Can I suggest a phrase? "mousethief is feeling fighty and would rather score points than engage in the bloody point"
Suggest all you want, it's inaccurate and a wind-up, like much else posted here, as you admit. You just don't like people disagreeing with you, and will twist the sun into a knot to avoid admitting you're wrong.
We really need a mirror emoji.
You will fight and die on the tiniest hill when you get in this mood.
As a have posted there are genres where singing off key is fine. I didn’t expect Nirvana to be on key. The artists mentioned in the OP sing in Genres where it s important to sing on key.
OK let’s look at it like this. As a competitive ballroom dancer the higher up I got the more accurate my footwork, body positioning and connection with my partner had to be. I did not go professional but got quite high. If you do go pro there is a level of skill expected of you. If you don’t achieve that level you will not succeed. This should be the same for singing surely
The genre you mentioned in the OP is pop. The singers you criticise are pop and successful. You might wish that they sang better, but it is obviously not a problem for their audience.
One doesn’t “go pro” in pop music the way one does in dance. One become professional when enough people are willing to buy their songs, merch and concert tickets.
The standards are arbitrary, driven by the audience. Though, promotion can influence this as well.
Can I suggest a phrase? "mousethief is feeling fighty and would rather score points than engage in the bloody point"
Suggest all you want, it's inaccurate and a wind-up, like much else posted here, as you admit. You just don't like people disagreeing with you, and will twist the sun into a knot to avoid admitting you're wrong.
We really need a mirror emoji.
You will fight and die on the tiniest hill when you get in this mood.
Can I suggest a phrase? "mousethief is feeling fighty and would rather score points than engage in the bloody point"
Suggest all you want, it's inaccurate and a wind-up, like much else posted here, as you admit. You just don't like people disagreeing with you, and will twist the sun into a knot to avoid admitting you're wrong.
We really need a mirror emoji.
You will fight and die on the tiniest hill when you get in this mood.
The irony is thick with this one.
I'd mention where you are being thick, but it won't penetrate the denseness, so...
I’m not trolling you. Well, the opera thing was a little bit that.
But the rest is countering your narrowing down what constitutes singing to your own preference and positing that as objective.
Nope, you've been a troll throughout this entire thread. You're not behaving very well in Purgatory, either.
Can I suggest a phrase? "mousethief is feeling fighty and would rather score points than engage in the bloody point"
Suggest all you want, it's inaccurate and a wind-up, like much else posted here, as you admit. You just don't like people disagreeing with you, and will twist the sun into a knot to avoid admitting you're wrong.
We really need a mirror emoji.
You will fight and die on the tiniest hill when you get in this mood.
Tangled Up in Blue from Blood on the Tracks. Come on. I mean, come on. How can you say the guy can't sing?
Thanks for those examples, Simon Toad (though I didn't say I thought Dylan couldn't sing - perhaps you're mistaking me for another poster.)
The first one is new to me, and he's executing some ornamentation that sounds like it requires some close attention to tonal precision. Of the three, I think that's the strongest support for Mousethief's statement that he could sing in tune when he wanted to. The other two sound to me pretty much what I expect Dylan to sound like; I don't particularly care for his style, but that's not to say it doesn't require control or that he's simply failing to achieve conventional tonality through lack of ability.
Lilbuddha you are correct you do not have to be able to sing to be successful. That doesn’t make a spot of difference to my argument. If you are making money out of singing you should be able to sing. The fact that you don’t have to only proves that the levels of expectation are lower in certain genres. That is not good. We should expect people who make a living at something to be able to do it properly. I know that is not how it is in the pop world in some cases but that doesn’t make it right. Success does not mean you are good.
Lilbuddha you are correct you do not have to be able to sing to be successful. That doesn’t make a spot of difference to my argument. If you are making money out of singing you should be able to sing.
That is not an argument, that is a statement of preference.
The fact that you don’t have to only proves that the levels of expectation are lower in certain genres.
