Vocalist.org archive


From:  richard@r...
Date:  Mon Jan 21, 2002  9:20 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist] pseudo opera, was: Singers and Amplification

My $0.02 worth:

I have no issue with Ms. Church, Mr. Boccelli, or Mr. Watson, even. My issue is
with the people who market them as "opera singers", for that is simply not what
they are - they are pop singers who have classical music in their repertoire.
Marketing them as "opera singers" gives the general public a really false
impression of what opera is - that is to say, a theatrical art form, with a
plot, characters, context, musical continuity, etc. It is not
crooning/screaming/warbling into a microphone with a ton of reverb loaded onto
the voice. That's not snobbery; that's a pretty objective definition of what
opera is, and Church, Boccelli, et al., do not fit it. ("But what about
Boccelli's Werther in Detroit?" Um, have you heard about any further bookings of
him in legit houses? Didn't think so.)

I actually feel sorry for Boccelli and Church - they're getting taken for a
ride. I'll go ahead and say it: nobody would give Boccelli a second thought if
he weren't a) blind b) of Latin origin. Some record exec saw him and thought,
"Hey, I have the Three Tenors, Jose Feliciano, and Ricky Martin all in one act!"
Same goes for Charlotte Church - her handlers (not to mention her parents) are
making zillions off of her, and she's killing whatever instrument she has as a
result. Russell Watson I feel somewhat less bad for - if he's allowing himself
to be marketed under the pretentious title of "The People's Tenor," well,
whatever. He's not getting a dime of my money.

A person I specifically exclude from the above is Sarah Brightman - she's an
entirely different kettle of fish, because I think she's totally responsible for
herself. I had the bizarre experience of being one of her backup singers for a
concert she did in Seattle a year and a half ago or so. Highlights: 1) She
lip-sync'd about 3/4 of the concert 2) There was so much processing of her voice
when she did sing you couldn't tell what was her and what was electronics 3) She
had handlers on either side of her walking her to and from the stage yelling
twenty feet ahead, "Make way for Sarah!" 4) The entire concert was done to a
click track 5) We sang, but nobody heard us - they piped in a choral track.
Turned out we were just there for show.

And I maintain that it *does* cannibalize listeners/customers from the genre -
we have a record buying public who, by and large, wants one of everything, not
many of one thing. If Joe Record Buyer already has Boccelli's Verdi album, then
there's absolutely no reason for him to seek out any other Verdi recordings.

Anecdotally, look at iclassics.com's top sellers list: James Horner, Charlotte
Church, Andrea Boccelli, and Abba. How in the world is any of that actually
classical music?

Having said all of that - Boccelli, Church, etc. are not the problem. There's
nothing new about what they do - Mario Lanza, anybody? (And I have roughly the
same things to say about him, too, although he *did* have a voice - he just made
different choices.) The issue is that the 20th century was host to an
unprecedented schism between "serious" and "popular" music, as well as a severe
downturn in the level of music education and appreciation. As a result,
"serious" music right now is teetering on the edge of either becoming a museum
piece done only by fat old men in tailcoats or pop musicians looking for
transfer credit, or simply being absorbed into the whole of popular music.

But I'll write my book on all of that a bit later...

Richard

On Sun, 20 January 2002, Greypins@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/20/2002 7:18:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, sopran@a...
> writes:
> > For example, the Sony Classical site calls Church "the world's most
> > successful soprano." Just what qualifies her as the most successful, they
> > don't say. The real tragedy is that all of the money and effort spent to
> > promote these mediocrities takes budget away from artistically valid
> > projects. No wonder people who have real talent and have actually paid
> > their
> > dues are appalled.
>
> i'm guessing they use the word 'succesful' meaning 'raking in the bucks'.
> while i'm not a fan of ms. church, i do think, as a pop singer, bocelli is
> artistically valid and, i think he has real talent.
>
> any artform that has a minority following is going to be pressed for
> recognition. in the case of opera, it is particularly expensive and
> cumbersome to put on. you cannot blame artists of other styles for opera's
> lack of mass appeal. if anything, bocelli and church are just as likely to
> lure the masses to opera than they are to steal people away from it.






  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date  
16749 Re: pseudo opera, was: Singers and AmplificationKaren Mercedes   Tue  1/22/2002  
16760 Re: pseudo opera, was: Singers and Amplificationoriginalsinky   Wed  1/23/2002  

emusic.com