have that extra “edge” of knowledge/preparation/talent that I believe will enable them to have a successful career.

I have heard that many other judges were very pleased with performances that they heard, including during the winners’ recital.  All I know is that in 2008 there were several students who excited me; I was even moved to tears.  This year, the standard was high, but from the performances THAT day (which is all we can ever judge on – any audition is taken in the moment and those who are hiring neither know nor care about the circumstances around the performance, they only care about the moment), I was not inspired this time around.  I cannot judge year over year, I can only state what I noticed this year.

2.  When the student is singing the notes on the page, with seemingly little attention to character, I am bored.  As Franc d’Ambrosio has said in coachings, the only wrong choice is not making one.  It is the TEACHER’S job to educate the student on the art of taking time for breathing, on learning how to make choices and successfully execute them in a vocally healthy manner.  If the student displays no understanding of any of this, then it is the teacher who has failed.  We cannot expect our students to know what to do if we haven’t taught them.  At times, the students don’t do what we have asked – they haven’t reached the technical ability to imbue their singing with emotion, they don’t understand what we’re asking of them, they have an unexpected reaction to their nerves.  The end result is that sometimes they don’t perform up to teacher expectation.  As a judge, I can only evaluate what I see.  It is our job as teachers to inform the students as to what professional expectations ARE and to try to bring them up to the level that will be expected of them, were they to enter the broadways arena.  Understandably, very few of the singers we teach will ever essay the professional world, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expose them to the standards of that world.  THIS is why most of my scores given are in the high 80’s (85-90, very good).  I believe the scores above 90 should be reserved for those with the potential of a career.

When I hear a winner, I expect them to demonstrate the potential for a career.  Again, as an audience member, I neither know nor “care” about what the circumstances behind their performance are.  All I care about is whether or not I am entertained or if I hear a lot of potential.  This year, I was not entertained exceptionally.  I heard some potential, but, specifically, one student with whom I was greatly impressed in 2008 did not show the improvement I would have hoped from an additional year of study.  I still believe in their potential, but…. Also, yes, my criteria for entertainment are very high.  I must be distracted from my analytical “teacher mode” and live in the moment.  You do NOT have to be perfect to draw me in, but you must be completely committed – in both Music Theater and classical performance.

3.  A student need NOT receive an award to demonstrate preparedness.  Preparedness, to me, means a CONSISTENCY of technique between the two pieces presented.  If there is a huge distinction between the two pieces, then I feel the students are ill-prepared.  I don’t expect my students to win awards.  I do expect them to be consistent and present a prepared performance.  This year, my students won awards.  Whenever that happens, I am extremely excited.  But, I am always extremely proud of my students, no matter the results.  Awards are icing on the cake.  The preparation and preparation are the point of the auditions.

4.  Each year, my students receive constructive criticism from their judges.  We always go over these comments in lessons and that is the point of doing these auditions: receiving written comments from other voice teachers so they get perspective and can evaluate whether other teachers believe they are performing on par with other students in their level.  It is also a great chance for me to learn if other teachers are hearing anything different in my students than I am.  I always welcome the comments of my colleagues and they are given due consideration.

5.  If any of my colleagues are reading this, PLEASE comment on this blog.  I welcome open discussion and look forward to learning from others’ opinions.  I value the thoughts of my colleagues, otherwise I wouldn’t have my students take the time, effort, and expense of preparing for the student auditions.

Last run-through (this past Tuesday night, 1/19/10), I could NOT stay in my “rut” of just reading & waiting until it was my turn to go on.  I was drawn into Mr. Rivero’s singing each time he sang.  Even in rehearsal, with the chorus sitting upstage of all the action (i.e. the soloists had their back to us), I couldn’t do anything BUT pay attention to his voice.  There is something special about this man.

Both of our Mimi’s and Rodolfo’s are technically fabulous.  I don’t worry about the high notes or the line and everything is very well-sung.  Tonight’s Mimi & Rodolfo (I won’t name names) were technically wonderful, but just didn’t move me.  I was happy when I was offstage reading my book and working on the computer with wonderful singing going on in the background, even when the Mimi was told by our stage director “That’s perfect.  Do it that way every time.  Don’t change a thing.  Every time.” I just wasn’t moved – it was technical perfection, and perhaps her face showed more emotion, but it wasn’t PAIRED with the sound to draw me in.

