A Little Lerner and Loewe with a Mozart Kicker!

Hello All,

Hopefully by now you’re realizing that though you may understand what it takes to sing the sounds of English and to make them into syllables and the syllables into words and the words into groups of words and the groups of words into meanings - it’s not so easy to apply these understandings. Mostly this has to do with where you are on your vocal technique journey – how much control you have over your voice. The truth is, it takes courage to attempt to sing the sounds of the words when you don’t know if your voice will respond. We singers have a tendency to let our mechanism dictate what vowel we make. But it works better if we don’t let our mechanism be the boss of us! Our larynx, our soft palate, our fauces (look it up) etc. know how to produce an [a] vowel; so why do we constantly try and manipulate all of them to get them to do what they already know how to do? But that’s a bigger discussion for another time.

For now, I want you to watch 3 videos which show two singers in complete control of their vowels. I’ve known them and sung with them my entire career but am still always amazed at how precise they are with their vowels and how much attention they pay to what they’re singing – the words they’re singing. The truth is, their voices are of such beauty that they don’t really need to pay attention to words; and usually people are too busy staring at Nathan to care much about what he’s singing. But they don’t just sing – they communicate. And it’s like a magic trick. They are what they’re singing. There’s no self-consciousness or timidity. There’s just what they’re trying to project. Their sound pours out – their meaning pours out. Think about that the next time you get up to sing in front of people.

First up is Stephen Powell singing ‘There but for you go I’ from Lerner and Loewe’s “Brigadoon” with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (in the tabernacle itself) followed by Nathan Gunn singing ‘Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen’ from Mozart’s “The Magic Flute” in Julie Taymor’s production from the Met. As a bonus I’m having you watch Nathan sing ‘C’est moi’ from Lerner and Loewe’s “Camelot” in a semi-staged production at the New York Philharmonic. He is employing off and on a slight accent to suggest the idea that Lancelot is French but you get the idea.

Enjoy

Stephen – Brigadoon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9oYrch7fRg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9oYrch7fRg

Nathan – Papageno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2NxvM-rIkQ

Nathan – Lancelot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBN_nlXbIIc

In the beginning was the word...

Hello All,

We, singers and teachers of singers are obsessed with tone. We are so obsessed, we spend the first half (give or take) of each lesson without singing words at all – or at least words which have meaning. And tone is important – of course it is. But in order to be an effective performer you have to be able to communicate; and in order to communicate, especially in an art form with words, you have to be able to make those words understood. This is true in all languages but of course it’s especially true for us in English because it’s our language and we’re generally singing it for others whose language is also English.

The easiest way to do this is to just pay attention that you’re actually singing the sounds of the words that you think you are. It’s amazing how many times we’re singing a tone which we’re fairly satisfied with but which doesn’t actually represent any sound (vowel or consonant) which has anything to do with the word or syllable we’re singing (or we think we’re singing). Interestingly, often times when we just concentrate on singing the right sounds of the words our tone is better.
In other words, we really have to commit to the words and let everything else fall into place. No matter where we are on our journey to become the best singer we can be, we need to be using all of our abilities to get the words and the meanings of the words across. It’s not a bad idea to ask yourself while you’re practicing – “Would anyone be interested in this? Am I saying anything?”

To wit, I have two examples of singers who ALWAYS fully commit to the words they’re singing. First up is Dawn Upshaw singing an aria from Handel’s “Theodora” at Glyndebourne in a production directed by Peter Sellers. Sellers is an ultra modern director who deconstructs everything but at his essence takes the meaning of words and the music with which they’re set to extreme. The result can look almost choreographed. But notice how Dawn’s energy in pronunciation and body language and vocal production is 100% at the service of this aria. Even without the context of the aria we get a real sense of what is happening and how she feels about it. I’ve always said that Dawn is the most sympathetic singer alive in the sense that as an audience member, you want things to work out for her characters. I think her commitment to expressing the text with all of her “vocal crayons” is the principle reason for this.

