Overrated singers
J. Banning Jasiunas
(way overrated), Michael Ball, Patti Lupone (good, but overrated), Sarah
Brightman, Colm Wilkinson, Mandy Patinkin,and Elaine Paige.
Matthew Deshon
Marina Prior, Michael Crawford, Mandy Patinkin
Hackle-raising is a reflex action when I hear these voices. And wouldn't
my flatmate be this big Michael Crawford fan :( I almost toasted "A
Touch of Music in the Night" the other day ;)
matt
Matt Deshon
Computer Systems Officer, "And all my instincts they return,
Centre for Co-operative Information Systems The grand facade so soon will burn
Queensland University of Technology Without a noise, without my pride
email : ma...@icis.qut.edu.au I reach out from the inside."
Phone : +61 7 8641620 - Peter Gabriel
Adam Feldman
>I'd have to say that the following are a bit overrated: Michael Crawford
>(way overrated), Michael Ball, Patti Lupone (good, but overrated), Sarah
>Brightman, Colm Wilkinson, Mandy Patinkin,and Elaine Paige.
Crawford sweeps and whines through half of his material, but he's great
for some parts. Ball makes me yawn. Brightman sounds cute but coulsn't
interpret her way out of a wet paper bag. Patinkin's "Buddies Blues" on
the concert version of FOLLIES is among my least favorite musical theatre
performances of all time; he makes me cringe. Paige sounds too
teeny-bopper for most of the work she does. I like Wilkinson, though. And
there is absolutely no currently active performer that I would rather
listent to than LuPone.
My votes: The whole new generation of technically proficient but basically
charmless musical theatre performers that everyone seems to adore. Sure,
Rebecca Luker sounds gorgeous, but -- well -- she's boring. There. I said
it. I would rather listen to Gwen Verdon anyday -- a voice with character
and personality. Okay, okay, it's apples and oranges -- but how about
Barbara Cook? Sweet soprano, but also a brilliant interpreter, with the
best phrasing in the business. Or how about Julie Andrews? Distinctive,
ballsy, fresh ... I miss the days of theatre *personalities* -- I miss
charisma and brass. Who do we have these days? LuPone, Bernadette Peters
-- anyone else? I don't want actors, I want STARS.
*Sigh* I'm too young to be so curmudgeonly.
Warmly,
Adam
Ronald P. Baumanis
: I'd have to say that the following are a bit overrated: Michael Crawford
: J.B.
: jasi...@phoenix.princeton.edu
Let me add Mandy Patinkin, Bernadette Peters, Karen Akers (that's a voice?).
Adam Feldman
>Patinkin's "Buddies Blues" on
>the concert version of FOLLIES is among my least favorite musical theatre
>performances of all time; he makes me cringe.
I meant, of course, "Buddy's Blues." It has been a LONG day. :)
Warmly,
Adam
bse...@hulaw1.harvard.edu
Anyone have opinions on overrated singers? There have to be a few. . .
tha...@netcom18.netcom.com
: We've started a thread on underrated singers, so. . .
:
: Anyone have opinions on overrated singers? There have to be a few. . .
I admire, especially because some theater performers who are not my
cup of tea as vocalists are magic on-stage. But since you asked,
some SINGERS I think are over-rated are Bernadette Peters, Judy Kuhn
(hardly "the ONLY diva"), Dave Willetts. I find Mandy Patinkin and
Colm Wilkinson vastly over-rated. Michael Ball is no longer all he
was cracked up to be. My jury is still out on Anthony Warlow's pretty
but rather bland voice (perhaps J&H is better--I haven't heard it
yet). In fact, "pretty but bland" is my reaction to most new
Broadway-type singers. I'd rather listen to Dawn Upshaw.
Thalia
J. Banning Jasiunas
seem to be many around. Faith Prince was a star as Adelaide in Guys and Dolls
- where has she gone now? Bernadette is a true star, and my favorite -
she has a very distinctive, heart-breaking voice and interprets her material
better than almost anyone else (although she was miscast in The Goodbye Girl).
Patti LuPone is on my list of overrated singers, but I still think she's a
good performer (her work in Evita and Anything Goes was great) who needs a
good part to play (which was certainly not Norma Desmond - I really hope she
stays away from the Lloyd Webber and Schoenberg/Boubil from now on; I also
think she's far too old and not right for the role of Fosca...). Chita
Rivera, although from another generation of performers, showed amazing star
power in Kiss of the Spiderwoman (the one quality I found a little lacking in
Vanessa Williams' performance, although I thought she was more suited to the
role than Chita). Debbie Shapiro-Gravitte - whenever someone finds her the
proper role - could be a star - she was amazing in Jerome Robbins' Broadway.
Otherwise, there is a whole lot of great talent, especially women, who
have great voices but somehow lack that special star quality. Judy Kuhn,
Sally Mayes, Rebecca Luker, Liz Callaway, Paige O'Hara, and others are names
that come to mind. They all have the talent, and in many cases I think they're
work much surpasses that done by 'stars', but I don't think they'll ever become
household names. Oh, well. As logn as they keep doing solo albums (or start,
in the case of Luker and O'Hara).
DinnyR
>>It's Crawford, folks.
I gotta agree. In the 60s Crawford was a bright, endearing comic talent
with no pretensions to musicality whatsoever, despite being in "A Funny
Thing...."
