Citation Isn't Explanation

Einstein said something close to "If you can't explain it to an eight year old, you don't understand it". I'm going to go one simpler since I'm not Einstein, and say "If you can't explain it at all, you don't understand it".

I appreciate it when a piece of non-fiction is informative and expresses an opinion. I appreciate it when an opponent in an argument is informative and expresses an opinion. What I don't appreciate, and what I suspect no one appreciates, is when an individual outsources all responsibility for their side of the conversation to somebody else. This is the worst in internet comment sections, but people also do it in spoken conversations. It's done heavily in articles even from respected journals, and to a massive extent in academic papers.

If you're going to write something informative, research the issue using whatever resources you want, including life experience, and then present it your version to the reader. If you can't figure out how to say it in a way that's different from your resources, there's no reason to write. This way of thinking is in direct opposition to the majority of online articles I've read lately, which are basically citation MadLibs, a series of blanks surrounded by placeholder text where all the important stuff is replaced with    (link)   . Whenever a major point needs to be made, an argument needs to be levied, or evidence needs to be provided, you get a lame sentence with this kind of text letting you know to quit whatever you're doing because the author is done teaching. 

This writing style is weakening people's ability to think critically, and to express written communication effectively. If someone else will take care of the important info, that saves you the work of explaining things. If you don't have to explain things, that saves you the work of understanding things. That is not a good way to communicate, and a reader shouldn't have to do research to understand your writing... that research is what you should have done before you wrote.

An album review containing 29 outside links. From the horrible website Pitchfork.

I'm not saying people shouldn't consult other resources - quite the opposite, research the hell out of the issue if you want. But once you have consulted whatever supporting materials, it's time to organize that info into something concise and consolidated and give some original insight. Do the research, then report. If you must cite an outside source, do an in-text citation like this (author, page number, title, whatever helps) so that the reader has less work to do instead of more... they can skip to precisely what idea you're citing instead of reading the whole book. It's safe to assume the following:

• Everyone knows about Google and can verify what you wrote if they want to
• Most people don't wanna do research when they're bopping around Facebook
• If you don't understand it, you shouldn't try to explain it to other people
• If you simplify things, more people will understand them
• If you don't have time to completely read a link you cited, neither do your readers

Most importantly, it's dishonest to send people to a webpage unless you already read through it. More bad news: if that webpage made any big crazy claims and linked that claim to an outside reference, you have to read that page too. I know it's inconvenient, but my life experiences are leading me to believe that people are becoming less capable of critically evaluating information for truth, and explaining it later. Don't be a person that never helps anyone and keeps referring them to someone else, don't be Comcast customer service.

Drink to Forget

When I'm trying a beer for the first time (or a film, album, game) I want to know as little as possible about it beforehand, so that I can decide if it's good without being influenced by whatever I've read. Sometimes I look it up on a review site to see if there's a general consensus on its goodness, but I should probably stop doing that. It's important to form my own opinion, and I don't like the notion that my taste is shaped mostly by what others have said. There are at least three things that make this really hard.

• The placebo effect: where outside forces convince you a certain thing will happen, and then when it doesn't you still tell yourself that it did

• Confirmation bias: where you want something specific to happen, so you seek out information that agrees with you and ignore information that contradicts you

• Echo chambers: where a cluster of people all say the same things, constantly reinforcing the belief that those things are true even if they're not

People like to think they have their own opinions, but they're all affected by these three things. If you realize this, you still probably don't know the full extent to which these things shape your opinions. So I like to approach new beers knowing full well that this stuff affects me, and simply seeing a positive review on a beer site is going to skew my opinion. For that matter, having tasted anything at all will skew my opinion... humans can't assign absolute value and can only decide how good something is in relation to something else. Nothing gets an objective, untainted review. 

One question I had when thinking about this: if everyone is susceptible to the bullet points above, and everyone is going to rate a beer (or album, etc) in relation to something else, why try to escape the placebo effect? What is the point of trying to rate something objectively when no one can possibly accomplish that, and when everyone is going to have a past experience that skews their opinion?

