I think there are two issues here being discussed as if there were only one:
1. Does Charlotte's voice have the richness in overtones necessary for
projecting in an opera house without any electronic help?
My answer: Maybe it does, and if it does, and as she sings operatic
repertoire, she qualifies as an opera singer;
2. Does her singing fullfill the esthetic model that has been traditionally
established in opera singing ( no "belting", clear pronunciation, no
excessive vibrato, chiaroscuro, etc, etc, etc )? Probably not, as I think
that's what opera singers complain so much about in her singing.
Bye,
Caio
Andrea wrote:
<<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.>>
When I first started studying voice, and I listened to singers, I liked
singing that now I find problematic. I think this was because I was
comparing that singing to my own, and at first I heard something better than
the sound I was making at the time.
As my technique has progressed, and I continue to listen to singers, I am
more sensitive to the technical issues I am mastering. And I'm much pickier
about singing that previously I thought sounded fine.
I wonder whether Andrea has already experienced a little of this herself,
perhaps in relation to the singers of pop/rock/country/etc. music? If so, a
few years hence, her opinion of Ms. Church's vocal techique may be different
than it is today.
Peggy
---
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
