So just to make this clear: I'm not against public education and conservatories. Actually I had a great time during the 6 years of conservatory at Fontys Conservatorium in Tilburg: interesting and challenging projects, getting to know all sorts of people (crazy musicologists, autenticity-obsessed instrumentalists, nice people, amazing singers and inspiring teachers). Though I am still not entirely sure whether the Prussian result-oriented education system is the perfect education model for singers, and at the same time I'm sure that applying a few adjustments would lead to some very remarkable results.
Actually, in general I am absolutely sure and convinced that the Prussian result-oriented system is not the perfect education model for teaching performing arts. The funny thing about this whole thing that teachers know this very well, but as soon as you get to the board of the school and the students and their results become numbers in statistics, sh*t hits the fan and art education is being pushed into marketing terms and norms, and in the end the ones who damage the most are the students. Being considered as a single number in the statistics puts pressure on the student, which is not a bad thing, but the more sensitive ones just barely able or completely unable to deal with the stress this result-based system brings. That's why you can see many crying dancers, musicians (especially singers) on the corridors around the time of exams and personal evaluation.
But the core of the problem is what society demands us to do: be fast, produce good results and make a lot of money. If we are talking about arts these demands will only bring misfortune and make artists miserable. Why? I think it's obvious, but here's the thing:
- You need to take the time for doing well something. Sometimes it happens in a split of a second, but many of us need time, and rushing us will only make us frustrated and anxious which leads to even slower process.
- Producing good results is a contradiction in itself, since the term "good" is a relative; a result's goodness very much depends on the situation in question.
- If you think you can make a lot of money with arts, you have definitly chosen for the wrong carreer. Nowadays you can make a lot of money by making people miserable or benefit from miserable people (for example a lawyer, an undertaker, a doctor or a financial expert will always have a good salary, because there will be always lawsuits for lawyers, dead to bury, sick people to cure and poor people). Every profession connected to arts will always cost more work than you actually get paid for, and also you make people happy and you entertain them (hopefully).
Pushing a singer (or any artist) into good results in short time is the worst and most inhuman deed ever, because these results cannot hold. I will never forget my ever first singing exam evaluation. Just a little background to the story: I am from Hungary, a country which is highly praised for the musicians and singers it produces, but the fact is that although organ, piano, violin and any other instrumental education is really amazing with amazing technique, you barely find any singing teacher who actually will teach proper and useful singing technique. There is no education for that at all; they help you build your repertory (which, in my opinion, you can do yourself as well, but whatever...) but they don't give you a good and firm basis to help this repertory and your future carreer. It is not because they are mean or evil, they are just absolutely clueless (there are exceptions of course, that's out of the question). So by the time I got accepted to Fontys Conservatorium in Tilburg, I had several years of repertory building, but no technique. I began my studies in September 2008 and had my ever first singing exam in December 2008, and the first evaluation I got back then was this: "We are not sure that we can give you a diploma in the end of the 4th year". You can imagine how mad I got after hearing this insane sentence: I still don't understand how can anyone say anything like this to someone with barely 4 months of vocal training behind the back? Fortunately I was always motivated by comments like this, and after cooling my head down and crying a lot under the shower, feeling completely humiliated, I got my act together and despite the continuous comments on how my level as a singer is not good enough comparing to my classmates I worked hard and not only finished my Bachelor degree with a good result but also accepted to the Masters. I had also people who encouraged me during these years. For instance We had a masterclass with Ian Honeyman in the second year and when he saw me completely depressed by not being able to sing If music be the food of love by Henry Purcell as perfect as I wanted it to be, he asked me how long do I have proper vocal training? I told him that was the second year I am having one, to which he told me that then I have a young voice so don't worry. And you know what? He was right. I've been told at that time very often that working on your technique, on your voice is a development for a lifetime, but somehow nobody care to mention this in the end of the evaluations. Now that I think back I was thinking and what were my expectation after brief 2 years of training I think I had way too high expectations towards myself - also willing to please my singing teacher, Ildikó Hajnal, though she has never asked for it, was a wrong idea.
