Singer Boyle reaches Talent final

Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:

But Boyle is only interested in performing the most cliched,
sentimental, commercially middle-of-the-road garbage imaginable.
I won't willingly listen to ANYBODY singing that crap, and the
fact that they have a made-for-TV romantic-fantasy background
story of overcoming frumpiness and mental retardation to get
where they are doesn't do a damn thing to make me want to listen.

I thought she sang beautifully, but that style of singing isn't my
favorite by a long shot.

And I have to agree with you, wholeheartedly, about her choice of
material. I think Yowie's right, though, that it was smart of her to
choose something people can relate to, if she wants to win that damn
thing. But - showtunes. I hate 'em!

Mental retardation? This is the first time I've heard that.

--
Joyce ^..^

To email me, remove the XXX from my user name.

MLB wrote:
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


Christina Websell wrote:
"MLB" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
Scottish singer Susan Boyle has secured a place in the final of
ITV's Britain's Got Talent, after performing live on television for
the first time.

To bring it on topic, she sang, Memory from the musical, Cats. :-)
I tried to find it on the TV and computer but the only thing I could
bring up was the previous show. She is extraordinary and she is
"tops".
MI

I missed her the 1st time, but what a talent I saw.
It seems that some people think she is not attractive to look at.
How does that matter?

She has the most amazing and beautiful voice.
I wish I could sing like that.

Tweed

Practically anyone who can carry a tune CAN!!!! The only thing
"amazing" about her voice is the chutpzah that allows her to display
it in public. To call it "beautiful" is profound overstatement, and
indicates you have not heard any TRULY beautiful voices (which is
possible, considering what gets recorded as "professional" singing
these days).


I can't help but wonder what your voice sounds like. Your written words
sound like sour grapes.....
MLB

My voice sounded just fine, when I was still singing. However like most
(unfortunately not all) people who really COULD sing in their youth, I
had the good sense to stop performing in public when my voice would no
longer do as I wanted it to, however complimentary people still were
when they heard me. (I preferred to be one of those singers of whom
people say "What a pity she no longer sings" rather than "What a pity
she doesn't retire".) Sadly, the human voice is the only instrument
that ages along with the performer - you don't find any nonagenarian
singers, as you do pianists and violinists. (Perhaps even MORE sadly,
it is the only instrument people with which THINK they can perform
without proper training - witness disasters like the Boyle woman.)

Cheryl P. wrote:
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

Practically anyone who can carry a tune CAN!!!! The only thing
"amazing" about her voice is the chutpzah that allows her to display
it in public. To call it "beautiful" is profound overstatement, and
indicates you have not heard any TRULY beautiful voices (which is
possible, considering what gets recorded as "professional" singing
these days).

Could you be specific about what's missing for those of us who are not
trained musicians? She certainsly sounds dramatically different (and to
me, better) than a great many other singers, including many professionals.

Granted, both "different" and "better" than many of what pass for
"professionals" in popular music. The voice is pleasant enough, for a
middle-aged amateur, but lacks training. If I heard her sing in church
or at some sort of social gathering, I'd probably find her performance
(judged by those standards) enjoyable. It's the international media
hype of mediocrity that I deplore.

So far as appearance goes, her face and figure may not conform to
current standards of "beauty", but that's no reason not to have her hair
becomingly styled and to apply a bit of makeup to emphasize her best
features, if she wants to perform in public. (She could look a lot more
attractive than she does, and should WANT to, when appearing before an
audience.)

Baird Stafford wrote:
In article ,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Practically anyone who can carry a tune CAN!!!! The only thing
"amazing" about her voice is the chutpzah that allows her to display it
in public. To call it "beautiful" is profound overstatement, and
indicates you have not heard any TRULY beautiful voices (which is
possible, considering what gets recorded as "professional" singing these
days).

Would Callas' voice count as "beautiful?" I find Boyle's voice to be
more beautiful than Callas' - but then, I never cared for tremolo,
especially when it is screeched rather than sung.

I didn't really appreciate Callas when I was young. It was not any
"beauty" of the voice, but the incomparable artistry of interpretation
that distinguished her (to which one pays less attention when first
aspiring to the profession). To me Renata Thebaldi had by far the more
beautiful voice (and I still hold that opinion, even though I've come to
appreciate Callas as well). Marilyn Horne was another great artist with
a less than beautiful instrument - but considering that she almost
single-handedly revived "Bel Canto" opera for the twentieth century,
I'll endure the wobble, and the metallic quality of her fioritura.


