an blog | AJBlog Central | Contact me | Advertise | Follow me:

Russia awaits little Jackie Evancho in an opera night

Debate has raged back and forth on this site about child prodigy Jackie Evancho, who topped the US classical charts after appearing on America’s Got Talent. Jackie’s supporters heatedly deny that she is, or wishes to become, an opera singer.

Well, Russian media have just announced that she’s appearing in St Petersburg in a ‘Bouquet of Opera’ beside Dmitry Hvorostovsky and Sumi Jo, both respected opera professionals, with a symphony orchestra conducted by Sarah Hicks. The concert is on June 20. Tickets are on sale a 3,500-12,000 rubles for who want to sit close but the concert will be beamed onto big screens for free viewing, as it was last year when Sting performed.

The occasion is the Russian International Economic Forum, an oligarchs’ get-together.

Read more here (in Russian, or with fairly comprehensible Google Translate)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. catmando says:

    The news hit Jackie’s website like a bomb yesterday when her father posted the confirmation. There were over 25 people in the chatroom last night all excited!! We don’t know how this incredible invitation came about but my suspicion is it is a result of her trip to Japan and her private audition with the Japanese Royal Family. Or there could have been a Russian diplomat at the National Prayer Breakfast where she sang. Plus the fact that her father’s family comes from the Ukraine(name spelled ‘Ivanko’ there).

    Mr. Lebrecht I know you and your followers wish Jackie well because this is a BIG DEAL for her. For a 12 year old Classical Crossover singer to be invited to sing on this International stage with two huge International Opera stars is a tremendous honor. They could have invited Renee Fleming who is the equal or better of the Russian Baritone and Sumi Jo, but Jackie was chosen instead. Incredible!!

    She will be a great Ambassador for America.

    (I hope she sings Nessun Dorma. She has not sung that aria since America’s Got Talent last year. She will bring the house down!)

    • @catmando,

      I’m betting on her singing her Uncle Matthew’s song, “To believe.”

      • catmando says:

        Actually Nella Fantasia would be the better offering since the lyrics are about saving the environment and this Conference is about that too.

    • Bruce C. Desautels says:

      Jackie singing Nessun Dorma at this venue would truly be “fantabuloso” (to use her expression) … I can barely contain my anticipation of the reception she will receive from the Russian people. This little girl’s voice could stop a war.

      • ‘This little girl’s voice could stop a war’…

        Seriously? Do you even have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

        • warmonger says:

          Doesn’t it just! Reading some of the entries of the fervent pro-Jackie Evancho-lists on this blog, this little girl’s voice could probably start a war if you so much as utter a smidgeon of criticism against her.
          Beware the Wrath of the Church of the Envancho-lists. You’ll burn in hell for eternal damnation simply for not buying her records or for preferring something as sinful as a proper full-length opera recording by real artists.

          • @warmonger,

            You speak nonsense! You just want to spin your bile! Jackie herself says she’s not perfect, and makes lot’s of mistakes. She’s her own worst critic. Oh BTW, the Drama Contest is two doors down! You’re not very good at that either! Too far over the Top! I don’t know what you mean about “real artists!” Does that mean that when Rene Fleming sings something out of the realm of Opera, that she’s no longer a “real artist?”

            Jackie doesn’t sing Opera. To say that she isn’t a real artist because she doesn’t, is Egotistical and Elitist! I can’t understand why you would think a proper full-length Opera recording would be considered sinful? I happen to like Opera, and Dessay is my favorite. I also happen to like Jackie, which from the way you’re sounding, I would gather you don’t. That’s up to you, and I have no problem with your choice. That’s something that’s yours. Then again, no matter where Jackie’s career takes her, she knows that she is already considered the Greatest “Pure voice” of this or any Century! Now we are about to see the next big step in the development of Jackie’s evolving voice. Seems that her Biological clock went off again. The last time that happened, she became a star overnight, on AGT This, should be interesting!

          • warmonger says:

            Oh dear. Someone clearly hasn’t heard of “irony”, have they. Probably beyond the intellectual capacity of most Evancho-lists. You just go back into your room with your Jackie Evancho posters, and Jackie Evancho Barbie Dolls and listen to your Jackie Evancho CDs and leave us all in peace, won’t you. There’s a good dear.

          • catmando says:

            Doesn’t it just! Reading some of the entries of the fervent pro-Jackie Evancho-lists on this blog, this little girl’s voice could probably start a war if you so much as utter a smidgeon of criticism against her.
            Beware the Wrath of the Church of the Envancho-lists. You’ll burn in hell for eternal damnation simply for not buying her records or for preferring something as sinful as a proper full-length opera recording by real artists.

            Drama Queen much? :rolleyes:

        • Sure this girl’s voice might stop a war.
          The scene: A typical war scene with desolation, destruction, and socially sanctioned psychopaths everywhere.
          Communication system of warring party 1 to that of party 2: “Hey! Wait up! What’s that sound?”
          Warring party 2: “Holy crap! That’s beautiful!”
          The scene: All fighting stops while the respective parties listen aghast and in awe.
          Warring party 2: “Who does she belong to?”
          Warring party 1: “What you mean she’s not yours? She must be ours!”
          Party 2: “You mean you can’t tell if she’s one of yours? She must be one of ours!”
          Party 1: “Rubbish! Take that back or we’ll fire upon you!”
          Party 2: “How dare you! There’s no way we’ll give up our claim on her!”
          Fighting recommences till the next song.
          Repeat ad infinitum

          • richard carlisle says:

            Yep, stopping a war might have just been an attention-getting figure of speech… what Jackie can/will do is impact opera in a way similar to Gene Kelly’s popularizing of ballet…. there will still be traditional opera just like traditional ballet still.happens, but billions — not millions — more people will enjoy a Jackiesque smoothing process– no more lovers with faces four inches apart screaming at each other about their mutual adoration.

            We’re looking at a new version of Gilbert and Sullivan boosted dramatically with techno convenience.

          • Greetings. A slight clarification. I overlooked the fact that there are other Steves out there in the great wide world. How this occurred is beyond me. Breach of copyright I’d have thought. But nevertheless, there you have it.

            So I thought I’d have a go at clarifying things. I’m not THE Steve who originally posted the war comment. But I’m not any old Steve. I’m the Steve who commented on it just above. So I guess I’m the other Steve. Or at least anOTHER Steve. At the very least my understanding is that I’m A Steve. Perhaps I should take up Stevedoring. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Right. I’ll get out of your way now. See ya later.

      • I’m with you Bruce. Just put yourself in her shoes for a moment—–
        You step out onto the stage and are met by the biggest reception one could imaging from 100,000 plus audience. The noise would be mind blowing. How would you feel???..lol.lol.
        Jackie as always will just take it all in her stride, she will be composed and deliver a spellbinding performance as she usually does. A 100,000 person standing ovation will be a sight one would never forget. I get goosebumps just thinking about it.
        Just a footnote:
        Lets just keep War and religion out of this discussion.
        It’s not appropraie especially when you are discussing a little 12 year old girl who loves what she does and supports the protection of animals. She stands for what’s pure and decent and family values, something that everybody could learn from. If she can bring some happiness into a very sad world then she has done more than most. If she’s looked upon by some as a symbol for world peace an unity then that’s a huge bonus. “I think her theme,”Dream With Me” has deeper meaning for us all. Think about it.
        Andre.

        • Charles Hoff says:

          Jackie’s already had a warm-up with the big crowd. She sang the U.S. National Anthem at the 2011 NHL Winter Classic at Heinz Field in front of 68,000+ raucous hockey fans.

          Oh, and to help balance her repertoire and concert appearances back away from the narrow and self-limiting opera niche, Jackie and Tony Bennett are sharing the stage on August 31st at Ironstone Amphitheater in the California gold country.

    • Cat, I have to agree with you entirely, Nessun Dorma is the one song that Jackie sings that Showcases her incredible talent. In the company she will be in it would be very approriate especially if she is only going to sing one song.(speculation here)
      As for singing ‘To Believe’, come on, this is an International stage we are talking about here. An audience of 100,000 plus, ranging from roadsweepers to President Putin and a host of other national leaders and dignatories, as well as Network coverage running into the millions. Why would she want to sing a song which most people there would never have heard of and most people wouldn’t have a clue what she was singing.. ‘To Believe’ is a great little song without a doubt but best kept for inclusion in her concerts. ‘Nessun Dorma’ is an Internationally recognised song and Jackie’s rendition is fantastic. That’s the song, in my humble opinion, she should sing if she want to make a global impression. IShe doesn’t sing it very often, that’s what makes it so special. This is a special occasion.

      • catmando says:

        Well said Andre. Nessun Dorma has I think a three-octave range which is perfect for Jackie. I didn’t agree with her parents taking it out of her song list. I don’t think it was a strain for her to sing it. Watch her performance on youtube at Britain’s Got Talent. Totally awesome!!

        • warmonger says:

          “Nessun Dorma has I think a three-octave range…”
          So the Evancho-lists are now re-defining what an octave is.
          Catmando, it’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about.
          I dare say, you can’t even read music.
          Please explain what you understand a “three-octave” range to be.
          And please show us where in Puccini’s score these three different octaves in the tenor part are.
          My own score is obviously misprinted.

          • richard carlisle says:

            Seems Nessun Dorma ranges closer to two– not three –octaves and whatever it is Jackie handles it with beautiful comfort; what she does struggle with is the high note toward the end of “Lovers”… why not delete that from the repertoire and leave ND in?

            As for her “punitive” schedule, it’s not the number of performances per week as much as what she does in each–three or four songs works nicely — but the Houston concert shown on youtube in its entirety had her standing without a break for 36 minutes… excessive? hmmmm.

          • tiredofitall says:

            Hate to be pedantic, but it’s not even two octaves in Nessun Dorma.

    • I do not know if this is the appropriate place for my comment, but here goes. Jackie is the best of the best. She would be great as Donizetti’s “Daughter of the Regement”

    • richard carlisle says:

      Renee Fleming has an engagement in Paris June 20, performing in the opera Arabella– apparent reason enough to be out of contention for this.

  2. Thanks for heads up on Jackie’s coming performance Mr Lebrecht.

    But keep in mind, let not titles confuse us. Some people think that because Jackie has sung a few arias from operas, that she has performed in an opera house or two, that she is an opera singer. Good Lord, there’s waaaaaaaay more to being an opera singer than what Jackie ha s done. She’s never been in an opera. She’s not an opera singer… period.

    The title of the Russian show “‘Bouquet of Opera’ does NOT mean it’s an opera anymore than than the title of the musical “Phantom of the Opera” makes it an opera.

    I can’t image either Dmitry Hvorostovsky and Sumi Jo consider even for a moment be in an actual opera with any child. They know what this show is, or they wouldn’t be doing it. Not opera.

    Thanks again for the notification. I bet Jackie appreciates you spreading the good word!

    • Good that Jackie has never said she is an Opera Star…she tells us all how it is and grateful for the stage to perform and remains humble in her thoughts and deed…no spoken word could ever deflate Jackie Fans of knowing where her voice comes from and how she stimulates the minds and soul of her listeners…..never speak bad of a Child and what is in her heart, … Jackie Fans won’t allow it….