So, what IS it that makes an artist so special that you can’t help but pay attention to them?  What makes you hold your breath while you’re listening and then just release it on a sigh when the aria is over?  It’s NOT musical perfection.  It’s not “acting” everything exactly as the director requests of you.

What I’ve found moves ME is vocal ability that is seamless, but with an intensity of dramatic connection that I stop thinking like a voice teacher and just live in the moment.  I admit, it’s rare for that to occur for me.  I almost never stop analyzing, listening and learning.  When the body is totally committed.  When the face stays constantly engaged in the moment.  When the voice is stable and just present in every moment, with ease, consistency and emotional engagement.  What’s written on the page is being sung, but it has MORE.  There is life & breath to the sound, a fluidity that can only come from an intense physical connection to the sound that is generated from the emotional connection.  It is so much more than the notes on the page and MUCH more than perfection of technical sound.

The voice of our Mimi tonight is such that I will NEVER worry about any of her notes.  Her voice is a perfection of clear, vibrated tone.  That dreaded high C that ends Act One is shimmering in it’s beauty.  I find that I really don’t care.  It’s all so perfectly sung that, for me, there is no character present.  The face is emotional, but in the voice, there are few distinguishing moments where there is a CONTRAST from the beauty of the sound.  The emotions generated by La Boheme need to be so present, that consistent beauty actually rings false, at least to my ear.

Mr. Rivero’s voice is also beautiful, solid and consistent.  He has a connection between the notes that is amazing to listen to – THIS technique is what I try to teach my students.  But, he also has that “more” where the voice just gives itself over to the emotion and so amazing music is made.  His total commitment to character and allowing his ego to be subsumed by the entire process draws me and makes it impossible for me to do anything besides listen, watch, and enjoy being in the presence of a great artist.

What do YOU find moves you most in a vocal performance?  In any musical performance?  In any stage performance?  Is there a commonality of loss of “actor” into the role that helps to create that performance that grabs you by the throat?  In Amanda Ameer’s blog on being a publicist for classical musicians, Life’s a Pitch, guest blogger Jonathan Biss wrote yesterday about how Meryl Streep might be as successful an actress as she is because we, the audience, DON’T know everything about her personal life, so she is able to be almost consumed by the character and be in a different state of being than those younger actors about whom we know their slightest move (thanks to the tabloids, et al). Read the blog entry entitled “Not all ‘special’ is created equal” and let me know what you think on all these thoughts.  But, most of all, check out Mr. Rivero. He is a tenor well worth watching.  I am enjoying every minute that I am priveleged to be in his presence.

First, I remembered reading one of my favorite books Lies My Music Teacher Told Me by Gerald Eskelin. In this book he makes you take a look at certain “truths” taught to students and question them.  In this vein, I decided to find a better definition of “dynamics” than just the volume of the sound.  I found many definitions, but chose this as the most complete of the word “dynamic:”

Etymology

From French dynamique < Ancient Greek δυναμικός (dunamikos) “powerful” < δύναμις (dunamis) “power”

Adjective

dynamic

Changeable; active; in motion usually as the result of an external force.

The environment is dynamic, changing with the years and the seasons.

He was a dynamic and engaging speaker.

1. Powerful
2. Able to change and to adapt
3. (music) Having to do with the volume of sound.

The dynamic marking in bar 40 is forte.

Synonyms

• (changeable, active): active, fluid, moving
• (powerful): energetic, powerful

Antonyms

• static

Noun

dynamic (plural dynamics)

1. A characteristic or manner of an interaction; a behavior.

Watch the dynamic between the husband and wife when they disagree.

The study of fluid dynamics quantifies turbulent and laminar flows.

1. (music) The varying loudness or volume of a song or the markings that indicate the loudness.

If you pay attention to the dynamics as you play, it’s a very moving piece.

1. (music) A symbol in a musical score that indicates the desired level of volume.

Synonyms

• (a characteristic or manner of an interaction; a behavior): apparatus, course of action, design, effect, function, functioning, implementation, interchange, interplay, mechanism, method, modus operandi, motif, nature, operation, pattern, process, regimen, workings

The non-musical definition of the word has NOTHING to do with volume and everything to do with power or energy and how it’s used (either as a noun or an adjective).  The musical definition is related to volume.  How, then to apply the non-musical definition to singing?

