Choral Resource

_____________________

Support Choral Resource with a Donation

_____________________

Instrumentalists, please don’t shoot me! but a recent choralnet blog post concerning choral vs orchestral conductors got me thinking along similar lines: the seeming divide between vocalists vs instrumentalists. As I see it, the broad stereotype seems to go like this:

• Instrumentalists think of vocalists as non-musicians, amateurs, a lower breed (’singers’ they say with a knowing nod).
• Vocalists tend to think of instrumentalists as cold mercenaries (’They’d only play for their uncle’s funeral if they were getting union rates”).

As a vocalist, instrumentalist and composer I’ve seen these broad stereotypes played out pretty perfectly by certain individuals. I recall speaking with one pianist after a rehearsal; he was working with a soprano on the premiere of my first song cycle. I was really enthusiastic about what he was doing with the pieces and said something like, “This isn’t just another gig for you.” Maybe I was presumptious, but he burst my bubble right quick, “This is just another gig,” said he. I’ve never been able to get that out of my mind.

On another occasion, the lead tenor in my first opera not only never learned the correct notes, but took fits, cursed, cried, and stormed out of rehearsals. All right, so he needed meds, but that really fits the stereotype, doesn’t it?

On the other hand, I’ve met both instrumentalists and vocalists who have defied these stereotypes, they were extremely dedicated to their craft and were able to infuse whatever music they were working on with love, passion and grace.

Shifting the focus of this to matters of pay, the choral/vocal music world seems to hinge it’s success largely on volunteerism and the instrumental world would (it seems most of the time) rather not get involved with vocalists unless there is pay involved. Some thoughts about why that might be:

• Whenever the voice is involved (except perhaps in the wordless choruses of some major orchestral works like Holst’s “The Planets”) it becomes the formost thing in audience’s mind.
• Maybe because of language, or because we are so attuned to the human voice, but in musical situations singing can’t help but become ‘the star’ of a musical work.
• Even when choruses stand behind a huge orchestra, the focus moves immediately to them when they start to sing.
• Musicians of all types, shapes and sizes want to feel like ‘the star’, even if that means just being one of a 60-member ensemble.

So, my hypothesis is that it all boils down pride; the difference between feeling featured vs feeling like an accompanist. No matter what situation a vocalist is in, they are going to feel like a star, whether as a soloist or as a member of a chorus (group star). Therefore, getting vocalists to volunteer is easier in general.

In most situations when instrumental and vocal forces combine, the instrumentalists are going to feel subservient, and therefore feel entitled to pay (even if no one else is getting paid). I can understand these feelings. I wouldn’t lend/donate myself to a project unless I felt it was somehow fulfilling my musical needs (or someone was calling in a favor). People do need to eat and only have so much time. How would vocalists feel if they were brought in to accompany an instrumental soloist, no words, just oohs and ahs? Wouldn’t they wan’t to be paid as well?

As I mentioned before, there are many exceptions; I know of several pianists who prefer the role of accompanist to that of soloist. On the other end, some vocalists just can’t afford to do jobs without pay (even if they’d like to) - they’ve spent thousands of dollars on a university education and need to pay back those student loans.

I’d appreciate hearing any other ideas on this subject, so feel free to comment.