The main reason I attempt it is that I want to feel like I have original thoughts. Surely being aware of the existence of the placebo effect, confirmation bias, echo chambers, and the impossibility of being totally objective is some kind of advantage. The Dunning-Kruger effect says that anyone that thinks they may be incompetent, merely by having such a thought, is getting closer to competence. If you know that you're influenced by outside forces to a huge extent, you're less controlled by those forces than someone who has no clue.

Maybe I'm less prone to these issues since I'm aware of them, but isn't it futile to attempt escape? I don't think so, because there's one surefire way to dodge the trap of hearing something about a beer and being affected by that when you try it: being the first person to taste it... being the brewer. Anybody that makes stuff is familiar with the doubt, pessimism, and punishing self-imposed standards that come with submitting your work to public scrutiny. The brewers are probably under a reverse placebo effect where they think everything is worse than it actually is because they expect it not to live up to their vision.

Are there any inherently good beers, since everyone's opinion is the result of everyone else's opinion? Well no, because again, we can't evaluate anything unless it's in relation to something else. But imagining the brewer's first taste made me think the first person to experience something gets the best chance at objectivity. So pretend you're the first person ever tasting it... or give yourself the reverse placebo effect by assuming that no one knows what they're talking about and whatever you heard about the beer is probably wrong. This doubting attitude helps you to decide on your own if an over-hyped product is really any good, or if a low rated one is enduring unfair bias. In the scientific community this is called skepticism. It will improve your beer tasting, with the minor bonus of making you better at critical thinking. Of course that skill will be shot after enough beer.

Mandeville Beer Garden, my favorite joint in Sarasota

No Accounting for Taste

It's a good thing that BeerAdvocate aggregates many reviews of the same beer into one score, because it would be impossible to choose based on individual descriptions. The descriptions given by individuals on the site, by the site owners, and by the beer companies themselves, are convoluted and flowery to the point of meaninglessness. The language on these sites turns people off from great beer, much the same way music criticism cordons off some great music. It's not just snobbish, it's intentionally confusing, alienating, and impractical. The language of booze tasting does have two advantages over the language of music criticism: 1) it's not as full of factual inaccuracies and 2) the people writing about it seem to enjoy the subject.

As an experiment, I'm going to visit BeerAdvocate and grab the very first beer review I see. I'm writing this at 6:40pm on 8/29/2016, so if you seek this review out you'll notice it has the same timestamp.

What? From the squealer, it pours golden amber with a moderate off-white head. Pleasant in the nose, some grass. Very pleasant in the mouth, enjoyable overall! I've rated over 120 beers on this site, and I've never heard the term "squealer" referring to beer. "It pours"? The beer got out of the glass, grabbed another beer, and poured that into a glass? Is that some kind of cannibalism? I think by "it pours" you meant "it is". "Golden amber" means the same thing as "amber", and "moderate off-white head" means "foam". I get that in beer-speak foam is called "head", but is anyone expecting it to be a color other than white? What made him write "pleasant in the nose" instead of "smells good"? What made him write "pleasant in the mouth" instead of "tastes good"? What made him write "enjoyable overall" instead of "enjoyable"? You could argue that switching up adjectives makes writing more interesting, but do these switches make this review more interesting? They sure as hell don't make the review more informative.

Though I can't credit the writer because I don't know who it is, I remember some quote about beer connoisseurs "aping the language of wine" which sums up a vague annoyance I couldn't articulate. Did anybody notice the little ratings categories listed near the 3.79 score this dude gave? Does "look" refer to the bottle design, or the appearance of the beer inside? The website doesn't say. Why does the "overall" rating say 3.75 if the review's total score is 3.79? How is the overall rating of the beer different from... the overall rating of the beer?

We've got to take a break to acknowledge something about the act of rating beverages. I'm not talking about how every rating is inherently subjective and can't be trusted unless your taste is identical to the rater's taste, everyone knows that. I'm talking about the well documented fact that professional wine tasting is total bullshit, and it's been firmly established in these and many other studies that wine "experts" can barely distinguish between a white and a red in a blind taste test, much less the vintage or country of origin. There's a hilarious Wikipedia entry on The Judgment of Paris, a notorious 1976 Paris wine competition where blind testing was introduced for the first time. Parisian judges measured Bordeaux wines grown from centuries-old vines against young California reds, and California won every single category. By the way... the studies I linked to that debunk wine tasting? Published by the Journal of Wine Economics. The snobs themselves are the ones admitting that the snobbery is actually just fakery.

