Hi, Richard
I understand your point, but I think what you consider to be the reason for
their success serves another purpose. I'll rephrase my point of view in the
light of what you said:
Regardless of who's singing it, there's a musical style that most people and
the music industry call 'opera', but opera connoisseurs can distinguish from
legitimate opera, as well as heavy metal fans can tell the difference
between Aerosmith, Metallica ( old and new ), Sepultura, Dream Theater,
Helloween and wouldn't call them just "rock", and would never say Madonna
and Five are anything but "pop". Let's call that style "pop opera".
It's a musical style, with its own fans, who may also like some other kind
of music, including opera itself. Pop opera singers may also perform more
than one kind of music, like the 3 Tenors, who perform both opera and pop
opera.
We can't say the 3 Tenors depend on their appearance to be successful in pop
opera. Pop opera fans like the style, the music, not much different from the
way rock fans like those different styles it actually encompasses, and so do
opera fans, pop music fans, etc, etc, etc. A girl who's into Dream Theater
is not likely to listen to Five just because she thinks they're handsome,
and the opposite is true too. We can say many girls like Bon Jovi because of
Jon Bon Jovi's looks, but many of those Bon Jovi's fans and many people who
are not their fans like Aerosmith too, and Steve Tyler, their lead singer,
is not famous for being THE good-looking guy.
To me, saying that people like pop opera because the performer is blind, a
hunk, etc, does not make much sense, as it doesn't make sense to say that
people like hard rock bands because of the appearance of their members. It's
impossible to separate Jon Bon Jovi, the singer, from Bon Jovi, the band, to
check if the band would be as popular as it is with him on, but the fact
that Aerosmith is as or even more successful shows that hard rock audiences
can abstract from performers' appearances and admire other things ( as seems
to be the case with the 3 Tenors doing pop opera). No one can say for sure
Bon Jovi's popularity relies on Jon's appearance. No one can say Bocelli
depends on his appearance or blindness either.
So why do record companies emphasize those aspects, you might ask. OK,
someone's beauty may influence people's decisions ( which is a double-edged
sword: boys will refuse to buy Bon Jovi's CDs ), but, rather than that, they
do it to single out the "product" they have. It's not that Bocelli's
blindness or beauty sells his CDs ( I mean, to the extent of compensating
launching them ), but it's easier for consumers to ask for a "blind Italian
singer's" than for "some Italian singer's" CD. It helps create an identity,
mostly in the beginning of their career, when the masses ( not you or the
people on Vocalist, probably ) can't tell the difference between Bocelli's
or Pavarotti's timbre.
It's like Coke and Pepsi: their containers and labels may help sell, Coke
has even brought back its distinguishable traditional bottle, but you can't
say Coke is nothing but the shape of the bottles it comes in. People drink
soda, not bottles, although bottles are important to help sell soda, even
Coke, THE soda. The way you put it, Bocelli, Church and tutti quanti are
only the bottles they come in. They're not! They're the soda, Coke or Pepsi,
people prefer. I don't like either ( I'm referring to both the singers and
the beverages), but I could never say people prefer Coke or Pepsi just
because of their different containers. Unless I misunderstood you, that's
what I think you're doing.
Best wishes,
Caio
> 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
|
