It is a very interesting article. In other fields, it would be called a "position paper", I guess.
Some parts can be seen as provocative:
Singers with a thousand different voices-- a different color for every note-- are not "interpreting" music. They are singing badly. They have no inner reason for singing; no inner perspective giving their singing impetus. They have no point of view. Having no inner guidance they "pop" it and try to "sell it." They may even use the pop singer's techniques of straight-tone onsets, uneven vibrato, and hand gestures. Usually they feel it is unnecessary for them to study the great singers in opera's history. They may even think it would be harmful for them!Personally, I've come to think that "they have no inner reason for singing" might not quite hit the spot. They may well have (I know I did), but their vocal technique gets in the way, and cannot convey this inner perspective. This, of course, leaves both singer and audience frustrated. And of course, when you try to pop it and sell it, whether there was an inner perspective to begin with becomes a moot point.
I'd like to tell an anecdote: A few days before reading Shore's article, we had had one of our gatherings here at our place, with Bengt visiting from Stockholm and spending two days teaching us and friends. It's become quite an event, and many of the "students" testify that they've been searching for years for this kind of sensation when singing. This time we had been talking about how proper singing is a flow experience, in that it demands so much of your attention.
Shortly after that, I was driving and listening to the radio. They were talking about a production of a Haydn opera at Drottningholm. They announced a sound clip from the performance, and felt that it was important to inform the listener that the soprano was playing badminton while singing her coloratura aria - and the applause from the audience came because she actually managed to hit the ball... Needless to say, hearing the aria without the benefit of also seeing the badminton match left the listener somewhat unsatisfied; it sounded a bit like she was preoccupied while singing. I couldn't help thinking that this was the exact opposite of what our own singing sessions were aiming for.
Shore returns to this theme later on:
There is a term many genuine singers have for this kind of "diminutive," "stylistic, mannered" singing. It is called 'dishonest' singing! As Osborne says, "We cannot care about or believe in a note they sing or a word they say." Think about a truly great artist like Caballe, Sutherland, Horne, Corelli, Bastianini, Siepi, or Hines. There is a quality of depth or "honesty" about everything they sing. There are no tricks. No deceptions. They utilize the beautiful legato line, with the big tone, as their principle means of interpretation. They do not take the pop singers approach which removes consistent resonantal quality out of tones for the sake of individual word coloring. Word coloring is done subtly within the broader usage of legato and tonal beauty.So who is this Joseph Shore anyway? Well, he was a fairly accomplished American opera singer. Why he didn't enjoy an international career is a very interesting story, told in the book Good Dreams, which you can download from his web site. Shore stumbled onto the opera stage mainly by accident, learning some arias by listening to records in 1973, and then winning the Met Auditions two years later, with a voice that was simply stunning for a 26 year-old (not to mention one who had not been schooled). A clip from the radio broadcast can be found on youtube:
Surely this is something for singers to shoot for in their singing. Surely this is worthwhile. Surely this is "honest" singing. Singers will grow as individuals from this kind of singing. Singing will become their "yoga" in life and give them MORE to express. People WILL then care about the words they say and the notes they sing, and they will not need a microphone to keep people's attention.
If I may offer a word here to the confused modern singer, regardless of the level of talent you as a singer may possess, you must go for the best in yourself. How can you go for less? Even if you do not have the talent to be a supremely great singer, you can learn from the art of the great singers and thereby find the best in yourself. The "art" of singing has much to offer the human spirit.
Some singers may think that the information in this article is all very depressing. You may think you would be better off not knowing. That might be possible, but I tend to believe that is reality denial which will leave you confused and guessing. The truth is always all there is. Usually it is better to know it.
The book is entertaining, and tells the story of his successes and big disappointments, when he was "blackballed", and branded as difficult. Shore tells of his own self-destructive moves and bad timing, but also of how he often won the audience and critics, and found supporters among some of the great singers of the last century.
Perhaps Mr Shore's path was intended to prepare him for teaching? I kept wondering while reading the book how he would eventually become a good teacher. People who win their laurels too easily seldom become good teachers. Would Shore really be able to help others build a big voice, since he didn't have to build his own? The answer is given in the book:
When I faced my students I was considerably less secure. I had never been trained as a teacher of voice, nor had I patiently developed my own voice through long rigorous study. I had a few empirical images from my own teachers, but that was it. My first semester showed how new I was. The young, minimally talented students, just learning Caro mio Ben really benefited very little from my Bardelli sayings. I was way over their head. I was determined not to fail as a voice teacher so I went to the music library and literally read all of the books on vocal pedagogy. Luckily for me, my first semester we had many master teachers come in for 231 classes. I learned from all of them. As I read books on voice science and physiology I began to develop a way of teaching which I thought would communicate and show results. I gave the student just enough information about his physiology that would help and experimented with exercises designed to work on the involuntary muscle systems that we use in singing. I seemed to have something of a knack for it. The result was that my second semester students shot way up in Juries and my colleagues gave it kind notice.It is so easy for us to get hooked on the idea of becoming famous; if we don't get that world career, we are failures, and we couldn't have been much good to begin with. This is something I've had to struggle with personally from time to time: I was expected to have a fine athletic career, and believe that I had enough talent to aim for an Olympic final. But talent is not everything - not even talent and ambition. You also need to stay clear of injuries, have good advisors, and perhaps also a fair bit of luck. I may have had enough talent; I probably didn't want it badly enough, and I didn't stay clear of injuries. It took me several years to get over the feeling that I had wasted a great opportunity. I was/am also very good with computers. I've enjoyed quite a good career in programming, and have received some international recognition, but I can't help feeling that I'm only putting half a heart into it - if you want to become really great at something, that won't do. I've also thought for many years that I could have been a successful singer (not only because there aren't that many tall tenors around), but I've always had this thing about being judged on subjective grounds. This kept me from singing in public for many years. With age, I've come to realize that my own particular gift is to see the connecting patterns, and it is this mindset that, more than anything, keeps me from single-mindedly pursuing any specialized field. Successes and failures are in themselves neither good nor bad. It's how they shape us that matters.
I saw now a different side to the world of singing. I had literally started out at the top, bypassing all of this level of education. All of the singers I had known had been great professional opera singers. What did I have to say to these kids? It happened slowly, but as I tried to teach them as my teachers had taught me, I found myself loving them. And then I realized that singing is far more than a contest to the top of the world. Singing is a human experience which everyone has a right to do. Most of my students did not have much talent if you looked at them the way I had been looking at singers in New York. They would graduate and then go out and teach public school music. A few would go on to graduate school and teach in College. I had none that could possibly reach entrance level professional. Was that a waste of time? No. I changed in Greensboro. Love for my students changed me and I continued my reading and my research to try to develop my personal way of teaching voice.
Perhaps it is really a shame that Joseph Shore didn't receive international recognition as an opera singer. On the other hand, it seems as if the mistakes and injustices, as well as his initial career as a scholar and the successes he did enjoy after all, all served to make him a fine teacher.
Joseph Shore has a great story to tell. I'm sure he also has a lot to teach.