    • Steve Huff says:

      And I would ask it that a problem with Jackie, or is it a problem with perception. Katherine Jenkins faces the same condemnation that the opera snobs levy on anyone among the unwashed masses who unjustly violates the sanctity of the “invitation only” opera house. Neither claim to be opera singes, but Classical Crossover singers, singing arias, theater music, and some fitting pop standards. They both have engaged in constant denial about any “opera” label. And I have to be honest with you. They will continue to do so without your permission! So Bernice, sit in your opera box knowing that the barbarians are at your gate! And if your attitude, which seems to be common among the opera community, continues its elitist and often vile discourse, I hope the gates are broken! Opera may always be relevant and revered by many, but the keepers of the gate in my opinion are absolutely irrelevant.

      • No, they personally don’t claim to be opera singers, but everyone around them markets them that way and they appear in opera events. Funny, really…. the plausible deniability. Jenkins desperately wants to be a real opera star, there is no question of that. I assume Evancho is the same, despite her claims. If that is the case, she still has time to learn and grow. I hope she decides to do the work necessary and not just use an unearned title.

        • Janey, I missed the opera events you stated Jackie has appeared. Care to enlighten me as to which events? Thanks in advance for your response.

          • Well… why don’t we start with the one she’s about to do in St. Petersburg. She also sang with the Pittsburgh Opera and Fresno Opera, according to information posted here earlier. This is nothing like what Bocelli, Groban or even Brightman did (although Bocelli has moved more toward opera in recent years).

            It is very much like Jenkins, however. I suspect they are made from the same cloth (or in Evancho’s case, she is BEING made by whomever from the same cloth).

          • @Janey,

            I have no idea what Jackie will sing in St. Petersburgh. My personal guess would be “To Believe!” It’s an interesting twist you put in your words about Jackie singing with the Pittsburgh Opera and the San Francisco Opera. The real truth is she sang Classical Crossover at the Opera Houses, not with the Opera Companies. You do seem to assume an awful lot, don’t you? No one said that she sang with any Opera Company, which contradicts your claim that she sang with the Pittsburgh and San Francisco Opera’s, or that she is about to sing Opera in St. Petersburgh! She will sing Classical Crossover.

            Jackie is Jackie, she isn’t from the same cloth as anybody. Like her or not, she’s an extremely talented young singer. Even Norman and Tim Page are smart enough to admit that. She’s also a better singer than Katherine Jenkins!

          • Janey wrote:

            “Well… why don’t we start with the one she’s about to do in St. Petersburg. She also sang with the Pittsburgh Opera and Fresno Opera, according to information posted here earlier. This is nothing like what Bocelli, Groban or even Brightman did (although Bocelli has moved more toward opera in recent years).”

            False Janey. Get your facts straight.
            Bocelli has performed with the Fresno Grand Opera three times before. They are an orchestra like any other and an excellent one!

          • Fresno Grand Opera Orchestra is certainly NOT an orchestra like any other – they proved that with their treatment of Renee Fleming. And the Fresno Grand Opera is not an organization like any other – as they proved by making Jackie Evancho the center of their “opera” season.

            The FGO certainly hasn’t covered itself in glory of late.

            Regardless, Bocelli has moved more into opera in recent years, but certainly did not take the liberties that Evancho (and Jenkins before her) have taken. Bocelli, Groban and Brightman have been respectful to opera singers both in their statements and performances, unlike, according to your fellow fan Russ, the Evanchos.

          • @Janey,

            Don’t be putting words in my mouth that aren’t true. I never said or acknowledged, that the Evanchos were rude to anyone. Ms. Fleming should have left it alone after Lisa’s answer to the first question, that she prefaced with “we really don’t know anything about Opera.” Lisa wouldn’t deliberately tick someone off like that knowingly. Ms. Fleming was the one who continued to push the issue. When someone knows that you don’t know anything about a subject, all they are doing is looking for trouble by continuing to ask questions about said subject! It shows a total lack of common sense!

          • “Fresno Grand Opera Orchestra is certainly NOT an orchestra like any other – they proved that with their treatment of Renee Fleming.”

            Their “treatment”? I think that was a Union strike. I dont know that you can blame the FGO for that, after all they worked pretty hard to get Renee back (from what I read) for five years after her appearance in 07.

            “Regardless, Bocelli has moved more into opera in recent years, but certainly did not take the liberties that Evancho (and Jenkins before her) have taken. Bocelli, Groban and Brightman have been respectful to opera singers both in their statements and performances, unlike, according to your fellow fan Russ, the Evanchos.”

            The implication there is that the Evanchos (including Jackie) have “taken liberties” to disrespect opera. I read everything, being a fan and all and I just dont see that.
            You are welcome to your opinion but its far from the way that I see it.
            The Evanchos have worked with people from the opera world and im sure will continue to.

        • Janey,
          What you are writing is beyond false.

          Jackie has appeared at classical events before in Boca Raton and with opera orchestras but she also appears at pop events like David Foster’s, Oprah multiple times, Celebrity Fight Night, Target convention, AGT.
          It doesnt make her a pop singer because shes performed on the same bill and the same with the orchestras and this concert “Bouquet of the Opera”.

          She is a CLASSICAL CROSSOVER artist.
          CC straddles fields of opera, classical, and pop genres.
          Shes doing what CC artists do.
          Surely you are familar with CC, Janey?
          If not, please do research on your own!

        • Steve Huff says:

          And Janey, how did you earn your title as critic and executioner? You opera snobs are like crabs in a barrel; you pull the entire genre down by defining the constraints of your bucket! Perhaps Katherine and her mini-me Jackie Evancho can attract some additional interest to Opera, as she certainly has all Classical music. I have had people tell me, “I never liked opera before”. Well silly people it was an aria or perhaps Nella Fantasia, and they had no clue! But until they are in the classroom and open the opera book, they can’t learn. And it seems you prefer the dark-ages of selective enlightenment, gate-keepers of truth and knowledge, and masters of the peasantry. Sarah Hicks is inspiring as well, would you agree? But wait, she has broken the gender barrier, and also bends the definition of classical music to draw in new fans who once exposed, may embrace the highest forms of the art. “Desperate” perhaps? Certainly these newly inspired students don’t deserve a seat at the NYC Opera do they? After-all, they got here by crossing the tracks, taking a cultural shortcut, and certainly no one has paid their dues? Did Ms. Hicks ever conduct at a real Opera?

        • Janey says:

          No, they personally don’t claim to be opera singers, but everyone around them markets them that way and they appear in opera events. Funny, really…. the plausible deniability. Jenkins desperately wants to be a real opera star, there is no question of that. I assume Evancho is the same, despite her claims. If that is the case, she still has time to learn and grow. I hope she decides to do the work necessary and not just use an unearned title.

          Janey,

          Just because you say that “Jenkins desperately wants to be a real Opera Star, there is no question of that”, so why would you assume that Jackie is the same, despite her claims to the contrary? Why are you so desperate, that you try and tie Ms. Evancho and Ms. Jenkins together like two peas in a pod? I’ll tell you why! It’s the Plausible Deny-ability you spoke of earlier. By declaring that Jenkins and Evancho are birds of a feather, you feel that you have the right to attack Ms. Evancho for that Plausible Deny-ability, like she is using it as a come-on, when you know perfectly well that Ms. Evancho is not interested in pursuing an Operatic career! Just ask Rene Fleming! In a stupid fit of Opera Snob, she has ruined any possibility that Jackie will ever pursue an Opera career! Sad, really!

          Jackie’s voice continues to develop, and she is showing some signs of developing a new technique, unheard of in living memory. It involves massive control of her Timbre, and independent control of her vibrato and tremolo frequencies, like an organ can do. While not completely unheard of, it’s exceedingly rare. Her vocal frequency scans, of her live voice are unlike those of any other singer, mainly because there is so much more to them. It’s all done in real time, because she’s creating it all with her brain! That would go right along with what Dr. Clark Rosen, Head of the Musical Medical Department at The University of Pittsburgh claimed over 1 1/2 years ago. He said it was her brain, that put it all together.

          Jackie runs by a different clock than you or I do. Hers is a Biological Clock, the pituitary gland. So far, it’s controlled her development and growth, and it’s at it again. Apparently, it’s time for Jackie to take that next big step in the development of her rapidly evolving voice. This should be good for Jackie, and good for Music in general! You can’t ask for more than that!

          • @Russ

            “…Ms. Evancho is not interested in pursuing an Operatic career! Just ask Rene Fleming! In a stupid fit of Opera Snob, she has ruined any possibility that Jackie will ever pursue an Opera career!…”

            Bring me up to speed on this please. What did Fleming say about Jackie?

          • @catmando,

            All the words were between Rene and Lisa Evancho. Ms. Fleming asked if Jackie liked Opera, and she took exception to Lisa’s answer, and took it as a deliberate insult. when Lisa wouldn’t know how to deliberately insult anyone. Ms. Fleming is supposed to be the US Ambassador for Opera. Unfortunately her diplomatic skills need serious work! I don’t think either Jackie or her Mom were prepared for the question. Personally, I would have waited until I got to know the people involved a little better before I asked questions like that. Judging by Ms. Fleming’s reactions, I’m not so sure she wanted to help Jackie, in the first place. I’ll always believe that once Ms. Fleming realized that Jackie Evancho was Classical Crossover and not Opera, she deliberately provoked the conversation, and the incident. We have a middle aged mother of 4, who’s had the added burden of helping manage Jackie’s career, who lives in a rural suburb of Pittsburgh, in Western Pa., and you’re asking her questions about what do you think about Opera? Planned epic failure!

          • Russ, why do you capitalize the following words? This is not correct in modern English.

            Opera Star, Plausible Deny-ability (sic), Timbre, Opera Snob, Biological Clock, Music.

          • @Russ

            Renee Fleming insulted Lisa Evancho because the family doesn’t like opera? If that is Mrs. Evancho’s contention, I do not believe it. When would this have occurred?

            Realistically, I think asking the girl who sang O Mio Babinno Caro if she likes opera is a logical and expected question from the country’s leading opera singer. I am surprised that the Evanchos are not opera fans if it is true.

            I am most surprised that they are talking out of turn about Ms. Fleming, if what you say is true.

          • Janey,

            Here is a quote from Jackie’s mom that could have offended Renee Flemming:

            http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/college-sports/pitt/105061-backstage-notes-from-americas-got-talent-finale

          • Ah. “We don’t like opera. It’s very shrill and unappealing to us,” Lisa said. Thank you for the article. Their daughter sings opera arias at her biggest television appearances, yet they don’t like opera and have never been to see one according to that article. I did note, however, that they said they did not like her being called an opera singer, for which I am appreciative.

            Nevertheless, Russ said there had been a conversation, during which Fleming supposedly insulted the Evanchos for their views. I assume Lisa Evancho discussed this somewhere. Otherwise, Renee Fleming’s name would not have been brought up. I still am disbelieving.

