Why we should compare singers: And do it nicely

As opera lovers, we all have our favorite voices that we listen to on repeat. My favorite baritone is Apollo Granforte. If you don’t know him, go look him up. He is incredible! We also have singers that aren’t favorites, right? I won’t list any here because I respect each and every voice that has the courage to get on the stage and share their unique story with us. They aren’t all my favorite, but I still love them for what they do.

Perhaps we are the type that know the technicalities of the voice and get excited to discover a singer with flawless technique. Or maybe we just like a specific sound without knowing why. Some of us are students trying to imitate specific techniques, and some others are audience members rather than practitioners. For better or for worse, at the end of the day, we are all critics. 

And we all critique differently! A non-singer, an amateur singer, a professional singer, a singing teacher, a director, or a coach, will each analyze singers through a different lens. Which makes me wonder— is there a universal purpose for music and the arts, or is it all completely subjective? Can students learn from art objectively? Can we learn from other singers by observing their technique, or is this criticism contrary to the very nature of art?

The purpose of music and art is a hotly debated topic and conversations in this arena often boil down to whether art should be inherently technical, or not. Ellen Winner, in her book How Art Works: A Psychological Exploration [1] discusses whether art needs to be excellent in its technical presentation for it to serve its purpose. She wrote a chapter entitled, “But My Kid Could Have Done That!” and shares a story that includes criticism commonly applied to modern art:

“I recently came across a brief video produced by artist Robert Florczak called ‘Why Is Modern Art So Bad?’ His answer was that modern art is created without any standards of skill and excellence. He recounts amusingly how he shows his graduate students a painting, tells them it is by Jackson Pollock, and asks them to explain why it is good. Students comply with complex answers. But then he shows them that the painting is not a painting at all—it is a close-up of Florczak’s studio apron.”

This brings up a question about whether art needs to be created using great skill, specific techniques, and be of excellent workmanship. Another thing it points out, although not explicitly, is the value of criticism. We can ask the same questions about singing. But before we do that, let’s explore the topic a little more in the realm of modern art.

Around the same time I was reading Winner’s book, my brother sent me a reel on Instagram of performance artists in museums. One was digging a pile of dirt and dumping it on someone’s head. Another was running, jumping off a trampoline, and drawing lines on a wall.

The caption of the reel said, “makes you wonder why so many parents are struggling to cope on maternity pay and single incomes when we could just charge modern art fans to come and watch our kids f**k the house up?!” Meaning that the person who posted the reel of performance artists (can I call them a critic?) didn’t believe that the artists were skilled enough, technical enough, or as excellent as they could be to be considered “real artists.”

The conversation was both fun to read and enlightening. Many agreed with her and said things like:

These comments offer a lot of criticism for the performance artists, which made me wonder if their criticism was helpful. Is there value in criticism? I argue that criticism is an essential part of the artistic process, regardless of whether I agree with these comments or not, which I don’t.

I personally am a fan of many different styles of art, some of which are not technique based, and I love many technically deficient singers for various reasons. Art can tell important stories, create moods, and help us face uncomfortable questions in life and in society. And art can do all those things if it is created with perfect technique, or in less traditional ways.

However, if we use our capitalistic lens to view the art world, it is easy to think that excellence is the determining factor for whether art has worth or not. But just because I disagree with the criticism of the artists, do I think the art shouldn’t be criticized?

And what does all of this have to do with the title of this essay, “Why we should compare singers: And do it nicely”? I am, after all, an opera singer and voice teacher. So how does this conversation about technique, excellence, and freedom of creative expression relate to my art-form?

There is certainly not one correct answer to this question, however, I’d like to share some of my personal opinions on how I try to maneuver through this issue in my own training, and in the way I discuss this topic with my students.

Let me start by saying that there is at least one major difference between art and singing when it comes to criticism. Artists create while singers imitate. For example, I have never written my own song to sing (most classical singers aren’t composers). Instead, I use my voice to copy from a tradition that has been handed down for centuries. Artists don’t copy each others’ work and get paid for it, that would be considered plagiarism. This difference between singing artists and other creative artists also means that we use criticism differently.

On the one hand, you can find 100 recordings of sopranos singing “Vissi d’arte” on youtube and compare different aspects of their performances. Artists, on the other hand, don’t build careers on copying the Mona Lisa and deciding who can do it better. They create their own work. The fact that singers repeat the same songs makes it easier to listen to technique, diction, acting choices, and style between various singers.

