# Considering studying opera, would it be worthwhile?



## kbrengle (May 7, 2013)

I studied classical vocal performance in college, but then strayed from music for several years. I came back to it 2 years ago and have been steadily improving over that time. My love of opera is new, and this was the first time I ever sang anything from an opera:






(Me: Violetta)

I can hear what doesn't quite work, but I wonder if it might be worth studying - if I have enough raw materials?


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Okay... I won't go into deep detail because some of what I said to our other "auditioner" Catherine will be applicable to you. Please read what I wrote in that thread, and then this added...

You obviously come to the table with extant training and experience beyond what Catherine has told us. You can read music and have already sung in a pretty solid vocal environment.

My initial response is a simple ''yes", you will benefit from enlarging upon your current skills and learning more. Whether you can find a position (chorus or comprimario or full "role") in an opera company depends not just on your skill set but also on the "market" where you live. If you're in a fairly large community (as seems to be the case), you should be able to find yourself a "home".

Your voice is clear, resonant, and nicely pitched. Incidentally the tenor had a bit of trouble holding the note without wavering up or down, you did not. And my apologies to him, he may have just been experiencing a bad night -- all of us have these.

You seem to have good projection and pronunciation, solid rhythm and sense of timing of the phrase, and good diction as well.

I frankly find no faults with your singing at all, except that with more study, more practice, more lessons, you can improve. And this is all good, if only for your self-esteem and because singing better is more fun than singing almost better, right?

So I really think you're asking for us to give you a little push in the upswing direction, and for my sake, I'm happy to do so. You will do well to seek out private lessons and increase your skill set. And don't be afraid of being told "no thanks", either. Artists of all types have to develop a thick skin to take rejection. When I first started writing modern-day American private detective novels, it took me more than a year of searching for an agent or publisher before I finally found someone to purchase my first book, then my second (I refused to self-publish, aka "vanity" publish). Now I'm working on the 3rd novel and have a modest but steady group of fans who are looking for that new book. No I've not made a gazillion bucks but the money flow is at least in the right direction, into my bank account instead of out, ha ha.

So an unequivocal "Yes" is the brief response to your question. And keep us posted on your progress and be sure to ask questions whenever. On my part, I will be tactful but honest, as I tried to be with Catherine.

And no, I'm no expert on the voice or singing or teaching voice at all. I'm a decent semi-pro bass-baritone (now retired due to my bad arthritis and weakened heart). But what I CAN bring to the discussion is genuine experience in the vagaries of not being a totally great singer, not being an awful one either, but also someone who DID get better, lots better, with professional private lessons. True, some folks are prodigies and can sing naturally without pro training but those are few, and certainly not me.

Good luck!


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm no musicologist but i'd like (maybe one day, i will) write a book about opera. I'd like to study baroque opera during D. João V's reign in Portugal or about the opera house Teatro Nacional S. Carlos in Lisbon. In time, i will.

I could never try to have singing lessons for two reasons: 1) i suck at it and 2) i simply could never be an opera singer. Also i'm too old to play an instrument so well to be in an orchestra. On composing, I've thought to compose operas, as everyone else here i think. It's something i'd dream of. However i'm too late for that also. But above all, i'll like to conduct an orchestra. I think i could conduct La Boheme or Verdi's Requiem from the top of my head.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

dio, you echo what most of us here feel, that we'd love to somehow be able to participate in opera, something more than simple fandom, and contribute.

Most of us simply don't have the talent or time or wherewithal (hey, it takes money to study music and someone has to pay the bills, many of us have families, etc). Your interest in operatic scholarship is interesting, and you seem to have selected a very specific portion of the vast operatic landscape on which to write. I'd recommend you pursue this, if only for your own pleasure, researching period opera and studying historic accounts. Who knows what you might discover?

Conducting? (and yes I know that you're "blue skying" here) is not something we can do simply by waving our arms passionately. We all do that in the shower or while driving (a bit) or standing in the living room listening to Tosca. ha ha. But in truth, a conductor must have an intimate knowledge of each instrument in the orchestra, of music, of the composer, and essentially have memorized the score. Our maestro, for example, conducted the entire Marriage of Figaro without opening his score.