I bring this up because craft beer snobbery is the new wine snobbery, but it's way more widespread and annoying because of the intersection of two factors: everyone can afford great beer, and the craft beer explosion started at the same time as the social media explosion. So everyone has the ability to buy and write about great beer, but for some reason they choose to do it in a way that's disingenuous and not informative. Just for fun, I'm going to pick through the site real quick for some choice lines:

Its moonscape surface contains multiple bubbles of various sizes that create pits and craters as they burst.

Pineapple to grassy aroma with some small dank earthy tones and pine. Quite a bit diverse, slightly juicy sensing character, with mild malt sweetness.

Smooth and full in mouth, with a crisp, effervesced, and dry finish.

APPEARANCE: As I began to pour this beer it slowly came gurgling out like it was waiting for an invitation.

Explain to me how this is supposed to help someone determine whether they should buy this stuff. Somebody made the obvious suggestion that I stop reading these things if they annoy me, a suggestion that would help a number of craft beer fans I know. But BeerAdvocate is the biggest database of beer reviews on the internet, and you're not supposed to have to ignore huge databases of knowledge about a subject in order to enjoy that subject. What would be better is if the reviewers remember that reviews are supposed to relate a personal experience, and inform the reader. Most of these writers seem interested in writing a lot of words without doing either of those things. I doubt when this fellow poured Alesmith "Speedway Stout" that he thought "this beer seems like it's waiting for an invitation". And how is the speed of the pour a factor of appearance? And how does any of that tell you if the beer was good?

But check this guy out:
I am really amazed at the praise this beer seems to be getting from most reviewers. In fact, I disagree so much with this that I had to register an account and submit a review of my own. This beer is extremely sweet with a strangely artificial chocolate aroma and no bitterness, hops or roasted barley to balance it up. I would hesitate to describe this product as a stout or even a beer. I have tried many chocolate stouts in the past and liked every single one of them, but this one is just terrible. On top of that it was also expensive. 1.52/5

That review is negative, sure, but it's full of info and tells you exactly where he's coming from. No reason to spend a paragraph describing the foam on top. How about a positive one?
Drank at room temperature. Dark brown color, thick creamy brown head with strong retention, smell of dark/milk chocolate, nice carbonated mouth feel with medium body, sweet long lasting chocolate with a hint of cream soda flavor. Compared with Young's double chocolate. Smiths is hands down a better stout. Very tasty! 4.59/5

A review of the same beer but with the opposite reaction, using straightforward language and imagery accessible to anyone. He gives you the info and lets you draw your own conclusions, without using insane metaphors or trying to tell you how you should feel about it. The best part is when you compare the two, they basically say the same thing but lead to totally different scores due to the writers' personal tastes. All to say that if you're not describing an experience or providing information, your review is unnecessary.

Budgetary Exbeerimentation

I love buying beer at stores that let you make a custom six-pack from a selection of single beers. There's no faster way to learn about beer's countless styles and substyles, endless variations in alcohol content, flavorings, price, seasonal/limited releases and multi-brewery collaborations. Beyond the educational aspect, it allows the most variety since one sixer equals six different experiences. Grocery stores rarely cater to this style of buying, so I hunt for specialty shops with the largest possible selection of singles.

This is the most expensive and inefficient way to buy beer, since as with most other products, buying a larger quantity of one product results in a lower price per ounce. The excellent Founder's "Breakfast Stout" is $3.50 per bottle at Total Wine and Spirits, but only $12.00 for a four-pack. That's 15% less per beer, which compounds quickly since I make weekly trips to buy custom six-packs. If you drank one a day for a month (monotonous, but a delicious monotony) you'd spend $108.50... but for some reason, introducing a four-compartment cardboard sleeve reduces that price to $92.00.

Depending on your philosophy, the time cost is even worse. It takes time and mental stamina to scan hundreds of individual labels, especially since good stores put helpful info cards under each beer (more reading). The clock ticks while you juggle all that information, running dozens of tiny cost-benefit analyses in an attempt to whittle the store's inventory into only six choices. And the trip repeats every week, in my 2004 Mustang that's about 60 cents and ten minutes per trip, for a cost of $2.40, 40 minutes, and a gallon of gas monthly.

