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.
__________________________________________________
|
|  |
