This week for Choral and Voice Methods, we are reading "Sing! A Teacher's Guide" by Doreen Rao. This article brings about the following questions and comments for me.
Questions:
1) Is it common that the top of the speaking voice range is the same as the singing voice range? The diagram has it that way, but that just may be that particular person. Is it normal for them to be around the same note? Or is it truly person specific?
2) The article also has "Rules for the letter R", but it doesn't really give any suggestions to it. I assume this is case by case specific, but what are some of the general rules for working with that letter? I know it is notorious for being brutal to sing.
Comments:
1) One of the Objectives of singing is to have the students sing in class for their peers. I think it is very important to have them start early with this. When students are very young, they are not as self conscious of their voices, and are more willing to begin the performance process. Whereas those who are older have had bad experiences and they are not as willing. I think it's best to start them early with performing.
2) I also really agree with the connection between composition and what is comfortable for the singer themselves. It's very common for people to expect a certain range from a singer, but if writing for that singer specifically, why not cater to their preferences and abilities. If it's for a general purpose, that's different, but when writing for a specific person, I really think it's good to check with that person to make sure they are comfortable with what you write. This goes for instrumentalists as well.
Monday, 28 September 2015
Sunday, 27 September 2015
Vocal Development Parts 1 & 2 - A Response
This week in Choral Methods, we also read "Vocal Development Parts 1 & 2" by Kenneth Philips. This reading is great for the introductory choral conductor as it is very in depth and concise. However, within each part I did have some questions and some parts really resonated well with me. The following are my questions and comments about the reading:
Questions:
1) When in the school system, we have to pick a length of time for rehearsal. The chapter discusses that directors of the choir need to be vigilant of vocal fatigue to avoid strain, which of course makes sense. However, when starting a young choir, what length of time should we expect a choir to be able to sing? As in, when we're telling the administration how long we need for choir rehearsal, how long should we start with? Half and hour? Can we really accomplish anything with a group in half an hour? An hour seems too long, however?
2) Would rap be considered Sung-speech diction or rhythmic diction? I am inclined to say rhythmic because of all the syllables that need to be articulated. However, popular music is thought to be sung-speech? But the syllables aren't really blended together by the best artists? Hrmm.
Comments:
1) I think it would be best to change up the warm ups quite often when rehearsing and utilize the many options that Philips gives in the first chapter. If we consistently do the same warm ups, we aren't reaching any new areas, and the body will become very accustomed to the routine. When this happens, we aren't really warming up the same extent anymore, our body is just going through the motions as we are creatures of habit.
2) I think it's interesting that most people speak in their lower or almost in their lower register of vocal range. I personally think I speak at the higher end of my range, and my singing voice can go much lower from where it is than it can go higher. Maybe that's because I'm an alto? But it's interesting that there is really this whole upper portion of the vocal range that most people are not tapping into at all.
Questions:
1) When in the school system, we have to pick a length of time for rehearsal. The chapter discusses that directors of the choir need to be vigilant of vocal fatigue to avoid strain, which of course makes sense. However, when starting a young choir, what length of time should we expect a choir to be able to sing? As in, when we're telling the administration how long we need for choir rehearsal, how long should we start with? Half and hour? Can we really accomplish anything with a group in half an hour? An hour seems too long, however?
2) Would rap be considered Sung-speech diction or rhythmic diction? I am inclined to say rhythmic because of all the syllables that need to be articulated. However, popular music is thought to be sung-speech? But the syllables aren't really blended together by the best artists? Hrmm.
Comments:
1) I think it would be best to change up the warm ups quite often when rehearsing and utilize the many options that Philips gives in the first chapter. If we consistently do the same warm ups, we aren't reaching any new areas, and the body will become very accustomed to the routine. When this happens, we aren't really warming up the same extent anymore, our body is just going through the motions as we are creatures of habit.
2) I think it's interesting that most people speak in their lower or almost in their lower register of vocal range. I personally think I speak at the higher end of my range, and my singing voice can go much lower from where it is than it can go higher. Maybe that's because I'm an alto? But it's interesting that there is really this whole upper portion of the vocal range that most people are not tapping into at all.