The way I approach this concern in the studio is to relate the term dynamics to group dynamics.  I relate the forte to a large group participating in an event all together – how does this type of energy work? For piano singing, I relate it to an intimate conversation with your best friend.  These are both different forms of energy, but not necessarily less intensefrom one to the other.

Another way to approach dynamics is thinking of the vocal energy (NOT the vocal tone) as a laser beam: the more highly focused the laser beam, the more powerful it is.  BUT, if you thought of putting pressure on a light (something that can’t physically happen, I know, but it makes a good image), it will diffuse the focus and lose power.  Forte is a highly focused bright laser beam.  Piano is the laser beam that just barely pierces the darkness, but travels a long way.

A third way to think about this concept is this: can a voice ever produce more decibels than many instruments (even a violin)?  How can a voice be heard over an orchestra?  The key word here is over.  With nasal resonance, balanced by pharyngeal space, comes a balanced tone – the overtone series produced create groups of overtones called formants.  These formants are what give the voice power.  The more balanced the resonance and therefore the overtone series, the more power (and focus) the voice has.

When a singer thinks purely in terms of volume, the tendency is to force air pressure through the vocal chords (only 10-15mm in length and thinner than the edge of an index card) to get more volume.  This increase in pressure ensures that the chords will NOT cleanly come together – there’s just not enough muscle to create a good “seal” in the chords to allow them to vibrate regularly.  If a singer thinks in terms of pressure for piano, often times the chords don’t come together cleanly at all (creating a sound that is “disconnected” or “off the voice”).  The cleaner the seal, the more regular the opening & closing of the glottis can be, creating a more regular sound wave & therefore a “better” sound.  This can then be modified through vocal resonance balancing of vowel & pitch to create what are almost “illusions” of volume (although there is definitely a component of vocal chord musculature engagement involved).

There are many more thoughts and concerns that go into creating a good, clean, free & consistent sound, but this is the basis.  Forte does NOT mean loud.  Piano does NOT mean soft.  The quality of the intensity changes, just as changing the size of a group changes the dynamics of the interpersonal relationships.  Just because there are only 2 people speaking, doesn’t make the topic of conversation less intense.  When there are 15 people focused on an activity, they are also intense, but in a very different way.  This is how I conceive of dynamics in the voice, so that vocal function is not impeded, but is instead as consistent as possible.

What do you think of this approach?  How do you approach forte and piano (and their variations) in the studio?

The first teacher he talked about gave him daily exercises to do, but then didn’t help him progress during lessons.  The student felt as if he was just spinning his wheels and that the teacher was saying the same thing every week.

The other teacher was a Speech Level Singing teacher.  My new student stated that she “was very expensive” (I don’t consider myself cheap, so how much is SHE charging?) and that she also told him he should forget the daily regiment his previous teacher had given him and that he DIDN’T even have to PRACTICE between lessons!!

WHAT is up with that?  How can ANY self-respecting teacher tell a voice student they don’t have to practice?  Your body is your instrument and must be trained to respond, in the way that any athlete trains their body.

If, after months of lessons and two separate teachers, you can’t even sing a 5-note scale (with no problem matching pitches when sung individually, just ignorance of the concept), it is your teachers who are at fault.  This kind of story INFURIATES me – there are people out there taking singers’ money who don’t know what they’re doing.

Thanks for letting me rant!!  I’m in the middle of a “reasonable” blog post, but I had to take time out to write this.  I am blessed that I am surrounded by fabulous teachers who care about how and what they teach, who, if a student doesn’t make progress will willingly refer them to a teacher who CAN help.  Luckily, I run across stories like this infrequently, BUT I should NEVER have to hear this kind of tale!  I’ll post again soon, I promise!

Why didn’t I give out scores that were higher? Several of the students sang ONE piece well, but their second piece was unfortunate.  Even more unfortunately, many times they BEGAN with the weaker piece and I ended up not wanting to hear more (even though we did hear both of their prepared pieces).  Several students were singing completely wrong repertoire for their technical ability.  Most students were very inconsistent in their vocal production.  Very few students had a “fila di voce” that the voice could “hang” on throughout the register shifts, let alone serve as the basis of a healthy belt tone.