Apparently he has some sort of big personal charisma or something, in
order to captivate all those nice little old blue-haired ladies (not that
there's anything *wrong* with that!), but an objective analysis of his
actual singing reveals it as stagey, fulsome, and ..... smarmy, without
any real beauty.
I also have problems with LuPone, although part of it might be dislike of
what I feel to be an abrasive personality.
On the other hand, I really *like* Patinkin. I know he's O-T-T a lot of
the time, but that's a *good* thing for me.
Diane
Novotel
this heading. They add new meaning to the word "Overrated".
====================================================
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Le Fantome de l'Opera est la, dans la pensee...."
++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++
====================================================
Novotel
Desmond and Eva Peron. She vowed not to do another ALW musical after the
Sunet controversy. She actually did him a favor.
****************************************************
"Le Fantome de l'Opera est la, dans la pensee...."
****************************************************
Anya M. Weisbrod
Feldman) wrote:
>And there is absolutely no currently active performer that I would rather
> listen to than LuPone.
> Warmly,
>
> Adam
:)
I'm with you 110% !!
I love it that I can "SEE" her facial expressions when I listen to her
recordings....
:)
:) *
Anya M. Weisbrod * "One learns most from teaching others"
Northwestern University *
weis...@merle.acns.nwu.edu *
:)
Jesse L. Merz
***********************************************************************
Jesse Merz, BFA in Acting, NYU's Tisch School of the Arts, Fall 1995
jlm...@is.nyu.edu Voicemail: 212-479-8402
************************************************************************
Jennifer Barber
tha...@netcom18.netcom.com writes:
> was cracked up to be. My jury is still out on Anthony Warlow's pretty
> but rather bland voice (perhaps J&H is better--I haven't heard it
> yet).
Definitely listen to J&H before deciding on Warlow! I didn't
particularly like him after hearing just the Les Mis CSR and his album
Centre Stage; by the time I got through J&H the first time I was
definitely a fan. I'm not quite sure what *you* mean by "bland," but
IMO that word certainly doesn't describe Warlow on this recording!
Ernest L. Kapphahn
On 9 Mar 1995, Novotel wrote:
> There should be a group picture of Crawford, LuPone, and Patinkin under
> this heading. They add new meaning to the word "Overrated".
Who is overrating these singers? Do you mean that they have achieved
success beyond their talent? They probably will not sing opera at the
Met, but they are all consummate professional entertainers. If you think
that the songs Patinkin does are easy, try to sing them. All three of
these performers put fannies into seats and that is what keeps theatre
alive. Are we jealous or what?
Ernie Kapphahn
ekap...@slonet.org
Karen Mercedes
> I agree with both of you about Crawford and LuPone AND AGREE with
> Karen about Patinkin NOT being overrated. He just needs to turn the
> energy level down a little--(unless the song is appropriately
> emotional or exuberant). His "Bring Him Home", "Younger than
> Springtime", the entire medley from "Evening Primrose" "Some Place
> that's Green" (?-song from Little Shop on Experiment) are examples of
> his extraordinary gift to put over a pop song. "Sorry-Grateful" on
> Dress Casual and "Buddy's Blues" are examples of his unappealing over-
> the-top style. Also, must add "Mr. Arthur's Place" --I can't imagine
> anyone else singing that song more effectively! (IMHO)
And his covers of old Al Jolson standards on his original eponymous album are
absolutely magnificent. He out-Jolsons Jolson, and the energy level is
certainly not a problem.
I'm also partial to his rendition of "Soliloquy/My Little Girl" from CAROUSEL.
Interesting coincidence that both Jolson's father and Patinkin's were cantors.
I wonder how much Mandy learned about singing from his papa.
Karen Mercedes
+-------------------------------------------+
| God knows, I'm no' the thing I should be, |
| Nor am I even the thing I could be. |
| - Robert Burns |
+-------------------------------------------+
bse...@hulaw1.harvard.edu
Achieving success beyond one's talent is an excellent definition of
being overrated. And the Met has plenty of overrated singers, too.
The original point of the question was to get some personal opinions
and perhaps explore why certain performers put fannies into seats when one might
expect others to have more appeal. For instance, why should a Michael Crawford
be such a big draw when a Brent Barrett is not getting similar starring
opportunities?
No one is saying the songs Patinkin sings are easy. Coloratura arias
aren't easy, either and some poor sopranos and tenors are singing them.
Personally, I find Mandy too often out of control and don't understand why this
makes him so popular; which is not to say that I don't admire his work, much of
which has been superb, but I don't understand the fanatical following he has.
And compared to Jolson (who has been mentioned), I'd rather hear Jolson (but in
his earlier years).
These are subjective opinions, of course, and we are not all going to
agree, but to have some discussion of this should be interesting.
And no, jealousy has nothing to do with, so calm down.
Ben
years).
Karen Mercedes
> These are subjective opinions, of course,
Are there any other kind?
Anya M. Weisbrod
> I also have problems with LuPone, although part of it might be dislike of
> what I feel to be an abrasive personality.
> Diane
Where did you form the impression that Patti is an abrasive person?
Have you ever met her? I have spent some time with her and found her to
be incredibly warm, generous and very GENUINE as a person. I imagine that
while conducting business, she may be demanding, but I think that's the
nature of the business. All of the people I have talked with who were
former cast members in shows she did absolutely loved working with her.
