Vocalist.org archive


From:  richard@r...
Date:  Mon Jan 28, 2002  8:03 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist] pseudo opera

On Fri, 25 January 2002, "Caio Rossi" wrote:

> Richard> Partially, yes. I stand by it. He is a novelty act; as I said, a
> record executive likely saw him as having the varied marketable traits of
> Feliciano, Ricky Martin, and the Three Tenors rolled into one act.
> What exactly does he have of Martin?

His looks and build (if not quite the youth).

> Richard:>You miss my point, and it's probably my fault, so I'll rephrase: if
> she were a full-grown woman at the same level of training and with the same
> set of vocal problems she has, I doubt anybody would lavish the same
> attention on her.
> But she wouldn't have the same timbre, the same angelical voice. That's her
> great "product", I think.

Can't agree. There are plenty of light lyric sopranos out there who have an
"angelic sounding voice", and without studio modification. Heidi Grant Murphy
comes immediately to mind, as does Marie Plette, Barbara Bonney... and none of
them have Church's vocal problems. I continue to maintain that Church's handlers
are selling a "who," not a "what."

> Richard:>Apples and oranges. Domingo and Pavarotti had been household names
> since the 1970s. It also helped that they debuted as "the Three Tenors" at a
> world-famous sporting event. Not only that, Domingo was a "crossover" artist
> long before Peter Gelb ever ran Sony Classical - e.g., "Perhaps Love".<
> C'mon, Richard, what's all that but marketing?!

What's "just marketing"? Are you saying that they haven't been household names
since the 1970s? Are you saying that they didn't debut as a trio act at the
World Cup? Are you saying that Domingo didn't do an album with John Denver in
the early 80s? If that's what you're saying, then I have to assume you don't
know what you're talking about. Domingo and Pavarotti (if not necessarily
Carreras) have been significant presences beyond the "specialized ears" of the
opera world for years, far above and beyond their existence in the Three Tenors.

> We're discussing what makes pseudo-opera singers so popular. You said it's
> because they're Latin, and I gave you two examples of popular non-Latin
> pseudo-opera singers that are not Latin.

No, that's not what I said about "pseudo-opera singers" in general. That's what
I said about Boccelli. Never made it a generalization about the genre as a
whole.

> Richard:>It's an issue of being a whole package. Assuming that a potential
> customer doesn't care about classical music one way or the other, Boccelli
> has at least four marketable traits: 1) He's foreign-looking (and thus
> "exotic" and "interesting"), 2) He's blind, 3) he's good looking, and 4) he
> has an unusually well-trained voice for a pop singer. I'll restate the idea
> of the traits of Jose Feliciano, the Three Tenors, and Ricky Martin in one
> act.
> But remember that his foreign look is foreign only for Americans.

Please re-read my first two sentences. I'll give them to you again. "It's an
issue of being a whole package. Assuming that a potential customer doesn't care
about classical music one way or the other, Boccelli has at least four
marketable traits." To expand on that, since you don't seem to be getting it, he
has at least four marketable traits, none being mutually exclusive, and leaving
still three of said marketable traits if one doesn't happen to apply to a
particular customer.

Europeans
> are used to that and he would be unnoticed in most Latin countries. So all
> we've got to explain his WORLDWIDE success are reasons 2, 3 and 4. As I
> said, I don't consider 2 very meaningful

That's fine; that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, as I am entitled to
mine. Agreeing to disagree on this point doesn't spoil my day any.

I don't understand how but
> I have to admit women agree with 3 and, finally, 4, which seems to be true
> for most people ( but not to me. I think that semi-operatic singing is
> inappropriate for pop music. That's too cheesy to my taste, like Brightman
> singing pop ).

I didn't realize Brightman sang anything else. (Cite her recording of "Nessun
dorma" and I will get very angry. That is one of the biggest crocks of bull ever
to be burned onto CD.)

> >I'm just arguing that a) he is no way an "opera singer", it's just that
> there are people making money off of selling him as an "opera singer" (which
> is what I have a problem with)<
>
> I understand that, but, you see, if I were not a member of Vocalist I
> wouldn't know there's a difference. Before I started reading the posts here
> I would define an opera singer as a singer who sings operatic repertoire, as
> we generally define a rock singer, an R&B singer, etc, etc. EXoterically
> saying, he's being sold under the expected label.

That's assuming that opera is strictly a genre of music; it is not. It is also a
genre of theater. In order to be an opera singer, by my definition, 1) You have
to be able to sing the repertoire in such a way as to be heard in the house
without amplification or other enhancement 2) You have to be able to perform the
*role* onstage - not just blast the aria into a mike. To his credit, Boccelli
has attempted to meet this standard, and that's great - that's far more than
Church, Brightman, or Watson have done. Still, by all accounts he's got a long
way to go. If he gets there, fabulous. I hope he does. But as long as he and his
managers are making millions off of him *not* doing that, there's no incentive
for him to do so, is there?

Richard





emusic.com