          • The brain? Seems as though all of my many voice teachers focused on breath control as well as the correct focus of the sound. One doesn’t “make” vibrato happen; it’s a natural outgrowth of correct singing. If it were not, then Einstein et al would have shoved all the singers aside with their immeasurable brain power. Some of us just wish that the current incarnation of Charlotte Church would just admit to being at best a “classical crossover”.

        • unearned title??? you gotta be kidding!!

        • Janey, you made a claim that Jackie has already perfromed in opera events. You can’t name any because she hasn’t ever been in an opera event. Instead of namimg events she’s been in you named an event that she will be in that isn’t opera.

          Thanks for offering nothing.

      • Mr Huff, I’m confused by your attack on me.

        #1 I am a music fan
        #2 I am a Jackie fan because she is good music
        #3 I can’t stand opera.
        #4 I was 100% accurate with my post above
        #5 I accept your apology

        • Steve Huff says:

          Actually one sentence through off my perception. And in fact I at least in part owe you an apology. I think most of your arguments were erudite and accurate. I did not give any weight to your third and fifth paragraphs! My mistake!

        • Friday Bridge says:

          I am a Jackie fan, and I agree with every point you made except #3.

          I think he missed something in the translation.

        • all i know is the only time i ever listened to music like this was Mozart so if some one can covert
          someone like myself to appreciate this kind of music , and i don;t care what you call it then this
          wonderful little girl deserves any kind of support we can offer her

      • Katherine Jenkins has repeatedly stated that she would very much like to become an opera singer and that she deserves to be.

        If anyone ever invited contempt by singers and aficionados who know quality when they hear it, Katherine Jenkins would be that person.

        • Steve Huff says:

          Red herrings are abundant! Can you show evidence that Katherine Jenkins has said, “she deserves to be”? Why not make the leap, take the saut de chat, and declare that Jackie Evancho thinks she deserves to be! I am an aficionado of elitist snobbery and intellectual dwarfism. You have my diagnosis.

          • Steve, here is the exact quote from Katherine Jenkins that implies that the only reason she didn’t succeed in opera is because she is too beautiful:
            “There are a lot of people in the classical music world who absolutely loathe me. The critics slate me because I’m not what they consider the real thing. People expect a classical singer to be big and fat with Wagnerian horns on her head. Sorry, that’s not me. It never was and I always knew my looks would be my advantage. I’m totally aware of how to market myself, totally aware of the effect of the way I look. And personally I’d rather see an attractive man playing Romeo than a big fat old man. Why can’t opera singers look good? I don’t get it.”

            Also according to her interview here – ask someone to translate if you don’t believe me – she claims her dream is to sing Cherubino or Carmen at La Scala:
            http://www.corriere.it/spettacoli/10_marzo_17/persivali-katherine-sogna-la-scala_8ae75b48-3196-11df-b03c-00144f02aabe.shtml

            “«Al momento faccio un genere diverso, canto arie d’opera e canzoni pop. Ma ho studiato e continuo a studiare da cantante lirica. Interpretare un’opera in un teatro, senza amplificazione, era il mio sogno prima di ottenere un contratto discografico, ma ho intenzione di farlo, più avanti nella carriera. Quando la mia voce si sarà sviluppata. E’ ancora il mio sogno: cantare un’opera completa — Carmen o Le Nozze di Figaro (nel ruolo di Cherubino) — in un grande teatro europeo come la Scala». ”

            Translation: “At this moment I am doing different genre, I sing arias from opera and pop songs. But I studied and continue to study to sing opera. To interpret an opera in a theater without amplification was my dream before I got a CD contract, but I intend to do it in future in my career. When my voice will develop. It is still my dream: to sing in a complete opera – Carmen or The Marriage of Figaro (in the role of Cherubino) – in a great European theater like La Scala”

            Oh, and don’t forget “Popstar to Operastar” British tv show where she was referred to as “opera expert” and pretended she could teach others to sing opera.

    • richard carlisle says:

      Bernice, thanks for a voice of reason so rare and welcome… Jackie is not, doesn’t want to be opera with the pomposity and necessary shouting due to lack of amplification (if opera houses use electric light bulbs why not update with modern miniature microphones that are hardly inconvenient though they might get tangled with close-up lovers screaming out their mutual adoration).

      What Jackie IS: a filter/purifier taking the best of opera material and presenting it in a most appealing manner that reaches the hearts of the least to the most literate, with of course no appeal for the heartless segment of society (all too numerous)… and with all the paranoia on the part of opera traditionalists who feel their precious baby is being kidnapped, they will eventually realize when all the data comes in that their traditional opera will sustain and be much more popular when people entranced by Jackie will go to the traditional to supplement and explore more deeply what classical singing is all about– evolving for 400 years– and this is the place where I sit, looking forward to millions of others joining me.

  3. Mr Lebrecht,

    Given that Jackie Evancho is, ipso facto, not an opera singer (how could she be at the age of 12, with no training to speak of, never having seen an opera, to my knowledge, let alone performed in one), what is she doing in the company these professional, internationally well-regarded musicians?

    The organizers of this event are happy to have Jackie Evancho’s name appear alongside that of Dmitry Hvorostovsky, Sumi Jo, and Sarah Hicks. Why? I’d like to hear your thoughts.

    Is this development evidence that the classical music world has lost its way? Or is it possible that Evancho is not a side show but the real thing, a genuinely good singer with an engaging stage presence who deserves to be acknowledged by serious people (as appears to be the case in this instance)?

    • It is evidence that money rules and that, in today’s classical world, grabbing at short term gain is paramount.

      I am very disappointed with Mr. Hvorostovsky’s choice. While I do not believe he has anything to do with the scheduling (and find it curious that he does not mention Ms. Evancho on his website), his presence nonetheless condones this child’s exploitation.

      She reminds of a young Katherine Jenkins, so desperate to be accepted by the opera world, but not willing to do the hard work for real acceptance, and all the while denying the dream goal. I suppose performing in an opera gala may be good enough.

      • Janey proof your claim that money rules, grabbing short term gain, is that Jackie’s management turns down many concert offers and other performing opportunities. Ya see, they have long term in mind.

        Fell free to fabricate more phony scenarios.

      • Correction:

        Janey proof your claim, that money rules, grabbing short term gain, is NOT correct, is that Jackie’s management turns down many concert offers and other performing opportunities. Ya see, they have long term in mind.

        Fell free to fabricate more phony scenarios.

        • Steve Huff says:

          She uses fallacies to make an intellectual argument. Not very intellectual!

        • Good Bernice, additionally, we all know that Jackie decides where “she” wants to perform, and her parents and Manager take great care in the frequency of her performances…Jackies’ health and well being is their main concern…I am a fairly recent Jackie Fan, but I did my homework.

      • Steve Huff says:

        A phenomena at age 12 is of no interest to you, and this in your case, I can accept. But might I say that one woman’s “exploitation” is another man’s opportunity. And this could be your opportunity to crack that hard elitist soul you seem to have. Or more likely it is an opportunity for you to throw stones at a 12 year old child with a lot more appeal, public interest, and talent than you have. Your opera justification and elitist perspective is that you will decide who sits at the Captain’s table with you, and who eats in the galley. I might add that often the left-overs in the galley are closer to the warm stove of people’s hearts, and therefore of fine taste and more palatable to us unwashed masses! Certainly such a fine lady must be careful what she consumes. Be therefore careful. I hope that Jackie doesn’t soil your blouse!

      • Janey,

        You may well be right that the organizers are exploiting Evancho’s appeal. But it is unreasonable to make assumptions about what is going on in the head of a little girl. Certainly you have no way of knowing if the girl is “desperate to be accepted by the opera world”. Indeed, you are demonstratively incorrect. She has repeatedly said that she does not sing opera and her parents have indicated that, at the present time, she has no ambition to become an opera singer..

        There is lots of evidence to indicate that Evancho works very hard indeed, and that she does so voluntarily, not because she craves acceptance, because it is in her character. Her ambition to date has been to do as well as singers who appeal to the kind of audience that appreciates Katherine Jenkins. At that she has certainly exceeded. Throughout my life having ambition and working hard were thought to be positive character traits. Were she in the future to decide to become a professional classical singer, there is little doubt that she would work very hard toward that goal.

        Finally, is it possible that with the phrase “real acceptance” you are condescendingly dismissing the many people who admire Evancho, buy her CDs, and attend her concerts? Were she to be accepted by you, I assume that would be real acceptance?

        • Steve Huff says:

          Bristol,

          Elitists wear causes like a fashion label. They are exonerated from participation with a simple declaration of membership. It reminds me of the British Communists during the Spanish Civil War. They ALL called for participation of true patriots of the cause, but of course only George Orwell gave a commitment among the elites. Not only did they wear the war cause as a fashion label, but they declared ownership of that cause. Here we have self declared aficionados who wear their art like a fashion label, and define it so as to preclude any attempt to water-down their exclusive membership. Like the old Soviet Union itself, there were fashion shops for the Party elite, and then there were “shops”. Bristol, we need to know in which shop we belong; their fashionable shops, or Goodwill! Don’t try to slip past the “door-man”.

      • The same old harpy carping makes you look ridiculous. You are irrelevant to any discussion about precocious children.

      • Janey,

        Please don’t go there. You know that what you are saying is false. We both are well aware of the fact that Jackie is not being exploited by anyone, least of all by her Parents. Unless you can come up with a statement from some of the top Music Schools or Conservatories in the World backing up your claim of exploitation, or that Jackie is doing anything harmful to her voice, this part of the conversation is over!

        The tide is turning however, as more and more venues bill her as a Classical Crossover singer like Sarah Brightman. Hopefully the venues got enough letters and emails from her fans complaining about the Opera Star billing being a lie, and that they knew it well beforehand!

        Most of her fans think it hurts her career being associated with Opera or Classical Music because there’s so much unnecessary false claims going around about how Jackie’s career is being miss-managed, and is being exploited! To imply that Jackie wants all of the fame and glory of an Opera Star without having to put in the time, is patently false! It also shows just how little you know about Jackie Evancho. She’s not afraid of hard work, or the challenges it presents. A couple of years from now, she may decide to consider an Operatic Career. I think that if her mature voice is up to the task, fine. If not, she walks away, still happy with where she is, musically. She would still be the greatest pure voice, in musical history, by a wide margin!

      • Bruce C. Desautels says:

        Lady, where do you come off with such clap trap garbage? Jackie Evancho loves to sing, and she sings well — in fact incredibly well. You opera snobs are really something to behold. Envy is a very ugly thing, Janey.

  4. Stephen Runnels says:

    Jackie Evancho is a star in her own right. Despite the admission to the contrary from Jackie herself, some still see her as a budding Opera star. No matter. The fact Jackie is performing once again alongside the elite in their musical profession proves once again just how amazingly special this little girl really is to so many people who truly love a beautiful, ethereal, transcendent voice.

  5. I hope that this turns out to be a good experience for her.

    The more experience and exposure she receives with various genres, quality singers, musicians, conductors and music will expand her knowledge and hopefully, help her make good career decisions for herself as she matures.

