Posted on 06/24/2007 3:42:55 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod
A 36-YEAR-OLD dentally challenged cellphone salesman wins a nationally televised talent contest in Britain, and suddenly, all sorts of questions are raised about the role of classical music in our world.
That is because the winner, Paul Potts, from Wales, triumphed with a rendition of “Nessun dorma,” the tenor aria from Puccini’s “Turandot,” at a contest with the trappings and audience — seemingly — of the mass entertainment world.
By the standards of music critics who ply their trade in opera houses and concert halls, it wasn’t a particularly earth-shaking performance.
“Mr. Potts is the sort of bog-standard tenor to be found in any amateur opera company in any corner of the country,” wrote Philip Hensher in The Independent of London. “His tuning was all over the place; his voice sounded strained and uncontrolled; his phrasing was stubby and lumpy; he made a constipated approximation only of the fluid sound of the Italianate tenor....”
On the blogs, many comments seemed to reflect resentment that the “snobs” of the opera world would look down on their swoon for Mr. Potts. On freerepublic.com, a conservative forum, dougfromupland addressed “all you opera snobs.”
“He may not be the greatest opera singer. But we who don’t know dip about opera like him and can’t wait to see him perform. We know what uplifts us and makes us feel good. Go away, snobs.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Never heard him in concert. I do have the La Boheme album and it gives me chills.
You were the one who said that people can be snobs about taste! If the Times trashes Paul Potts, so be it! He has brought more attention to opera and to the aria, “Nessun Dorma” in particular, than anything that has happened since Ed Sullivan when he used to have on a famous opera star to sing an aria in the late 50’s.
I have a lot of opera albums and I happen to like that version with Boccelli. Call me a blue-jeaned Guinness drinker. It fits me to a tee. ;-o)
My personal preference is basso profondo. Give me a Russian chorus like the Don Cossacks and I am literally in heaven.
F
Harry Chapin’s “Mr. Tanner.”
Many tenors have overtrained their technique so much that the original note gets lost in the vibrato. That’s why people love Bocelli so much. His voice is powerful but it doesn’t mask the music as written.
Oh that was nice....one of my all time favorites. I love Puccini. I was really into opera about 10 years ago and then drifted away but Paul Potts has brought me back. That seemingly ordinary man, singing his heart out just touched me so much. To me, that’s what it’s all about - more so than studied perfection. In a way his own life is sort of an opera story, the suffering, the passion for his art, and then then the triumph. I hope it lasts for him.
Puccini really was for the masses to consume. not pretentious in the least
Friday night I couldn’t get Paul Potts singing out of my head so I, deciding I needed an opera fix, went to Borders but ended up coming back with Bocelli’s Amore cd which I adore. incredibly romantic!
I’ve lost my opera collections unfortunately...what is the name of the one you are referring to that is $11?
The songs have been announced - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855723/posts
I share your criticism. Unfortunately, most people are easily moved by flashy songs and big voices -and when you give them your professional impressions they get their knickers in a twist.
I haven't done a survey, but the debate over how much of an article is acceptable to post goes back at least to the heyday of Usenet. Most publishers have basic guidelines for everyone, but most sites aren't like FR, which is built primarily on articles from other sources and then commentary on them. So it's not only possible but likely that FR led some sources to consider some issues for the first time.
On most message boards, of any (or no) philosophical or political stripe, the norm is for someone to simply post a personal opinion. What around here is called a "vanity" is the vast majority of traffic almost everywhere else.
And that's an observation from someone who has gone from local BBSes with an acoustic modem to Prodigy to AOL (I was a beta tester and later a mod on both) and then Usenet. A little FidoNet in there somewhere, I think.
If an outlet is so intellectually and morally bankrupt that they must skirt the first amendment to hide from the dissection of their message,
No one is "skirting the first amendment." Publishers don't get their presses, transmitters or Web servers for free. Their reporters and editors don't work for free. If they can't make any money off their work, they won't produce any -- and the conversation will dry up.
That's why there's copyright. Publishers have control over how their creations are used. Exceptions, most notably fair use, exist to foster debate and criticism.
Posting an article in its entirety just to add "FYI" at the bottom is not debate or criticism. It isn't fair use, any more than posting an entire novel to add "i liked it" at the bottom is a legitimate excerpt for a book review.
why should they be allowed to do whatever they want with a post?
They can't "do whatever they want with a post." They can accurately quote a brief excerpt from a published source or a public utterance with proper attribution. That has never been considered illegal or unethical. in fact, most newspapers in other times and other places aren't/weren't as rigorous as the NYT -- some editors will let something go like "a poster in an online message board" with no further identifier.
“We’re gonna talk about you, and we will make it hard for you to talk about it(or if you’ll be allowed to talk about it at all.”)
How wussified have we become, that it's too hard to have to talk about the news of the day if we have to point to an article at its source instead of copying and pasting?
When I was in school, if you wanted to read an article in order to discuss it, you had to get up! Out of your chair! and then you had to go somewhere like a library or a bookstore or a newsstand!. It was always uphill, both ways, in the snow.
And before commenting on or rebutting a claim, we had to read it! and sometimes retype it! For the love of God, man, it was hell! You have no idea!
And many posts could be misrepresented a million ways to fit whatever daily propaganda they need.
That's true of any quote from anywhere. "I was misquoted" and "that was taken out of context" pre-date the Internet by at least a century.
I haven't done a survey, but the debate over how much of an article is acceptable to post goes back at least to the heyday of Usenet. Most publishers have basic guidelines for everyone, but most sites aren't like FR, which is built primarily on articles from other sources and then commentary on them. So it's not only possible but likely that FR led some sources to consider some issues for the first time.