MIKE MINOR
Karen about Patinkin NOT being overrated. He just needs to turn the
energy level down a little--(unless the song is appropriately
emotional or exuberant). His "Bring Him Home", "Younger than
Springtime", the entire medley from "Evening Primrose" "Some Place
that's Green" (?-song from Little Shop on Experiment) are examples of
his extraordinary gift to put over a pop song. "Sorry-Grateful" on
Dress Casual and "Buddy's Blues" are examples of his unappealing over-
the-top style. Also, must add "Mr. Arthur's Place" --I can't imagine
anyone else singing that song more effectively! (IMHO)
Mike
Karen Mercedes
>
> >>It's Crawford, folks.
>
> I gotta agree. In the 60s Crawford was a bright, endearing comic talent
> with no pretensions to musicality whatsoever, despite being in "A Funny
> Thing...."
>
> Apparently he has some sort of big personal charisma or something, in
> order to captivate all those nice little old blue-haired ladies (not that
Indeed he has the appeal, but you've got the age-group wrong on his fans. I've
known quite a few of his more "rabid" fans, and 90% of them are married
middle-aged women for whom he, apparently, represents something that their
husbands do not. Little boy lost, perhaps? It's remarkable too, because their
speculations are no different than the speculations my friends and I used to
indulge in about our favourite stars when we were in high school.
> an objective analysis of his
> actual singing reveals it as stagey, fulsome, and ..... smarmy, without
> any real beauty.
Unless you happen to like 53-year old boy soprano hams. Don't get me wrong, his
performances -- live on video/television much more often than on record -- are
affecting at a very visceral, totally non-intellectual level. Taken in a
vacuum, he can even be moving. But the minute you put him next to a *real*
singer, or even compare him with, say, a Michael Ball, the "stuff that dreams
are made of" that constitutes his "talent" goes up in a puff of smoke.
>
> I also have problems with LuPone, although part of it might be dislike of
> what I feel to be an abrasive personality.
>
> On the other hand, I really *like* Patinkin. I know he's O-T-T a lot of
> the time, but that's a *good* thing for me.
I think these statements say volumes. I think a big part of Mandy's appeal is
that he does seem like a genuinely nice person -- it's something that comes
across in his performances. He seems like the kind of guy that, even if he were
in a really foul mood, would pet a dog and feed it munchies rather than kick it.
Karen Mercedes
+---------------------------------------------+
| Nature, and Nature's laws lay hid in night: |
| God said "Let Newton be! and all was light. |
| - Alexander Pope |
| It did not last: the Devil howling "Ho! |
| Let Einstein be!" restored the status quo. |
| - J.C. Squire |
+---------------------------------------------+
Hillary Brown
(MIKE MINOR) wrote:
> "Sorry-Grateful" on
> Dress Casual and "Buddy's Blues" are examples of his unappealing over-
> the-top style.
I think Mandy Patinkin is great, but I always cringe when I hear his
version of "Love Unrequited" from Iolanthe. IMO, it comes across as "Look
everyone, I can sing with a British accent!"
--
"Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
DinnyR
>> I also have problems with LuPone, although part of it might be dislike
of
>> what I feel to be an abrasive personality.
Then weis...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Anya M. Weisbrod) wrote:
>Where did you form the impression that Patti is an abrasive person?
>Have you ever met her? I have spent some time with her and found her to
>be incredibly warm, generous and very GENUINE as a person. I imagine
that
>while conducting business, she may be demanding, but I think that's the
>nature of the business. All of the people I have talked with who were
>former cast members in shows she did absolutely loved working with her.
Great, so you've worked with her and in your eyes she's a peach. I, who
have only seen a couple interviews with her, find her abrasive. Most of us
only have our perceptions to go on vis a vis the people we admire - heck,
maybe someone I really love is a total jerk to work with. I'll probably
never know, and therefore I'll continue admiring said jerk. Likewise I'll
never know what a warm and wonderful person LuPone is, and it's my loss.
In the meantime I still find her abrasive. But thanks for the input.
Diane
DinnyR
>Indeed he has the appeal, but you've got the age-group wrong on his fans.
I've
>known quite a few of his more "rabid" fans, and 90% of them are married
>middle-aged women for whom he, apparently, represents something that
their
>husbands do not. Little boy lost, perhaps? It's remarkable too, because
their
>speculations are no different than the speculations my friends and I used
to
>indulge in about our favourite stars when we were in high school.
>> an objective analysis of his
>> actual singing reveals it as stagey, fulsome, and ..... smarmy, without
>> any real beauty.
>Unless you happen to like 53-year old boy soprano hams. Don't get me
wrong, >his
>performances -- live on video/television much more often than on record
-- are
>affecting at a very visceral, totally non-intellectual level. Taken in a
>vacuum, he can even be moving. But the minute you put him next to a
*real*
>singer, or even compare him with, say, a Michael Ball, the "stuff that
dreams
>are made of" that constitutes his "talent" goes up in a puff of smoke.
What an excellent summation of what I feel to be a slightly inexplicable
phenomenon. This sorta suggests that Crawford fandom is based not so much
on a certain age group as on a certain mindset - (risking flames here) -
like the present-Lloyd-Webber mindset as opposed to the Sondheim. (This
isn't fair, I haven't seen "Sunset", and I thought "Passion" was an
exquisitely sung snore, but there is a certain kind of playgoer who will
take spectacle over substance every time).
