Les wrote:
> Do more formal performance requirements mean the singer must have a better
> education than one who sings less formal music? I think it's safe to say
that
> a singer
> needs to be educated appropriately for the kind of singing they do.
Whether
> the education required is "better" than another or not, is an entirely
> different thing. What
> matters is that the education be appropriate.
I have to disagree on that: opera singers are obviously expected to have
BETTER culture, be that technique, languages, History, etc. Whether the
education one has is appropriate or not for the requirements the style has,
that's something completely different.
> Several years ago an argument was put forward on Vocalist that Opera, Art
> Song and the like were considered "high art", while popular music was not.
I
> really believe that any kind of singing can be "high art", it simply
depends
> on how it fulfills expectation. That's not to say that there really isn't
> blatant commercialism out there. Of course there is, it's just impossible
to
> know for sure that it is.
Pop music is the result of the popular culture. As popular culture has never
been sophisticated, or 'high', it's inferior.
>For singing, it could just
> as well be said that "Beautiful singing is in the ears and eyes of the
hearer
> and viewer." We each must determine what "high art" is for ourselves. For
> that reason, there will never be a consensus and to speculate about it is
> interesting but apt to be unproductive.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I agree, but that has nothing to do
with being 'high' or not.
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
