Paul McNamara spoke with CS about his career as well as the Dutch National Opera Academy, its unique structure as a partnership between the Conservatorium van Amsterdam and the Royal Conservatoire The Hague, its curriculum and mission.
I am very interested in speaking with opera education leaders who head organizations which do things differently. DNOA is a rarity not only in the way it is structured but also how integrally it prepares artists for a career in opera.
When I started at the DNOA as its Artistic Leader, in January 2019, we had an accreditation process which is a standard for all European conservatories. And it was very good, because it was an invitation to consider what is the program and what it should be. What should it be doing? What is the purpose of it?
We live in a time of opera studios. If you look at the number, they grow like mushrooms. One of the questions asked during the accreditation process was: is there a need for a program like ours in a time like this, when there are so many other opportunities? What I have come to realize is that our sort of education, our sort of program is needed now
more than ever.
Two important things. First, if an opera studio is the path you want to go on, you need to be in a position to get in and the competition is enormous. More importantly, when you do get a spot in an opera studio, you need to be able to take the ball and run with it. The opportunities for further development are extremely challenging. Which means the level of training, skill, expertise, and knowledge of who you are—as a singer, as an artist, and as a person—is absolutely vital. Otherwise, the chances of making the most of that opportunity is limited and the stress can be enormous.
Second, in a large opera company the focus is production output and serving the public. At DNOA we only serve the singers. It is really about how to make the best of the two years they are with us. What do they need, where can this program make a difference and how can we do that? For instance, we do not have a particular number of voice types we admit. It is really a case of looking at the people for whom we can be a game changer, where we can have an impact on their trajectory, and then we choose our productions with the voices we accept. That is why I think a program such as DNOA is really needed.
You entered the organization at a point where you were preparing to go through a reaccreditation. How much opportunity were you given to contribute to the re-shaping of the curriculum?
I was given a lot of opportunity, and to be fair, I did not have to reinvent the wheel. The program had been there a long time, my predecessors ran a very good program. But curricula need updating because the market changes.
We chose two particular focal points, the first being a much larger emphasis on audition training because it is absolutely vital. The fact is, no matter how wonderful you are, if you are graduating without a functioning audition package, you just do not have your meal ticket. The other focal point is a module called “Core Repertoire” where you get to prepare a role which is central to your current repertoire, regardless of whether we do this production or not. This module teaches singers how to develop learning strategies, be self-sufficient, gain an understanding of the market and of the working environment they are going into, understand what the profession expects and what the profession demands.
A program like ours is designed to support the transition from full-time study into the profession. If any of our graduates come back and say, “you never told me it would be like this,” then we have not done our job. A recent student survey, done anonymously by an independent organization, surveyed singers in the program about whether they would choose the program again. The result was 4.8 out of 5.
That speaks loudly! Tell us how DNOA’s curriculum is aligned with its mission.
We do a lot of productions. What is very good in the Netherlands is that all publicly funded orchestras and organizations have to engage with emerging artists as part of their
funding conditions. It is very central to the ethos here, not just in a ticking-boxes way, but in actual, palpable ways through genuine collaborations. For instance, our summer production every year is with the Residentie Orkest of The Hague. Last year we collaborated with The Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century, which is the leading period orchestra in the Netherlands. That went very well and they wish to continue a collaboration with us. For singers who are graduating, out of four major productions, three are done with professional orchestras. We also have a collaboration with an open air festival here in Amsterdam, which is a very different dynamic. We do projects with conservatory student ensembles. I would say that the level of partnership with a wide spectrum of organizations is unusual.
I think another good thing about DNOA is the way it runs at the moment. I am not a stage director nor I am not a conductor and I think that makes a big difference. It means for every production we do, there are different creative teams. This ensures that during their time here each student works with different professionals. They will get on better with some than others but that is also life and is something you have to learn how to deal with. In addition, I am also able to be an advocate for the singers in the program. Even for the smallest practical things, like if the monitor is in the wrong place and they cannot see the conductor.
Advertisement
Giving singers the full spectrum of collaborations from a student orchestra to an internationally established organization and everything in between is invaluable. I would be interested to hear what is the landscape of the population entering DNOA.
We do not have an age limit for applying, we are open.
