Isabelle wrote:
> In my opinion, that's what makes opera singing the > truer form -- it involves the real, true human voice, > unmiked. I much prefer an art form which mandates the > development and training of the voice to be heard, by > itself, without any outside enhancements.
But also wrote: > It irks me > when opera houses subtley amplify their productions > (and they do, according to the rumors).
If opera houses do that, doesn't it mean that opera may be miked, and it probably wasn't in the past because Benjamin Franklin was Benjamino Franklini? Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, my teacher can be heard over an orchestra but doesn't sing opera. Therefore, saying miking or not miking can determine which is which doesn't seem to be right or determine which is truer or the truest.
I think the point here is clear to me: it's expected from opera singers to have good technique, but the same is not true of pop singers. But the lack of such expectation does not mean that: 1. Pop singers CAN'T have good technique, 2. Pop singing technique, when present, has to fulfill the same requirements for opera singing technique. As aesthetic expectations are different ( and have to be different: listening to opera sung in a purely pop style or the opposite may be one of the most annoying musical experiences one may have ), sound productions in each differ in order to fit their styles. But it doesn't mean NECESSARILY lack of technique among pop singers, although it generally is. I have a friend who's a guitar player. Whenever someone says Eric Clapton is the 'guitar king' I can see him stab that person with his eyes. As he expects high-level musicianship from guitar players, he still listens to rock, but only to Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Yngwee Malmsteen, etc, that is, only to virtuoso guitar players. But they still play rock, no doubt about that!
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|
| |