Not lower; different. My mum has been a choral singer all my life. Good enough that her directors use her to guide the other sopranos. My older sister has perfect pitch and a lovely voice for choral singing as well. I would not pay a single penny to hear either do pop music. I loved B.B. King, I wouldn't have paid a pound to hear him try opera.
I've just spent four days in field listening to live music. It was lovely, even when the music in question wasn't to my specific taste. Chill your beans, as my kids say. There are enormously talented people out there. Find the ones you like and try not to piss on the ones you don't.
I think I might have paid good money to see BB King interpret Rigoletto.
So, my impression of you is that you enjoy things that are transgressive.
Other than that, I fail to see the desire. Blues is open and loose. Opera is its antithesis in this regard.
B.B. King was about the pauses; the space between notes, the tension built by hanging on a note and the slight changes in activity. Improvisation. Within a framework, but improvisation. Improv isn't so much a thing in opera. I mean, it exists, but in much less an open manner.
A fundamental difference between blues* and opera is the way the voice is used. In opera, the voice has a greater inherent prominence. Not that the orchestration is unimportant in opera, but it underlies the voice. In the blues, there is much more equality between the voice as an instrument amongst the constructed instruments. Not that opera cannot also use the voice this way, but it doesn't to the same degree.
Musically, I do not see a mashup of styles working well and certainly not consistently.
I've heard a Danish trio do opera and jazz, but that worked only sporadically, IMO.
Now, if you mean the story, that is a different thing. B.B. wrote, but I'm not convinced that Rigoletto is that great a story. Stripped of the music, its storyline is no more special than anything on Neighbours.
That is not meant as an insult to opera. It is the telling/performing that is opera's strength more than the stories themselves.
*Blues is quite varied, so it is difficult to complete pin labels on it.
Most Opera is Soapish. It is about the relationship of a group of people. The same can be said for a lot of Shakespeare. Certainly the great Russian writers were the same. Three Sisters, Uncle Vanya, are good examples.
Most Opera is Soapish. It is about the relationship of a group of people. The same can be said for a lot of Shakespeare. Certainly the great Russian writers were the same. Three Sisters, Uncle Vanya, are good examples.
Of course. As I said, that was t meant to insult opera. I’m just trying to sort out why Simon Toad thinks BB King interpreting Rigoletto would have been worth paying for.
I do like thinks that are transgressive. But the appeal of BB King doing Opera is in the clash I think. I would be disappointed I suspect if he just did it straight.
Certainly Gilbert and Sullivan have had several reinterpretations. As has Nutcracker. Carman Jones is close to what we are talking about. Jazz influences on Opera.
Carmen Jones. What a problematic work that mutherfucker is. Preminger's premise is flawed by the blindness of his privilege. One one hand, showcasing the talents of black actors,* on the other, racism in the songs and dubbing white voices over the main cast and the segregation of the casting.
Not to mention the racism underlying the story, but that carries over from the original. So points for fidelity?
Jazz? Pearl Bailey's Beat Out Dat¹ Rhythm on a Drum is certainly influenced. But much of the rest is much more opera than jazz.
¹Dat? ugh Though, Pearl sings that, but the fucking official title and lyrics :rolleyes:
*Dorothy Dandridge! faints
You are talking about the film. I am talking about the stage version. Yes his interpretation of the language is difficult but it is live black actors singing live.
You are talking about the film. I am talking about the stage version. Yes his interpretation of the language is difficult but it is live black actors singing live.
The racism is more than just the language or who is singing it. The basic setting of Carmen is racist, changing black for gypsy doesn't change this. I understand why black performers are still attracted to Carmen Jones, there is a paucity of opportunity.
...One one hand, showcasing the talents of black actors,* on the other, racism in the songs and dubbing white voices over the main cast and the segregation of the casting. ...
On the other hand, Marilyn Horne, who sang for Dandridge, was married to Henry Lewis, the first African-American to conduct at the Met; they had a daughter, Angela. She was certainly not a racist, particularly for that time and place.
...One one hand, showcasing the talents of black actors,* on the other, racism in the songs and dubbing white voices over the main cast and the segregation of the casting. ...