  6. Steve Huff says:

    The irony here is that the biggest reception will be for the least revered among the snobs! The buzz will not be about the legions of Mr Norman Lebrecht’s exclusive club, but about a 12 year old girl who sings with heart, passion, real talent, and charisma, who never misses a note! I will be in St. Petersburg on 20 June with two friends. I will applaud all who deserve applause. Even Ms. Hicks! I can’t imagine the opera stage has being violated by a female conductor; where has tradition gone? OMG, have people lost their minds? I think PC has precluded this outrage among the gate-keepers of culture. In my mind they both deserve to be there, they both will be positively assailed with abundant support, applause, and admiration; and Mr. Norman Lebrecht does not have the mind to understand why! Don’t hurt your neck, Mr. Lebrecht, shaking your head when you hear the applause or read glowing reports from real music lovers, not elitists from their worthy lofty perch. I need to ask Mr. Lebrecht, using a typical left-wing dichotomy and “beg the question”; Norman Lebrecht, why do you hate Ms. Sarah Hicks and Jackie Evancho?

    • Right you are Steve….Irony is the popularity of Jackie before she even gets there, thanks to youtube, and the fact she is performing in “St. Petersburg, Russia”…..oh how a little pre-determined freedom has paved the way for such a Child as Jackie EVANCHO…

  7. This should answer all questions about “exploitation” and the opera/popera issue. From a recent Pittsburgh newspaper interview with Mike Evancho, Jackie’s father;

    Asked if the Evanchos had any reservations about going or if they immediately answered yes to the request, Jackie’s father, Mike, said their response was not immediate.

    “First, Jackie has to want to do it and, secondly, it has to fit into the calendar.”

    He noted that it was a unique opportunity and a possible “once in a lifetime” event.

    Noting the “Bouquet of the Opera” theme for the concert, Mike was asked if Jackie will sing opera.

    He responded:

    “Jackie is a classical crossover artist and will be singing her material in the style she currently sings. The Classical Crossover genre itself straddles different genres from pop to opera to classical, so doing an event like this where it is billed as the ‘Bouquet of the Opera’ does not and should not place Jackie in the opera genre nor does it make her an opera singer.

    “Before it was called Classical Crossover, it was known as ‘Popera’, a mix of pop and opera. It’s more about how it’s sung, not what is being sung.

    “It’s no different than when she took part in David Foster’s ‘Hitman Returns’ concert. Just because she took part in his pop concert, it doesn’t make her a pop singer. Same applies with this event.”

    The entire Evancho family will travel to the event in St. Petersburg, Mike said.

  8. The best reaction would have been none at all, to ignore a non-event that does not have anything musically serious about it. Russian oligarchs know as much about music as the silly Evancho fans who will congregate like flies anytime her name is mentioned for some lavish, pretentious affair devoid of any real content.
    The argument whether she sings opera or not is yet another trumped up nothing. Her name should not be in the same sentence as opera, period. Recycling ad infinitum a few arias sung badly like Ombra Mai Fu, Nessun Dorma, O Mio Babbino Caro, with ridiculous diction (spitting out individual syllables) doesn’t make anyone an opera singer, except her fans can jump on the wagon and consider themselves instant experts.
    The bottom line here of course is money. Even Pavarotti couldn’t resist the extra cash gained by association with basketball commercials. I repeat, ignoring this sort of nonsense would have been better.

    • I’m reading a bunch of garbage! Jackie Evancho loves to sing, period. And almost the whole world loves to listen to her sing, period. No matter what she sings, it comes out perfect to the averaged man. Who cares if she can’t be an adolecent opera singer? Who in history was? And like most comments here, it has been repeated and repeated, she does not claim to be an opera singer, so that’s a mute comment. Right now we are listening to an adolecent with an incredible voice, so why not just sit back and enjoy it while it last’s. Which I’m sure will last a lot longer than most of us.

  9. It’s amazing how a group of people who have never heard of Norman Lebrecht are suddenly posting on his blog, singing the praises of the latest craze in Classical Crossover. Clearly, the Evancho Camp has very finely tuned search alerts.

  10. Thomas P says:

    Norman, you’ve done it once again and let loose the moronic evanchomaniancs as you chortle over your biscuits and watch your blog hits go up. Be assured that most of us loyal readers move on when we see your headline (warning?) about “little” Jackie Evancho.

  11. Wanderer says:

    Make no mistake about it. It’s business. And Jackie Evancho is a means of production, of profit making. The young girl has a window of opportunity to be marketed and exploited by probably a couple more years. She will hit adolescence and her voice and body will change substantially.
    Nobody can predict the longterm sustainability of her career simply because of that.
    If she is strong and smart she can develop her talent through the adolescence metamorphosis, but anyone, admirers and agents alike, who claim they see her potential in the long term are either dishonest or fools.

    • And your Degree tells you all of that?….or where did you read that information?….either way…you don’t know Jackie, her Parents or her Manager, …..”if she is strong and smart?…a 12 year old Child? Adolescence Metamorphosis….you do mean when she grows up!, right?
      Potential and sustainability……very simple….stay close to God….and the example she has show, and that of her Parents…her potential is only limited to her desire to succeed….unlimited.

  12. Why is someone “elitist” because they like opera, but don’t like — or to use your words, Steve Huff, “hate” –Jackie Evancho or Katherine Jenkins?
    Fans of those two “crossover artists” are perfectly entitled to like them and love them and go to their concerts, just as everyone else is equally entitled NOT to like them and NOT to go to their concerts, or dare I say “hate” them, if they so please.
    We’re dealing with two completely different genres here and two different forms of music that function on very different levels.
    A heavy metal fan is perfectly entitled to say she/he doesn’t like jazz. A fan of Oasis will probably say she/he “hates” Barry Manilow or Richard Clayderman. Are you going to call them “elitist” for doing so?
    What gets up the noses of people who care about opera and classical music as an art form — listeners and performers alike — are the claims by “crossover artists” such as vocalists Katherine Jenkins and Andrea Bocelli, or instrumentalists Vanessa Mae and Andre Rieu that somehow they’re popularising opera and classical music and “bringing it to the masses”. Or that they’re some sort of self-appointed saviours of opera and classical music. They’re not.
    I’d like to see if there are any serious studies done about how a Katherine Jenkins or an Andrea Bocelli has converted even a single person to Puccini or brought them to opera as a wider art form. Of whether a Vanessa Mae has converted anyone to the violion music of Bach or Vivaldi.
    It just doesn’t happen. And that’s where “crossover” — as espoused by the record companies that dreamed it up as a genre in the first place — is a marketing lie. There is no compiled evidence anywhere to suggest that anyone has — thanks to artists such as these — seen their musical tastes “cross over” from pop and rock music to classical, or in the other direction.
    Surely we’re all adult and mature enough to let people listen to the music that they want to. And if crossover music is what floats your boat, then so be it.
    But if a Barry Manilow were to come along and claim he is “popularising” heavy metal and bringing it to the masses, then heavy metal aficionados would have every right to feel aggrieved and piqued.
    Popular music and classical music also function very differently too.
    Pop music relies on its immediate appeal because it is created primarily to entertain.
    Classical music, on the other hand, like other “serious” art forms, is not just about entertainment. It requires input, hard work and intellectual effort from artists and audience alike.
    An opera singer, a classical musician must undergo long years of hard and relentless training if they are to make a living from their music in an opera company or in an orchestra.
    Similarly, the rewards for the listener or consumer increase the more time and effort she/he invests in listening and trying to understand the music.
    In other words, you have to put something in to get something out of it.
    The operas of Richard Strauss and Richard Wagner, the symphonies of Mahler or Hans Werner Henze may not be immediately accessible at first hearing to someone who has not experienced much classical music before.
    But that doesn’t make opera or classical music “elitist”. It simply means that the listener is required to do some work, too, to appreciate them.
    There will of course be those who argue that ticket prices for opera and classical music are prohibitive.
    That’s a bit of a myth, too. Sure, the top-price tickets at Covent Garden or the Vienna State Opera may be a stomping 150 quid or even more. But there are always cheaper seats available too, and in Vienna they have standing room tickets with the best possible views of the stage for a mere 3.50 euros.
    I haven’t checked, but how much do tickets cost for concerts by Madonna or Lady Gaga? Definitely not as little as 3.50 euros.
    Finally, Steve Huff, I think you ought to check your facts about women conductors in opera. There are a growing number of women who regularly conduct opera: Sian Edwards in Britain, for one.
    And in Germany, Simone Young and Karen Kamensek are both the chief musical directors of the operas of Hamburg and Hanover respectively.
    The list may not be as long as we’d all like, but it’s growing by the day.

  13. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Jenkins formally trained at one of UKs best institutions in classical/opera voice (the Royal Academy of Music)? So, why has she been ostracized from the opera elite? Presumably her choice of a commercially marketable career – the very same which Anna Netrebko pursued yet managed to break into opera anyway. My daughter, Grace, was told when she was 13 that to make it in opera circles she must “go through the right channels within the establishment” (presumably via a Conservatory education system) and that she was to “wait tables like everybody else” (for 10 years), despite many years of private classical and opera voical training. Having researched these “right” pathways, I see most if not the overwhelming majority of graduates still waiting tables long after they hit 30-something not because they are lacking in talent, but opportunity. With so many opera companies no longer offering Young Artist Programs and many others closing their doors, there is clearly a shrinking audience to whom “high opera” appeals, and it is conceivable that to get “bottoms on seats” they rely on artists with big names and popular appeal to pull in people through the box office. I’m not big on Jenkins for classical-crossover, but would love to see her perform in an opera all the same, having heard her sing various arias with absolute precision. Quite frankly, neither Jenkins nor Evancho should have to apologize for being branded “opera singers”. Rather, I hope they embrace it and wear it with pride! They have earned it.

    • Ah, the old Royal Academy of Music myth. Funny how Ms. Jenkins has never actually provided any proof of her “studies” there, either what she “studied” or what she graduated with.
      But that’s by the by.
      Take a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWmNdGQClTo to see whether she sings with “absolute precision”.
      And then take a look at this blog, by Steve Silverman, for an analysis of what is so patently wrong about her voice and its suitability for “real” opera. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stevesilverman/100061641/katherine-jenkins-hasnt-got-the-voice-or-the-technique-to-sing-opera-so-why-does-she-pretend-that-she-can/
      I quote Silverman:
      “This is a ferociously difficult piece that shows off the technique of a good singer, and shows up that of a bad one. It is immediately obvious which category she falls into, as the demands of the aria elicit from her the response of a deer in the headlights. The rapid runs are beyond her, with notes being either smudged together until they are indistinguishable from one another or omitted entirely; she repeatedly loses her support and vocal placement; and the two terrified screams at the end that pass for high Bs are less at home in the theatre than they would be on a labour ward.”
      To compare and contrast, he posts a youtube video of Elina Garanca singing the same aria.
      Even to people who claim they don’t know anything about opera will be able to hear the difference.

      And where on earth did you get your information about Netrebko?