>
>> I also have problems with LuPone, although part of it might be dislike
of
>> what I feel to be an abrasive personality.
>>
>> On the other hand, I really *like* Patinkin. I know he's O-T-T a lot of
>> the time, but that's a *good* thing for me.
>I think these statements say volumes. I think a big part of Mandy's
appeal is
>that he does seem like a genuinely nice person -- it's something that
comes
>across in his performances. He seems like the kind of guy that, even if
he were
>in a really foul mood, would pet a dog and feed it munchies rather than
kick it.
>Karen Mercedes
Thanks, Karen, I couldn't have said it better....obviously.
Diane, your new best friend. ;)
Andrew Richards
: Indeed he has the appeal, but you've got the age-group wrong on his fans. I've
: known quite a few of his more "rabid" fans, and 90% of them
Of the ones you have known? Or of the total? I didn't realise any
surveys had been done.
: are married
: middle-aged women
Of those I know, most are students.
: for whom he, apparently, represents something that their
: husbands do not. Little boy lost, perhaps? It's remarkable too, because their
: speculations are no different than the speculations my friends and I used to
: indulge in about our favourite stars when we were in high school.
Just a tad condescending?
: >..... smarmy, without
: > any real beauty....
: Unless you happen to like 53-year old boy soprano hams.
Which particular soprano songs were you thinking of on his recent
albumns or shows? I don't *recall* him singing anything much above, say
the B-flat which Michael Ball sings at the end of Love Changes Everything.
However, I am perfectly willing to stand corrected....
> Don't get me wrong, his
: performances -- are
: affecting at a ... totally non-intellectual level.
I really can't believe I'm reading this!! So just because you find him
an untalented, irritating, boy soprano ham, those who find him a
remarkable, even unique performer, with dedicaton, energy, commitment,
talent and depth in equally large proportions are being duped into an
illogical, non-intellectual and totally irresponsible response are they?
: Taken in a
: vacuum, he can even be moving.
No! really? Well, I guess the air-conditioning must have been faulty at
all the shows where people came out in tears after his performance? In
the original cast of POTO, he was alongside some of the best performers
(IMHO) in London theatre. Even if you don't like Ms Brightman, there
were others such as Steve Barton, Rosemary Ashe, Mary Millar etc who are
far from talentless hams. And he did, of course, play the Phantom with
Michael Ball as Raoul before he transferred to Broadway.
: But the minute you put him next to a *real*
: singer, or even compare him with, say, a Michael Ball, the "stuff that dreams
: are made of" that constitutes his "talent" goes up in a puff of smoke.
Of course. I should have known that my admiration for him (as a 24
year-old male) was nothing more than some kind of fantasising. Over 5
million people have bought the cast albumn with him in the starring
role, surely not all of them can simply be wanting to support their
favourite "little boy lost"? There's not even a photo of him in it!!
Okay, I hope I've made my point forcefully enough without being
over-facetious. All I ask is that posts which are self-evidently no more
than opinions should perhaps be couched in language which makes them
seem rather less like blatant facts which are ignored only by the
morally dubious or the intellectually stunted.
Thanks for listening!!!
Andrew
--
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
A N D R E W R I C H A R D S _/ "Slightly to the right
sf...@solx1.susx.ac.uk _/ _/ of Atilla the Hun"
"Hand me the wine and the dice" _/ - Tim Rice: Evita -
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
June Tong
>Patti LuPone is on my list of overrated singers, but I still think she's a
>good performer (her work in Evita and Anything Goes was great) who needs a
>good part to play (which was certainly not Norma Desmond - I really hope she
>stays away from the Lloyd Webber and Schoenberg/Boubil from now on;
I always liked Patti LuPone (although she may be "overrated" -- I guess that
would depend on how she's "rated"), and I thought of her immediately when I
heard that ALW was making Sunset Blvd into a musical. What a disappointment
when I got the recording! Well, that was after seeing Betty Buckley in it
(who was awesome, IMHO), and maybe it's too tough an act to follow, but even
all this time later (almost a year), listening to the SB recording make me
wonder how I could have been so wrong about Patti LuPone being right for
Norma.
Oh well. Good thing I'm not a casting director.
(BTW, does anyone know if there are, or will be, any recordings of Sunset Blvd
with Betty Buckley as Norma Desmond?)
June
---- June Tong Informix Asia/Pacific ----
---- On-Loan Engineer Singapore ----
---- ju...@informix.com (65) 298-1716 ----
Linda Ferguson
Not to
mention Lea Salonga, at least in her solo album, Terrance Mann, and
Davis Gaines.
Karen Mercedes
> Karen Mercedes (merc...@access.digex.net) wrote:
>
> : Indeed he has the appeal, but you've got the age-group wrong on his fans.
> : I've known quite a few of his more "rabid" fans, and 90% of them
> Of the ones you have known? Or of the total? I didn't realise any
> surveys had been done.
> : are married
> : middle-aged women
I never said I was attempting to do a scientific survey. I simply remarked that
I know several MC fans, and almost to a woman they are over 40, married or
divorced, and have romantic fantasies about Michael.
> Of those I know, most are students.
Good. Now we've got two "surveys".
> : for whom he, apparently, represents something that their husbands do not.