On the other hand, Marilyn Horne, who sang for Dandridge, was married to Henry Lewis, the first African-American to conduct at the Met; they had a daughter, Angela. She was certainly not a racist, particularly for that time and place.
I didn't say she was a racist. And it took courage to enter an interracial marriage in that time and place
On a general note, however; I do not consider "for that time and place" an inherent excuse for racism.
You are talking about the film. I am talking about the stage version. Yes his interpretation of the language is difficult but it is live black actors singing live.
The racism is more than just the language or who is singing it. The basic setting of Carmen is racist, changing black for gypsy doesn't change this. I understand why black performers are still attracted to Carmen Jones, there is a paucity of opportunity.
There is a lot of colour blind casting in the theatre particularly in musical theatre.
You are talking about the film. I am talking about the stage version. Yes his interpretation of the language is difficult but it is live black actors singing live.
The racism is more than just the language or who is singing it. The basic setting of Carmen is racist, changing black for gypsy doesn't change this. I understand why black performers are still attracted to Carmen Jones, there is a paucity of opportunity.
There is a lot of colour blind casting in the theatre particularly in musical theatre.
Really depends on what you mean by "a lot" and what you mean by "colour blind". Casting white people in black/brown roles is not colour blind. Hamilton was a big deal in large part because it played against typical casting.
I mean casting people of colour in roles that they would not have been. Ann of Cleaves in Six for instance. Shesway (spelling could be wrong) Powell in Oliver. We saw a black actor as the son in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. I could go on
Colorblind casting is certainly a thing in straight theater, musical theater, and opera in the last few years - as it should be. In opera, particularly, getting the right voice for the role is paramount.
Having just watched Smells Like Teen Spirit I agree he was in tune. I stand corrected on that. His technique is another matter but as I said in my OP that is true of several styles.
I mean casting people of colour in roles that they would not have been. Ann of Cleaves in Six for instance. Shesway (spelling could be wrong) Powell in Oliver. We saw a black actor as the son in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. I could go on
It is getting better, but still has a ways to go. Look at the demography of London and look at the demography of the theatre and it ain't even close.
Shezwae, BTW
Colorblind casting is certainly a thing in straight theater, musical theater, and opera in the last few years - as it should be. In opera, particularly, getting the right voice for the role is paramount.
If you mean people of colour are getting more opportunities, then yes. If you mean truly colourblind casting, then no.
It is getting better, but still has a ways to go. Look at the demography of London and look at the demography of the theatre and it ain't even close.
Shezwae, BTW
This is one of those statements that isn't even wrong.
It is getting better, but still has a ways to go. Look at the demography of London and look at the demography of the theatre and it ain't even close.
Shezwae, BTW
This is one of those statements that isn't even wrong.
Because not everybody in the West End aspires to be an actor? Because in various subcultures or microcultures acting is not as highly honored as in others? We would need a lot more data about such things before we made any decisions about racism or such. Acting is not exactly like working at the grocery store or even in the police.
Because actors who appear on a stage in London are not drawn from the population of London.
But most of the audience is. Whilst it might not be a true balance to have theatre perfectly match London, it should be more representative than it is. That steps are being made is good, but it is too soon to declare equality,
Because not everybody in the West End aspires to be an actor? Because in various subcultures or microcultures acting is not as highly honored as in others? We would need a lot more data about such things before we made any decisions about racism or such. Acting is not exactly like working at the grocery store or even in the police.
The West End is like Broadway. Most everyone who wants to be in theatre congregates there. There will be plenty of people to choose from who are not white.
I'm not sure why this is controversial or questioned. The money and the power sit with white men. Their biases will dominate, so it would be unnatural for racism to not play a part.
Because actors who appear on a stage in London are not drawn from the population of London.
But most of the audience is.
I have several bridges to sell you if you believe that.
I should have phrased that better. Most of the potential audience is. The West End is white because Western theatre is assumed to be a posh, white thing. It doesn't need to be.
Like Tiger Woods and The Williams sisters, a strong role model can change both the players and the audience.
Unlike them, the door is not opened by the talented. The door to the entertainment industry has always been controlled from the inside. And acting/singing don't have an objective point system.