I was lucky to have a fairly decent innate voice on which to build, and very good pitch sense. For me, lessons helped greatly because 1- I had some basic raw talent, and 2- my teacher knew his stuff.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

dionisio said:


> On composing, I've thought to compose operas, as everyone else here i think. It's something i'd dream of. However i'm too late for that also.


no, it's not! I've thought about it, as well, and you can do it for yourself, if you're not good enough to share it with the world. I've, uh, written a few things, not that I'd post them even here, after having gone into the composers' forum and seeing how good some people are. But it feels nice to go back and listen to stuff you've made. Above all, it's awesome _to be doing it_. I listen to the stuff I enjoy and think about how this or that composer worked out a situation here and there and then I try to use that process as a guide for myself. There are a lot of formulas in opera; sometimes it's almost like following a recipe. It's (geeky) fun, if nothing else and you will learn stuff  you learn easier after you've tried to do it yourself. And this from the most basic musical amateur you can imagine  do it, really, you've got nothing to lose.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

katdad said:


> dio, you echo what most of us here feel, that we'd love to somehow be able to participate in opera, something more than simple fandom, and contribute.
> 
> Most of us simply don't have the talent or time or wherewithal (hey, it takes money to study music and someone has to pay the bills, many of us have families, etc). Your interest in operatic scholarship is interesting, and you seem to have selected a very specific portion of the vast operatic landscape on which to write. I'd recommend you pursue this, if only for your own pleasure, researching period opera and studying historic accounts. Who knows what you might discover?
> 
> ...


Yes, you're totally right. When i said about conducting, it is a mere dream. I can read music but not as good enough to conduct an orchestra. In fact, there's been always a block, i feel, from what i can read and what i listen. Normally if i read a sheet, i have to listen to it afterwards, because i lack of understanding the interpretation of it. When i said about Puccini's Boheme and Verdi's Requiem it was because i know these works so well, i have them all in my mind, every passage, every note, every dynamics.

So as far as i can foresee about what i could contribute to opera, it would be in fact, simply studying it. And there i think i could give, even by just a little step, something to contribute.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Being able to "read" music is part innate talent and part learned skill, I think. And by "reading" I mean "sight reading", that is, seeing a score and hearing the notes in your mind, like that terrific scene in "Amadeus" when Salieri sees the pages of Mozart's music and is stunned at the brilliance, especially when he learns these are "fair copies" and first drafts, no revisions.

I can look at a vocal line on the sheet music and "hear" the notes pretty well, but sometimes I need to plink it out a bit on a keyboard. But I learned to read music as a choirboy so that skill comes with many years background. Nevertheless I often get a particular sequence wrong (although nearly correct) and miss some accidentals the first couple times through.

But this is just a single vocal line. When I look at a full orchestral score, I'm in deep water and can't do more than pick out a teeny bit of the music.

A conductor has to "hear" the whole string section, the woodwinds, the brass, percussion also, all simultaneously. Way beyond my skill set.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about when Toscanini first came to the Met. He was a young guy, in his 20s and now big shot at the Met, so the orchestra was understandably skeptical.

They began conducting a rehearsal of, let's say, Tosca (I don't know which opera, doesn't matter). And the orchestra is pretty amazed and somewhat irritated that he's conducting with his scorebook closed. During the overture, Toscanini stops the orchestra, starts once more, then stops and tells the lead trumpet "Measure 35, that's an A-natural, you played A-flat." which is pretty amazing, his being able to hear each instrument and know what was played only the 2nd time through.

So the trumpeter says "Sir, it's marked A-flat on my score." and asked, he brings it to the podium and sure enough, it's printed A-flat. Undeterred, Toscanini says, "That is an error." So they go back to the Met archives for the original score that's stored away, and sure enough, the original had it A-natural and it was a misprint that had been there for years.

Needless to say, Arturo had the orchestra in his palm after that.


----------



## kbrengle (May 7, 2013)

katdad said:


> There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about when Toscanini first came to the Met. He was a young guy, in his 20s and now big shot at the Met, so the orchestra was understandably skeptical.
> 
> They began conducting a rehearsal of, let's say, Tosca (I don't know which opera, doesn't matter). And the orchestra is pretty amazed and somewhat irritated that he's conducting with his scorebook closed. During the overture, Toscanini stops the orchestra, starts once more, then stops and tells the lead trumpet "Measure 35, that's an A-natural, you played A-flat." which is pretty amazing, his being able to hear each instrument and know what was played only the 2nd time through.
> 
> ...