> : Little boy lost, perhaps? It's remarkable too, because their
> : speculations are no different than the speculations my friends and I used
> : to indulge in about our favourite stars when we were in high school.
>
> Just a tad condescending?
No, merely reportage. My observation was based on what the women
themselves have told me. It was also based on fact. I can remember my friends
and I speculating on what certain movie actors would be like in bed, how "well
hung" they were, etc, when I was in high school. Well, guess what the MC fans I
know speculate on? But this is not limited to MC. I know fans of many other
actors and musicians, and guess what. They all speculate on the same sorts of
things. I think it has something to do with how women of any age (and men, no
doubt) thinkwhen they are "in lust" with celebrities.
>
> : >..... smarmy, without any real beauty....
> : Unless you happen to like 53-year old boy soprano hams.
>
> Which particular soprano songs were you thinking of on his recent
> albumns or shows? I don't *recall* him singing anything much above, say
> the B-flat which Michael Ball sings at the end of Love Changes Everything.
> However, I am perfectly willing to stand corrected....
Actually, Michael Ball sings "Love Changes Everything" on the OCR of ASPECTS a
half-step *higher* than Michael does. But to answer your question: if you
listen to his latest album, A TOUCH OF MUSIC IN THE NIGHT -- particulary to the
songs "Since You Stayed Here" and "One of My Best Friends", to his renditions of
"Tell Me on a Sunday" and "Nothing Like You've Ever Known" on MC SINGS ANDREW
LLOYD WEBBER, and to his version of "When You Wish Upon a Star", you will hear
what I mean by "boy soprano". It isn't his range I'm referring to, it is his
vocal toneHis vocal quality is extremely light, plaintive, and for want of a
better word, effeminate (go ahead, flame me). Or perhaps "sexless" would be
more accurate, just as a boy soprano's voice is essentially sexless. Michael
Crawford's voice is *androgynous*. He doesn't sound like a woman, he doesn't
sound like a man. He sounds like a boy soprano that's grown up but remained a
boy soprano. He has the same vocal quality as a true countertenor. I'd go so
far as to speculate that he sounds like the castrati of 17th and 18th Century
Italy.
One song that illustrates his transition back to his true vocal quality (it's
the exact same quality he displayed in FORUM and DOLLY, but with better
projection and breath control) from the relative (compared to his earlier work)
depth of voice he'd managed to develop for BARNUM and especially PHANTOM, listen
to the numerous renditions he's done of "Music of the Night". Each one is
audibly lighter, wispier, with less "bottom" than the last, until finally on his
duet version with Barbra Streisand, he has totally lost all the "bottom" (or
depth or masculinity or what you will) from his voice.
This does not mean I question MC's masculinity. I certainly do not. I am
merely commenting on the character of his vocal tone. His speaking voice is
very similar, very light, airy, with no "bottom". I would say he was a true
tenor except a tenor's voice is decidedly masculine, where Michael's is not. If
anything, he's a countertenor who never developed his range.
>
> : Don't get me wrong, his performances -- are affecting at a ...
> : totally non-intellectual level.
>
> I really can't believe I'm reading this!! So just because you find him
> an untalented, irritating, boy soprano ham, those who find him a
> remarkable, even unique performer, with dedicaton, energy, commitment,
> talent and depth in equally large proportions are being duped into an
> illogical, non-intellectual and totally irresponsible response are they?
I didn't say "untalented", "irritating", or "irresponsible". You did.
>
> : Taken in a vacuum, he can even be moving.
>
> No! really? Well, I guess the air-conditioning must have been faulty at
> all the shows where people came out in tears after his performance? In
> the original cast of POTO, he was alongside some of the best performers
> (IMHO) in London theatre. Even if you don't like Ms Brightman, there
> were others such as Steve Barton, Rosemary Ashe, Mary Millar etc who are
> far from talentless hams. And he did, of course, play the Phantom with
> Michael Ball as Raoul before he transferred to Broadway.
"IMHO" says it all. However, mistakenly or not, I tend to credit the readers of
this group with the ability to distinguish an opinion from a statement of fact.
Any judgemental statement any one of us makes about a performer is by
definition going to be an opinion. Thus IMHO is an unnecessary tautology when
followed by what is obviously a statement of opinion. If, however, you wish to
read people's obvious statements of opinion as statements of fact, I can't stop
you.
This said, compared to many, many other singers, Michael Crawford is *not* a
particularly good singer. He is a good actor, a good performer, but *NOT* a
good singer. His technique is inconsistent, his vocal tone is inconsistent, his
vowel sounds are all over the place (Sarah Brightman, who studies with the same
voice teacher, also has this problem. Listen to her "Half a Moment" on THE
SONGS THAT GOT AWAY. Beautiful tone, but her vowels are unintelligible on some
words; this is simply bad diction and *should* have been corrected by her voice
teacher).
This said, I am as easily moved as the next person by blatant emotional
manipulation if I'm in the right mood. I went through an entire box of Kleenex
during LES MISERABLES. I still cry at the end of GONE WITH THE WIND, and I've
seen it 12 times. But that doesn't mean I can't see through the transparent
manipulativeness of these shows. It just means that for all their transparency,
they still *work* on a gut level. Of course my head tells me I should be too
smart to let them "get" to me, but my heart -- which is NOT rational -- says
otherwise. So sue me.