NO student demonstrated acting ability that I would want to pay for (and I was judging the 2 most advanced groups).  The acting was very generic and often without personalization.  One of the “winners” completely distracted me by hitching herself back up onto the stool she had chosen to use.  All in all, I was completely bored by the singing.

I feel that this, then, MUST be a failure on OUR part.  The teachers are the ones who prepare their students for this competition.  I know that for me, two of my students were well-prepared (one received 2^nd place in her division, the other made the finals).  The other two were NOT well-prepared.  I had also pulled one student out, as she wasn’t even close to prepared.  Did I do the two who were not really ready a disservice by having them compete?  With both of those, there were vocal technical issues that came up and we are working to resolve.  This kept them from being able to delve far enough into the character to really present themselves well.  But, did they learn from this experience? Did *I* learn from this experience and how I need to prepare my students for these adjudications?

When I adjudicate students, I can only base my comments on what I see on that day.  I don’t know how much the students have been able to work.  I don’t know their personal commitment.  I don’t know if they’ve had external coaching.  I don’t know if technical issues have cropped up at the last minute.  I do know that very few students presented themselves well.  Based on my studio’s showing, I should have seen 50-50 of well-prepared vs. ill-prepared.  It was much closer to 20-80, with MANY more ill-prepared students than otherwise.

When teaching music theater singing, acting is KEY.  But, the vocal technique must also be very secure before belting can be attempted.  Many singers tried and failed, because their vocal technique was insecure.  Several acted very well (although often it was “acting” and not a state of being), yet they screamed the sound without TONE in the center of the pitches.

Overall, it did not seem that this year, we teachers in Arizona are producing Music Theater singers who would be successful in a career onstage.  The vocal technique was not there, by a long shot. The acting was certainly not there.  I was not drawn into the world of the singers (even during the “Winner’s Concert” where the winner of each division performed one piece).  I was bored.  That, to me, is the greatest condemnation that can happen when listening to talented young singers.  I hope and pray that when the Arizona NATS Student Auditions (classical only, this time) come around in early February that I hear more singing that MOVES me and draws me in.

I have decided to define myself is as a voice teacher.  I believe that everyone has the RIGHT to sing.  Research has shown that human beings are born to be musical.  Even more, humans are born to be singers (see Daniel Levitin’s book This is Your Brain on Music).  This means that EVERYONE can sing.

As a voice teacher, it is NOT my job to like or dislike your voice.  It is not my place to help you “be famous.” It is not my job to decide whether you can have a career or not.

It IS my job to help you to sing to the best of your physical ability.  It IS my job to give you information about how your instrument (your body!) works and how best to affect it.  It IS my job to change my teaching style to best suit each student individually in order to maximize their potential.   It IS my job to make singing fun and enjoyable.  It IS my job to encourage you to let your voice out and be free.  It IS my job to give you all the information you need in order to reach both your short-term and long-term goals.  It IS my job to help my singers learn how to practice effectively and affectively – what do they need to do in order to teach the body the HABITS of an effective singer?

Singers must be “mental” in order to sing well.  The main function of the vocal chords is to manipulate the air (this is part of what I tell my singers in their first lesson).  This means that the chords are part of the automatic nervous system, so we cannot successfully send direct orders to the chords.  We must place the voice WITHIN a situation where the desired effect will occur. A great example that I use is this question: “Can we TELL our eyes to dilate? No.  Can we put our eyes in a situation where they will dilate? Yes.”  This is analogous to how the voice works.

As I’ve stated in previous postings (notably in: “I don’t care what you don’t want”), we must think in terms of “positive directives.”  This means that we focus on what we’re looking for and using identifiers to analyze what we’re looking for.  To help with this, I have developed my “C list” (to begin with).

• Clarity of tone
• Cleanliness of tone
• Confidence of production
• Consistency of tone
• Capability of vocal production
• Clarity & consistency of VOWEL
• Consistency of “spin” in the tone
• Can I TRUST this sound? Do I know what will come out when I open my mouth?
• Are the breath and tone “marrying” together to function as one dynamic unit?
• Freedom of production
• EASE of production
• Can I TRUST this sound? Do I know what will come out when I open my mouth?
• Facility of vocalization
• Is the “fila di voce” present? Is the voice seemingly “hung together on a thread of sound?”
• Is there TONE vs. PITCH in the sound?