As much as I agree with you, you can't use the demographic make up of London to make that point - which is why I said your statement wasn't even wrong.
London is a global, national and regional tourist attraction. It attracts 20m overseas visitors and 30m domestic visitors who stay at least one night, and another 280m daytrippers, in a single year. That's well over 300m visits.
The number of theatre tickets sold in the West End last year was 15.5m. If just 5% of London's visitors took in a show (and lots of people travel long distances to do only that), that would account for the entirety of the West End box office. Moreover, the West End is an attractor of talent from a very large hinterland. It doesn't draw its technical staff, nor its actors, from the London area, but from all over the UK, and Europe, and beyond.
There is definitely a question regarding who can become actors, and there is an increasing dearth of actors from working class backgrounds, which disproportionately hits BME actors due to their families' income profiles, but white working class actors are also few and far between. The correlation is with wealth, with race being an exacerbating factor.
If you mean people of colour are getting more opportunities, then yes. If you mean truly colourblind casting, then no.
[/quote]
I'm seeing a lot more of it. In much of the operatic world, the main problem is the cost of training, but there are more and more opportunities and funds to help people of color, particularly young African-Americans.
As much as I agree with you, you can't use the demographic make up of London to make that point - which is why I said your statement wasn't even wrong.
London is a global, national and regional tourist attraction. It attracts 20m overseas visitors and 30m domestic visitors who stay at least one night, and another 280m daytrippers, in a single year. That's well over 300m visits.
The number of theatre tickets sold in the West End last year was 15.5m. If just 5% of London's visitors took in a show (and lots of people travel long distances to do only that), that would account for the entirety of the West End box office.
According to TicketMaster, 63% of Britain has been to the theatre in that year (2013). 23% were from London and the South East, so locals will be well represented in the West End.
Though, fair enough, tourists will skew the data, making the reckoning a bit more complex.
Moreover, the West End is an attractor of talent from a very large hinterland. It doesn't draw its technical staff, nor its actors, from the London area, but from all over the UK, and Europe, and beyond.
I understand this, as I said to mousethief:
The West End is like Broadway. Most everyone who wants to be in theatre congregates there
What that means is that every frickin colour is available to choose from. One could pick a paint colour swatch and fill all the roles from just using it.
There is definitely a question regarding who can become actors, and there is an increasing dearth of actors from working class backgrounds, which disproportionately hits BME actors due to their families' income profiles, but white working class actors are also few and far between. The correlation is with wealth, with race being an exacerbating factor.
It is not just the actors, but the technical staff, playwrights, directors, producers, etc. The last three on the list being the first three reasons the theatre is so white.
It is not for nothing that Hollywood seems to represent Black British actors better than the UK does. And Hollywood is far from an equal opportunity player.
If you mean people of colour are getting more opportunities, then yes. If you mean truly colourblind casting, then no.
I'm seeing a lot more of it. In much of the operatic world, the main problem is the cost of training, but there are more and more opportunities and funds to help people of color, particularly young African-Americans.
[/quote]I do not think it is colourblind casting. It is a conscious effort and that is a good thing. It just needs to get better.
According to TicketMaster, 63% of Britain has been to the theatre in that year (2013). 23% were from London and the South East, so locals will be well represented in the West End…
I may have misread the figure, but I thought it was 26% across London and the South East. It doesn’t state where they attended the theatre, and it would be interesting to know what the West End statistics are for local versus distant attenders.
Comments
You will fight and die on the tiniest hill when you get in this mood.
One doesn’t “go pro” in pop music the way one does in dance. One become professional when enough people are willing to buy their songs, merch and concert tickets.
The standards are arbitrary, driven by the audience. Though, promotion can influence this as well.
The irony is thick with this one.
...said the troll.
The first one is new to me, and he's executing some ornamentation that sounds like it requires some close attention to tonal precision. Of the three, I think that's the strongest support for Mousethief's statement that he could sing in tune when he wanted to. The other two sound to me pretty much what I expect Dylan to sound like; I don't particularly care for his style, but that's not to say it doesn't require control or that he's simply failing to achieve conventional tonality through lack of ability.
