I know what voice training involves, I take lessons. Some trained classical singers, sound thin, high and/or screechy and they are famous. I think Charlotte sounds better than them. She is where she is due to looks, youth, talent and clever marketing. Sure I can see Charlotte's facial/physical actions, and if you watch PBS' Classical music and operas she isn't the only one. I think Andrea Bocelli is a man - kinda good looking, never heard him sing.
As for singing with amplification:
1) Don't insult me 2) I wonder how they record classical CD's without microphones and sound engineers??? 3) I'd like to hear your favorite opera singer sing with my band, no one would hear them above the guitars or drumset without a microphone! It's not "pop" music. 4) Not everyone who uses amplification needs vocal effects, and there is always the option to turn effects off or minimize them. If you can really sing, all that stuff just stops you from hearing a clear vocal come through the monitors
-Andrea
---Begin Included Message-----
Voice training involves watching as well as listening.
<<To my semi-trained ear when I listen to Charlotte she sounds fine,similar to many other classical singers only with a better tone quality than your average high soprano.>>
You chose your initial adjective well. I have to disagree with you about the rest of your sentence. Again, it's a question of listening to the voice without the interference of electronics. We haven't got that option, for the most part.
__________________________________________________
|
| |