This is also true of of my response to some of MC's better work. However, put
next to Michael Ball or Robert Lindsay or Placido Domingo, (or, in fact, next to
any well-trained singer who can also act), his musical performances annoy me
because they are so obviously inferior in quality. I am probably one of the few
people who didn't like his PHANTOM, because having read about the quality of
Erik's voice as described by Gaston Leroux, I came to expect something truly
*FANTASTIC*. This said, I have not heard an actor sing the role of PHANTOM who
lived up to the magic of Leroux's description. This is because, after MC
created the role, all singers cast in that role seem to have been cast because
they had a vocal quality reminiscent of MC's (not identical to, merely
reminiscent of). I said "in a vacuum" when describing MC's ability to move me
because his blatant seemed kind of cheap and tawdry in comparison with the
obviously more disciplined, better-trained talents of the other singers (this
was true on the MUSIC OF ALW tour and in PHANTOM. And yes, this is an opinion
-- I should have thought that was pretty damned obvious.
The difference between MC's emotional effects and that of, say, Luciano
Pavarotti singing the famous aria from I PAGLIACCI is the same as the difference
between crying at the end of LOVE STORY and crying at the end of SCHINDLER'S
LIST.
> Okay, I hope I've made my point forcefully enough without being
> over-facetious. All I ask is that posts which are self-evidently no more
> than opinions should perhaps be couched in language which makes them
> seem rather less like blatant facts which are ignored only by the
> morally dubious or the intellectually stunted.
Or perhaps, having recognised that they *are* statements of opinion, you should
simply adjust your thought processes accordingly.
Of course, if you are morally dubious or intellectually stunted, you may have
trouble with this concept.
Karen Mercedes
+-------------------------------------------+
| God knows, I'm no' the thing I should be, |
| Nor am I even the thing I could be. |
| - Robert Burns |
+-------------------------------------------+
------------ Forwarded Message ends here ------------
Novotel
I suppose you're in the minority of those who think DG and LS are
overrated.
====================================================
"Le Fantome de l'Opera
est la, dans la pensee...."
____________________________________________________
"Sticks and stones may break your bones but
cement pays homage to tradition"
====================================================
Peter Giordano
This exchange is clipped from a previous message:
>> I really can't believe I'm reading this!! So just because you find him
>> an untalented, irritating, boy soprano ham, those who find him a
>> remarkable, even unique performer, with dedicaton, energy, commitment,
>> talent and depth in equally large proportions are being duped into an
>> illogical, non-intellectual and totally irresponsible response are they?
>
>I didn't say "untalented", "irritating", or "irresponsible". You did.
I guess I would too.
>> No! really? Well, I guess the air-conditioning must have been faulty at
>> all the shows where people came out in tears after his performance? In
>> the original cast of POTO, he was alongside some of the best performers
>> (IMHO) in London theatre. Even if you don't like Ms Brightman, there
>> were others such as Steve Barton, Rosemary Ashe, Mary Millar etc who are
>> far from talentless hams. And he did, of course, play the Phantom with
>> Michael Ball as Raoul before he transferred to Broadway.
The above is ludicrous - "Not a dry eye in the theater" is 1) a myth,
2) a subjective impression at best, 3) irrelevant as a measure of M.C.
"talent" - The judgement of his co-performers as the "best" is of
course also subjective - What will be the measure of M.C. status and
talent? Time - Call me in 10 or 20 years and tell me people still care
Barbara Forbes
> Call me in 10 or 20 years
Peter, yours and others' arguments and such only amuse me ( when I have
time to sit, relax etc. after a hard day at the office and getting kids
to bed) but I just had to comment on the above: MC's BEEN around for 20+
years already... another 20 + to entertain me... that WOULD be very
nice.
*BJF*
Timothy R. Hulsey
Karen Mercedes writes:
> [Crawford's] vocal quality is extremely light, plaintive,
> and for want of a better word, effeminate (go ahead, flame
> me). Or perhaps "sexless" would be more accurate, just as a
> boy soprano's voice is essentially sexless. Michael Crawford's
> voice is *androgynous*. He doesn't sound like a woman, he
> doesn't sound like a man. He sounds like a boy soprano that's
> grown up but remained a boy soprano. He has the same vocal
> quality as a true countertenor. I'd go so far as to speculate
> that he sounds like the castrati of 17th and 18th Century
> Italy.
I've heard true countertenors in action, and I know what
castrati sound like. Crawford is neither. His voice is a
plain old light baritone voice. He has a nice falsetto that he
sometimes employs to good effect, but that does not a
countertenor make. And the comment on castrati is almost too
ridiculous for words.
Thanx,
--
Truckin' on __ ____________________
down the |* Timothy R. *|\_
Information -- | Hulsey | =|
Superhighway ... -- `-00-00--------00-00-^-0'
DinnyR
Moniker
Well Karen,
You certainly keep this newsgroup moving along with your ... er ... adamant
viewpoints. As a matter of fact, I agree with what you're saying about Michael
Crawford's voice, if not with the way you're saying it.
> This is also true of of my response to some of MC's better work. However, put
> next to Michael Ball or Robert Lindsay or Placido Domingo, (or, in fact, next to
> any well-trained singer who can also act), his musical performances annoy me
I was actually under the impression that Michael Ball had little traditional vocal
training, and has only just begun to learn to read music. Please MB fans, correct
me if I'm wrong, but he must surely be one of the most gifted 'natural' vocalists
to ever tread the boards. *And* he smokes, this freaks me out! And Robert
Lindsay is an absolute treasure both on the musical and dramatic stage.
