Nico Muhly and the Singer/Musician "Dichotomy"

Nico Muhly has an insanely successful career in composition. His advice to us, regarding building a website and having 3 hard stances per collaborative project, for example, was helpful and practical. He has a charming and engaging way of communicating that I found very enjoyable to listen to. I think his presentation was one of the most fun for that reason. I even wrote down phrases of his I thought were particularly great, like “microcilantro,” “liturgically inappropriate,” and “I accidentally moved to Iceland.”

That said, his wonderful way with words can mask something that I think is a lot less wonderful - the way he talks about singers.

Something I’ve noticed as a composer with voice as my primary instrument is the way we talk about about singers when they’re not there. We tend to look at them as people apart from musicians. I recently read an article about this phenomenon in New Music Box, actually. The premise of the article was that it’s disrespectful, inaccurate, and yet extremely prevalent, to use the phrase “musicians and singers,” and we should stop using it.

It can be tempting to dismiss singers as lesser musicians than instrumentalists because it seems like singers are worse at sight reading, or musicianship, or a host of other things that instrumentalists can do easily. It may be true that the human voice has a lot of limitations. HOWMEVER! I think this viewpoint stems from a misunderstanding of the voice and of singers. First of all, singers are almost always expected to memorize their entire rep. While a pit musician can rely on sheet music, an opera singer has to rely on their memory. Furthermore, singers have to act onstage and work long and hard to develop an emotional connection to the text. Instrumentalists have to develop a connection to their music as well, of course, but it’s a different and less word-specific kind. Perhaps most importantly is the way that singers produce sound differs drastically from instruments and instrumentalists. Singers have to rely purely on their ear and musical intuition not only to produce the correct pitch but also to learn proper vocal technique, because everything happens internally. And because it is internal, as in literally a part of their body, poor technique can damage a singer’s instrument and thus career for the rest of their lives.

All that said, is there any wonder Muhly’s singers were hesitant to produce straight tone in an opera context? Particularly because the bel canto opera style of singing developed as a way to be heard unamplified in large concert halls and over large orchestras, and Muhly said himself that he insisted on not amplifying the singers.

Of course it’s possible to sing well on straight tone. It’s just not effective or healthy in an opera context, and it can be dangerous for a singer trained in operatic voice to attempt to sing straight tone nightly for hours, weeks at a time.

The way that Muhly talked about his singers didn’t acknowledge any of this. I thought he made them sound like dumb bimbos who were being uncooperative on purpose just because they didn’t “like singing straight tone.”

Even the way he talked about Isabel Leonard (the PRIMA DONNA of a MET OPERA PRODUCTION, in case he forgot!!!!!!) made it sound as though he thought she was a dumb little singer who’s scared of mixed meter. Come on!

Throughout the talk, Muhly failed to acknowledge the singer’s perspective. I found it extremely unsurprising that his main influences when writing this opera were the Tallis Scholars (incredible singers, but NOT opera singers. The kind of music they sing was written for intimate parlor settings and not ginormous concert settings) and John Adams (an incredible composer and one of my favorites, who also happens to be infamous for his poor vocal writing).

In the future, I hope composers make a concerted effort to learn about the voice as an instrument and respect the musicians who play it.