The Needs of the Many…

This is a reblog of an essay I had originally published using Facebook Notes, a service that Facebook has since discontinued. 

 

I am a voice teacher, and I believe that classical singing is a skill set that can be taught and mastered.

Our educational institutions, by and large, do not.

On the face of it, this assertion would seem to be not only outrageous but also senseless. After all, our opera and concert stages demonstrate no shortage of wonderful vocal artists, most who trained at reputable music schools. The administrations and faculties of our college and conservatory voice departments include brilliant, passionate educators and musicians who care deeply about their students and the future of the art form, and many programs boast a track record of producing stellar, professionally viable singers.

That track record might seem to contradict my assertion, that these institutions do not believe classical singing is a skill set that can be taught and mastered. Until you consider how very few of their students actually do become stellar, professionally viable singers. They hold up the shining stars among their alumni as evidence of their programs’ success, while dismissing the fact that not all (and in many cases, few to none) of their students achieve a professional level of skill and artistry each year.

If these departments truly believed that classical singing is a skill set that can be taught and mastered, they would never congratulate themselves on the success of the few. They would have to acknowledge how far they are falling short in their mission to provide all of their students with the means to achieve proficiency. It would require a culture-wide reckoning, because when you really believe that this is a skill set that can be taught and mastered, you make a commitment to each and every student that in return for their commitment to your program, they will be led to master this skill set. You must then take that commitment to heart. You become accountable for making good on your promises.

Our institutions generally do not behave as though they believe that all students who enroll in their programs are capable of mastering the skill set. They seem to behave as though they believe that their voice students’ success depends far more upon innate talent and luck than exceptional instruction. I say this because:

• They accept far more students into their programs than they can equitably serve. Then they sit back to see which will distinguish themselves. From the moment a student accepts their offer of enrollment, they are plunged into a Hunger Games environment of structural scarcity, where they must compete with one another for resources like scholarships, performance opportunities, a slot in the star teacher’s studio, and so on. For anyone who imagines that this is great motivation for learning, I must strongly disagree. This is an art form, not an episode of Survivor. When a student has a breakthrough or gives an amazing performance, that should serve as inspiration for their peers rather than instilling shame or resentment. Our institutions cannot facilitate a spirit of collaboration and collegiality when they do not commit to providing all of their students with the resources and attention they need.
• They do not codify a standard of skill and artistry that students are expected to achieve in order to graduate. Without a codified standard, you cannot create a curriculum designed to help your students achieve that standard. You cannot assess your students’ progress in terms of any standard. You cannot assess voice faculty competence with regard to their ability to help their students develop a comprehensive technique. You may be able to assign grades in theory and repertoire classes, but without a codified performance standard you cannot assess the extent to which their learning translates into musical artistry rather than just accuracy. I’ve heard it argued that there is no way to create a standard that everyone would agree with, and I call bullshit. While priorities and preferences may vary slightly, it is absolutely possible and necessary to define a baseline standard that a classical singer must attain in order to be professionally viable. If you believe that classical singing is a skill set that can be taught and mastered, you can hold all of your students to a codified standard of technical prowess, musicianship, and dramatic engagement. Any argument to the contrary suggests that you don’t really think that all of your students can develop balanced registration, coloratura flexibility, stylistic nuance, dramatic specificity, etc. This provides cover to your department for offering an incomplete curriculum (e.g. insufficient acting training or language instruction) and gives cover to voice teachers who don’t know how to teach specific technical skills, or who straight up lack any real concept of technique or pedagogical competence. Without a codified standard, there can be no accountability. So when any student fails to achieve a professional level of competence, it’s just assumed that they lacked the talent, luck and/or commitment to get there.