> Erik's voice as described by Gaston Leroux, I came to expect something truly
> *FANTASTIC*. This said, I have not heard an actor sing the role of PHANTOM who
> lived up to the magic of Leroux's description.
Oh <gasp> I *wish* you could have heard Anthony Warlow <pant> in this role.
No wonder Christine was mesmerised. He truly possessed the vocal equipment
to realise Leroux's fantasy (and the other equipment to realise our own!)
(I know, I know ... sit down you Australian people, we're sick of hearing about
this Warlow guy.)
This of course was all IMHO (that one was esp for you Karen)
Moniker
Brown Kristina Lynne
recognition for his Phantastic contributions!!!
On 14 Mar 1995, Novotel wrote:
> Date: 14 MAR 1995 16:29:58 -0500
> From: Novotel <nov...@aol.com>
> Newgroups: rec.arts.theatre.musicals
> Subject: Re: Overrated singers
tha...@netcom2.netcom.com
: > : I've known quite a few of his more "rabid" fans, and 90% of them
: > : are married middle-aged women
: > : speculations are no different than the speculations my friends and I
<STUFF ABOUT SEXUAL SPECULATION DELETED>
: know speculate on? But this is not limited to MC. I know fans of many other
I've met fans aged from 5 to 68, including students, professionals,
men and women--basically people who love music, theater, and appreciate
MC's many talents. Most are well educated and far from 'experientially
challenged'; many are women. Some speculate on Michael's love life, which
as you observed is inevitable with fans of any star, but I've heard much
more about POTO, MC's comedy and overall versatility, favorite songs and
what he should sing on his next album, ALW, other shows, etc. MC fans are
mostly rather caring, sharing folks, who even in a foul mood would pet a
dog and feed it rather than kick it or knock it or go into attack mode.
: > : Unless you happen to like 53-year old boy soprano hams.
Michael is hardly a ham--ranting, overacting, chewing scenery. He
enjoys the spotlight as much as any performer, but it's under control.
His Phantom was extremely subtle. Nor is he a boy soprano, but an
acting singer who modifies his voice for dramatic purposes in certain
songs. I've been told his overall sound is that of a second tenor.
: listen to his latest album, A TOUCH OF MUSIC IN THE NIGHT -- particulary
: to the songs "Since You Stayed Here" and "One of My Best Friends", to
: his renditions of "Tell Me on a Sunday" and "Nothing Like You've Ever
: Known" on MC SINGS ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER, and to his version of "When
: You Wish Upon a Star", you will hear what I mean by "boy soprano". It
: isn't his range I'm referring to, it is his
: vocal toneHis vocal quality is extremely light, plaintive, and for want of a
: better word, effeminate (go ahead, flame me). Or perhaps "sexless" would be
: more accurate, just as a boy soprano's voice is essentially sexless.
: Michael Crawford's voice is *androgynous*. He doesn't sound like a
: woman, he doesn't: sound like a man. He sounds like a boy soprano
Sure, the first four songs you picked do have a light, plaintive or even
androgynous sound. But it results from his actor's approach to
singing. He says he sings every song to convey the character's story.
Since these are female characters' songs of abandoned love, a
plaintive voice enhances the drama. Except for "Sunday" they're not
MY cup of tea, nor are they really indicative of his sound. Let's not
overlook that he rightly employs a robust and masculine sound for
"Gethsemane", "Bring Him Home" and most other songs.
: boy soprano. He has the same vocal quality as a true countertenor. I'd
: go so far as to speculate that he sounds like the castrati of 17th and
: 18th Century Italy.
Castrati flourished then but lasted till the end of the last century,
when Alessandro Moreschi, the last castrato in the Sistine Choir, was
recorded. (FWIW, a film in which they've electronically 'recreated'
Farinelli's castrato voice is due out soon.) Castrati evoked wonder,
acclaim, fierce adulation and eventually controversy, but I doubt MC
SOUNDS like them. And though he sometimes does sound like a counter-
tenor, I believe his 'natural voice' is more of an Irish tenor. Frank
Patterson says Irish tenors favor soft high notes but can hit the big
ones too. So can Michael, who is in fact of Irish extraction.
: merely commenting on the character of his vocal tone. His speaking voice is
: very similar, very light, airy, with no "bottom". I would say he was a true
: tenor except a tenor's voice is decidedly masculine where Michael's is not.
Many Brits are similarly softspoken. And Michael's singing voice is
essentially masculine, with exceptions like the four songs you listed above.
: > : Don't get me wrong, his performances -- are affecting at a...totally
: > : non-intellectual level. Taken in a vacuum, he can even be moving.
I find this incomprehensible. Few adults attend theater in a
vacuum or totally leave their intellectual faculties at the door.
Neither BARNUM nor PHANTOM is intellectual material, but both moved me
more than most of the barren cerebralism that often passes for theater
today. So many of MC's portrayals have been endorsed by critics (who
possess intellects if not hearts ;-} ) and individual theatergoers (viz.
the hysteria around his leaving all three PHANTOM companies) that they
must have been affecting. It is presumptuous to assume there was no
intellectual component in such audience reaction. As actor and singer,
Michael strives to bring absolute verisimilitude to his roles. I
thought his Phantom was so mimetically on target that it achieved true
Aristotelian catharsis. When he held his mirror up to nature, some
audience members examined their hearts. Not all. But I know 5 or 10
people who changed the direction of their lives after seeing his Erik.