There's got to be a way for me to learn about beer and have a ton of variety without wasting so much time and money. After weeks of the custom six-pack method, I discovered the swanky craft beer "bomber" area of Total Wine. A bomber is a 22oz bottle instead of the usual 12oz, meaning you get almost two beers per bottle, plus breweries often release their craftiest (and rarest) beers in this format - which means more education. Great! So this $10.00 bomber of tasty Southern Tier "Crème Brulée" stout is only 45 cents an ounce, and since the aforementioned Founder's is only 29 cent per ounce for a single beer, that means buying bombers is 1.5 times as expensive! Wait... what was I trying to do again?

• Goal: drink a large variety of beer for both educational and entertainment purposes, and waste less time and money.
• Obstacles: the cheapest buying method is the least educational and varied, and the most educational/varied method is the most expensive and time consuming.

An easy improvement is to buy for the whole month in one trip, which automatically cuts shopping time in-store, and driving costs (both time and money) down to 25% of the original amount. Doing all the shopping in one trip also means I get to buy more at one time, which exposed an incredibly obvious solution that would never have come to me if I were buying a single six-pack: buy multiple six-packs and rotate them for variety.

The best beers come in 22oz bombers at around $10.00, but the best six-packs are about the same price, for triple the servings (six beers versus two servings per bomber). For $50.00, I could grab five top-notch six-packs (30 servings) and have a great beer every day, rotating them to revisit the same beer only once every five days. Since a bomber has 1/3 the servings as a six-pack, it would cost three times as much to buy a month's supply: $150.

According to my records, I spent $153.00 on craft beer last month (I recommend Mint.com for budget tracking), so these numbers aren't just theoretical. Eventually I settled on a compromise:

• Two good six-packs to rotate at $10 each (running total: $20, twelve servings)
• Two excellent four-packs to rotate at $10 each (running total: $40, twenty servings)
• Three excellent bombers at $10 each (running total: $70, twenty-six servings)
• Five random weird singles at around $3.00 each (final total: $85, thirty-one servings)

By sacrificing a little variety, but no quality, I was able to cut the month's beer expenses by 43%, while cutting gas and time costs by 75%. It's always nice to save money, but it's beyond nice to spend less time at the store. I'm going to see what other areas of my life would benefit from the "do more in one trip" method, remembering that the benefits can extend beyond saving money.

Partial picture of the haul (click to enlarge)

Suggestions for Contemporary Composers on Setting English to Music

As an American singer that sings primarily English-language repertoire, I've really gotten a lot of satisfaction out of being able to deliver quality music to people in my native language - to an audience that understands that language. I've participated in a lot of world premieres for someone my age, and I'm acquainted with a good number of contemporary composers - many of whom want to write for voice. This post is mostly dedicated to those people, offering insight into what you can do to enhance the ease, intelligibility, and linguistic faithfulness of your English settings.

I Can't Stress This Enough

The most common problem I see in contemporary English settings is the misuse of linguistic stress. Stress can be applied to a given musical sound in these ways (among others)

1. Increasing the duration of the sound
2. Increasing the volume of the sound
3. Making the sound happen at an extreme pitch level
4. Articulation
5. Changing tone quality
6. Placement on strong beats
7. Assigning one of the above characteristics (duration, volume, pitch, articulation, tone, beat placement) in a manner that is obviously different from what surrounds it

There you go. Short list. Essentially there's only one common way to apply stress to a sound in spoken English: duration. Think of that word, "duration". The middle syllable is slightly longer, which gives it its stress. Longer syllables give English its rhythm, making shorter syllables unstressed and less important by comparison. In order to set this word sensibly, you would use items from my "Stress List" above to add stress to long/stressed syllables, and avoid applying items from the list to the short/unstressed syllables. To put it simply, you don't want it to sound like "DUraTION" or "duraTION" or anything else weird. Here are some options for how to set this word:

In the first example, the unstressed syllable "du" is being accented by its placement on beat one, and the stressed syllable "ra" is being un-accented by its placement on a weak beat. This is awful text setting. The second example is better, as the stressed and unstressed syllables are better aligned with correspondingly weak and strong beats. The third example is best, as the written rhythm mirrors that of speech. The fourth example demonstrates an effort to write correct stress allocation, but when speaking this, you can hear that the center syllable sounds unnaturally long.