Nowhere in this list do I pose judgmental inquiries.  Judgment is not my job.  To produce the best sound, we cannot listen to ourselves as we would another performer.  Our ears are hearing “twice at a time delay” (both through internal, sympathetic vibrations as the sound is produced and then “normally” after the sound has left our mouths) and the brain does not successfully process this information in a way that is productive.  So, we must listen to the elements of the sound, decide what is working well and on which issues we need to focus.

These analyses are applicable no matter what genre the student chooses to sing or at what level the singer chooses to perform (from the shower to the stage).  The CHORDS function in the same way to make sound.  Style is then placed upon solid vocal function.  As a voice teacher, I must facilitate all who wish to sing.  I don’t discriminate in terms of age (I don’t take students younger than 10 because of cognitive/analytic ability), vocal ability, musical knowledge, career aspirations.  My job as a teacher is to help my students know their own voice so that they can be THAT singer when their 70 (you know, the one everyone points to and says “Wow! They’re amazing!”).

What do you see as YOUR job as a teacher?

One agent got back to me and said they weren’t available on the days that I was in town.  I was very disappointed by that.  I was unable to get a hold of the other agent.  The phone number I had rang without answer.  The second number I found on the internet was disconnected.  So, I went to NYC with only one coaching set up (Jonathan Kelly, coach/assistant conductor at the Metropolitan Opera: he had played the competition in May and I greatly enjoyed working with him).  I got to NYC and spent Friday just walking around taking pictures for my oldest daughter (her birthday was one week later).  I was feeling very down because I was by myself, in NYC and NOT singing!  But…

Saturday morning my teacher calls me just as I’m coffee with my great friend from Children’s Choir in Indiana, Jennifer Munson (an AMAZING sound engineer!), my teacher called and asked me to sit in on a coaching that another student of hers had.  This coaching with Joan Krueger was amazing – Joan is exacting in her knowledge and demands of Italian and style.  I greatly enjoyed watching the coaching and learned a lot just sitting there.  Before we left, we set up additional coachings for both of us on Monday.  FINALLY, I was singing for more than one person while in NYC!  Perhaps my time wasn’t going to be completely wasted.

My coaching on Saturday evening with Jonathan Kelly was FABULOUS.  He really helped me to figure out the points to attack in “Non più mesta” (closing aria from Rossini’s Cenerentola – retelling of the Cinderella fairytale and a wickedly difficult aria) and how to approach them with fresh eyes.  I have re-listened to my coaching several times as well as taken written notes.  There is just SO much information!

With that positive experience under my belt, I got up Sunday and had lunch with a friend from college who I had not seen since I graduated fifteen years ago.  It was WONDERFUL and it was like we’d never stopped living next to each other in the dorm.  We had good food and better conversation – thanks to Facebook for creating the mechanism by which we could reconnect!

Sunday evening was the Giulio Gari Foundation Gala at the New York Athletic Club.  The concert hall on the ninth floor is beautiful – all old wood paneling and detailing.  The concert was very good – I just can’t turn that teacher/competitor brain in me off.  But, the audience loved it.  There were several opera “all-stars” there (Licia Albanese, Dolora Zajick, Maestro Joseph Colaneri and others) and many donors who work hard to raise the money that is given to the winners to help pay for the expenses of coachings and lessons.

During the buffet dinner, I went around the room and talked to some of those who had judged me in the competition, as well as anyone who even looked interested.  I handed out my card and “worked” the room.  Both of the agents with whom I had tried to set up auditions were there.  I went to the one I had not been able to contact and gave him my resume and asked if he had any time on Monday to hear me (as I was leaving on a 6am flight Tuesday).  He said he didn’t have time, but he’d be happy to listen to what I have posted on my website.  I thanked him and went back to my table.

About 20 minutes later, a daring idea came to me.  We were immediately next to the room in which the concert had been sung.  I went to my teacher (who is a former student of Giulio Gari) and asked what she thought of my idea.  She said, “Yes, do it.”

