>Reg wrote:
>
> >. Lo and behold it was immediately
> > followed by the dear little Church child in concert. I'd never seen or
> > heard her before and what a grand setting with chorus and orchestra,
> > but what a sad performance.
>from Caio Rossi
>For the sake of clarity, and so that we can profit technically for
>criticizing others, since that's the purpose of this list, I'm asking those
>with a clear opinion about the girl to share a technical evaluation of
>Church's technique. I know she drops her jaw too low and that she can't be
>heard over an orchestra. But is that all? Why are there so many
>'non-believers' in that Church? :-)
Dear Caio,
First let's clear up a major mis-conception, the most sad
part of the performance was not the child's singing, it was that an
organisation and audience of supposed integrity, should allow a minor,
of flawed vocal technique, to be subject to such enormous vulnerability
and pressure.
It was a nice little drawing room performance of a sweet
little teenage school kid doing her best in the circumstances. So why,
other than for commercial reasons, add the full orchestra, the large
choir and the venue normally reserved for a gloriously mature performer.
<snip>
This doesn't rate as good singing. That was what the singing was in the
G&S which preceded it. My point at the time was to suggest some
value setting by making the comparisons, and to resist the 'gee-wizz'
factor that all commercial ventures inject and the gullable audience
lap up in the slavish acceptance of the decree from some jaded producer,
that what they behold, is worthy. It more often is not, as with this case!
Regards Reg.
|
|  |
