Re: Reply to Isabelle : Re: Moni Ovadia

[Rebecca Anna Kaplan <rkaplan...>]

On a separate but related issue..

As a Yiddish singer who enjoys both operatic and old Eastern European folk
singing (my own style is somewhere in between), I would like to add a
couple comments to this discussion.  There seems to be a tendency to group
singers into three categories--trained, untrained, and
trained-but-trying-to-sound-untrained.  Maybe I'm overstating the obvious,
but I think this is an oversimplification.  First of all, there are lots
of highly trained singers who have never had a western classical voice
lesson.  Take Indian classical singing, for example.  People study and
train very hard with respected masters to sing in that art tradition,
which demands a vocal technique very different from that which is esteemed
in the European classical tradition.  And, of course, all kinds of style
things go hand in hand with technique, as some kinds of ornaments,
expressive effects, etc. can only (or most effectively) be achieved with a
certain type of placement and technique.
  
I realize that these "authentic" Eastern European Jewish folksingers we
are talking about generally didn't have this kind of formal training.
However, many of the elements which differentiate this traditional Yiddish
style from western classical singing are used very intentionally in some
other art styles. (I'm not an ethnomusicologist, but this certainly has
been my observation.)  My point is that we should be careful about
defining this style of singing and manner of vocal production primarily in
terms of what it isn't (trained, overwrought, efficient, affected,
whatever), or in terms of what one must unlearn in order to achieve it.  

Just read Matt Jaffey's thing about fiddles and clarinets--same idea,
though in the case of klezmer (as compared to Yiddish folk song), the
tradition is one which *has* long involved what I would consider formal
training.

Becky Kaplan

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+