Secondly we have a performance of a completely different stripe but with just as much commitment. Kristin Chenoweth may very well be a genius. She is a very upbeat and bubbly person which may cover up the fact that she is extraordinarily good at putting across words. Every phrase she sings seems to have meaning. She gives unbelievably broad and detailed performances all of the time. Here she is singing Glitter and Be Gay from Leonard Bernstein’s “Candide” which is an impossible aria in its virtuosity. She makes it seem like a breeze and she completely wrings the meaning out of every word and every note. She is so “out there” in her performance that if she weren’t completely committed to it we would almost be embarrassed for her. Also, if she weren’t singing the words so that they were understood, imagine how foolish she would look. If you put yourself into something and do it with sincerity an audience will eat it up and be with you completely.

Enjoy,

R

Dawn Upshaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G98wZzwRHf8

Kristen Chenoweth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVsLMxam21I 

It seems so easy...

Being out on the road again with other professional singers recently, I was reminded once again (for the thousandth time) that singing is a complete human pursuit. What I mean by that is, you can’t just make a good sound, or just look good, or just act well, or just have good diction etc… You have to do it all and at the same time. As a teacher, I’m too often relieved enough when a student gets through a song without something horrible happening or with just a handful of good sounds. And, of course, learning this craft is a process and so I think that anything to be proud of along the path has enough virtue to get one through the day. However, in truth, you can’t remove one part of the equation and make it better and have a whole performance work. It takes a village to make a performance – a village of events – and each event can make every other event better. They feed on one another. Let me give an example. If you’re singing a word on a note and the syllable on the note is an [a] vowel and your mouth looks like you’re singing a good relaxed [a] vowel, then chances are you sound good AND you look good. It’s a perfect storm of [a]! The problem is, even in a song like “Caro mio ben” there are 21 [a] vowels, 26 [E] vowels (some of which are [e] if you’re doing such things, 24 [i] vowels, 18 [o] vowels (again, some of which are also open), and 5 [u] vowels and each has to look good and sound good no matter where they lie on the scale. AND they all come before and after a myriad of consonants and consonant clusters which can change the game completely. It’s a remarkable tribute to the human brain that we can sing a song at all. Singing has to look real to sound real to be real. And the more you’ll invest yourself in it, the more it’ll all work.

For us, English can be the most efficient language in which to get all of this because we not only know what it sounds like but we also know what it looks like. That’s right; each language looks different not only in terms of mouth position but in terms of body usage too. Watch a Spanish talk show some time with the sound off (or one in another language if you can find one on cable). You’ll be amazed at how crazy people look. Bodies have their own language in different cultures as well

To wit, I have two videos for you. They are both complete performances though of incredibly different natures.  Both are in English and are fairly casual in their way. The first is of John Raitt singing the soliloquy from “Carousel” and it’s a remarkable performance of a remarkable piece. There was nothing like it in musical theater before but when Rogers and Hammerstein realized the vocal resource they had in John Raitt (Bonnie Raitt’s father), they broke the mold and wrote this virtuoso piece. Don’t just enjoy it but analyze it and be amazed at what this man does on live television! He looks like what he’s singing, he’s always “in the piece,” he’s always supported and engaged, and though his rhythm is spot on, he’s singing words – not just pitches, rhythms and syllables. Also, notice his diphthongs. He’s trying to sing in a fairly country vernacular but his [aI]s and his [oU]s are fantastic.

The second video is of counter tenor David Daniels singing Purcell’s “Sweeter Than Roses.”  He’s one of my best friends but he’s also one of my favorite singers. Notice how each word seems important and how the music seems to leap off of the words. There is crazy energy to the extent that it seems like he’s making it up as he goes along. Harry Bicket (a conductor with whom David often works and who has done a class for us before as well) once said, “Don’t just hang the syllables on the pitches but make the words seem to create the pitches.” This is a perfect example of this.

What else do you notice?

These really are two of my favorite videos I’ve ever seen. Please take the time to watch and enjoy them. I’m not providing texts to these videos as I don’t think you need them at all!  I am including a link to the score of the Purcell song.  I would like for you to watch David as he sings the song but I would also like you to listen to it again while watching the score to see just how little information is on the page.  Whatever you hear - dynamics, speeds, emotion - is all David and his pianist.  Also, just know that Purcell only wrote a bass line and a melody.  The rest is arrangement.  

Enjoy,
R

John Raitt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCUapUEFkY

David Daniels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySXA9lP6yJE 

http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/1/10/IMSLP64338-PMLP131084-Sweeter_than_roses.pdf