So, I went up to the agent and asked him, “Could I sing for you right now?” After about five minutes of thinking about it (by telling me a story of two different singers he had represented and their willingness to get to the audition or not) he agreed to hear me sing.  My teacher agreed to play the piano for me (yes, I had my music binder with me).  I ended up singing two arias for him and he seemed very impressed, both with my singing and with my daring/determination.  He said he would definitely be in touch with me.  I sincerely hope he is.  But, even if he isn’t, I did what I came to NYC to do.  I sang for an agent.  Just because I didn’t have an audition when I got there, didn’t mean that I couldn’t sing for someone!

If I hadn’t taken the opportunity, then I don’t think I could have felt good about myself and my stated goals.  I say I want to perform – I have to go out there are do what I can to make that happen.  So, I was very satisfied with my both my singing and having done “my job.” Here’s the secret: as we left the building, I giggled for about the next 45 minutes.  It’s okay to let yourself go when you’re done, just not mid-stream!

My coaching on Monday with Joan Krueger (2004’s Classical Singer “Coach of the Year” and on staff and SUNY Purchase) also went very well.  She had me sing several pieces and gave me good advice about some things that had just been getting in my way.  As I left, she said that she’d keep me in mind if she heard of something that might work well for me.  Again, I sang for someone who might be able to help me further my career. If not, then I learned from her and my singing is better for having worked with her.

After the coaching, I went to meet Susan Eichhorn Young, with whom I’ve been conversing on Facebook and Twitter, as well as reading her blog regularly  (and ALWAYS saying to myself “Amen!!”).  I have re-posted from her blog (with permission) as well.  We met on her lunch hour and had a great time.  It was nice to meet someone face-to-face with whom I’d only had an “internet” relationship.  We were even dressed in the same colors!  It was great.

So, my trip to NYC was NOT a waste of time/money.  I sang more than I thought I would – even on my first day there, and I got to connect/reconnect with several people.  What more could I ask for?  I would LOVE a contract, but at this point, I know that I’ve done everything I can do.  On to the next item on the agenda: Bel Canto Competition (well, with a side-track to singing the Cosi fan tutte chorus and Alto solos in the Mozart Requiem – October is Mozart month for me!).

So, the moral of the story is: MAKE YOUR OWN opportunities and be prepared to take them when you have them.  The worst that could have happened is I could have been told “No.”  At that point, what would I have lost?  Nothing.  Instead, I asked and I gained opportunities (singing for an agent – plus all the people in the hallway to whom I’d passed out my card and getting an additional coaching session!).  That’s the worst that can happen when you ask.  See my blog from six months ago “Singing is not brain surgery.” http://rachelvelarde.com/2009/03/26/singing-is-not-brain-surgery/ As singers we feel we have so MUCH to lose when we take a risk.  Instead, it’s when we DON’T take a risk that we lose.

I sat in the Gari Foundation Competition Winner’s Gala and heard some amazing singing.  I also heard some singing that I know would be found lacking by my teacher and several of my recent coaches.  Now, I’m not saying that I am the best singer in the world, but if I’m singing at a Gala with some very important people in the audience and receiving a check for several thousand dollars, wouldn’t I choose to sing the piece that shows me off the best, rather than accentuating my flaws?

There were some stellar performances, there were some stellar voices.  There was rarely a combination of the two.  The singers who REALLY performed their texts and made me feel they had an opinion on the music were not generally the best singers.  Those who sang amazingly were slightly wooden.  Has it come down to a choice between the two?  We either get great singing or great acting?

The other thing that I noticed is that the Italian diction (the MOST basic of all singing diction – even though it has an amazing amount of detail that is often lost on American singers) was lacking in many of the singers.  I speak Italian (much more fluently when I’m IN Italy, but I think relatively well…) and there was much of the diction that I didn’t understand.  This lack of nuance and attention to detail is discouraging to me.  I am working so hard and being told by those whom I respect and trust that these are the details that I need to master, yet I hear a competition such as this and only hear the details from two of the ten singers.

Am I wrong?  Is this NOT needed?  Is it different with different singers, not just because of voice type (there were NO mezzos, only one tenor – the rest were sopranos and baritones, one bass) but because of who they know and connections?  I know that I need to keep going and doing what I am, as I am also positive that I’m improving.  But, it’s discouraging.