      You say: “Presumably her choice of a commercially marketable career – the very same which Anna Netrebko
      pursued yet managed to break into opera anyway.”

      Unlike Jenkins, who has never performed any role no matter how small in even a single opera, Netrebko trod the boards of the Mariinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg for years under the guidance and mentorship of Valery Gergiev, learning and singing a whole range of COMPLETE roles (not just arias) from Susanna, to Rosina and Lucia before her appearance at the Salzburg Festival catapulted her to worldwide fame.

      To be an “opera singer”, you have to sing operas. That is: complete operas. Not just a few pretty ditties from operas here and there.
      There are countless numbers of hard-working students and young professional singers putting all they can give into real opera careers, who study for long murderous hours and work for a pittance out of love for their art. THEY have earned the label “opera singer”, Not Jenkins or Evancho who are, thus far, merely the products of cynical record companies out to make a few bucks.

      • @Anon,

        Jackie says all the time that she is not an Opera singer. I’ve heard her say it over 100 times, but she has no control over what the Venue does. Perhaps she should look into the legal aspects of what the venue is doing to promote her.

    • As a PS to my previous post:
      1) It must be pointed out that Jenkins and her ilk cannot get by without the aid of a microphone. Even if they were to venture onto the boards of even the smallest opera house — go on, Katherine, we dare you to take up that challenge — you wouldn’t be able to hear them, because they haven’t been trained to project their voices properly.

      2) Jenkins and Evancho are “crossover artists”. As long as they market themselves honestly as such, there’s nothing anyone can say against them. As soon as they themselves start claiming to be “opera singers” or “classical singers”, that’s when they will open themselves up to criticism, for claiming to be something that they are patently not.

      3) Another very knowledgeable and readable blogger on this subject is Saddo abroad, a real life opera singer:
      http://saddoabroad.blogspot.fr/2011/11/i-dont-know-katherine-jenkins.html

      • Matilda Bawden says:

        Go checkout the discreetly concealed mics hidden in Netrebkos hair and clothes, without which one wouldn’t hear her breathing. Contrary to the notion opera singers don’t use mics, increasingly they are, in concerts especially. I went to a State Opera performance in which the leads noticeably had mics, no doubt be jaded the theatre is know to have bad acoustics. No doubt it varies on the venue and theatre and how far the acoustics will carry, but there are scores of videos of Gheorghiu, Te Kanawa et al with mics some short distance in front of them out of obvious camera view. You want examples of poor opera singers, exaggerated diction, etc…;, I adore Gheorghiu, but her performance in “Honouring Grace Brumby” was over the top self indulgent and lacked what I idolize her for – the sheer mellowness and power she knows how to utilize in right measure. Te Kanawa has put out some awful recordings of her in lead roles. Bad performances by internationally renowned and acclaimed opera singers is to be found in abundance, so Jenkins is not alone in that regard. I also love Freni, but heard a dreadful (mediocre at best) recording of her in Madam Butterfly recently, put out by Decca. Yes, student who work hard pay their dues, but let’s not discount and begrudge the hard work a child like Jackie must put in just to keep her label, managers, fans and investors happy and contented. No easy thing to do for most adults. I doubt anyone of us can imagine the difficulty of those pressures.

        • Well, on ALL the occasions I’ve heard Netrebko at Wiener Staatsoper, or her recitals, there hasn’t been a microphone in sight, either for her or any other singers. Ditto for the hundreds of performances I’ve attended there over the years with countless other singers.
          Maybe you’re mistaking the mikes that are there for recording purposes — or for the live broadcasts — for amplifying microphones.
          Jenkins and Evancho need microphones primarily for amplification purposes; you wouldn’t otherwise be able to hear them above a full orchestra.

          • Matilda Bawden says:

            Recording or otherwise, isn’t that the very thing you criticize Evancho and Jenkins? They are also recording artists and their performances are commonly recorded for video and tv. But it’s not hard to scour YT and find scores of “real” opera singers doing the same – not only sopranos but tenors also, including Juan Diego Florez, Lawrence Brownlee and Nathan Granner… None of whom lack exceptional power.

        • @Anon,

          And your point is? Mine is, they aren’t singing Opera, they are singing Classical Crossover!

          • @Russ – in case you didn’t notice Anon was answering a specific comment from Matilda.

        • @Matilda Bawden,

          It’s an easy thing to do when you sell more than a million albums every year. She was the #35 for 2011 on the Billboard top 100, well ahead of many big name stars, and the #1 Artist in Classical. Hey, don’t yell at me, yell at Billboard for putting Classical Crossover in with Classical. I somehow doubt that Jackie has experienced any pressures to date! Jackie has been good for Sony, and Sony has been good for Jackie. It still doesn’t stop Jackie from working hard.

          • Matilda Bawden says:

            Nonsense! Sales figures don’t measure effort or hard work. The best one hopes is that it pays off. Rehearsals, sound checks, school, singing lessons, recording sessions, media interviews, endlessly traveling and then even smiling when you’re sick and tired and having to be “perfect” when dealing with “knockers” and critics or difficult/dissatisfied investors (eg. Label execs, producers, etc) many of whom probably haven’t a clue how much work they really have to put in to stay at the top of their game. I say they work harder than the average Uni student. At the Con’ here I am told Uni students get a little over an hour or two practical vocal tuition in formal classes, which can be bumped up to six if they join a choir. I can bet performing recording artists get double that and more than in tuition and support and experience. This is their full time job and no amount of sour grapes can diminish that there is no such thing as a “free lunch” even for those kids/young artists (though Jenkins is hardly “young”).

        • Wanderer says:

          Sorry Mathilda, but that’s nonsense. Those microphones you see sometimes in singers hair or clothes are for recording, not for sound reinforcement. In regular Opera houses there is no electronic amplification of the voices, except for special effects.

          • Matilda Bawden says:

            Yes, precisely my point! Most of the performances we are seeing are regular theaters, concert halls and outdoor venues and not “regular opera houses” which rely upon big voices and fabulous acoustics to fill the seats at the back and to the top. The opera houses where real operas are performed across Europe are of a vastly different design than those you see here in Australia and most place in the US or UK. Horses for courses!

        • Matilda – if the performance is recorded, there has to be a mic somewhere for recording purposes. But ask yourself: did I hear the sound coming from singers on the stage or did the sound come from the speakers and where were these speakers. The difference between amplified and unamplified voice is very noticeable. In Nixon in China where the composer insisted on amplification, there was an extra metallic sheen and also there was some generality to the sound as it was not coming directly from the stage. There was once an incident in Teatro Real where a performance was recorded, but because of a mistake, the sound was directed to the speakers as well. The audience noticed it immediately and raised hell.

          Amplification is a difficult job. Doing it in a theater built for acoustics is even more difficult as the sound is reflected from the surfaces. On Broadway – ask yourself by the way, if hidden mics are so good, why does musical theater still use the ugly contraptions, there are a lot of rehearsals, a lot of tries, a lot of balancing to make sure that everything works. Doing this in secret is impossible.

    • If one desires to “make it” in opera, the only logical choice is to move to Europe. Germany, for example, has more full-time opera companies and symphony orchestras than the entire United States. And arts funding? The city of Berlin alone tops our nation in support for the arts, and many would have us believe that we spend too much! If one has the talent, one needs to realize what the market will bear and it (unfortunately) is not in the United States.

  14. It’s interesting how Jenkins and Jackie have been paired up and those who idolize one, support the other. My own prediction that given the public acceptance of Katherine’s wide vibrato that one can drive a truck through, the same allowances will be given to Jackie who will eventually fill her shoes, continue her career and not be obligated to slim down her own oscillations. Maybe the popera aficionados are correct, perhaps this is the new vocal technique of the future to replace Bel Canto of the past 400 years!

    • Juiceman the fact you say you “could drive a truck through Jenkin’s wide vibrato” shows you have not heard her sing at all. Her vibrato is not wide at all. When she sings arias her vibrato is so tight and fast I have difficulty listening to it. I much prefer Jackie Evancho’s vibrato which is not too tight not too wide, just right.

  15. Dear Anon, I must correct you. KJ did study at RAM. She graduated from the BMus there with a 2:2 grade. I found the booklet from her graduation ceremony in my locker when I studied there. (There is a story that she was admitted to RAM by accident due to a clerical error and a cellist named Katherine Jenkinson… but that’s for another day.) Just because someone undertakes vocal training does not guarantee they’re going to be good enough to pursue a career in opera. Some people’s voices just aren’t suited to it or don’t have that stamina, or they’re just plain old lazy and unwilling to continue the arduous work.
    Everyone ought to read Steve Silverman’s and Saddo Abroad’s blogs as they are so exact in explaining the frustration opera singers feel when recording artists such as KJ are linked with them.
    I recently made my professional operatic debut and yet I do not feel ready to label myself as an opera singer as I feel I have much work yet to do before I am worthy of such a title.
    Jackie Evancho is a singer and seems to be a sweet little girl. Good for her. She should not however, Be singing Nessun Dorma as the aria was written especially for a grown man, a tenor’s vocal capabilities. That is why no female ought to sing it, nor any baritone or bass. It is the equivalent of trying to chop down a tree with a bread knife. Tenors have the tools to accomplish it, just as only a
    Coloratura soprano has the facility to sing the Queen of the Night’s aria.
    The operatic event in Russia is misleading in its title, as Jackie should not be singing any operatic repertoire at such a young age and before her larynx is fully developed. When there is so much beautiful repertoire out there that is singable and appropriate for so young a voice, I fail to understand why almost every crossover artist feels the need to tackle (and usually fail dismally at) the most difficult opera arias.
    Noah Stewart, a successful opera singer and tenor who has recently released a crossover album does not even attempt Nessun Dorma, as even he is aware of its difficulty.

    • Thanks, Sop1. I humbly stand corrected on KJ’s degree, then.

    • Sop1
      [She should not however, Be singing Nessun Dorma as the aria was written especially for a grown man, a tenor’s vocal capabilities. That is why no female ought to sing it, nor any baritone or bass. It is the equivalent of trying to chop down a tree with a bread knife. Tenors have the tools to accomplish it, just as only a Coloratura soprano has the facility to sing the Queen of the Night’s aria.]

      Does this mean that Dmitry Hvorostovsky and other males (unless castrated before puberty) should stop singing Ombra Mai Fu.

      Should old women stop singing O Mio Babbino Caro. It is meant to be sung by a teenage girl.

      Just trying to find some logic here or are you the song police.

    • @Sop1,

      That’s fine as it’s all your opinion, and you are entitled to it. That does not give you the right to tell her what she should or shouldn’t sing. She has won Worldwide acclaim for her Classical crossover performance of “Neesun Dorma!” She’s more than earned the right to sing it if she pleases. She’s yet to fail at delivering a great performance for any Opera Aria she’s performed to date. She’s not singing Opera, or attempting to sing Opera. She is a Classical Crossover Artist, and that’s how she sings it. Not up to Opera standards, but very beautiful as sung, in her Classical Crossover style. She has the ability to sing this difficult piece with ease, so why shouldn’t she sing it since it isn’t damaging to her voice. Jackie takes a Serious piece like that and makes it suddenly more friendly and accessible to everyone. The attraction is her Beautiful voice! Hey! More than 2 and a half million people can’t be deaf! That’s how many albums she’s sold in less than 2 years! Her Spring and Fall mini tours have been very successful as well, and best of all, she’s has lots of time to be just an ordinary happy and healthy kid!

