isabelle and whomever else this babble addresses,
squillo, twang, shrill all mean the same to me. i believe what is
known as the singer's formant is present in each one. ethel merman clearly
had twang, hvorostovsky clearly does not (not enough, certainly). merman
is clearly not operatic yet, hvorostovsky clearly is (and only that).
concerning education- knowing a lot and finding a use for it are two
different things. i have more use for an idiot who knows where my blood
pressure pills are than i do for a genius who wants to tell me how a radio
works in his spare time. in the same light, i have far more use for hendrix
than i do for malmsteen. i'd also rather interview an inmate than an expert
juggler.
charlotte church is probably a better singer than most girls her age and
we'd all be excited if, those students we can all think of, sang as well.
i, for one, don't think her troubles are vocal. i suspect her 'terribly
smashing' jaw thrusting would cause her trouble eventually whether she sang
or not.
on bocelli- of all the singers who sound like opera singers to people
who think opera sucks, bocelli is the one who sings other music- 'easy
listening' (now we're talking the real stuff) that those people are most
likely to develope a taste for. and, as most will agree, provides the most
promising lure into the opera that people who think opera sucks, thinks sucks
(ooh, maybe i do have a concussion).
on elitism- by making something out to be more special, intellectually
stimulating, exclusive, 'my taste is better than your taste', than it
actually is, we put the desired goal that much more out of the reach of the
students who want it the most. if for no other reason...
mike
|
|  |
