On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:19 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
I am surprised that any states do not use blind judging.
How do they eliminate the possibility that a judge would know a
student and then use that information in the resulting rating?
The states I have worked in all used blind judging.
Nearly all of the auditioning I've been involved with from the other
side of the table is for staged productions (ie, opera or musical
theater), so it's hard for me to separate stage presence from other
factors. Even so, I learn a huge amount about a singer by watching
her. If I hear sounds that concern me, I want to see her posture,
lips, neck, etc, to get a quick idea of whether it's just a brief lapse
or indicative of a serious problem in technique that I'll have to work
with. I want to see how confident she is, and how she presents herself
visually. I want to see if she engages the audience with her eyes. I
want to see if her facial expressions enhance the performance and
communicate the text.
Most of these things are less important if it's for concert performance
only, and still less if the singer will never be seen by the audience
at all. Even so, they aren't irrelevant.
Picking the best singer is hard, and you never have time to collect as
much information as you like. Why disable yourself further by cutting
off further information? To me, this is like arguing that auditions
should all be done by listening to the singer on tape instead of live.
Sure, you could do that, and as a practical matter you might have to,
but why would you want to if you have the choice?
--
On the other hand, John Howell wrote:
Hi again, Mark. On the local level the real reason we try to audition
blind is that there are rivalries among both voice teachers and choir
directors, and we attempt to avoid those existing prejudices by not
allowing the judges to know whom they're hearing. This really does
protect the students as much as possible. And it really does allow
you to concentrate on the sound and vocal technique and range. But
it's the very real rivalry that's the proximate cause for using
curtains, not any question of gender roles.
Yeah, I can undestand that. I've been fortunate enough to avoid ever
getting mixed up in any situation like that, but I've seen them from
distance. I could see how auditioning blind would be a necessary evil
in such a case.
I hate that kind of petty politics. If I have any input in choosing
singers my only goal is to get the person who is best for the part and
best for the production.
Ah, I can tell that you're theater-oriented!
True. Most of my experience is in opera and quasi-opera, but I've also
sung in numerous symphony choruses
The average orchestra plays from a stage, is quite visible, and yes,
their physical presence IS part of the product. (Sez me, getting
ready to plunge into the pit with mine viola for this summer's
production of "Oliver!") But the object in choral singing is to
reduce individuality so that physical blend joins vocal blend. That's
why tuxes and long black dresses.
Yes, but appearance matters whether you're looking to increase
individuality or reduce it. If a prospective chorister is incapable of
singing without bobbing her head annoyingly, that's a negative for the
chorus. If a prospective chorister tends to always sing with a dazed
look in his eyes and a scowl on his face, that's a negative for the
chorus. Those are things you won't find out about in a blind audition.
OK, here's a practical answer. Our (very good) community chorus has
one (count them, ONE!) female tenor, and yes, that is her natural and
healthy voice range. She dresses as the women do, and stands at the
border between the tenors and the altos. No physical distraction, and
nobody who doesn't actually know her would notice that she was singing
with the tenors rather than the altos. If we had an alto countertenor
(which we don't), he would stand in about the same place.
I've been in choruses with female tenors often, including one who I
think really was more effective as a tenor than she would have been as
an alto, and it's been similar to what you describe. The SF Symphony
Chorus had an excellent male alto for a few years when I was there, and
one of the UC Berkeley choruses had one for a while to. As far as I'm
concerned, they don't even have to stand at the "border" between
sections. I don't mind seeing a man standing surrounded by women or
vice versa.
As to the concern about whether you need to change the words for a
single off-gendered singer, men have been singing "women's" words and
women have been singing "men's" words for literally centuries. Much
of the renaissance madrigal and chanson literature has gendered
poetry, but it doesn't really matter, and there was no church
prohibition against women singing that literature with men. It's
simply a non-issue in a choral context, whereas for solo voices it
might well be something to consider.
Sure, cross-gender portrayals are commonplace in opera, too.
Personally, I rather like that sort of thing, and I've even used it
intentionally on occasion when I've had the opportunity to design a
program. If I'm directing a chorus where I'm obliged to accept female
tenors, I'd have no problem telling them, "you may be a woman, but
you're playing a male character, so you get to sing 'There is nothing
like a dame' with the rest of the tenors". I'd even welcome the
opportunity to open people's minds a bit, as I did with a teenage boy
in an opera chorus who thought it was "gay" to wear tights.
But I don't assume that my answer is the only answer. I was answering
the people who were asking "what difference does it make?" and "what
possible difference could it make?" I don't think it makes you a
narrow-minded bigot if you prefer not to have men play female roles or
vice versa. I disagree with your claim that it's "simply a non-issue
in a choral context". It may be a small issue, or one which you could
easily address, but it's not a non-issue. If I'm directing a school
chorus when some students are playing cross-gender roles, that's
something we're going to discuss. I'm not going to just pretend it
doesn't mean anything.
That's my thinking, anyway.
And I do respect it.
Likewise. I find this discussion much more rewarding than the facile
red-state-baiting I've seen elsewhere.
mdl
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