I agree, with the caveat that good is a preference.
Other than that, I fail to see the desire. Blues is open and loose. Opera is its antithesis in this regard.
B.B. King was about the pauses; the space between notes, the tension built by hanging on a note and the slight changes in activity. Improvisation. Within a framework, but improvisation. Improv isn't so much a thing in opera. I mean, it exists, but in much less an open manner.
A fundamental difference between blues* and opera is the way the voice is used. In opera, the voice has a greater inherent prominence. Not that the orchestration is unimportant in opera, but it underlies the voice. In the blues, there is much more equality between the voice as an instrument amongst the constructed instruments. Not that opera cannot also use the voice this way, but it doesn't to the same degree.
Musically, I do not see a mashup of styles working well and certainly not consistently.
I've heard a Danish trio do opera and jazz, but that worked only sporadically, IMO.
Now, if you mean the story, that is a different thing. B.B. wrote, but I'm not convinced that Rigoletto is that great a story. Stripped of the music, its storyline is no more special than anything on Neighbours.
That is not meant as an insult to opera. It is the telling/performing that is opera's strength more than the stories themselves.
*Blues is quite varied, so it is difficult to complete pin labels on it.
Not to mention the racism underlying the story, but that carries over from the original. So points for fidelity?
Jazz? Pearl Bailey's Beat Out Dat¹ Rhythm on a Drum is certainly influenced. But much of the rest is much more opera than jazz.
¹Dat? ugh Though, Pearl sings that, but the fucking official title and lyrics :rolleyes:
*Dorothy Dandridge! faints
On a general note, however; I do not consider "for that time and place" an inherent excuse for racism.
There is a lot of colour blind casting in the theatre particularly in musical theatre.
Indeed. Bizarre comment. Kurt's voice was killer.
Shezwae, BTW
This is one of those statements that isn't even wrong.
I'm not sure why this is controversial or questioned. The money and the power sit with white men. Their biases will dominate, so it would be unnatural for racism to not play a part.
I have several bridges to sell you if you believe that.
Like Tiger Woods and The Williams sisters, a strong role model can change both the players and the audience.
Unlike them, the door is not opened by the talented. The door to the entertainment industry has always been controlled from the inside. And acting/singing don't have an objective point system.
London is a global, national and regional tourist attraction. It attracts 20m overseas visitors and 30m domestic visitors who stay at least one night, and another 280m daytrippers, in a single year. That's well over 300m visits.
The number of theatre tickets sold in the West End last year was 15.5m. If just 5% of London's visitors took in a show (and lots of people travel long distances to do only that), that would account for the entirety of the West End box office. Moreover, the West End is an attractor of talent from a very large hinterland. It doesn't draw its technical staff, nor its actors, from the London area, but from all over the UK, and Europe, and beyond.
There is definitely a question regarding who can become actors, and there is an increasing dearth of actors from working class backgrounds, which disproportionately hits BME actors due to their families' income profiles, but white working class actors are also few and far between. The correlation is with wealth, with race being an exacerbating factor.
[/quote]
I'm seeing a lot more of it. In much of the operatic world, the main problem is the cost of training, but there are more and more opportunities and funds to help people of color, particularly young African-Americans.
Though, fair enough, tourists will skew the data, making the reckoning a bit more complex.
I understand this, as I said to mousethief: What that means is that every frickin colour is available to choose from. One could pick a paint colour swatch and fill all the roles from just using it.
It is not just the actors, but the technical staff, playwrights, directors, producers, etc. The last three on the list being the first three reasons the theatre is so white.
It is not for nothing that Hollywood seems to represent Black British actors better than the UK does. And Hollywood is far from an equal opportunity player.
[/quote]I do not think it is colourblind casting. It is a conscious effort and that is a good thing. It just needs to get better.
I may have misread the figure, but I thought it was 26% across London and the South East. It doesn’t state where they attended the theatre, and it would be interesting to know what the West End statistics are for local versus distant attenders.