On most message boards, of any (or no) philosophical or political stripe, the norm is for someone to simply post a personal opinion. What around here is called a "vanity" is the vast majority of traffic almost everywhere else.
And that's an observation from someone who has gone from local BBSes with an acoustic modem to Prodigy to AOL (I was a beta tester and later a mod on both) and then Usenet. A little FidoNet in there somewhere, I think.
If an outlet is so intellectually and morally bankrupt that they must skirt the first amendment to hide from the dissection of their message,
No one is "skirting the first amendment." Publishers don't get their presses, transmitters or Web servers for free. Their reporters and editors don't work for free. If they can't make any money off their work, they won't produce any -- and the conversation will dry up.
That's why there's copyright. Publishers have control over how their creations are used. Exceptions, most notably fair use, exist to foster debate and criticism.
Posting an article in its entirety just to add "FYI" at the bottom is not debate or criticism. It isn't fair use, any more than posting an entire novel to add "i liked it" at the bottom is a legitimate excerpt for a book review.
why should they be allowed to do whatever they want with a post?
They can't "do whatever they want with a post." They can accurately quote a brief excerpt from a published source or a public utterance with proper attribution. That has never been considered illegal or unethical. in fact, most newspapers in other times and other places aren't/weren't as rigorous as the NYT -- some editors will let something go like "a poster in an online message board" with no further identifier.
“We’re gonna talk about you, and we will make it hard for you to talk about it(or if you’ll be allowed to talk about it at all.”)
How wussified have we become, that it's too hard to have to talk about the news of the day if we have to point to an article at its source instead of copying and pasting?
When I was in school, if you wanted to read an article in order to discuss it, you had to get up! Out of your chair! and then you had to go somewhere like a library or a bookstore or a newsstand!. It was always uphill, both ways, in the snow.
And before commenting on or rebutting a claim, we had to read it! and sometimes retype it! For the love of God, man, it was hell! You have no idea!
And many posts could be misrepresented a million ways to fit whatever daily propaganda they need.
That's true of any quote from anywhere. "I was misquoted" and "that was taken out of context" pre-date the Internet by at least a century.
Do you think that the British audience might be thinking “one of are own” has got past the PC (minorities only) crowd?
I think his music was better because of his injury. He could not bring the fireworks, so he made his music more expressive.
There were and are far better technical ballad singers than Frank Sinatra, and he knew it -- what made him a legend was how good an actor he was as a singer. He knew how to milk the drama out of a song. It was all in the phrasing and the breathing, which is why he could still turn in a strong performance when his powers were so far gone that he had to use a prompter.
I never heard a trumpet player who could match Maynard Ferguson on sheer range. And his screech tones were fluid and effortless. He played with apparent ease notes that my friends almost popped an aneurysm trying to match (I'm a brass guy). I still like MF, but he is not in the same league as a Miles Davis or Dizzy Gillespie or Art Baker. And no one's in the same league as Louis Armstrong.
Music is an interpretive art. There's technical skill and there's emotional power. I've heard many voices better than Billie Holiday's, but I've never heard a better singer.
The third factor is emotional power at a particular place and time. Many, many great singers have sung "La Marseillaise," including Kathleen Battle at the French Bicentennial, but none will ever be better than the scene in Casablanca. Especially knowing that most of the folks in that scene were, in fact, refugees.
Paul Potts' fame is based on that. It was reality TV, with all the attendant drama. We had the backstory. He didn't look like likely opera singer -- everyone expected him to fall on his face. And the audience was blown away, and it was a win for a little guy. It was good drama.
I know a lot of folks who know a lot more about wine than I do. They appreciate a great bottle on a level I can't, but they aren't above drinking box wine, and they don't give me grief over enjoying a Two-Buck Chuck. It's there to be enjoyed. I'm like that with music.
I'm glad Paul Potts loves singing, and that folks love to listen. That's what music is for. But to folks who like Potts, I've got something else you might like to hear. Or if you liked the Ray soundtrack, or you love Harry Connick, Jr.,. oh, let me show you something.
I don’t understand what you mean.
Oh, okay. I guess they just thought he was the most deserving.
That’s the thing about talent..you either have it or you don’t and you could be 2’ tall and green ....doesn’t matter. There isn’t affirmative action where talent is concerned...and the desire to make money off that talent. Simon Cowell isn’t going to let his back account be affected by ignoring talent.
Thank you for that post, Shooter, and for the ping, sitetest. Years ago I attended a church where one fellow worshiper was a slightly retarded adult male who loved to sing. He had no tone, no rhythm, absolutely nothing to commend him as a public singer, really, except that he remembered every word of the hymns...and that he glowed like an angel with joy and love of Jesus when he sang. I never tired of watching him perform or of listening to him. His childlike simplicity and heart of genuine love moved me to tears every time.
In regard to professional opera singers, I have nothing whatsoever against them - they've got more discipline and stamina, talent and lung capacity than I, for sure. I am not as familiar with this genre of music as others (I'm really quite ignorant), but I have been as transported in wonder and praise by some I've heard as by any other method of music.
I've personally always delighted in how Bert Lahr as the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz (and, I understand, in his stage performances) handled the operatic (: Scroll down to track 43, disc one here at Amazon.com for "If I Were King of the Forest" - he really pokes a finger in the eye of (the stereotype of) operatic snobbishness here (and I think we can agree that every stereotype has some basis in truth, even if not universal to all of the group). He does it so kindly, though - I understand that even the opera stars of his day were tickled by his all-in-fun mockery!
#29 - A conundrum - technical flaws interfere with the enjoyment of music but flaws are what make it music and not a computer program.
Amen, DManA.
Vision, here’s an example of why I can live happily, and how I can coexist intelligently, in our TV-saturated community without cable or satellite television in my home (:
Thank God for the Internet!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.