Wednesday, 23 September 2015
Building Sequential Vocal Technique Skills: A Response
This week in Vocal and Choral Methods we had two readings. One of which was James Jordan's Building Sequential Vocal Technique Skills. This article made me think about the two following things:
1) Vocal and musical warm ups are a lot like sports warm ups in that without them, we lose touch with the basic skills we need to continue learning. Just like in sports, without a proper warm up, you can easily get injured. The muscles used in the face to sing can also be strained just like those we use in running/sprinting/etc. I think it makes a lot of sense that we need to have proper warm ups before we sing, and I question why anyone would argue otherwise (other than the obvious time constraints).
2) I really agree with the assertion that basic inhaling and exhaling is crucial in a warm up of all kinds. When you properly breathe and get a chance to relax, the body is in a much more responsive state for performing. Singing is, in many contexts, not supposed to be physically taxing, and without the proper breathing, it is impossible to make singing simple.
This article also raised the following questions for me:
1) Would it be fair to say that the "sixth sense" is only pertinent to musical performance? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that it comes from any physical engagement? I know that in this context, it is being specific, however, I think it would make more of an impact if we put it into broader contexts?
2) I question their use of the word "spacious" to describe the sound we want to create with our singing. When I hear spacious I think more spread out than what he means, and I worry about how younger singers would interpret spacious. To me, spacious doesn't go together with "full", which is another characteristic of what we want to hear in the sound of the voices. Could we maybe use something like focused? Is that too narrow?
This week in Vocal and Choral Methods we had two readings. One of which was James Jordan's Building Sequential Vocal Technique Skills. This article made me think about the two following things:
1) Vocal and musical warm ups are a lot like sports warm ups in that without them, we lose touch with the basic skills we need to continue learning. Just like in sports, without a proper warm up, you can easily get injured. The muscles used in the face to sing can also be strained just like those we use in running/sprinting/etc. I think it makes a lot of sense that we need to have proper warm ups before we sing, and I question why anyone would argue otherwise (other than the obvious time constraints).
2) I really agree with the assertion that basic inhaling and exhaling is crucial in a warm up of all kinds. When you properly breathe and get a chance to relax, the body is in a much more responsive state for performing. Singing is, in many contexts, not supposed to be physically taxing, and without the proper breathing, it is impossible to make singing simple.
This article also raised the following questions for me:
1) Would it be fair to say that the "sixth sense" is only pertinent to musical performance? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that it comes from any physical engagement? I know that in this context, it is being specific, however, I think it would make more of an impact if we put it into broader contexts?
2) I question their use of the word "spacious" to describe the sound we want to create with our singing. When I hear spacious I think more spread out than what he means, and I worry about how younger singers would interpret spacious. To me, spacious doesn't go together with "full", which is another characteristic of what we want to hear in the sound of the voices. Could we maybe use something like focused? Is that too narrow?
Monday, 21 September 2015
Comprehensive Choral Music - Chapter 9: A Response
For today's discussion, we had to read chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Choral Method and find two questions we had and two comments we had about the article.
Comments:
1. In A Capella Tradition, it says that one of the debates that still exists today is about the narrow list of repertoire for a capella ensembles. However, I don't think this is quite the case anymore. Most a capella groups these days do their own arrangements of songs and therefore don't have to worry about any repertoire restrictions. Also, movies like Pitch Perfect are helping get the a capella style back into popular demand. I would argue that currently, a capella may be making a popularity comeback similar to its popularity in the 20's and 30's. Simply look at groups like Rajaton, Pentatonix, and Kokopelli, and you will see that a capella groups are covering many different genres of music and expanding the repertoire greatly.
2. It also mentions the "Contemporary Music Project" as a way of getting teachers to expand the musical pathways they open for their students. I think this is a great thing. How many times has a curriculum changed in a math or science program? The reason for the change is to make it a more extensive or in depth curriculum that is more beneficial for the students. While this might make the teacher a little uncomfortable, it is for the benefit of the student. If all other academic subjects have they curriculum outcomes under constant review, music should as well. The argument is music to be treated as an equal subject, and therefore we need to partake in the uncomfortable or stressful changes. It's not a mark on our intelligence to make changes, it is just a development in music.