This is also apparent on a more macro level, as entire words can be stressed or unstressed in order to affect meaning. Consider these options:

Obviously the word "tide" is the most important. In the first example, all words are given equal duration, but the placement of "the" (one of the least important English words) on the downbeat is incorrect. The second example shows the massive effect that duration has on stress, as shortening "the" by just an 8th note unstresses it quite a lot, thereby transferring more stress to the important word. The third example is better yet, and shows a more complex rhythm that one might see in a contemporary composition. This one gives both a strong beat and a rhythmic accent to the important word. Again we have an idiot-proof version at the end, perhaps not the most "artistic" rhythm, but one that will be clear and hard to mess up.

The Harder it Is, The Harder it Is to Understand

What is the goal of competent text setting? Intelligibility. It doesn't do you any good to pick or write a brilliant text if no one can understand it. Consider the following:

Melodically and rhythmically active, however...

...this version is simpler in every way, while still showing proper linguistic stress.

In a more demanding register, EVERY syllable becomes stressed.

The 5/4 meter of the first example does nothing to aid text delivery and only adds complexity for complexity's sake. The second example isn't interesting, but is a very simple rhythmic setting that is faithful to the text's inherent rhythm. The third example accents everything by being in a difficult register, as according to my Stress List, pitch is a way of adding stress. 

NB: Just as with every other instrument, the four main types of singing voices each have ranges, registers, prime registers, sub-prime registers, and extreme registers. It is your responsibility to know them just as you you do wind instruments, etc.

Flying Planes Over the Orchestra

Bernoulli's Principle, the scientific theory explaining the mechanics of flight, says that "as speed increases, pressure decreases". In other words, heavy things move slowly and light things move quickly. This means that if you want something to be loud, it will be easier to do if set in a slow rhythm or tempo. If you want something to be fast, it will be easier to do at a lighter dynamic. Don't get mad at me if you want to set a coloratura passage over a brass ensemble and electronics and it's coming out too quietly... I didn't invent physics.

This would be a difficult passage to understand, because it would be difficult to simply hear. A high voice (soprano or tenor) wouldn't be able to project this to any great degree, and it would be especially awful if written "forte" or heavily orchestrated. It is placed in a sub-prime area of the voice (decreasing the amount of weight than can be added), it is set rhythmically fast (decreasing the time able to be spent on each tone), and is wordy with a different sound on every note (shortening the length of each vowel). All of these issues affect the text, as the lightness, shortness, and sub-prime range conspire to obscure the sound - therefore obscuring the text. Consider this instead:

Here we have a better register (for a high voice), important words and syllables are stressed, and vowels have more time to be heard. This passage would be much more easily sung forte or with thick accompaniment, even the melismatic passage. The melisma is delivered on one vowel - serving to add a bunch of fast notes without obscuring the text whatsoever. Even though the second measure will have to be sung lighter than the first measure, the length of the vowel will help it to be heard and understood even if it can't be sung heavily. Obviously not everything can always be set in the absolute best possible way, so let's see if we can't alter the the previous passage rather than abandoning it completely.

Perhaps we're dealing with a play, short story, or poetic submission from a friend, and we don't want to change the text. Here is an alternate version that preserves the pitch landscape, rhythmic attitude, and text, without sacrificing intelligibility. This is in a better range, and the rhythms are better matched to the stresses of the language without being totally perfect.

WWBD? (He Would Speak It)

"WWBD?" of course stands for "What Would Britten Do?" Regardless of one's personal opinion on Britten (mine is that I'd be fine singing no other music), much has been written praising and proving his aptitude for setting English. Britten had one big advantage that most of us don't enjoy, which is that he worked closely with both the performers and the poets/librettists involved. He would work on a W.H. Auden setting, with Auden speaking the composition rhythmically and giving feedback on whether it was understandable. Though you won't be talking through texts with Maya Angelou and Diana Damrau any time soon, you will probably learn a lot from simply speaking through your texts. Does it sound like English? Do your meters and rhythmic divisions clarify, or do they obscure? Do the stresses, pauses, and pitch contours sound somewhat natural? And if not, is that unnaturalness justified by the text or the dramatic action at the time? Will this text be audible?

