>> If they want to listen to Bocelli, Brightman, or Church, that's their
>privilege.
>
>i've got a question: is their technique BAD,or is their technique NOT
>OPERATIC only?
>
Of the three, Bocelli has the best technique and of the three he is the
only one that can be evaluated as an opera singer. He can sing with
an orchestra and be heard unmiked, as he has done recently. However
he is on the same level as most student performers of opera, not a
completed voice, ready for the main stages of the world. His high notes
specially are very white, almost screamed.
Brightman and Church are not opera singers. Church has a close
to horrible technique in the sense that if she continues doing what she does
she will end up with lots of money and no voice at all...
As much as I dislike Brightman, I think her technique for musical theater
works.
However, when she tries to apply that to opera it is nearly desastrous.
> My probably stupid
>question is: what tells exactly what's opera singing and what's not? Only
>the 'ping'? Are stylistic ways of using the voice necessarily part of the
>opera-singing kit or are they a matter of personal taste?
Opera singing is a very complicated association of features. On the whole
it
is just best explained as singing in the traditions of the operatic theater.
One has to have PING, one must have legato, one must not have a breathy
tone,
one must have a voice of appropriate size to one's timbre (oh just fine that
you can sound
like a wonderfull mezzo, if you do not have low notes than can be heard over
an orchestra
you may as well sing as a short soprano) one must have the full range of the
voice, one should have
an homogenous voice (equal from bottom to top, without big breaks in
register).
Oh, I can probably add a lot to that, but this is what I can think of right
now.
|
|
|  |
