Having watched those clips…
I fully agree she’s got the potential for a career on the stage. Although her voice is currently nothing spectacular: they were much easier songs, and it would be interesting hear how she’d have got on with Somewhere Over the Rainbow in comparison. And bear in mind that she’s a fair bit older - eleven-year-olds who can sing like that, or can dance like that, aren’t as hard to find as six-year-olds!
Wonderful! He will perform before the Queen, and Simon told him that this week, he’d be working on his debut album. Honestly, I don’t know whether he’s technically good or not, and I don’t care. I love everything about him, and I hope his every dream comes true.
I have to take issue with this. He’s not technically good, and the suggestion that he somehow deserves great things for being a regular guy who happens to sing better than people expect (but still not particularly well) is insulting to those of us who have worked our asses off to become technically proficient, but weren’t lucky enough to have a talent show come along to thrust us into fame and recognition.
I’m happy for him. But a talent show’s a talent show. He is not that good at what he does, and while there is no particular reason that he can’t get better, as things stand, he does not deserve more than what he’s got. Sing for the Queen, record your album; the rest shouldn’t just be handed to him because it’s “a nice story.”
Well put, fachverwirrt.
Due respect, but I believe it is presumptuous to assume that the only people who deserve great things are people who work their asses off to become technically proficient. There are lots of situations in life where an ancillary skill trumps a primary skill. Take business, for example, where an outgoing person with a great personality may have greater success than an MBA with a bad attitude. The former may do better than the latter because the people he deals with value his temperament more than they value his counterpart’s credentials.
Again, no offence, but we lay people are not required to value the credentials of those we are fans of more than we value that which we like about them. I like Paul’s voice. I like his look. I like his manner. I … enjoy … watching and listening to him. The fact that I don’t care what he has studied should not be taken by you as a personal affront. It isn’t even about you, or about the study of opera; it’s simply about what I like. And I like Paul.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t like you. It doesn’t mean that I don’t admire your accomplishments. It only means that I have bad taste (in your eyes). And I’m okay with that. There’s no reason for you not to be. 
I only saw the YouTube clip and due to my location, I’m completely oblivious to the nature of the show, but here’s my two cents anyway.
This reminds me of David Helfgott (of Shine fame). After the movie came out, he went on tour and played to full houses. I’m sure some people cried when he played at the oscars. However, he wasn’t a good pianist. As a matter of fact, he was downright awful. His technique sucked and his interpretations were bizarre – and not in a good way, like Glenn Gould. I cannot fathom that anyone familiar with Sviatoslav Richter or Martha Argerich’s versions of Rachmaninov’s 3rd piano concerto could have sat through a David Helfgott performance of the same piece without squirming from beggining to end.
But people didn’t care. The people who got teary-eyed to Helfgott cared much more about the story than the music. When David walked onstage, he brought with him the drama of his life. Seeing the movie was absolutely necessary to derive any real appreciation of his performance.
People love underdog and ugly duckling stories. Would most people rather watch a movie about a shy cell phone salesman who rises to be an opera star or a movie about a super-talented child genius who practices eight hours a day and grows up to be a first-rate pianist?
With this Potts guy, the background story is supremely important. If no one knew who this guy was and all you had to judge him on was the sound of his performance, would people still cry? Of course not. This is as much theatre or cinema as is it music.
Unfortunately, I happen to be familiar with Franco Corelli and Fritz Wunderlich, and all I can see in the Potts video is uncontrollable shaking, poor vibrato, poor Italian and even poorer phrasing.
However, if you liked the performance, don’t think I believe that my impression is more worthy than yours; we’re just coming from different places and seeing different things. There’s clever marketing and manipulation by the tv people, but in the end context is always important, even if it is fabricated.
You know, you work hard, you think you’re pretty good, you’re feeling pretty good about yourself…
Then you see that. And you understand why you went into teaching instead of singing.
I’ve heard Corelli sing this, of course, but never live. Holy fucking shit.
As I see it, the question isn’t is Paul Potts the Best! Tenor! Evar!!!, it’s is he better than the competition he was up against (which didn’t include Corelli). And not just is he better, but can he convince people that opera is better than a tiny girl singing “Somewhere Over The Rainbow”. Apparently he can, because more people voted for him.
StG
Perhaps, but like I wrote, I don’t know the show and who he was up against. It’s entirely possible he was better than anyone else. In the great show that is YouTube, though, he is up against Corelli, sort of.
However, I have read comments comparing him to Pavarotti, and that’s just absurd. Last time I checked, his Youtube video had over 3,000,000 views and 14,000 favourites. I think someone even started a thread about him on the SDMB.
I was mostly interested in this incredible outpour of positive comments for what was to my ears and eyes a rather poor performance.
Consider this, Potts did put in his time. He worked his butt off(presumably) and he had some minor success with the Bath Opera, and he did a tour. He fell out of professional opera his first time around. But he tried out again, and in what is essentially a large, televised, audition for Cowell’s label. It also serves as advertising for Cowell’s label, so the human interest story is a big factor in who wins. Still, if Cowell, and the others in his production company, decide to take Potts on, that’s their decision. I think he’s still got a lot of work to do to get his breath support(he was really gasping during his finals performance, or it seemed so to me) and phrasing into professional performance state. He also needs a first rate language coach, he mangled a lot of the Italian. Nessun Dorma is a cakewalk of a song compared to a lot of what a leading man is expected to sing. All this may not matter if he doesn’t get into actual opera though. He could spend the rest of his career making recordings in studios where they can cover a host of sins with technology.
So he’ll either make it this time or he’ll fall out again. I wish him well, and I don’t think it’s for any of us to decide there’s one “real” or “honest” path to success in this business. God knows it’s a crap shoot at every audition and the most talented and well-honed performer can be thrown over for someone who just has a slightly better “look” or “feel.” I saw enough ups and downs of my first voice coach’s career to know.
Enjoy,
Steven
This kind of reference to ‘opera’ really pisses me off. He will be of zero benefit to opera. If people weren’t interested in Turandot, his performance won’t change anything. Singing a few melodies taken from a few operas is most definitely not the same thing as opera itself, and gives an entirely different experience to the audience. Even if he can cope with putting on a full performance (still with microphone), the people in his audience who don’t know anything about opera still won’t.
He’s got the same naivety as Russell Watson, which makes him perfect for a company to exploit, as he’ll remain oblivious both to the technical trickery, and also the PR machinations which will be at work. He’ll make a lot of money, and he’ll sing for big crowds, and maybe he’ll be happy.
Just to be clear: I’m talking specifically about opera–stage opera with an opera company.
I don’t think it’s at all presumptuous to assume that success in a profession that is rooted in a specific technical skill be predicated upon possessing that technical skill. Opera is not business (it is a business, but that’s another point entirely). It is an art form that relies on close collaboration and balance between large groups of people; one weak link can cause the whole thing to come crashing down. It sucks the energy out of the ensemble and fosters resentment among the cast. Think of it like a sports team. One bad offensive linesman can ruin a football team. One bad rower destroys the crew. Opera (and many other musical endeavors) is the same idea.
That’s not to say that he can’t be a recording star or do solo concerts; no skin off my nose. But if some misguided director decided to cast him based on his performance here, there would be serious issues. (I’m talking, obviously, about a relatively high level company. Clearly he does fine in amateur companies).
On a not entirely unrelated note, I just got home from a Colin Graham tribute concert, where Christine Brewer performed the Liebestod. Seeing one of the best dramatic sopranos of this generation singing Wagner really puts the whole Paul Potts thing in perspective.