That's fantastic. Thank you katdad for such a lengthy and thorough response. I'll read the other thread as well.

Another question - I find that after I've been singing a lot of classical/opera, when I come back to musical theater I have a very difficult time (but not the other way around). It destroys any belting ability. Has anyone else experienced this? Is it something that can be trained away?


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

I've not sung musical theater but I totally understand "belting" and how it's different from simply singing opera at an increased volume. Belting is a technique, like falsetto. And it's eschewed in opera, thankfully so.

I'm sure that it's possible to switch from belt/no-belt techniques but I've got no idea how it's done. That's something a professional teacher can help with, I'm sure.

As I said, the Toscanini story is likely apocryphal but it's still a good one.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

katdad said:


> Being able to "read" music is part innate talent and part learned skill, I think. And by "reading" I mean "sight reading", that is, seeing a score and hearing the notes in your mind, like that terrific scene in "Amadeus" when Salieri sees the pages of Mozart's music and is stunned at the brilliance, especially when he learns these are "fair copies" and first drafts, no revisions.
> 
> I can look at a vocal line on the sheet music and "hear" the notes pretty well, but sometimes I need to plink it out a bit on a keyboard. But I learned to read music as a choirboy so that skill comes with many years background. Nevertheless I often get a particular sequence wrong (although nearly correct) and miss some accidentals the first couple times through.
> 
> ...


Well, i cannot read that well yet. I need a keyboard or, when listenning while reading, i can follow the score. That's it for now.

But about that scene from Amadeus, i get goosebumps everytime i watch it.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

katdad said:


> There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about when Toscanini first came to the Met. He was a young guy, in his 20s and now big shot at the Met, so the orchestra was understandably skeptical.
> 
> They began conducting a rehearsal of, let's say, Tosca (I don't know which opera, doesn't matter). And the orchestra is pretty amazed and somewhat irritated that he's conducting with his scorebook closed. During the overture, Toscanini stops the orchestra, starts once more, then stops and tells the lead trumpet "Measure 35, that's an A-natural, you played A-flat." which is pretty amazing, his being able to hear each instrument and know what was played only the 2nd time through.
> 
> ...


Many anecdotes exist around Toscanini. His photographic memory is widely known. Probably, after von Bülow, he was the second conductor to conduct with the score in his mind. In fact, the first time he conducted was in Brazil. It was acts 3 and 4 from Aida. He was, back then, a cello player. However it seems that the conductor was such a mess during that performance that the orchestra demanded to be Toscanini, the cello player, to conduct. And he did it, for the first time, with out the score!


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

kbrengle said:


> Another question - I find that after I've been singing a lot of classical/opera, when I come back to musical theater I have a very difficult time (but not the other way around). It destroys any belting ability. Has anyone else experienced this? Is it something that can be trained away?


Not a singer here, just speaking secondhand from what I've observed from my partner's vocal development. The best teachers begin with technique and expect your total allegiance to the technique they teach. From what I understand, belting is incompatible with proper operatic technique and a teacher might advise (or require) that you set it aside for a while, if not permanently. They might be horrified to learn that you've been doing it on the side. You've probably noticed that although opera stars might occasionally sing show tunes, they still stick to operatic technique, not belting.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

I agree w. Cav... even if doing Broadway musicals, belting is unnecessary as it's essentially a cheap way to get volume that legit operatic technique can also bring. If you use operatic skills when singing a Broadway musical, you'll be fine regardless.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

A word about "belting" for those who may not be familiar...

Belting is an actual singing technique used by cabaret singers, pop, and Broadway musical singers to produce volume. "Ethel Merman could sure belt out a song!" would be a typical comment.

Belting is use of the upper chest and shoulders to increase air capacity and resonance instead of the diaphragm more correctly used in operatic technique. Belting does create more "noise" but at the cost of purity of tone, because the tension of the shoulders and chest transfers to the vocal structure and causes a strained, forced sound.


----------