Questions:
1. There is an extensive amount of discussion on looking at "the impact" of choral music on a student as a means expressing its effectiveness. Is this how they test the effectiveness of every academic subject? I have to think that no it's probably not. How many times have students been told that they study math because "it's good for you", but is it really? How many experiences in a math class can make lifelong memories, probably not as many a single choir performance. My question is - why is "the impact" of something a justifiable means of evaluating the subject? And if it is justifiable, why are all subjects upheld to the same standards?
2. Near the end, there is discussion of the repertoire expanding into folk music and many choirs are getting into the style of folk music as a means of connecting with the members of that society and broadening the spectrum of choral music. However, is it really possible to learn folk music from someone not from a place? Aren't there certain inflections in Newfoundland Music, for example, that only Newfoundlanders understand? If that's the case, how do other choirs sing our music if the director cannot teach them the proper inflections? Is it possible/necessary to have consultants for these purposes? Otherwise, are we really capable of doing the music justice? I think the singers are all capable of learning the nuances, but if no one is there to teach them, are they learning them correctly??
Comments:
1. In A Capella Tradition, it says that one of the debates that still exists today is about the narrow list of repertoire for a capella ensembles. However, I don't think this is quite the case anymore. Most a capella groups these days do their own arrangements of songs and therefore don't have to worry about any repertoire restrictions. Also, movies like Pitch Perfect are helping get the a capella style back into popular demand. I would argue that currently, a capella may be making a popularity comeback similar to its popularity in the 20's and 30's. Simply look at groups like Rajaton, Pentatonix, and Kokopelli, and you will see that a capella groups are covering many different genres of music and expanding the repertoire greatly.
2. It also mentions the "Contemporary Music Project" as a way of getting teachers to expand the musical pathways they open for their students. I think this is a great thing. How many times has a curriculum changed in a math or science program? The reason for the change is to make it a more extensive or in depth curriculum that is more beneficial for the students. While this might make the teacher a little uncomfortable, it is for the benefit of the student. If all other academic subjects have they curriculum outcomes under constant review, music should as well. The argument is music to be treated as an equal subject, and therefore we need to partake in the uncomfortable or stressful changes. It's not a mark on our intelligence to make changes, it is just a development in music.
Questions:
1. There is an extensive amount of discussion on looking at "the impact" of choral music on a student as a means expressing its effectiveness. Is this how they test the effectiveness of every academic subject? I have to think that no it's probably not. How many times have students been told that they study math because "it's good for you", but is it really? How many experiences in a math class can make lifelong memories, probably not as many a single choir performance. My question is - why is "the impact" of something a justifiable means of evaluating the subject? And if it is justifiable, why are all subjects upheld to the same standards?
2. Near the end, there is discussion of the repertoire expanding into folk music and many choirs are getting into the style of folk music as a means of connecting with the members of that society and broadening the spectrum of choral music. However, is it really possible to learn folk music from someone not from a place? Aren't there certain inflections in Newfoundland Music, for example, that only Newfoundlanders understand? If that's the case, how do other choirs sing our music if the director cannot teach them the proper inflections? Is it possible/necessary to have consultants for these purposes? Otherwise, are we really capable of doing the music justice? I think the singers are all capable of learning the nuances, but if no one is there to teach them, are they learning them correctly??
Is Music Education okay? It it legit?
Today in Orientation to Music Education, we made posters for why music education should be promoted in our schools. We got to pick who our audience and create something that reminds us that the arts are artful. So my poster is below. It is based on chapter 2 of "Music and Teacher: an Orientation to Music Education".