The "beauty" of a voice is not always a measure of its quality, either.
I wouldn't say that Ethel Merman, Tina Turner or Cher had and have
particularly "beautiful" voices - but they could and can certainly
*sell* a song. Sometimes that counts for more than mere "beauty."

Ethel Merman never claimed to have a beautiful voice - she was a song
stylist, not really a "singer" (as I believe she was the first to
admit). The same holds true for Cher - except that she was further
handicapped by being inaudible without half-swallowing a microphone. (I
never heard Tina Turner - who is she?)

I'd be more impressed by Boyle's detractors if so many of them didn't
sound as though they are trying very, very hard to persuade themselves
that the grapes are sour.

Is it "sour grapes" to deplore the media hype over mediocre talents,
when many REAL artists of superior abilities go unheard? I don't think
so. (And I'm not in the running, since whatever career I might or might
not have had is a thing of the fairly distant past.)

Christina Websell wrote:
"Cheryl P." wrote in message
...
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

Practically anyone who can carry a tune CAN!!!! The only thing "amazing"
about her voice is the chutpzah that allows her to display it in public.
To call it "beautiful" is profound overstatement, and indicates you have
not heard any TRULY beautiful voices (which is possible, considering what
gets recorded as "professional" singing these days).
Could you be specific about what's missing for those of us who are not
trained musicians? She certainsly sounds dramatically different (and to
me, better) than a great many other singers, including many professionals.

I also doubt what you said elsewhere, about anyone being able to learn to
sing like that. I couldn't. I can carry a tune, especially if someone else
sings along or plays a piano, and the melody isn't too difficult. I can
quite often hit the right notes, if the music isn't too hard and I get
some help. But I can't sing like she can. I don't have the volume, or the
fullness of the sound. I also don't know the right technical music terms
to discuss this topic, alas.


I can carry a tune and was in a choir once. I cannot sing like Susan Boyle
either.

(To which statement I would append "Thank God!")

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Ethel Merman never claimed to have a beautiful voice - she was a song
stylist, not really a "singer" (as I believe she was the first to
admit). The same holds true for Cher - except that she was further
handicapped by being inaudible without half-swallowing a microphone. (I
never heard Tina Turner - who is she?)

Jeez, Evelyn. You might be a well-trained former opera singer, and you
clearly have a lot of opinions about what is good and what is not. But
you gotta get out more! There's a much wider world out there.

You have the same attitude as many people who are classically trained:
the world of your music and the standards used in that world are the
*only* ways to measure quality and artistry. It's simply not true. There
are many, many different ways to create wonderful art with the voice. I
am not disputing the standards used in opera or classical music. I'm
simply saying that there are many different standards, depending on what
one is doing.

"Never heard of Tina Turner." chuckle

Go here and enjoy (well, maybe you won't, but at least you'll be able
to say you've heard of her!):

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...na+turner&aq=f

--
Joyce ^..^

To email me, remove the XXX from my user name.

Joy wrote:
"Baird Stafford" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Practically anyone who can carry a tune CAN!!!! The only thing
"amazing" about her voice is the chutpzah that allows her to display it
in public. To call it "beautiful" is profound overstatement, and
indicates you have not heard any TRULY beautiful voices (which is
possible, considering what gets recorded as "professional" singing these
days).
Would Callas' voice count as "beautiful?" I find Boyle's voice to be
more beautiful than Callas' - but then, I never cared for tremolo,
especially when it is screeched rather than sung.

The "beauty" of a voice is not always a measure of its quality, either.
I wouldn't say that Ethel Merman, Tina Turner or Cher had and have
particularly "beautiful" voices - but they could and can certainly
*sell* a song. Sometimes that counts for more than mere "beauty."

I'd be more impressed by Boyle's detractors if so many of them didn't
sound as though they are trying very, very hard to persuade themselves
that the grapes are sour.

Baird

I get that impression too. Apparently some people think one has to look
glamorous to be a good singer. I like the fact that she doesn't try to
pretend to be something she isn't.