That's all I've got. And thanks for setting English, it's my favorite language in which to sing.

Why did San Diego Opera close?

San Diego Opera stops operations on April 13th.

Spokespeople have blamed "ticket sales and fundraising", "labor intensive" staging, "An aging and dying patron base", "The reality that the children of opera-goers are not becoming opera-goers themselves", and "The reality that it took nearly 290 people to stage top-quality productions". To no one's surprise, they left out FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT. Whenever an arts organization dies, there is always a deluge of articles blaming the people patronizing the organization instead of the people running it, and I for one am sick of the lies.

Chairwoman of the board Karen Cohn said “After 28 consecutive years of balanced budgets, it was clear that we could not continue,’’ - because when you're doing well, it's time to close down. “In spite of excellent financial management, the Opera faced increasingly higher ticket-sale and fund-raising hurdles.” - because excellent financial management causes companies to shut down. Remember, it's not the people spending the company's money that caused the company to close, it's YOU, the “aging and dying patron base” or the uncultured youth that won't support the arts, depending on which of her quotes you read. If you have “excellent financial management”, you don't say that “the company’s finances were eroding to the point where its only viable course was to cease operations” and then shut down the company with “a 33-1 vote”.

“Given the size of its budget, the opera had to raise a significant amount of money annually as tickets covered only a third of its $15 million budget”. Yes, a real life company that's been going for 75 years relies on donations for 2/3 of it's budget. This is what we call an unsustainable business model, and it amazes me they didn't close sooner. “Iris Lynn Strauss, who has been on the board for 23 years and with her husband, Matthew Strauss, contributed $500,000 toward the 2013 season.” Immediately after this paragraph, they say this: “With its patrons apparently on the brink of what opera staff have characterized as “donor exhaustion,” its biggest benefactors were unwilling to invest the $10 million that Campbell said is needed to keep the company going.”

Oh no shit. You're telling me all the people that donate a half mil a year are tired of it? In literally ADJACENT paragraphs in the Union-Tribune San Diego, we have “The opera’s board, and at times (the CEO) himself from the Civic Theatre stage, pointed with pride to years of balanced budgets, even during the recession” and “As part of the nearly $10 million they had to raise each year, they had spent down, at the rate of $1 million a year, a $10 million bequest made by Joan Kroc in 2003”. So when a single donor straight-up gave you your entire fundraising goal for the whole year, you still couldn't make it work.

What is this money paying for? Well, “The opera lists 117 employees on its roster”, and to no one's surprise, CEO Ian Campbell's salary is the highest in the company at $508,021, or 5% of the money they have to raise every year, if you want to look at it that way. “San Diego Opera’s recent “A Masked Ball” utilized a total of 268 people, including ... 92 singers, actors and dancers on stage” Wait wait wait... so for one production you had to more than DOUBLE your staff? Wait... 92 singers? I'm confused, “Un ballo in maschera” has 10 roles and I am currently in an IU production of “Traviata” with a chorus of 38, meaning it can be done with 48 people, but you require nearly DOUBLE that amount? It's numbers like this that pass by unquestioned in these articles, that really start to add up after 30 years of doing 5 shows a year.

We've already seen that this company bizarrely earns only a third of its income through sales, about $5 million. And yet “The production budget for “A Masked Ball” was $2.4 million.” Let's look at this in manufacturing terms. They use ½ of their sales to manufacture 1/5 of their product, and rely on other people for the rest. This is what's known as an unsustainable business model. For this season, they tried to raise more money by jacking up tickets “to $280 on opening night for each of the four productions that comprised the 2014 season”. Does that seem like an expensive ticket? Well guess what, in order to BREAK EVEN at their $15 million operating budget, they would have had to sell out every single seat of every single performance at a cost of $240 a seat. What was that term I used again? Something about unsustainable?