      • LOL Russ. Each cd was sold to a different person and no fan owns more than 1 cd?

        • @Carmen,

          No, but I would guess that a million a year would be about right. That would allow for about 25% making multiple purchases.

    • Sop1, my understanding is that KJ does not have a music performance degree but a music teacher diploma for the Royal Academy of Music.

    • @Sop1

      “…She should not however, Be singing Nessun Dorma as the aria was written especially for a grown man, a tenor’s vocal capabilities. That is why no female ought to sing it…” There is no reason a Soprano cannot sing ND. Deanna Durbin and Sarah Brightman have sung it and they are Sopranos. Jackie Evancho is also a Soprano and she sings it very well. If you don’t believe that, go to youtube and search her name and Britain’s Got Talent.

    • Wiki says her degree was that of a music teacher not performer. A quick look at RA majors shows that they have two programs for voice – one is “voice” and one is “voice – opera”. It’s not clear which one was Jenkins’ major, but the fact that her degree was in teaching is telling.

  16. Joseph B says:

    Both Katherine Jenkins and Jackie evanchos have great voices wether you call them opera, classic or country… Titles don’t matter. the fact that both have Huge amount of fans is all anyone needs to know to say they are talented. or does going to a fancy school and years of lessons define talent? the facts are that the groups arguing here hold two major differences. KJ and Jackie fans argue with opinion and facts, while nay Sayers argue opinion and ignorance. When I hear people argue a female conductor and why it’s so bad I realize something…….. It is useless trying to show people like jackies nay Sayers anything because morals are on the edge and it might just be time to let go.

  17. HomoSapiensLaptopicus says:

    @Anon

    You said
    “….how a Katherine Jenkins or an Andrea Bocelli has converted even a single person to Puccini or brought them to opera as a wider art form…. it just doesn’t happen…. there is no…. evidence anywhere to suggest that anyone has — thanks to artists such as these — seen their musical tastes “cross over” from pop and rock music to classical….” (edited for brevity)

    You want “a single person” who has been “converted” by a crossover artist? I’ll give you one: ME! I’m not alone, either.

    Yes, i’m one of the unwashed masses who became a fan of Jackie Evancho upon hearing her sing. Listening to her has completely altered my taste in music & singers. I’ve certainly been a fan of virtually all genres of music my whole life, but it happens that before Jackie I was listening mostly to “gangsta rap.”

    I’d never enjoyed opera before, but have now come to appreciate it very much (especially verismo, but other styles as well). As a direct result of being a Jackie fan, I’ve discovered countless singers, dead & alive, that I otherwise wouldn’t have discovered. I’m the proud owner of several Renée Fleming (& other) CDs that I wouldn’t have otherwise purchased. I can hear good & bad singing, & can’t stand the latter masquerading as the former. So yes, I have become a fan of classical singing directly as a result of listening to Jackie.

    @cj
    I’m not sure what cabbagejuice is talking about with his reference to Bel Canto & vibrato. If you want to hear perfect vibrato (JMHO), listen to Enrico Caruso, who was certainly trained in Bel Canto during the 19th century. His vibrato was tight & fast, & he had appropriate control over its magnitude & frequency. I’ve read that the ridiculously wide vibrato we hear in too much of today’s opera (JMHO) spread from Europe to the US during the early 20th century, IDK. I just know that much operatic vibrato is too wide today for my personal tastes (again, JMHO!).

    Sorry to disappoint many of you, but I’m not a fan of Katherine Jenkins, Sarah Brightman or Andrèa Bocelli, so please don’t lump me in with others. KJenk is a very pretty woman who has exploited that in advancing her career, but her vocal talent is modest & her technique so poor as to make her unlistenable (JMHO). You posted a link to Steve Silverman’s comments about her on this blog, & I agree with them 100%. She’s also made it clear (TOTALLY unlike Jackie) that she wants to be an opera singer, & even pretends to be one in public (e.g., as a judge on the British talent show Popstar to Operastar). It’s no wonder she irritates opera & classical fans, & that doesn’t necessarily make them “opera snobs.” (I agree with you completely on this.)

    It’s JMHO that Brightman had more vocal talent than KJenk, but she wasted it with inconsistent technique, & now her vibrato is so wobbly she’s also unlistenable (again, JMHO). It may be unfair to criticise her given that she, with Bocelli & The Three Tenors, virtually invented the modern classical crossover genre, but her technique was always inconsistent (JMHO). Bocelli is pleasant enough when amplified (again, JMHO), but he’s just not up to opera, as his more recent attempts have demonstrated. We’ll never know whether he would have been good enough had he had formal operatic training when younger.

    I can also hear poor or dangerous singing that I couldn’t have appreciated in the past. The most obvious recent example of a pop singer with poor technique is Adele. Having not heard her before our Grammys in Feb 2012, it took me only a few hundred milliseconds to realise how poor her technique is. She’s already had major vocal problems & will continue to do so (JMHO) unless she completely alters her vocal technique. I’ve also been able to hear problems in the techniques of other singers, from the late Whitney Houston to Doris Day, that previously would have been complete mysteries to me. Some say they “leave the voice on the larynx.” They in fact had early vocal deterioration, though drugs probably had more to do with it in Whitney’s case.

    None of this means Jackie Evancho’s technique is perfect, because it obviously is not. She still has a small chin waggle, & in some (NOT all) children this becomes a problem later on. She is sometimes unpractised, & her diction & aggiustamento (vowel modification) need continued work. Her lungs are of course still small. ALL of her problems are improving, however.

    Still, her remarkable ability to communicate emotion (even her detractors must acknowledge the large percentages of her audiences who cry when they hear her) & vocal control make her a very good bet in the long run. Remember, she can sound like anything from a little girl to a mature adult at will, with several gradations in between. She evidently has control over the shape of her vocal tract (starting, but not ending, with dilatation of the hypopharynx) that few adults, & no other children, have.

    Opera singers work on hypopharyngeal (etc) shape for years to develop a low-laryngeal projecting technique, but they don’t always have the control to “change this back” for other kinds of music. Renée Fleming is an outstanding opera singer who also sings very well non-operatically, but Kiri Te Kanawa is another outstanding opera singer whose efforts at singing pop are…. well, not as good.

    Yes, Jackie has vocal control most others simply don’t have. She may have temporary problems as she goes through adolescence, since her “Lamborghini of a voice” means she literally has to “learn to control more things” than other singers. It’s JMHO, but in the long run she’ll do very well.

    (Please forgive me if any American spellings accidentally slipped through. I tried to use British spellings; obviously I shouldn’t have let the all the proofreaders go, LOL.)

    • @HomoSapiensLaptopicus

      HI!!!
      *waves*

      Exhzu, is that you???

      • malibusue says:

        Carmen,

        That’s funny, because I thought the same myself at first. Anytime you see such a verbose response like that of nearly 1000 words it reeks of Ekhzuism. However there are several “JMHO” in there which would be very much out of his character as would the “LOL” at the end. Not the most “H” of her fans.

        Also no rants about anti-Jackie or anti-Jackie-fans, the latter of which I proudly confess membership as I am much more dismayed by the kookiness of her fan base than the girl herself. There’s obviously some talent there and much promise, but too many of her Russ-like fans dominate her fan-perception and her own image, from a PR perspective, and do her far more injustice than any alleged anti-fan could ever hope to accomplish (which is really besides the point since you’d be hard pressed to find any of those critiquing her vocal technique and her exploiters to ever be attacking the child personally.)

        Mr. E has been rather quiet lately. Not so prolific in his writings exclusively about her, which for quite some time spanned 8-12 hour periods every day. He may never want to admit it, after all his voluminous gushing, but I suspect that after attending her S.F. concert and observing her live in person, he’s maybe become a bit disillusioned of the ideal he had of her.

  18. Re: HomoSapiensLaptopicus, a person who was listening almost exclusively to “gangsta rap” now can be an expert in vocal technique thanks to his born-again experience with Jackie Evancho – amazing!
    “I’m not sure what cabbagejuice is talking about with his reference to Bel Canto & vibrato.”
    Indeed!
    ” If you want to hear perfect vibrato (JMHO), listen to Enrico Caruso, who was certainly trained in Bel Canto during the 19th century. His vibrato was tight & fast, & he had appropriate control over its magnitude & frequency.”
    The point is that a natural vibrato in the voice is the result of a free, but nevertheless, well supported sound. One doesn’t have “control” over it. Cornelius Reid’s books, “Bel Canto”, “the Free Voice” although written more than 60 years ago, are still available and can supplement preternatural knowledge on the subject.
    “I’ve read that the ridiculously wide vibrato we hear in too much of today’s opera (JMHO) spread from Europe to the US during the early 20th century, IDK. I just know that much operatic vibrato is too wide today for my personal tastes.” Wow, this is the FIRST time I heard of that phenomenon, the Gulf Stream reversed!
    If you really want to hear “wide vibrato” that is, oscillation of the pitch, wider than string players employ it, then go straight to Jenkins impersonating an opera singer or to Evancho when she bottoms out in the lower range. When this occurs with a child, it is sure proof that something is VERY wrong. Children’s voices should be round and her natural voice at the top where it can’t be manipulated, doesn’t match the rest of the scale.
    How can such an unfinished product be put on the stage, if you yourself admit: “None of this means Jackie Evancho’s technique is perfect, because it obviously is not. She still has a small chin waggle, & in some (NOT all) children this becomes a problem later on. She is sometimes unpractised, & her diction & aggiustamento (vowel modification) need continued work. Her lungs are of course still small. ALL of her problems are improving, however.”
    This silly statement constantly trotted out by JE’s fans: “Tiny lungs” – did you ever hear kittens or puppies scream? And HOW tiny are their lungs????

    • HomoSapiensLaptopicus says:

      @cj

      Actually, I said I was a fan of almost all types of music during my life, but it so happens I was listening to “gangsta rap” when Jackie came along. That doesn’t mean I’d never listened to anything else, or had no musical knowledge before obtaining it “preternaturally” after hearing Jackie. My musical experience includes many years playing multiple instruments, being paid for playing when I was younger, studying music theory in college, & a lifetime of listening to all kinds of music. It just didn’t include OPERA, & not as much classical as in the past, before Jackie came along.

      Sorry to disagree, but outstanding singers DO have control over their vibrato in terms of modulating its frequency & amplitude. That doesn’t mean tension in the vocal tract, or that it doesn’t need adequate breath support & laryngeal musculature. If you compare Caruso’s Neapolitan songs with his opera arias, you’ll hear considerably less vibrato (smaller amplitude) with the former, which is perfectly appropriate for those different styles of music. I’ve heard Renée Fleming say in interviews that some of her directors want “more vibrato, more vibrato” (yuck – JMHO), & highly skilled singers can make those changes.