Then, let’s say a singing student happens to like a performer or style, since there are recordings for them to study, they can emulate the technique in their own voice and teach their students who are also interested in the same thing.

Now that we’ve established why art criticism and criticism of classical voice are different let me explain the reason this topic is in the forefront of my mind. I am one of those students that was trained to listen, compare, and work to imitate the singers’ technique that I preferred. In doing so, I spent a lot of time reading the comments section on Youtube videos. I know . . . the DREADED comments section! 

People in comment sections have STRONG opinions about technique. They also express opinions about whether singers’ techniques should be analyzed and compared. I would like to share some recent conversations I observed when a beloved performer was criticized. The comments tend to fall into two main categories:

1) The first is, “Can you do better?” Implying that only the best singers can talk about technique.

2) The second type of comment asks, “Why analyze singers? Why can’t we just appreciate them all for their uniqueness!” Meaning, just leave everyone to their own devices! Let them sing the way they want to sing, and you sing the way you want to sing.

Here are some of the first type of comment:

And here are a few examples of the second type:

Now, before we go any further. I really want to emphasize that there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to critique singers. Let’s admit that there are a lot of nasty people saying a lot of nasty things on the internet. Unfortunately, that is always going to be the case. That is one of the reasons why we get frustrated with criticism in the first place. It can be exhausting and toxic. I am not advocating for more toxic behavior, or for the need to be any more perfectionistic in our studies. For our purposes, and for the purpose of my students, when we discuss singers’ technique, we have some specific guidelines for how to criticize singers in a positive way. I will outline those more in depth in a future article.

For now, let’s return to the comments about why we shouldn’t critique other singers. If you are a student of singing, or a teacher of singing, how else will you know what developed voices sound like, if you don’t learn to critique the technique of others? How can you possibly be a voice teacher whose job is to listen to a singer, analyze their technique, and explain ways to change, if you aren’t well practiced in the art of criticism? Shouldn’t singers be taught criticism as part of their vocal training?

This type of criticism is a foundational aspect of some disciplines. These disciplines have critique built into the research methodologies. It is called critical theory. Here, critical does not imply negativity. A researcher who learns this skill, is able to critique their own work, critique the work of other scholars, and have open discussions that create growth for everyone. This is the type of criticism that my voice students and I practice. In this way, the two categories of comments I listed earlier become irrelevant for those who want to develop their skills further and teach others to do the same.

The first type of comment, “can you do better?” is something one of my students could theoretically be asked online. To which I hope they reply, “well, probably not. I’m just a student. But I’d like to keep listening, studying and learning so that I might be able to develop a stronger voice!”

Another commenter says, “Why analyze the singers, we can just appreciate them all for their uniqueness!” To which my student replies, “I’m glad there are so many differing techniques and voices in this world. They all have a place to sing. There is no one right way to sing, but if I want to sing like the most developed singers of the operatic tradition, it behooves me to study the techniques and compare them to the less developed singers as well. I don’t mean any disrespect to any singer. In fact, I’m so glad that each singer who performs is on the stage, sharing their message, and doing what they love! But for me, I have a specific goal in my singing, and I believe that technique is part of that journey!”

Should singers be unique in their presentation? Absolutely! They should do whatever feels the most authentic and powerful for them, even if it is less technical? In the same way that some pop singers make it big without having strong voices, the same is true in opera, musical theatre, and every other art form. That is great! There are myriad reasons to love a singer besides just how technically proficient their voice is. Sometimes a less technical voice can be more interesting, and that is great. Like the modern art exhibits I discussed earlier— there is a purpose for all types of art, music, and voices, both of the technical variety, and all the other types as well.

However, it is my personal opinion that MOST students will have MORE chances of success in the operatic tradition if they learn to develop their voices in a strongly technical manner. There are obvious exceptions to that rule, but if I want to increase the ability of my students, then I will continue to teach them to listen, study, compare, contrast, discuss, develop vocabulary, gain listening skills, and yes . . . I WILL TEACH THEM TO CRITIQUE. And for the sake of your voice and the voice of your students, I hope you will practice the art of POSITIVE critique as well.

[1] 1. Ellen Winner, “Chapter 11 ‘But My Kid Could Have Done That!,’” essay (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019), 149, 149.

Bibliography

Winner, Ellen. “Chapter 11 ‘But My Kid Could Have Done That!’” Essay, 149. New York City, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2019.