Lisa wrote:
> I just wanted to add to this discussion that my problem with Bocelli,
Church, Brightman is that they are held up to "the general public" as a
standard. And that many people (at least those who have talked to me)
believe that they are representative of good opera singing. I understand
that to many, the "operatic" sound is not organic or is affected. HOWEVER,
I also know that there are other singers out there who have a more
accessible sound (Dawn Upshaw, for example) who are more expressive and sing
with a more reliable technique (although she is apparently having some vocal
fatigue problems herself) who are not singing on Oprah. It is the
mediocrity that frustrates me. The powers that be in the music industry
have decided that the only way to make an "opera" singer interesting is if
they are some sort of anomoly (i.e. being 13 years old, being blind, being
married to Andrew Lloyd Webber).
>
> The people who have worked for years to understand the art and the craft
and the sport of singing, who bare their very souls for us to comprehend the
beauty of life --- they are seen as stuffy and boring.
I just want to make clear that I agree with you and admire the fact that
classical instrumentalists and opera singers are trying their best to offer
their musicianship in exchange for so little money ( comparing to how much
famous pop singers can make ), while some who can't even talk and are
blowing up their brains ( and whatever potential talent they may have ) with
drugs are making millions in the show business. The fact that I don't
appreciate much the quality opera singers aim at doesn't mean I don't
appreciate their efforts to reach perfection within their own style. If pop
musicians and singers were half as committed to quality the range of bands
and singers I can stand listening to would increase ten thousand-fold!
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|
|  |