In the San Diego reader: “Ian Campbell, general and artistic director, said, "We saw we faced an insurmuntable (sic) financial hurdle going forward", and does not say what that is. When you don't tell someone something, it's because you don't want them to know, usually because it's embarrassing. Campbell said this of his own fundraising efforts: “For over 30 years, I was on the board and the advisory board of San Diego Opera, and I was a donor. Every time I gave a speech, the group would give $200 to the opera. I raised from $5000 on the low side to $12,500 on the high side over the years.” First of all, if you give a financial estimate that could be off by as much as 250%, you shouldn't be allowed to handle money. Second, this means that over 30 years Campbell did 1 to 2 fundraising press events a year which is pathetic. I would work a little harder than that to peddle my wares to anyone who would listen, in the interest of keeping my $508,021 salary.

Their final show, the Verdi Requiem, features 4 of the most famous classical singers in the world. “Well it has to, otherwise we won't sell any tickets!” You know what? This may come as a shock to you, but you don't have to sell as many tickets if you don't spend as much money. I go drinking on weekends with people that could sing it just as well at a tenth of the cost. “Opera is the pinnacle of the performing arts and it is the most challenging, the most glorious thing you can do on stage,” said Christopher Beach, president and artistic director of the La Jolla Music Society. You know what, Christopher? No it fucking isn't. Ian Campbell and his Board don't get to take the role of Avenging Cultural Angel by playing up the value of opera as self-evident, as something inherently deserving of support because ART and FEELINGS and MAGIC, especially when dozens of people's real-life jobs are on the line. A business has to produce, it has to be cost-effective, and it has to fill a need. It's time for these people to face the music and to learn what their “aging and dying patron base” already knows: you can't spend more than you make.

One person painted the Mona Lisa using homemade brushes and homemade paint.

Fach

Once I was at a party full of singer types, and a guy comes up to me and introduces himself by telling me the following: 1) His name, and 2) that he is a full lyric baritone. It really annoyed me, and it always does. I don’t understand the preoccupation with voice fach among opera singers, and I’m going to explain why I think it is a load of horseshit.

1) Famous, skilled singers don’t adhere to their supposed fach, and do just fine.

Philip Langridge is one of my favorite tenors, definitely my favorite in English rep. He has sung Messiah, Peter Grimes, Hansel und Gretel, and Loge from Das Rheingold – and they all sounded great. He had a long career without any period of vocal dysfunction, and did so for some forty years. These roles could be (and ARE) argued as suitable for four different fachs (leggiero, dramatic, character, and heldentenor in that order). Fach is useless in describing this singer, because he sings several of them well. I have a million examples of famous singers doing this… Gedda has a great recording of the Evangelist in the St. Matthew Passion, and a great recording of Tosca. Vickers has a great recording of Messiah, and a great recording of Pagliacci.

2) Fach leads to stupid characterizations.

I’ll go with what I know, so more about Langridge and tenors. I didn’t mention one of his best things – Tom Rakewell in The Rake’s Progress. Since this is contemporary music, rhythmically difficult and with some odd harmonies, it is immediately disassociated with bel canto singing and therefore any Italian singing and all of the fachs commonly associated with such. No one wants to hear a Puccini singer doing this role (or a heldentenor), so what you get is a plethora of leggiero tenors mincing about in that manner of “contemporary performance” that makes audiences “ooh” and “ahh” because it’s so pretty (Robert Craft, Ian Bostridge, Andrew Kennedy, and Anthony Rolfe Johnson have recorded it). If you are so lucky to see it live, I guarantee you will see a smooth-voiced tenor with an even lighter instrument than the ones mentioned, because it’s tradition now. Rake has officially been assigned to the leggiero fach, which means that we have to deal with voices that don’t have the heft to properly communicate the music.

3) Famous, skilled singers adhere to a fach – resulting in total disaster.

Say what you will about Pavarotti, his stock as an incredible singer plummeted after he stopped doing bel canto rep and did only verismo rep. There aren’t many recordings of Pav out there more exciting than his debut in La fille du regiment, blasting “Ah mes amis!” with ease. Many smart, old-school teachers believe this vitality was seldom recovered due to his refusal to move away from a strict Verdi/Puccini diet, doing Boheme and Otello and all these giant things, as the simple beauty of his L’elisir d’amore just faded away. Famous coloratura Natalie Dessay has some great early recordings of Blondchen in Mozart’s Die Entführung aus dem Serail, then for some reason became classified as a dramatic coloratura singing the likes of Queen of the Night from Magic Flute, Lucia in Lucia di Lammermoor and various Strauss roles. When her decidedly non-dramatic voice finally gave out, she had surgery to fix it, and has since logged many tired-sounding coloratura performances that are done a half-step lower than written.