: "IMHO" says it all. However, mistakenly or not, I tend to credit the readers
: of this group with the ability to distinguish an opinion from a statement of
: fact. Any judgemental statement any one of us makes about a performer is by
: definition going to be an opinion. Thus IMHO is an unnecessary tautology
I find "IMHO" a very desirable Netacronym used by some writers to acknowl-
edge they ARE giving an opinion. It encourages civility. I regret not
using it more. BTW, isn't 'unnecessary' before 'tautology' also a tautology?
: This said, compared to many, many other singers, Michael Crawford is *not* a
: particularly good singer. He is a good actor, a good performer, but *NOT* a
: good singer. His technique is inconsistent, his vocal tone is inconsistant
IMHO, a distinction should be drawn between a good singer and a good
voice. There's a plethora of good voices out there--some better than
MC's--but not many good SINGERS. MC takes a characterizing approach
to singing. Some call it cheap and tawdry and vilify him for it. I
call it unique, insightful, and even courageous, considering how open
it is to criticism. It is especially valid in a theater singer.
After all, theater singing seems to run the gamut from the parlando
style of Rex Harrison to the stand-and-sing style of most opera
singers. (But not all. One Metropolitan opera diva proclaimed, "I
haven't A voice; I have 25 voices.") An actor long before he developed
his instrument, Michael still approaches songs as an actor, CHOOSING
to utilize everything at his command to embody the emotion of a song,
even sacrificing purity of tone and consistency of sound if appropriate.
Sometimes it doesn't work; most often it works splendidly. As Jule
Styne said, the rendition IS the song. By making his songs (and his
Erik) so emotionally accessible and comprehendable, MC apparently
reached an audience many purer voices may never find. A facile response
would be to label that audience as musically unsophisticated, but most I
have met are not, at least IMHO.
: This is also true of of my response to some of MC's better work. However,
: put next to Michael Ball or Robert Lindsay or Placido Domingo (or, in fact,
: nextto any well-trained singer who can also act), his musical performances
: annoy me because they are so obviously inferior in quality. I am probably
: one of the few people who didn't like his PHANTOM, because having read
: about the quality of Erik's voice as described by Gaston Leroux, I came to
: expect something truly *FANTASTIC*. This said, I have not heard an actor
: sing the role of PHANTOM who lived up to the magic of Leroux's description.
MB and Domingo certainly have better voices than MC, but their acting
never impressed me. Domingo is my hero and arguably the best actor on the
operatic stage, but he's quite wooden compared to straight actors. Lindsay
has the acting and personality, but not the voice. To each his own. But
that's the point, isn't it? You longed for a Phantom with a "FANTASTIC"
voice. I had no preconceptions and found a Phantom I could believe was a
phantom, whose emotions, motivation, intention, and inner psyche made
me ponder the world, other people, and my outlook on life. I thought his
voice lovely and very phantom-like. And I didn't see it in a vacuum.
: The difference between MC's emotional effects and that of, say, Luciano
: Pavarotti singing the famous aria from I PAGLIACCI is the same as
: difference between crying at the end of LOVE STORY and crying at the end of
: SCHINDLER'S LIST.
I just saw Pavarotti in PAGLIACCI. Frankly, his "Vesti la giubba"
only made me marvel at how such a beautiful voice could be so devoid of
feeling. But I understand your point...and disagree. Michael's ability
to arouse emotion through song is neither cheap nor shallow, but acting-
oriented. What he did in FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON, PHANTOM, and in isolated
moments of BARNUM (which is hardly an emotional show) was to touch
souls. He had to work very hard to attain his voice, which technically
still has a few rough edges, but he combines it with his acting gift to
achieve often transcendant results. IMHO of course.
Thalia
***************************************
* Rex midas si aureo in solio sedet, *
* quis in sedibus argentosis? *
***************************************
Lois R. Jolson
>
>I was actually under the impression that Michael Ball had little
traditional
>vocal training, and has only just begun to learn to read music. Please MB
fans,
>correct me if I'm wrong, but he must surely be one of the most gifted
'natural'
>vocalists to ever tread the boards. *And* he smokes, this freaks me out!
And
>Robert Lindsay is an absolute treasure both on the musical and dramatic
stage.
if he quit.
--
Lois R. Jolson
"Will You Join In Our Crusade"
Karl Lee
-k.l.
Judith Pilmer
overrated!! In fact, I think they are among the best singers I have ever
heard. Lea Salonga is by far my favorite female vocalist and Colm my
favorite male. Terrance is also magnificent. Who would you say is better
than these?
--Sara
Brown Kristina Lynne
On 19 Mar 1995, Judith Pilmer wrote:
> Date: 19 MAR 1995 23:22:52 GMT
> From: Judith Pilmer <GEM...@prodigy.com>
> Newgroups: rec.arts.theatre.musicals
> Subject: Re: Overrated singers
>
Judith Pilmer
my list would be Julie Andrews, because she does have a beautiful voice
as well, but not as charming as Lea. Sorry, I get very opinionated about
these things.
--Sara
..To love another person is to see the face of God--Les Miserables