 

Here is how things would be different, if voice departments believed that classical singing is a skill set that can be taught and mastered, and if they were truly committed to making sure that all of their students achieved a professional level of artistry:

• They would codify and apply baseline performance standards required for graduation.These standards would not have anything to do with subjective taste (e.g. beautiful voice, charismatic performer) but rather objective competencies (demonstrated command of technique, applied musicianship, lyric diction, character definition and stage deportment).
• They would engineer a curriculum designed to ensure that all voice students meet these standards. They would make sure to cover all bases (i.e. no essential languages or other skill sets left out). They would eliminate the structural scarcity we have come to accept as the norm and work vigilantly to ensure equitable access to resources (i.e. everyone gets the performance experiences they need, everyone gets the funding they need).
• They would curate a studio voice faculty who collectively provide the expertise that any student might need, whose skills and experiences complement one another’s, and who enthusiastically collaborate with one another with a view to benefitting all students. Voice teachers would be responsible for making sure that every singer in their studio achieves technical proficiency, with the support of the department. If a student turns out not to be a good fit for the teacher they are assigned to, everyone works together to arrange a better placement for them. If a student is working well with their teacher but is in need of another teacher’s particular expertise from time to time, they are encouraged to access that expertise, with full transparency. Possessive or manipulative behavior towards students would not be tolerated, nor would disrespectful comments about or behavior towards colleagues. Hiring priorities reflect the pedagogical needs of the department, rather than the recruiting interests of the admissions office.
• Upon enrolling in the program, each student would receive a comprehensive assessment of their strengths and needs, which is then used to map out a customized strategy to ensure they meet or exceed department standards by the time they graduate. The department helps them to track their progress and adjusts their program as needed. This means that should any concerns arise about a student’s rate of progress or ability to commit to the program, they can be addressed in a timely fashion. Students should understand when they enroll that not all singers who begin the program will necessarily complete it, but the department will make every possible accommodation to help them succeed. Both the quality of the program and the reputation of the department depend upon a strict refusal to rubber-stamp degrees for singers who do not meet required standards.
• They would codify and apply clear admissions standards. Each student will demonstrate a unique configuration of strengths and challenges, but they should only be offered a place in the program if the department feels confident that all of their challenges can realistically be met over the course of their studies. For example, if they know they do not have the resources to provide comprehensive acting training for an applicant with a glorious voice but little dramatic skill, they cannot meet the needs of that singer and therefore should not admit them. No more filling quotas by accepting full-tuition students who do not meet department standards. No more accepting singers with less common voice types who meet casting needs but not department standards. Serious voice departments have to be able to make a promise to every incoming student: We believe in your ability to achieve our high performance standard by the time you graduate, and we are committed to helping all of you get there.

That is what it would look like, if our institutions really believed they could actually do the job they’re supposed to do for their voice students. So either they don’t, or they think that it would be so prohibitively difficult and expensive that they aren’t even willing to try, while also being reasonably concerned about the liability they would incur if they were held accountable for their actual track record, i.e. they consistently produce a world artist every few years, without noting how many of their graduates are far from ready for prime time.

This is why I assert that our educational institutions generally do not believe that classical singing is a skill set that can be taught and mastered.

Just because not all competent singers go on to have successful, full-time performance careers, does not absolve our institutions of their mandate to ensure all students meet a high standard of competence in order to graduate.

Just because you can’t meet your department’s budgetary needs without filling student quotas, does not absolve you of the responsibility to provide all of your students with the same quality of training, resources and opportunities.

It’s likely that the curricular model that has been in place since the founding of your department was not based on codified admissions or graduation standards, or equitable treatment of your voice students, or accountability of your studio voice teachers. That does not absolve you of giving your serious consideration to all of these things now.

This was a very difficult missive for me to compose, because I know very well that our voice departments are largely staffed by extraordinary, passionate artists and educators. I know that they are constantly facilitating transcendent, magical learning experiences and performances. I love and admire them for it. But it’s time for our community to face up to the fact that without codified standards, curricula that support the ability of every graduate to meet them, and a well-curated, highly competent and compassionate group of studio teachers, we will continue failing to ensure that all of the students who enroll in these programs in good faith receive the training they deserve.

There is no easy or swift way to address this nearly universal issue with our vocal educational programs. But any solution must start with a willingness to acknowledge how widespread this problem is, and a commitment to do better.