Then, I return to Arizona and hear some amazing singing in opera rehearsal, but also hear singers singing an aria that I KNOW I sing much better and with better attention to musical, dramatic and diction detail.  It’s discouraging and yet encouraging at the same time.  I KNOW that I can do a better job, which means that I DO have a chance to get hired in a situation similar to this – if they’re getting hired, I too WILL be.

Then, I just was twittering with @chrisfoley (The Collaborative Piano Blog) about the possibility of the lost art of Art Song – I think it’s also this lack of appreciation of finesse.  We see several dancing shows on television, but the “Gene Kelly” elegant and reserved approach is lost in the “flash and dash” numbers that draw audiences to their feet.  It takes so much time and control to master the art of the nuance.  Do we HAVE to get there now?  Yes, it’s disheartening to work so hard and not be appreciated, but it is the ART that we are getting at.  Now, let’s present that art to the audience so that THEY understand the difference between acceptable and AMAZING.

Yes, I got caught up in the hype around the new Fox TV series “Glee.” I watched the pilot last spring, downloaded it for free from iTunes, and was really excited about the possibilities of this show.  It looked like a smart show with good writing that would really relate to kids and how cliques/money issues often work in high school, while being “real” about the not-so-popular kids and how music can really help you survive the emotional and mental stress of being a teenager.

Last night, I eagerly watched the season premier (being thankful for my DVR – opera rehearsal and a coaching DID come first!).  I enjoyed how strong the stereotypes were – they come off as natural for the actors, but are portrayed in such a way as to be self-conscious parts of the show.  Each actor commits to the over-the-top stereotype so that the CHARACTER really believes who they are, but the presentation is very tongue-in-cheek.  I hope that this part of the writing continues – it helps to really define the show & is often how one-dimensional things seem as a teenager.  Perspective is NOT common during this stage in life.  The show also took on, in its first official

While I will reserve judgment, at this point in time, I see myself quickly becoming disenchanted with the show.  It markets itself as a show for the “underdog” and the “loser.”  In their terms, the “gleek.”  But, all the musical numbers, even songs JUST presented to the group, are polished and highly choreographed.  Vocally, the presentation is VERY highly studio edited and the situations are just not realistic.  I feel that “normal” high school students may see the show and feel that they need to be able to come up to that level of quality in just a few short hours, rather than the hours of dedicated & focused practice that it does take to come up with elaborate production numbers (both vocally & choreographically).

Broadway veteran Lea Michele here on Twitter and here on MySpace (from Broadway’s “Spring Awakening”) plays one of the main characters.  She is an immensely talented singer and her acting skills are HUGE.  If you download her complete performance of “On My Own” from iTunes or watch her connect intensely to the text in last night’s “Take a Bow,”  it’s a drama lesson in how singers MUST connect and bare their soul emotionally in order to truly move an audience.

But, Lea’s amazing performance of “Take a Bow” was completely spoiled for me last night.  The whole song had moments of Auto-Tuning throughout and this mechanization of the vocals had me almost yelling at the TV.  For someone SO talented, WHY ruin their sound by putting it through the computer like this?? This program was originally for correcting pitch problems during recording sessions.  It has been used by artists for effect (Cher’s “Believe” in 1998).  Now it is being used in the industry as a standard to mask voices that just aren’t up to par (such as Vanessa Hudgens in the “High School Musical” Disney machine – listen to her especially in HSM3 where every note she sings is over-processed.  The rest of the cast in HSM3, even the talented Zac Efron and Corbin Bleu, is slightly Auto-Tuned just to not make Vanessa’s voice stand out as so strongly augmented).

Lea Michele is talented and ablity.  She has proved herself by performing 8-shows a week on Broadway singing highly emotional material in “Spring Awakening.” She does not need her voice camouflaged by this invasive processing technique that has seemingly taken over the music industry as a replacement for natural vocal ability (that has been TRAINED).  It really ruined a potentially amazing experience for me.

This over-production of a song by an extremely talented singer-actress highlights the over-arching contradiction between Glee’s stated goal of celebrating the underdog and what the show actually portrays, which is instant success.  In one afternoon of rehearsal, the 6 original “Glee Club” members create a routine that is fully choreographed & well-sung.  This routine is presented at a school assembly to an audience that is portrayed as, at best, cynical & in many cases hostile (the football players and cheerleaders). Yet, this song, thrown together in a short amount of time and not rehearsed to any great extent, brings the crowd to its feet in a screaming standing ovation.  In addition, as has been pointed out in several Twitter comments, the lip syncing was not well-matched.  Better video editing (since they took all that time to edit the sound) should definitely be added to the production values.  This is a point that makes a show look cheap and without a lot of care.