Another twist in this system comes from this: not only singers, instrumentalists are working on their technique during their training, and then get an evaluation on their performing skills. I mean, how sick is that? Yes, work on that scale and that excercise, but actually we won't care about that on your exam! Ehh??? As soon as I managed to understand that the exam committee won't ever pay any attention to my technique but my performance skills and I began to work on rather enjoying making music than worry about the deficiencies of my technique, my grades and evaluation became (step by step) better and better. And here's another twist: your audience doesn't care about your technique, neither are they interested in a perfect technique.
Sooo... basically we are running in circles when it comes to music education. I wonder why is that... Why can't we try to find a proper solution for the situation in question instead of sticking to solution patterns? Because that's what marketing does: using patterns, which works everywhere perfectly fine except arts, and here I'm not talking about organizing an event, I'm talking about achieving results in the personal development of a performer and/or an artist.
Why are we so obsessed with pushing arts in marketing terms and try to
evaluate its relsults based on numbers while we know it doesn't work
that way? It's like being a complete retard: I know this rounded shaped object won't fit in this tiny square shaped hole but I will still do my best to fit it
even if I know that the round shaped object would fit in a round shaped
hole, and I have to find a tiny cube for this tiny square shaped hole. Simply madness... Arts don't work like this...
Just as I mentioned in my first entry that I would like to talk about things that hardly anyone mentioned me during my singing studies.
The first thing I could name here is this: if your voice changes, your personality and/or behaviour changes and vice-versa. The main problem of singing education nowadays that most of singing teachers and conservatories and even professional ensembles and artists are considering the human voice as an instrument that similar to a violin or a piano. That wouldn't much of a problem, but they are treating these "human instruments" as they would never treat a violin, a piano or any other musical instrument - the treatment very often could be described as smashing it with a hammer and expecting gratefulness for it from the singer.
Singing education nowadays never talk about how destructive it can be if you stick with imitating your singing teacher (for the record: I'm not saying that imitation your teacher is a bad thing, because it is a way of learning and an important step in the development of the voice, but you cannot get stuck in it!). They also not mention how important it is to become as independent as possible, aside from a very few exceptions, and feel yourself lucky if your teacher not only encourages you to do so, but also bears with your kicks towards freedom.
Why am I saying this? Well, believe or not, as a singing teacher you are far more responsible for your pupils than any instrumental teacher. Lajos Szamosi (notice: Hungarian singing pedagogue, the developer of the approach to freedom in singing; for more info about the approach see link, but I will quote him quite often since his studies and publications made a huge impact on my way of thinking) in one of his publication says (I'm paraphrasing from the original Hungarian): "To get someone to free singing is therefore not a musical task but personal, psychological task and problem, because there is a deep connection between the freedom in singing and one's personal, inner freedom. Only the material we use on the pedagogical way is musical."
Do you know the moments when you read two simple sentences and then you have this "aha!"-experience? I had exactly this thing after I've read this. I mean, I was busy with practising all sorts of scales and was stressing myself with acrobatic excercises and then you just figure out that you've been way too harsh towards yourself as a person and you tried to "treat your instrument with a hammer". I would add to this something that Elizabeth Schwarzkopf said at a masterclass: "Singers have to work much more, because they are the instrument. You can always buy a new violin when it's broken, a flute, or whatever... but NOT the voice! The human being is the instrument. And that's why I would say, that singing is something very essential."
So... If the human being is the instrument itself, you cannot seperate the mental-emotional part of this instrument. Letting a singer (pupil or professional) torture himself or herself with self-hatred is just simply wrong, but in a way it is so typical in our chaotic world. Singers are refined human beings, working on their whole "equipment" throughout their whole life (until death, even if they are not active performers in the last years of their life). Even funnier: if you begin to focus more on getting know yourself better and love yourself more, you will be just really unable to avoid radical development. Caution! The people around you (family, friends, your significant other) may complain, but since you are in the middle of a process don't apologize and don't stop in the middle of the process, but tell them to bear with your new You a bit longer and don't regret anything. Btw, this is the reason it is like hell to date a singer... :))
And finally just a fun fact: hiring singers in earlier centuries (around 15th-17th centuries) were always more
expensive than hiring instrumentalists. This (of course) doesn't make
instrumentalists worth less than singers, it's just a historical fact...
And just a +1 a fact that none of any instrumentalist will become a
fine musician if he/she doesn't like to sing (chill out, you don't have to be a soloist...).
So bottom line: don't be afraid of change. It is normal and natural - and you don't have to be a singer to welcome the idea of change :))