4) Though people think otherwise, fach doesn’t say anything about vocal quality or suitability.

Quick, what do tenors Roberto Alagna, Joseph Calleja, Jose Carreras, Nicolai Gedda, Jerry Hadley, Rolando Villazon, Fritz Wunderlich, Giuseppe di Stefano, Richard Tauber, Luciano Pavarotti and Tito Schipa have in common? Not a damn thing, you say? Well you’re wrong! Dead wrong! Don’t you know that they are all Lyric tenors? That means that they are all suited for the same repertoire. I mean, wouldn’t you love to hear Pav sing Faust? Villazon singing Alfredo from Traviata, or Villazon singing absolutely anything in any capacity at all whatsoever? Jose Carerras singing Tamino from Zauberflote or Wunderlich singing Alfredo (look it up, it’s surprisingly bad)? The point is, FACH has nothing do with how suited or unsuited these people are to sing these roles, and FACH does not unite these singers in any kind of meaningful way. They are each suited to different things because they have different strengths and weaknesses.

5) Repertoire should be assigned to young singers based on ability, not stupid words.

I had a really fun lesson singing “De miei bollenti spiriti” from Traviata, with a pretty good recording to prove it! But guess what, the recording of the following “O mio rimorso” isn't nearly as good, at least not yet. It’s higher, harder, and requires simultaneously more weight AND flexibility. Oh so there must be TWO FACHS contained in the same role! No, no there aren’t, you idiot. The next thing I sang was Handel’s Judas Maccabeus, for a lighter lyric sort of tenor. Nope, I sang that just fine too (again, I have recorded proof), and I sang it the same way – based on principles learned in my voice lessons and NOT on arbitrary fach bullshit. If I would have stuck to Alfredo’s fach, I never would have done Judas. There are many, many better examples of singers that do things from different fachs very well, because they are suited to the music. Or their personal tastes fuel them to perform it well. Or their language abilities limit their choices. Or whatever.

6) You can fake your fach.

There are famous tenors (and others that I personally know) that sing very loud, have bad high notes, and sing in a weighty and inflexible manner. This is because they want to be classified as heldentenors, customarily known as the biggest loudest singers, and they sing Wagner. Because of the vocal weight in the average heldentenor, they usually don’t have high c’s or the ability to hang out in a high register. You can see this in “accepted” heldentenors like Lauritz Melchior, Jon Vickers, James King, and Wolfgang Windgassen. However, any tenor can choose to sing loud all the time and stay away from the high stuff, thus earning classification as a heldentenor. Or the reverse: sing prettily and never access the whole of their weight and resonance, and say that they are leggieros. A soprano can sing really quietly and lightly and poof, she’s a soubrette. Some baritones hang out in the basement of their ranges until they get good teachers and discover their high end realizing that, lo and behold, they are dramatic tenors. Any voice part can sing fast music with lots of melismas, do it badly, and claim “coloratura” as a modifier to whatever they call themselves.

7) Young singers use fach as an excuse to ignore important things.

I cannot tell you how many sopranos and tenors I have encountered for whom the highest possible goal is not communication, not legato, not musicality, language skills, stage creativity, repertoire knowledge, basic music reading skills, good taste, or longevity. The highest possible goal is the achievement of that constant pursuit, that big red stamp of “SPINTO” on their vocal profile. They want their teachers and peers to tell them “you have the biggest voice I have ever heard, it is massive and easily drowns out the other singers and the orchestra, you could sing Puccini and Wagner better than anyone, and your voice is like a beautiful wild diamond Pegasus that is way too important to be singing Handel or anything small like that”. Just please forget about this fach crap and learn how to sing. We have lots of work to do, lots of repairs to make, and an art form to uphold. There are people singing on the stage at the Metropolitan Opera that don’t sing legato, cancel dates left and right because of their shitty technique, and have vocal surgery because they (and those doing the casting) are more concerned with a singer’s dress size than their technique.

I don’t care. It’s not a real thing, it’s a construct of voice teachers that serves ego and nothing else, and it is a completely arbitrary system of classification… and you do not get to decide what your fach is anyway, so fach it.