Yes, “Glee” is not about reality – it showcases, as I have stated, very strong stereotypes.  I have not yet seen the kids in the Glee Club trip over each other, take more than 5 minutes to learn intricate choreography, or really struggle to learn pitches and to work on technique to make their voices improve.  Everyone is presented as having natural talent and the work side of the equation is not portrayed at all.  While I understand this is television, I do believe that the show MUST, to remain true to its stated goals of celebrating the underdog, portray this necessity to really work & spend sweat & tears on producing a truly quality show.  I DON’T want high school students to watch this and believe that they must be able to produce this polished of a product in a short period of time.  Serious contenders for Show Choir titles put in the same amounts of hours as do those in Marching Band – hours and hours before and after school to learn several routines perfectly.

I truly hope that FOX addresses more of these issues – Some mention of this was made in comments on the LATimes “Showtracker” blog:

I was a little concerned they were moving too fast, (The whole school already loves Glee Club? Rachel and Finn making out? Will and Emma already falling in love?), but by the end of the show, I felt comfertable enough that they put the brakes on all of that. Shows like this thrive on teasing the viewer with what they want for the characters, not giving it all to them in the second episode. Can’t wait to see where it goes from here, excellent show so far!

Posted by: John | September 10, 2009 at 09:23 AM

Perhaps FOX will backtrack and show more of the behind-the-scenes work that goes into putting together a really strong performance program.

I’m looking forward to upcoming episodes, but am not sure I’m going to be a long-term fan, as I foresaw myself becoming after last spring’s Pilot episode.

UPDATE 11/25/09:

I was contacted by a Twitter Friend @justine_robin who also reviewed Glee in a post entitled “Glee and Music Education: Some Issues that May Arise.”

My response is as follows:

I am still watching “Glee” and enjoying it. They are, very obviously, NOT taking themselves seriously – there are a lot of “set-ups” and obvious double-takes on situations. They are also tackling a large range of issues that are important to high schoolers(teen pregnancy, socialization, body image, self-identity, homophobia, disabilities, to name a few) in very meaningful ways.

But, I still have a HUGE problem with the over-production of the singing. This, to me, means that the audio engineers have taken the sound and really tweaked the equalization so that all the sounds are homogenized, and the vocals are noticeably computer-enhanced (even when, as in the case of Lea Michele, they patently DON’T have to run her voice through Autotune). What really makes music interesting is contrasts in levels (volume, texture, instrumentation/voices, etc.). This, though, is not just a problem on Glee. This homogenization of sound is a current trend in the music industry. What I rail against regularly, is that there is not enough subtlety – the ART of making music is being lost. Glee is showcasing singing & the joy of being in a group such as choir (singing, personally, got me through high school!), but not the artistry and dedication needed to get to the point they get to onscreen.

Last week, I heard on SiriusXM “Broadway’s Best” broadway channel a short interview with Cory Moneith. He was asked about rehearsing and shooting Glee. He said that EVERY WAKING moment was spent rehearsing – singing, dancing, acting – during the shooting process. This amount of work is never shown onscreen. The amount of hard work and dedication, as well as attention to minute detail, it takes to really “make it” as an artist is not shown. The overly produced sound of the singing(both on Glee andcurrently on commercial radio – Taylor Swift, Vanessa Hudgens) makes it so that singers don’t feel(or even know!) that they have to produce TONE when they sing, not just approximate pitches and then let the computers and mastering engineers take care of vocal problems in post-production . Forgive my rant – this is one of my soapboxes about the current state of popular recorded music, that we MUST encourage singers to sing at a high level of technique so that they are able to sustain a career for decades, rather than press for the immediate sale and who cares what happens to the voice 10 years down the road (anyone remember Charlotte Church??). Thanks for the opportunity for me to comment! Anyone agree? Disagree? I’d love to have a discussion – I am obviously opinionated on the subject, but always love to hear and consider others’ ideas. Happy singing, EVERYONE!!