She won't crossover
By now everyone has no doubt heard about Aprile Millo's refusal to sing "crossover" material on her cancelled recital.
I don't object to "crossover" on its own terms, meaning, not pretending to be "classical" (although I hate the term crossover). But when someone doesn't do it well, what is the point? I admire Millo's courage in standing up for her ability and acknowledgement that singing light pop music is just not for her.
There are a few examples of successful mixing of genres: Eileen Farrell is the prime example. She of course didn't see it as crossover, but successfully singing two different genres, using two different techniques. There of course are other historical precedents: Caruso singing Neapolitan songs (I view his "Over There" recording as a patriotic/comic curiousity) and others singing folk and popular songs from their countries. The key is that these singers are comfortable in those and sing them idiomatically.
This might seem contradictory to earlier statements that I've made on this blog, but I don't think so. It is crossover being sold as classical music to which I object. As long as its viewed on its own terms, I have no quarrel. But its terms are apparently not Millo's terms, and in recognizing that and sticking to it, I admire her.
I don't object to "crossover" on its own terms, meaning, not pretending to be "classical" (although I hate the term crossover). But when someone doesn't do it well, what is the point? I admire Millo's courage in standing up for her ability and acknowledgement that singing light pop music is just not for her.
There are a few examples of successful mixing of genres: Eileen Farrell is the prime example. She of course didn't see it as crossover, but successfully singing two different genres, using two different techniques. There of course are other historical precedents: Caruso singing Neapolitan songs (I view his "Over There" recording as a patriotic/comic curiousity) and others singing folk and popular songs from their countries. The key is that these singers are comfortable in those and sing them idiomatically.
This might seem contradictory to earlier statements that I've made on this blog, but I don't think so. It is crossover being sold as classical music to which I object. As long as its viewed on its own terms, I have no quarrel. But its terms are apparently not Millo's terms, and in recognizing that and sticking to it, I admire her.
posted by Rich Russell at
9:56 AM
1 Comments:
Crossover, shchmossover. You guys just don't get it. It's about technique and result.
As a classically trained singer, Ms.Millo (and the rest of us) have trained our voices to carry to the peanut gallery and the nosebleed sections without amplification. That means resonance, projection, vibrato etc etc etc are our primary weapons of choice when it comes to portraying the music. We literally condition our instruments to perform a certain way, to get a certain result.
Elton John's got a piano. That's a static thing, he can play it in any style. Ms. Millo's voice is not a static thing. It is a conditioned living collection of body parts which cannot be played in any style.
When opera singers, especially solidly trained and years-experienced ones like Ms. Millo try to "crossover" it sounds, well, stupid. Dorky. Fat Lady Warbling. It was embarassing when Kiri did it, it was embarassing when the 3 Tenors did it, and that's why. Our instruments are not "made" for other styles.
She's right, and she says exactly why in the article. It would be embarassing for those putting on the show! It would not get the result that they apparently expect.
And it would demean not just her "art" but her career, her professional identity, to boot. Not to mention what it does to a voice to ask it to do something that it is not designed to do, suddenly, intensely and without proper preparation. (Nodes anyone?)
Best leave the crossover to those with technique that is suited to flexing between different styles.
Post a Comment
<< Home