> Richard:>Same as in, she's getting used by the people who have a financial
> interest in her, and it's not *what* she does, it's certain marketable
> properties of the *who* in which people are interested.<
Caio>> Among those marketable properties she has, you have to include WHAT
she
> does. She doesn't have to be appreciated by Vocalisters to have a
successful
> career. People like WHAT she does.
Richard>My point is that it wouldn't matter what kind of music she did, or
even what field or the entertainment business. Look at the Olsen twins for
an equivalent. People love an angelic little girl hugging a teddy bear and
will throw money at the image regardless of what it's selling.
Brightman is an adult, and I've seen her a little overweight on TV, but,
regardless of that, she's also successful in the "pseudo opera" market. And
then you say Bocelli, who has an impairment, sells because of that
impairment. It's possible to single out anything positive or negative in
anyone and use it to come up with an explanation for their success or
failure, as you may say that things fall downward because they couldn't fall
upward, and that balloons go up toward the sky because they can't go up
toward the floor. I think you're mistaking your DESCRIPTIONS for
EXPLANATIONS.
Caio> It may be also because of "who" she is as
> a marketable product ( a young talent, cute, etc, etc ) but I don't buy
that
> as the only explanation. People DO like her voice.
Richard> If it were a full-grown woman with the same voice, I doubt anybody
would care. The appreciation of her voice is *very* colored by her image<
If you were a full-grown woman with the SAME voice, you'd be in a freak show
with the bearded lady and the cyclope.
Caio> Regarding Bocelli, I think he just happens to be blind and that has
little
> to do with his success.
Richard:>You're joking, right? His marketing heavily plays up his
blindness - it isn't incidental at all.
He'd still have to have a voice and a repertoire that people enjoy listening
to, even if that voice were electronically fabricated. And, as I said, I can
remember being the first to tell many people who had enjoyed his music for a
long time that he's blind. They didn't have any idea of that.
Take the 3 Tenors, for example: don't you think that many people bought
their CDs ALSO influenced by what they heard and read about them being the
best tenors alive, although they could not say what made them different from
any other tenors? And that despite the fact that 3 overweight "grandpas" are
not the recipe for a popular hit? But people bought their CDs anyway,
enjoyed their voices and repertoire. That's why I think you're
oversimplifying things.
Caio>Then you may say he's not a good opera singer and
> people like him, so it can only be because of his blindness and for being
> Latin ( btw, Latins don't exist anymore, you barbarian! hehe ).
Richard> What I'm saying is, the voice being equal, a white American guy
with no disability would not have the career or the attention that Boccelli
is getting right now.
But that still doesn't explain Church's and Brightman's successful careers
worldwide. And you're treating Boccelli as if he were a phenomenon in
America only, but it's not true. His being Latin is not remarkable in Latin
countries, where EVERYONE is Latin, but he's also very successful in these
countries. The explanation must lie somewhere else.
Best wishes,
Caio
|
|  |
