Note to Vicky
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*)
posted by sugarfiend @ 9:02 AM
2 Comments:
Oo, the fun begins.
I don't have a log of our conversation, but I believe I was defending against your statement that you don't understand why she got popular. The point is that Charlotte Church has quite a fan base, not that she has a voice. Although I do know of critics that adore her.
If that doesn't change things a little, here goes.
Here's one problem: you are evaluating the popularity of Charlotte Church according to standards of singing that are irrelevant to much of the population that enjoys her work. Like you said in our discussion, you can't compare her to Britney Spears. And yet many more millions of people enjoy Britney's music and "singing" than Miss Church's. (I could go on here and state that it appears that singing ability seems to be inversely related to popularity, but that would be sloppy, not to mention erroneous).
Now that I've actually looked over your link...it says it's an early performance from 1998. Anita, this girl was twelve. Still fairly early in anyone's development. Also, it was aired only in Wales, before she acquired her worldwide following. Taking this sample as representative of her abilities and of how she acquired legions of adoring fans is, pardon my French, a stupid thing to do. It's like writing a paper and creating a whole paragraph with a point but only one bit of textual evidence to support it. I haven't poked around the site much--frankly, she annoys me--but I believe that if you look at anything after '98, there should be a marked improvement in tone placement, at least. I don't ever recall her having a particularly powerful voice, but in her line of work that doesn't matter. Ask Cher, who even performs with tone-adjusting technology. Her career hasn't suffered much.
Now, I'm still attacking your generalization, and not your justification for it. Both of your examples--the choir and the skating--rely on you solely as the authority. Not a good idea. For one, you're asking me to accept, without justification, that you are enough of an expert on these things that I can trust your evaluation. Whether you are or not is besides the point--you need additional support, and the more the better. For two (and related to the previous), the skating analogy is unecessary. It does nothing for your "justification" except justify your ability to recognize skill. Which it doesn't do very well at all (see previous).
Am an English major, can formulate arguments on the spot--but the last time someone let me sit on a debate topic for a week, I made the person on the other team cry.
--Your friendly neighborhood Devil's Advocate,
*meep*
And this is why I'm not an English major, nor can I even aspire to be one.
*crawls to corner with piano and/or art supplies to shield self from mental onslaught*
Post a Comment
<< Home