Would you, perfect technicians, explain to me why Mr.Jones wrote this article?
http://www.voiceteacher.com/renee_fleming.html
I don't share your golden ears nor your convinctions and it seems your mentor, Mr. Jones, doesn't join your voices either. I have attended some of Ms. Fleming performances and she is an outstanding singer.
Funny enough, in the quest for perfect singers, Mr.Mayer approves only the dead ones. He never heard Bjorling live. However, he claims relying on his super special aural skills to define who is a perfect technician and who is not. I would love to listen to one of you singing, guys. Really. Especially the master. On his site one cannot find a single song or aria sung by him. It's always easy to play the wise and criticize established artists!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a comment I received from my post comparing the difference between older singers and modern ones. I expected to get some negative comments from this like I did when talking about Rolando Villazon's difficulties. There is a reason these artists are famous and at the top of the Opera heap. They have many faithful fans that are passionate about their singing. And I think that is great. There is nothing wrong with admiring a singer, that is what keeps the art form alive.
Even though it is often a challenge, I am asking people to be objective when listening to a singer. This is difficult, especially when it is a singer you enjoy and identify with. When I used Renee Fleming as an example of the difference in function between the older and modern singers I tried not to make a judgement about her artistic abilities. In fact I thought I pointed out that she is obviously a wonderful artist. But at the same time she is being very artistic with an inefficient vocal function. Which is what I am trying to illustrate for people who want to learn how to maximize the potential of their voice. I obviously touched a nerve with this person. And I could have used other singers. She is not the only modern singer who we could use as an example. But she is one of the most obvious examples and is of a high enough stature that she can handle the comparison. (I think it might be unfair to use someone who is not an established artist, as this person seems to imply I should do)
The reason I am highlighting her comment, which was rather nasty towards me, is to illustrate how irrational we can be about "our" singers. Being objective is obviously not in this person's skill set. And I admit it is easy to become defensive when someone attacks one of "our" singers. But if we are interested in learning then we need to learn how to differentiate between artistic expression and vocal function. You can make an argument about artistic expression because it is in the realm of personal preference. You can like or dislike what someone does artistically and argue about it with someone else. Vocal function provides less to argue about, if we are able to look at it objectively. This is because function is rooted in the natural design of the body as it is provided to us. Our job is to learn how to recognize that natural design and follow the principles laid forth by nature. There is not much room for opinion or preference when talking about natural function. This is because poor function leads to fatigue, break-down and injury of the voice. If we have the opinion of liking an unhealthy function, that may be fine artistically. But we will always lose that argument with nature. Just ask the rock singers who like their distorted sound, or the pop singers who like the power of their belting, or the opera singers who like the feeling of ease in their breath flow. Eventually the voice will become unsteady and break down.
Here I would like to use Renee Fleming as another example. This time singing "When I have sung my songs to you" from the Joseph Volpe Gala at the Met. I find it a very nice performance that is especially touching because of the setting.
Then for comparison is the same song sung by Kirsten Flagstad and then Rosa Ponselle. Now please recognize that I am not trying to compare the artistry of the singing, because all three are at such a high level that it would be foolish to try and argue who is the best. The point of this comparison is to observe the difference of the vocal function between the modern Fleming and the older singers Flagstad and Ponselle. The Flagstad and Poselle recordings are both from the mid-1930s when recording was essentially a live performance.
8 comments:
Do not compare Villazon's with Fleming's technique. You are discussing about filigrees as if you really knew what Fleming does with her voice, as if you had a computer to measure the adduction level of her vocal folds, if she uses some breath mixture or not. And it applies to every singer you mentioned before.
You wrote on and on and not even touched the FACT that YOUR mentor do not think like you. You are obviously avoiding the issue.
Shall I assume the pupil overcame the master here? lol
Once more you proved my point: only the deads are saved, 'cause they are all perfect. Bjorling bores me to death, as perfect as people like you say he is. His italian roles are wicked. Only sound, no passion, no squillo alla italiana, a silver thread of sound, cold, distant.
That's why opera does not evolve and is considered pedantic and elitist. People are too conceited to accept anything that doesn't equal Caruso, Bjorling, Callas...It's RI-DI-CU-LOUS!
I'm sorry Martha, but I did not compare the two of them. I just said that I expected negative comments like I received when I spoke of him. Nothing more nothing less.
I don't need a computer, I just listen. Which anyone is capable of doing. It's called listening "functionally", which good singers learn to do and teachers must do.
I didn't address any of your points because I feel you are just trying to be hurtful and are not really interested in my sincere response. I am interested in helping people who want my help. I am not trying to "convert" anyone to "my" way of thinking. This is not religion. (Which by your comments you make a great example of how we tend to act as if our beliefs about singing are a religion)If you are not interested in what I have to say, that is fine with me. I'm not trying to get you to believe me. You can like what you want. If you are a singer you are welcome to function however you want. I address my information to the many people who contact me looking for help with their voice after struggling to figure it out. And I have many people thanking them for finally finding some information that makes sense.