      I will look for Cornelius Reid’s books, but given the very large percentage of scientifically inaccurate information (i.e. contradicted by modern scientific knowledge) one sees on traditional singing sites on the web, I’m not especially optimistic.

      You (& others?) mentioned Jackie’s wide vibrato & breathy tone in her lower register, so I listened to multiple performances, repeatedly, with multiple sets of equipment, & sorry – I just don’t hear it. It’s obvious on a whole lot of KJenk’s recordings, & on Brightman’s recent work, but Jackie’s vibrato has never, ever been as wide as either of theirs, nor has she had a consistently breathy tone in any register, at least for the past 2-1/2 years. If you disagree, could you please post links to performances where you hear it? Given Jackie’s age, there is considerably more variation in some of her work than there would be in that of an adult, but I simply haven’t heard what you allege.

      Re: small lungs. It means Jackie must take more frequent breaths, & that’s ALL it means. As you no doubt know, when children speak & sing they have much higher pressures in their chests than adults do, so one could say that, in a way, children in general have more breath “support” than adults. This helps them to make the loud, high sounds you reference. Adult singers strengthen their chest & abdominal muscles to maintain higher, child-like pressures, & also have much larger lungs to allow longer phrasing. Jackie is slowly developing the latter; she already has the former.

      • WIth regard to vibrato, I should have explained that this is an indirect process in singing. Sure, one can make a “whiter” sound as what might be preferred in madrigals or to make the sound more speechlike as in musicals where one doesn’t need all the overtones of an operatic sound. (I think you confuse the term and usage of “overtones” with “vibrato”.)
        You asked for a clip as evidence of wide vibrato in JE’s vocal production, although if you can’t hear it, this discussion may be useless. Sorry, but her tones are shaking as fast as her chin.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce9llaLrgBM
        She sings the Ombra Mai Fu higher than she usually does but there is so much wrong with it even though it is in a more comfortable key. Elongating out a single Italian “r” is incorrect (but conceivably the Japanese panel there wouldn’t know the difference anyway). She is not that young not to be able to learn how to do it (Julie Andrews was VERY accomplished at the age of 11) and to sing correct vowels. But more so, she cannot sustain any of the notes properly, probably the reason she is out of synch with the accompaniment.
        “Nessun Dorma” is so inappropriate for her voice, the poor dear is gapsing all over the place:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPrVxP1iRg4&feature=relmfu
        It looks like she is singing higher these days -sensible decision – but the few low notes here are strained.
        What I find very interesting is how the facial expression, mispronunciations, scoops, arm gestures and vocal wobble mimic Sarah Brightman in “O Mio Babbino”:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGN_Vg_xeCM
        JE is talented, has a nice high voice, but should be nowhere near a stage in this condition.

        • HomoSapiensLaptopicus says:

          @cj

          You happened to pick her worst performance of OMF (JMHO). If you’re talking about the opening note, it IS supposed to crescendo & show increased (amplitude of) vibrato simultaneously, not an easy thing to do for even the most technically skilled singers. I’m certainly not confusing vibrato with overtones, BTW, & there is definitely a difference between frequency & amplitude. Yes, you can say “her tones are shaking as fast as her chin” but that is NOT the same thing as a wide vibrato; sorry, frequency does not equal amplitude. This is a wide vibrato from Katherine Jenkins, beginning at ~1:15, but happening many times later on:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdjl5b6tlns
          The difference between KJenk’s wide vibrato & Jackie’s more appropriate vibrato is obvious in many places. No way is Jackie’s as wide as KJenk’s (not that being significantly better than KJenk makes one a great singer – WADR).

          Jackie’s R’s (especially the single ones) are sometimes rolled too much for my ear, but then I listen to native speakers like Corelli or del Monaco, & they roll their R’s like crazy when they’re before or after consonants (as opposed to between 2 vowels, when they are much less prominent):
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUkTKAg7HHM&ob=av2e
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrJC7l5Pn-k
          It’s not always easy for Americans (or Australians, for that matter) to learn the proper degree of rolling (easier for most Brits – JMHO). In the past Jackie occasionally didn’t roll them enough; she sometimes overdoes them now.

          You picked her 1st public performance of Nessun Dorma, well over a year ago, which is a long time for a 12 year old. Like i said, even now her lungs are small & she needs frequent breaths. The head mic she was using then also tended to pick up every one of those extra breaths. Note, BTW, that she was virtually perfect in her degree of rolling her R’s during that performance, both between vowels & alongside consonants.

          OK, you busted Jackie, she has “Brightman arms.” She initially copied her idol, but she has now added her own flair. It’s not like other singers don’t use their arms in recital-type performances outside the opera itself; look at Richard Tucker:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGKTKaddM5s
          (Sorry these links were all to ND; it’s just the way it worked out.) Note that he has some inconsistency in rolling his R’s, both between vowels & adjacent to consonants, & he’s a fully trained, mature tenor. I still like him (JMHO).

          Last year, I had a huge public fight with Jackie’s mother on Amazon (BTW, she has now decided to keep a lower profile & stop posting, an appropriate decision) about the pronunciation of “Dio,” the Italian word for “God.” Jackie has now corrected that pronunciation, as well as several others, in OMBC. She’s virtually perfect now (with the exception of too much rolling of R’s between vowels):
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJvRWI79_I
          Recording quality on this “bootleg” isn’t great, but you can’t accuse her of wobbly vibrato here; the occasional “flutter”-like sound is an artifact of the recording equipment.

          • HomoSapiensLaptopicus says:

            One last point. A great many of Jackie’s critics contend she does very dangerous things with her voice. (I’m not sure if this includes cabbagejuice or not.)

            If you listen to the little Ukrainian girl singer Anastasia Petrik, it’s obvious that she belts & roars in the upper modal register (beginning, e.g., at ~1:15):
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIwRmD8GWI
            These are far more dangerous things for the voice than what Jackie does. Where are Nastia’s critics? Where are those who are concerned about her vocal safety?

          • @HomoSapiens You sure got your ears on backwards. This OMBC is worse than ever.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJvRWI79_I
            First of all, the aria is transposed down (no need if she can sing G6 an octave higher and if her voice is supposedly improving!). She is not in synch with the orchestra at all. The opening is NOT “babbino CAR-o” but “CA-ro”. The gasping is awful, not “belo” but “bel-lo” as in any other double consonant in Italian like r’s (a single r just needs to be flipped, unless there is a good reason not to). “Porta rossa” is trembling like crazy and that is only the middle range. The same goes for “anello:, double “l” here but who cares, most Americans in the audience wouldn’t know the difference anyway.
            Here we go again: “CI voglio an-DAR-eh”. A trained singer would properly feature the vowel: “an-DAA-re”. “E se l’amas- (breath!) -si indarno”, breathing in the middle of a word, WHY? The same for “ma per but-(breath)-tarmi in Arno”, but we are used to that by now, as she did that in Japan.
            “Oh Deo” instead of “Oh DI-O”, (what could possibly be a problem in singing an “i”?) and the rest pretty much indistunguishable.
            I wasn’t bugged by the Jackie cult so much before but seeing how the wool is being put over the public at not such a low price, it’s really disturbing that obvious flaws are not even being attended to since people will buy them anyway. 3000 rubles is about $100, 15,000, the highest price is $500! Meanwhile serious students and professionals have to scrape for a living.
            Also, I do coach my students not to “conduct” while singing. It is a bad habit, especially when the movements are parallel. The whole business is so amateurish and judging by the need to transpose down (that I heard from others), it doesn’t bode well at all.

          • @HomoSapiens You sure got your ears on backwards. This OMBC is worse than ever.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJvRWI79_I
            First of all, the aria is transposed down (no need if she can sing G6 an octave higher and if her voice is supposedly improving!). She is not in synch with the orchestra at all. The opening is NOT “babbino CAR-o” but “CA-ro”. The gasping is awful, not “belo” but “bel-lo” as in any other double consonant in Italian like r’s (a single r just needs to be flipped, unless there is a good reason not to). “Porta rossa” is trembling like crazy and that is only the middle range. The same goes for “anello:, double “l” here but who cares, most Americans in the audience wouldn’t know the difference anyway.
            Here we go again: “CI voglio an-DAR-eh”. A trained singer would properly feature the vowel: “an-DAA-re”. “E se l’amas- (breath!) -si indarno”, breathing in the middle of a word, WHY? The same for “ma per but-(breath)-tarmi in Arno”, but we are used to that by now, as she did that in Japan.
            “Oh Deo” instead of “Oh DI-O”, (what could possibly be a problem in singing an “i”?) and the rest pretty much indistinguishable.
            I wasn’t bugged by the Jackie cult so much before but seeing how the wool is being put over the public at not such a low price, it’s really disturbing that obvious flaws are not even being attended to since people will buy them anyway. 3000 rubles is about $100, 15,000, the highest price is $500! Meanwhile serious students and professionals have to scrape for a living.
            Also, I do coach my students not to “conduct” while singing. It is a bad habit, especially when the movements are parallel. The whole business is so amateurish and judging by the need to transpose down (that I heard from others), it doesn’t bode well at all.

          • @HomoSapiensLaptopicus said:
            “One last point. A great many of Jackie’s critics contend she does very dangerous things with her voice…If you listen to the little Ukrainian girl singer Anastasia Petrik, it’s obvious that she belts & roars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIwRmD8GWI
            These are far more dangerous things for the voice than what Jackie does. Where are Nastia’s critics? Where are those who are concerned about her vocal safety?”
            The range in which Anastasia sings is pretty restricted, but inside of that limited scale, the quality is consistent. She does belt like a Broadway babe (think of “Annie”) but the sound is amplified. And she does sustain her tones without a wobble or gasping for breath even though her lungs of an 8 year old may be smaller than those of a 12 year old.

          • HomoSapiensLaptopicus says:

            @cabbagejuice

            Obviously we’ll have to agree to disagree about a lot here. Jackie’s 1st recording of OMBC, at age 8, was in F. On the AGT show she sang it in Gb, a half step up. On the AGT tour she sang it in the original key of Ab. Since then she’s gone back & forth between Ab & G, more commonly the latter. Key changes are not possible in the original operas, but arias can be sung in different keys as needed when they’re done in concert. Jackie’s not the 1st singer to transpose keys. Even the great Jussi Björling wasn’t above it:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MWWKZksqRU
            Sorry it’s ND again, but he did transpose it down a half-tone to Db.

            On the doubled consonants: yes, spoken Italian requires a longer duration (except S & SS between vowels, where the sound changes from our Z to our S), & some vowels, especially O & E, are modified. This just isn’t always done in singing, which is more flexible. In the prior links I posted to ND, native Italians pronounce “stelle” & “notte” just like if they were spelled “stele” & “note.” Jackie pronounces “anello” just like “anelo” – which, incidentally, is the way Anna Netrebko pronounces it:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0diDwHtATw
            Jackie’s pronunciation of “bello” is perfectly adequate; on the link you posted, she DOES pronounce the 1st one like a doubled consonant.