"Glamor" has nothing to do with it - taking a little pride in one's
appearance is another matter. A great many of the truly great female
singers were not particularly pretty (and the myth of the
three-hundred-pound soprano holds a great deal of truth - especially
before our present fixation on anorexia as beauty). Trying to appear at
one's best when performing for an audience is NOT "trying to pretend to
be something she isn't" - it's what most women do without even thinking
about it. How many of YOU attend social events or go out in public
without at least minimal makeup? ("You" meaning women, of course.) ;-)

Christina Websell wrote:
Baird Stafford wrote:
In article ,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

snip

Don't get me started on what passes for "talent", these days! Aside
from her unfortunate appearance (couldn't she at least TRY to improve
her grooming?)

Her unfortunate appearance, Evelyn? What does it matter what she looks
like?

When she chooses to appear in public before an audience, it matters!
(It does to every other performer alive, and it SHOULD to her - if it
doesn't, she's chosen the wrong venue.) No one expects her to become a
super-model overnight, but ANYONE can manage a becoming hair-style and a
smidgin of makeup!

The woman can sing.

W-e-l-l-l, that's debatable!

Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
Scottish singer Susan Boyle has secured a place in the final of
ITV's Britain's Got Talent
The only thing "amazing" about her voice is the chutpzah that allows
her to display it in public. To call it "beautiful" is profound
overstatement

I'm not that bothered about voice quality - one of my main interests
is folk music, where the whole *point* is that any voice can do it.

But even there, some are easier to listen to than others. The late John
Denver was one of my favorites in the more "popular" genres, and HE
could certainly sing "straight" when he wanted to. That "folksy" sound
was a matter of style, the voice appeared to have had some decent
training to start. (Which would probably have meant his was one of
those voices which last into old age, had he not been killed in that
plane crash.)

But Boyle is only interested in performing the most cliched,
sentimental, commercially middle-of-the-road garbage imaginable.
I won't willingly listen to ANYBODY singing that crap, and the
fact that they have a made-for-TV romantic-fantasy background
story of overcoming frumpiness and mental retardation to get
where they are doesn't do a damn thing to make me want to listen.

I didn't realize she was "mentally challenged", which may excuse some of
the things I've criticized. (I was assuming at least normal
intelligence.) But when it is so difficult for the TRULY talented to
outdistance their equally talented competitors, why should the media
spend so much money and hype on her? (As to "overcoming" frumpiness,
I'd say that part needs a bit more work!)

Evelyn has written here or in some other forum about the singer
Thomas Quasthoff, who has some very severe physical problem. I
forget what it is;

He was a Thalidomide baby - no arms (the hands spring from the
shoulders), and only an approximation of legs, although he CAN walk,
after a fashion.

I listen to Quasthoff because of what he sounds
like. Probably he could have sucked up to a TV executive and
turned himself into a cripple-does-good success story, but he had
the good taste not to.

EXACTLY! In fact, he has consistently refused to sing "Rigoletto"
because he feels it would be capitalizing on his physical condition.
(With a voice like that, he doesn't HAVE to!)

Of course, he was blessed with a mother who taught him to be
self-sufficient. I remember a Sixty-Minutes excerpt that included a
clip of him at home, washing dishes. (Not as easy as for someone with
normal appendages, but he managed very nicely.)

I can think of two major-league instrumental
players I knew from recordings and was surprised to see them come
on stage in wheelchairs when I first saw them live; none of the
sleeve notes mentioned any handicaps they'd had to deal with.

Once the novelty of the "brain-damaged frump makes the big time"
angle wears off, Boyle's complete lack of originality will see
her consigned to oblivion again.

True! Whatever happened to Charlotte Church? Or Russell Watson?
(Andrea Bocelli's claim to fame now seems limited to the occasional
rerun "Special" during PBS Fund Drives, and he at least had STUDIED voice.)

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


"Glamor" has nothing to do with it - taking a little pride in one's
appearance is another matter. A great many of the truly great female
singers were not particularly pretty (and the myth of the
three-hundred-pound soprano holds a great deal of truth - especially
before our present fixation on anorexia as beauty). Trying to appear at
one's best when performing for an audience is NOT "trying to pretend to
be something she isn't" - it's what most women do without even thinking
about it. How many of YOU attend social events or go out in public
without at least minimal makeup? ("You" meaning women, of course.) ;-)

I don't. Too much hassle. I don't even own any makeup any more.

Cheryl