Regarding your question about why David Jones wrote the article you cite. I have no idea why he wrote it. I am not him. Maybe you should ask him. We each have our own brains. Obviously he was trying to illustrate something, just as I was. Just because I studied with him and he helped me to organize my understanding of the voice doesn't mean he and I are exactly the same. I am not a robot created by him. He may not agree with what I say, but I am my own person and I don't need to check with him before I write something. That would be absurd.
I respect and care about David and we are very good friends. But he is free to write positive things about Renee Fleming, just as I did. But on the subject of which I am most interested in focusing she is a poor example, at least from my perspective.
One more point about my examples being dead. Not only do I wish they weren't dead. I wish there were many modern singers displaying the same functional qualities. But there aren't. That is why I am doing what I do. This is the whole focus of my research. There was a way that they used the voice that we are not doing these days. And if we don't investigate that and bring it to the attention of developing singers it will be lost forever. Most young singers don't even know the names of the past greats. They certainly have no idea what made them great. I feel a strong need to share that information and try to make people aware of this. Both to help them and to keep this manner of using the voice alive.
In listening to the examples here, I wasn't entirely sure that I could hear what I was supposed to hear. I think that is in part because, as a male singer, I have much more experience with the nuances of the male voice.
To me, it seemed as though Fleming example demonstrated more clarity than the Ponselle -- perhaps it is Ponselle's vowel color or the quality of the recording, but her voice sounds artificial to me, as if she is singing with cotton in her mouth, particularly at the 0:55-1:05 portion of the recording.
Due to my lack of experience, it is also difficult for me to know if the differences I hear between voices are because they are different voices or because of differences in technique. It would be useful to eliminate the different voices aspect and demonstrate what the same singer sounds like when they are using good technique and when they are using bad technique. I would imagine that examples could be found where a singer with otherwise good function sings a particular passage with poorer function. I know I do that all the time, but then again, I'm not a professional singer. . .
As well, it might be helpful to do a side be side comparison of some male voices. (I haven't seen any on your blog, but perhaps I haven't looked back far enough.)
Thanks!
One of my favorite sayings:
"pluck a feather from every passing bird, but follow none completely".
To the girl who in writing sounds attacking, I say this with love: I am sure you can pluck some wonderful truthful ideas from Mr. Mayer. And surely, you shouldn't follow him completely.
Obviously, he has done the same for himself. He didn't follow Mr. Jones completely.
And I'm sure, you have a lot to share with others as well. So enlighten us if you please.
And allow us to choose what we want to pluck.
Thank you Jonathan and Anonymous for your comments. They provide good subject matter for new posts. I will work on responding soon.
So Martha, are you saying your problem isn't so much with me or what I say but with other "self-proclaimed specialists"? That seems kind of juvenile to me. You are taking your frustration with these others out on me before you have any idea what I'm about. How are you actually going to find someone that can help you if you insult them with your first words? I know I have very little inclination to answer your questions or help you in any way. And that is not my loss, but yours.
Now,I actually agree to a certain extent about some of what we find on the Internet. There are a lot of people like that. That is part of the reason I do what I'm doing. At the same time I am tempted to not bother, because of people like yourself. But I feel I can help some people get through all of the garbage out there. But I don't write to those people and insult them and tell them to stop what they're doing. They have a right to express themselves. Even if they might be misrepresenting things. We each have to do what we can and follow our vision.
I am not trying to tell you what you should or should not think. I am not threatening you in any way. You are not required to read what I write. So I don't know why you feel it is OK to be so disrespectful to me.
If you were to hear my singing, would that be some kind of proof for you? That just shows you don't get it. The question is what can this information do for your singing. Not mine. I'm not you. If I can sing it does nothing for you. If I can't sing to your satisfaction does that make what I say untrue?
The things I talk about work because it is common sense and how the voice is designed. Not because I say it does. That is the difference between a method and natural function. A method is tied to the originator. Natural function is universal and independent of anyone's opinion. As a result we are free to develop into our own artist. Whether you like my singing or not has nothing to do with your ability to use this information. Because this information is not tied to me.
I am very capable of demonstrating for my clients. But listening to me demonstrate vocal function will not do much for you if your mind is too closed to recognize if the concepts make sense.
Good luck in your journey with your voice.
OK. I won't discuss anymore. I've been following your posts here for a long time and I find your blog interesting. I'm not saying you don't make valid points.
However, I cannot stand pedantic behavior as those of people who think themselves to be heirs of the Saint Grail of Singing. It came along to me as if you were one more critic who loves doing these comparisons for the sake of it, attained to the defects of contemporary singers and forgetting the defects of the oldies. No singer is perfect. And even if someone claims to have reached a point of vocal "perfection", it lasts very little, because of the wear and tear of the profession or other issues.
To close up, I don't need your help and never requested it. By the way, I have at my disposal in Spain very prepared coaches and a great voice teacher who checks my technique from time to time.
Anyway, thank you for your attention and I'm sorry if I insulted you with my sarcasm.
Post a Comment