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
Lead Like the Great Conductors - a Response to Itay Talgam
This evening I watched the TED Talk by Israeli conductor, Itay Talgam, entitled "Lead Like the Great Conductors". One of the first things that I noticed was he referred to the conductor of an orchestra as comparable to a "manager" in an office setting. Though I have been around conductors most of my life, I had never heard of thought of them quite in that way, but it makes perfect sense. A manager is like the oversee-er who knows how to do all of the jobs under him/her, but is taking on higher responsibilities while still taking care of those they supervise. At least, a good manager should do so. The conductor is the one who makes it possible for all the voices to be heard in an orchestra, and as Itay phrased it "the joy [of conducting] is enabling other people's stories to be heard at the same time". This resonated with me because I really enjoy making people happy, and I never really thought about the performer's stories or the audience's stories being told so much as the composer's story being told. But without the conductor, no story would get told to the best of its abilities.
However, I did get concerned when he criticized another conductor for not showing the same amount of joy in the conducting. Personally, I felt the first piece he showed was of such a quality that it allowed the conductor to show joy, but the second one was a more serious entry to the piece. Was it that serious quality to the piece that provoked his facial expression and his "excessive control"? Can we really compare the conducting styles and amount of joy shown when we're looking at different styles of pieces?
I also don't necessarily agree with this thought that a conductor doesn't need to be overly clear with their motions because it would restrict listening within the ensemble. The conductor is the person from which the section leaders are meant to get their cues about style and phrasing and overall shape. If the conductor is never clear about that, every section leader could potentially think differently, and the ensemble would never be together. I think there needs to be a certain amount of contact and control exerted by the conductor in every orchestra. Yes the players are all professionals who deserve respect in their musical ideas, but without a conductor exhibiting control, it's really just like a large version of chamber music.
Something I will take away from this would be that a conductor who only asserts authority will not get as successful a result as they would like. They have to be able to be assertive when they need to, and enjoy themselves when they can. This is not to say they have to visually show their enjoyment (again, that is more determined by the style of the piece), but they need to find the balance of control, assertion, and inner joy. You also need to have process and content to get where you want.
In conclusion, I agreed with the majority of what Talgam had to say, that great conductors are as much listeners and enjoy-ers of the music as they are leaders. But I will argue with him that particularly at the levels that we will be experiencing first, the conductor's level of control and assertion needs to be higher than conducting with our face. Though that would be really cool to do, I would say that is more a mark of an incredible ensemble than an incredible conductor.
However, I did get concerned when he criticized another conductor for not showing the same amount of joy in the conducting. Personally, I felt the first piece he showed was of such a quality that it allowed the conductor to show joy, but the second one was a more serious entry to the piece. Was it that serious quality to the piece that provoked his facial expression and his "excessive control"? Can we really compare the conducting styles and amount of joy shown when we're looking at different styles of pieces?
I also don't necessarily agree with this thought that a conductor doesn't need to be overly clear with their motions because it would restrict listening within the ensemble. The conductor is the person from which the section leaders are meant to get their cues about style and phrasing and overall shape. If the conductor is never clear about that, every section leader could potentially think differently, and the ensemble would never be together. I think there needs to be a certain amount of contact and control exerted by the conductor in every orchestra. Yes the players are all professionals who deserve respect in their musical ideas, but without a conductor exhibiting control, it's really just like a large version of chamber music.
Something I will take away from this would be that a conductor who only asserts authority will not get as successful a result as they would like. They have to be able to be assertive when they need to, and enjoy themselves when they can. This is not to say they have to visually show their enjoyment (again, that is more determined by the style of the piece), but they need to find the balance of control, assertion, and inner joy. You also need to have process and content to get where you want.
In conclusion, I agreed with the majority of what Talgam had to say, that great conductors are as much listeners and enjoy-ers of the music as they are leaders. But I will argue with him that particularly at the levels that we will be experiencing first, the conductor's level of control and assertion needs to be higher than conducting with our face. Though that would be really cool to do, I would say that is more a mark of an incredible ensemble than an incredible conductor.
Welcome to Jenny's Choir Blog!
Hello everyone!
This is my first blogging experience, and I'm excited to get started. I hope anyone who reads my blog will find it helpful in some way, shape, or form.
Have a great day! Happy singing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)