A lot of studios do not have an official age limit. But there is an unofficial cut off depending on what the leadership of any given program deems as “young artist.”
We always look at the trajectory because I think age is less important. I think what is really important is how one uses one’s time. We look at the overall environment and see what would be supportive for each individual. We have six places every year. We had 127 applicants this year. Actually, one of the findings of the accreditation process in 2020 was that we were a well-kept secret.
That is very, very true. And is that intentional or unintentional?
It’s not intentional, I suppose, but we are a relatively small operation, even though we have the administrative support of two large organizations. And our focus is really looking after the singers in our program, as opposed to marketing ourselves. We are not really on the radar in certain countries and regions such as South Africa, large parts of Asia, and the United States.
I know you are still actively singing in addition to leading DNOA. So you have a very unique perspective of experiencing both worlds in parallel.
I had never worked in a conservatory before I came to DNOA. I had never taught. Before I came to DNOA, when I did not have stuff to sing, I did other unrelated jobs. I did other things because I never felt in a position to teach somebody to do what I was not quite sure I knew how to do myself. I think that is also why I came to this very, very, very late. My path into my position at DNOA was not through teaching but through producing. If I was to look at all the various different strands of my activities, I would say that I am driven by my deep interest in how resources are used, be it the resources of a school or a program. How can we provide the education we can with the resources we have available. How can somebody make the most out of the resources they have—their voice, their talent, their artistry. It has always been a thing which fascinates me. My path into DNOA and education was through setting up a company in Ireland and creating professional opportunities for young artists under the best possible circumstances, using the available resources in the best possible way.
Regardless, this is very interesting to hear because it is not something you read in someone’s bio. Yet, these kinds of experiences are the ones which really shape an artist.
What really motivates me is this. Each year I hear many singers in the context of auditions. They have a really good skill set, they have fantastic voices and yet they do not have the impact they should have. Their performances do nothing for you because the musical intentionality. “Why am I singing?” and “Why am I doing this?” is never integrated into the technique.
The amount of dedication and investment that go into this profession lead to an enormous level of potential frustration. Singers work, and work, and work, and then often they tend to hit a wall. I think that is because singers are not necessarily being resourced the way they need to be. I would be inclined to say that things these days are much more result oriented. I think that it has to do with social media and just the availability of information. Singers spend more time focusing on the lanes on either side of them, as opposed to their own journeys. We live in a time when everything can be done quickly.
When I learned my first Wagner role, I sat with a dictionary and went word for word through the text. I could not type the translation in. I could not go into Google and look for a translation. I took time, and it was that time which laid the foundations. You cannot skip that. Yet that is something that does not happen now. Agencies, opera companies, casting personnel desire quick results. So, to circle back, singers who have skills and fantastic voices lack impact. Singing careers are shorter and shorter because things have become very result-oriented instead of process-orientated. I think because of that, people are not always in command of the process and if you are not in command of the process, how can you be in command of the results? This is also the problem with going only for results. We forget to honor what is achieved and to own what we can do, which actually is our greatest currency.
One is not actually in the driver’s seat.
One ends up doing an awful lot of backseat driving. What we need to be doing is resourcing people to be in command of their own process. When singers audition that is the thing which impresses and moves.
I was going to add that this lack of command over one’s process makes careers shorter. It robs singers of singing certain repertoire they need to mature into and are able to sing in their 50s, 60s, 70s. Repertoire you cannot sing with the same impact when you are in your 30s and 40s.
That also brings me to one of my big “hobby horses” which is choice of repertoire for where one is at in any particular time. I find a lot of time singers miscalculate this. Funnily enough, they do not understand, really, how auditions function.
Do you think that singers should be required to sit on the other side of the audition table to understand how to audition well?
Absolutely, absolutely. In fact, this is part of our audition training module at DNOA. We divide singers into three: one group sits on an audition panel, one group sings the audition and one group is in-between giving feedback to both. We all have our opinions, but when we are auditioning, we tend to forget that rubric completely.
There are two strands of repertoire. There is developmental repertoire, the repertoire that teaches you how to sing. Then, there is your audition repertoire. Very often singers do not understand the difference between the two, so they misuse auditions and bring inappropriate repertoire. I think teaching singers to understand this difference is giving them a key to the next stage of their trajectory.
