I have finally formulated a justification for my generalizing of Charlotte Church's voice after seeing/hearing one bad performance. Yeah, I know this is late, but this is why I'm not an English major - can't formulate arguments on the spot. Deal with it, LOL..
So yes, I thought of this after our choir rehearsal last night. We ran through what we knew of the Brahm's Requiem, including the solos, which the soloists were really not ready for, LOL. But even though they were nervous and did not know their parts, their support, tone placement, and vowel shaping did not go down the drain. They sang beautifully. Charlotte on the other hand - support was not really there and don't even get me started on tone placement. She didn't even have the range for the song, but I guess that isn't really her fault...
I can even think of a skating analogy for this! (w00t, you know you want to hear it, LOL.) I can tell whether a skater has good basic technique or not within 30 seconds of watching them take the ice. I don't consider that generalizing. I'm just so familiar with skating that I simply know what to look for: edging, position, speed, security. I could be wrong on jumps, since I've seen a lot of skaters with crappy basics somehow land all sorts of things, but everyone who's familiar with skating knows what good basic technique looks like. A competitor can be nervous or have a bad day; they may fall on all of their jumps, their spins may travel a bit, they might trip and fall, but their crossovers and edges do not go to shit.
Wow, that was long-winded. Oh, and for those who are curious,
here's the Charlottle Church clip I was evaluating. On second listen, it wasn't as bad as my first impression, but still...that girl does not deserve to be as famous as she is. That's all I will say about that. (Don't even get me started on her singing "Phantom of the Opera" with 50/60-something Peter Karrie..*shudder*)