Auditions are a high-stakes investment. Naturally, at every point you want to see signposts saying that you are on the right road. Your validation as an artist should not be coming from getting a job or not, because that is dependent on somebody else’s taste. And nobody’s well-being should be overly reliant on someone else’s perception. Singers also only ask for feedback when they do not get an opportunity. I would encourage you to ask why you got the job so you can understand how you got the job.
Can we turn the focus to your career? Can you tell me what are the experiences that have shaped you beyond what I can read in your biography?
I don’t know how to answer that. I started as a bass-baritone and finished my formal training. At the end of my formal training somebody said, “You know, you are not a bass-baritone, you are a tenor.” I mean, they might as well have said, “You should be dancing in Giselle.”
If I was going to write a book, I would probably call it Life in the Slow Lane. What has really shaped me has been the experience of learning the difference between what I would like to be able to do and what I am able to do. Those are often really important things that singers do not realize.
Very often I make quick decisions and then in time I grow to understand these decisions.
There are moments when everything lines up and it is really very special, but I have learned more from the things that did not quite go according to plan.
I was just going to ask you what were your biggest mistakes and how those shaped you.
My biggest mistake was to try and sing Verdi’s Requiem early on. It was with a choral society in Ireland and it was very early on after switching from bass-baritone to tenor. It was one of these typical instances where I wanted to prove to myself that I made the right decision. That is why when I wear my casting director hat, I am not inclined to engage a singer where I think there is an element of risk. Is that because I am unadventurous in my heart? No, I am not unadventurous, but I also realize the challenge of something going really wrong and the fallout of that. I am very risk-friendly, but it has to be calculated. When things do not go according to plan, do not work out optimally, one needs to try and understand how that came about, and if possible, avoid making the same mistake, or going down the same path, twice.
Can you speak a bit about your view on artists who work in multiple aspects of opera, both performance and non-performance? Do they currently have a place in our art form? Is that type of Renaissance expression of talent encouraged? Is it the rule or the exception?
Advertisement
I realized that one word you never read in any study descriptions for any program in terms of learning objectives is the word “discernment.” It is an old-fashioned word but, as an artist, if you are not discerning—that applies to repertoire and opportunities—that keeps you from understanding who you are. Being discerning is knowing, is it the right time to do what you want to do and are you in the right place? I think this is a vital skill, because it also gives one the strength to understand, or at least engage with, the things that do not go according to plan.
When I started at DNOA, I wondered if maybe I would not sing anymore. I had a sort of identity crisis, because people would say “What do you do?” I kept coming back to the same answer, which is: I am a singer. And a singer sings. So I should. That is a huge part of my identity and of who I am. So that is why when I decided to continue to sing, it meant making very clear discerning choices about the repertoire. I am just about to enter my 60th year. I just turned 59. I am making repertoire choices which are compatible with everything else in my life and I feel incredibly lucky.
I also think it is important that I rode the road. It changes the dynamic with the singers I come in contact with. It makes a difference as to whether one is still really actively auditioning and singing. When I do audition training, it is the difference between saying “my last audition was in April” as opposed to saying “my last audition was when I was singing at Carnegie Hall years ago.”
To go back and tie this to repertoire choices: most voice teachers and coaches, for all their knowledge, never actually audition and most of them are never involved in casting. A voice teacher might wish you the job but they are not going to be giving it to you, and that is also one of the key miscalculations when it comes to auditions and choice of repertoire.
There are so few professionals with whom I have spoken, especially post COVID, who have maintained such curiosity and unfiltered enthusiasm for our art form as you have.
What I have come to realize is that I did not start on this path because I wanted to sing. I started on this part because I wanted to be involved in the world of opera. Now, I find myself incredibly involved in it and I find it hugely rewarding.
A few weeks ago, I sat, in the studio run of our Monteverdi production and was just so moved by the piece—400 years after it was written. Here I am, sitting in a basement in Amsterdam, looking at so much truth about the human condition and about our lives, and I find that immensely moving.
I think this is the perfect ending to this thrilling conversation. 400 years later, opera tells stories about the human condition which are still relevant and move us today.
To learn more about Paul McNamara visit https://www.paulmcnamara.info/ and the Dutch National Opera Academy (DNOA): https://www.opera-academy.nl/