            Like I said before, we Americans can have trouble rolling our R’s; the roll is usually easier to do at the end of a syllable than at the beginning, so I’m choosing to cut Jackie some slack on “car-o” instead of “ca-ro” (& similar syllables). Netrebko pronounces “caro” the latter way, but with virtually no rolling at all, even though Russians usually having no trouble with this sound. She certainly could have put a roll or two more in there. She also says “an-dar-e,” again with too little rolling of the R.

            Am I nitpicking Netrebko? Yes. Kinda like you’re nitpicking Jackie. I don’t think we should nitpick Richard Tucker either, whose rolled R’s are inconsistent. And there is nothing wrong with the way Jackie pronounces “Dio”; you can clearly hear both vowels.

            Let me repeat again: Jackie’s vibrato is nothing like KJenk’s wobble. Jackie also uses vibrato for emotional expression, varying it considerably more than one would during an operatic performance. If you think the San Francisco performance shows wobble, then (JMHO) you’re hearing recording artifact; the level is set to “auto,” which is obvious during the applause, when the recorder keeps “trying to adjust.”

            The only thing I’ll give you is slight huskiness in the lower part of Jackie’s lower register. It’s unclear whether it means anything at all (it could also be a recording artifact), but it has nothing to do with vibrato, wobbly or otherwise, as you asserted previously (JMHO). It won’t be surprising if Jackie has other problems, either, as she goes through adolescence. She may lose some of her upper register, only to have it return stronger than ever as she gets older. Or she may end up a mezzo, or even a contralto. And those are just the expected changes. Because Jackie literally has “more things to control” than others, it may be even harder to adjust (again, JMHO).

            Over the long run, though, my money is still on Jackie.

            We REALLY disagree about Nastia. What she is doing is indeed dangerous for her young cords. It’s difficult to tell much about consistency across her range because it’s only an octave & a 4th, & she uses only modal (“chest”) register.

          • @HomoSapiensLaptopicus There is no comparison at all between the trained voice of a Netrebko who in the clip you cited, has luscious sounds pouring forth and the daughter of a family who thinks that opera is screechy. If one cannot appreciate quality, say Michelin or Cordon Blue fare, then please go to your cheap hot dog joint.
            The word “opera snob” is being passed around liberally by the JE defenders but they have an incredible inverse snobbery and the nerve to compare great career musicians like Björling or Tucker who took their art seriously to a little upstart who doesn’t bother now to be in synch with the piano or orchestra because she is such a celebrated Prima Donna. All that fame can make anyone delusional, not good pedagogy at all. Instead of making stupid excuses for serious vocal flaws. go and check the internet or youtube and see what 12 year old musicians are capable of. You can start with Julie Andrews at her age singing the tough and tricky Polonaise from “Mignon”.
            However, as Steve mentioned here the irrational idolatry exhibited by her fans usually comes from men, and as I noticed myself, from middle aged or older buffoons.

          • “The word “opera snob” is being passed around liberally by the JE defenders but they have an incredible inverse snobbery and the nerve to compare great career musicians like Björling or Tucker who took their art seriously to a little upstart who doesn’t bother now to be in synch with the piano or orchestra because she is such a celebrated Prima Donna.”

            This is why “JE defenders” are throwing “opera snob” around. This is snobbery. Shes 12 and shes not a trained opera singer so theres no comparison in your mind. You cannot possibly judge her by one youtube recording that doesnt do her any justice, a performance after a month off I may add.
            I saw her with the Fresno Grand Opera (third concert that week) and she was in sync throughout the performance with the orchestra and the Conductor. You cant possibly assert, “little upstart who doesn’t bother now to be in synch with the piano or orchestra because she is such a celebrated Prima Donna.” and then wonder why Jackie fans are using the term “opera snobs”.

    • Opera Magic says:

      Dear Cabbagejuice,

      I have a friend who is a very fine voice teacher, who works marvelously with children. I’ve been to many of the recitals and workshops given by her students. There have been quite a few students in Jackie’s age group (including a 12 year old boy who exquisitely sang the role of the Shepherd Boy in Tosca in a production by the San Diego Opera). None of these child singers ever audibly gulped for air every few notes (or ever audibly gulped for air, period). The ‘tiny lungs” excuse simply isn’t valid.

  19. OC Performing Arts Center has dropped Opera from it’s Venues, even with the wealth that is abundant here. Other genre seem OK at present. There are two theatres, one for music of any sort (about 3000 cap) and a smaller for plays (about 2000 cap). Built in 1987 mostly by one of the local rich land owners/developers. opera seems to be going the way of newspapers, maybe not in Europe though.

    • @rsaba,

      Has there ever been a Child Opera singer? Yes, 10 year old Jenny Lind, debuted in 1830 at the Swedish National Opera. She had a vocal breakdown at 12, and had to stop singing for a few months. At 20 she had a Major vocal breakdown, because of overuse and poor technique. There was so much damage that at first the singing teacher, Manuel Garcia refused Jenny’s request to help her repair the damage It took roughly 3 years to completely re-build her voice from scratch. At 23, she became the legendary Swedish Nightingale, who was recognized as the greatest Opera singer in the world at that time. In 1849 at 29, she retired from Opera, in favor of the Music Halls, and toured the US with P.T. Barnum for a couple of years, earning over 1/3 of a million dollars, most of which went to charity. In 1852, she left the US for good, returning to Europe with her Husband, and semi retired, giving occasional concerts, over the next couple of decades throughout Europe. To this day, she is the only Child Opera Star, in the History of Opera.

      At 10 to12, Jackie is the better singer, and has the better voice. Although both Jenny and Jackie were self taught, Jackie had the advantage of better technique, Better, more watchful vocal health professionals, a broader range, better Vibrato, far superior Passiggio, and a higher high note (G6 as tested by Juilliard in 2010).

      ht*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Lind

      • @ Russ, AKA TheOneJr,
        “At 10 to12, Jackie is the better singer, and has the better voice.” “To this day, she (Lind) is the only Child Opera Star, in the History of Opera.”
        The first is an amazing assertion because there was no recording back in 1830! But there were the Malibran sisters (daughters of Manuel Garcia), Adelina Patti and Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient who debuted in opera at the age of 15, as Pamina in the Magic Flute at 17 and last but not least, as Leonora in Fidelio with Beethoven at hand.
        “Although both Jenny and Jackie were self taught, Jackie had the advantage of better technique, Better, more watchful vocal health professionals, a broader range, better Vibrato, far superior Passiggio, and a higher high note (G6 as tested by Juilliard in 2010).”
        Please refer to my analysis above of the less than acceptable by any standard, performances of “Ombra Mai Fu” and “Nessun Dorma”.
        What you have been trying to prove based on your having read in the 1950′s one bio of Jenny Lind is that Jackie is far superior to the greatest soprano ever known (when there was plenty of stiff competition). Sorry, but JE doesn’t even measure up to Julie Andrews at the same age. Stop trying to make excuses like Jenny Lind had a vocal breakdown (as though this were important in the context of her immensely successful career – the same with Caruso), so that if glaring vocal faults like chin waggle together with a shaking tone, inability to sustain notes and phrases without cutting words in the middle, a vocal scale that doesn’t match from top to bottom, no real lower range, well, this is ALL delusional.
        As for “tested by Juilliard” this was the subject of the first post here on JE, that Juilliard announced as an institution it had nothing to do with her. Leger line G (above the high C) is not so unusual for talented kids as Lotte Lehman wrote in her autobiography.

        • cabbage said: “As for “tested by Juilliard” this was the subject of the first post here on JE, that Juilliard announced as an institution it had nothing to do with her.”

          Actually that is not what Juillirad’s press release said.

        • cabbagejuice says:

          “As for “tested by Juilliard” this was the subject of the first post here on JE, that Juilliard announced as an institution it had nothing to do with her.”

          cabbagejuice,

          Your comments about Ms. Evancho and Juilliard are far off the mark as to what Juilliard actually said. They issued a pres release, where they stated that Jackie was not attending Juilliard, and that she was not a part of their “Pre” program. What you wrote was a pretty far stretch from the actual press release

          • malibusue says:

            Russ,

            But not as far off the mark as your fabrications about Renee Fleming.

            You have zero credibility here.

  20. bob bartko says:

    Why can:t you all just step back and enjoy and be happy for this beautiful talented child ? God bless you Jackie

  21. Bruce C. Desautels says:

    1. Jackie Evancho has never claimed herself an Opera singer. David Foster (her producer) did suggest Jackie may pursue Opera, or pop, or classical, or whatever – but such decision is hers alone to make.

    2. None in Miss Evancho’s family have claimed Jackie is an opera singer. In fact, her father flatly stated she is not. He also said that all Jackie’s performances are premised on two criteria: First, Jackie’s consent; and, secondly, the event not conflict with other family responsibilities.

    3. Jackie’s parents, siblings and kin are extremely protective of her – “exploitation” is not something they would allow on any level.

    4. Jackie is exceedingly diligent in her work ethic; and this is verified by all who know her personally – and it is stated frequently by David Foster.

    5. Miss Evancho’s “fans” are fiercely loyal. Yes, we are quick to defend her honor, as I should expect any decent human being would do for a 12-year old girl whom they see targeted with a campaign of calumny.

    So … Cry havoc, and slip loose the dogs of war! The legion of operatic “aficionados” mans their ramparts! Professional vocalists unite – defend Puccini’s castle! Oh save our sacred house of Opera! We must not allow the dreams of one young girl, nay, not even her shadow, to violate the vestibules of our hallowed altars!

    Defending the “turf” from we heathen commoners requires the aristocrats invent a plethora of pseudo concerns: a zealous regard for the “purity” of their “art;” Oh, the peasants are buying that piece of cake? Ok, feign distress over Miss Evancho’s endangered “instrument” – for surely she is doing irreversible damage to her voice? Oh, the horrors in which we low class are complicit! This young girl, who brings so many adults to tears – emotions, compelled by the sheer power of her innocence – must be protected from the evil machinations of her “exploiters” – and, of course, we delirious fans.

    It matters not that Jackie Evancho derives immense pleasure, and her sense of higher calling, by simply singing to us. In attacking we who believe in her “Dream” – the Pharisees of the stage get to attack Jackie indirectly. If they can quash our “untrained” enthusiasm, then they may succeed in driving Jackie back to the burrows of Pittsburgh – where, naturally, those of “her kind” should remain. Oh, but you will take our money, per chance we may yet fawn over YOUR “perfected” performance. Oh, dare we worship at the altar of the masters! Please!

    What vipers, you enlightened Gnostics of musical wizardry. Think yourselves guardians of the Holy Grail? Your caustic words reveal your calloused hearts. So busy are you in “perfecting” and protecting your precious “technique” of vocal gymnastics that you have waxed cold in your humanity! Perhaps this is why you must “act the part” on stage – to remind yourselves of that which you have forsaken. If the war you wage against Miss Evancho is the reflection of your “greatness,” then let it remain buried in your secret chambers of learned masters and wishful adepts.

    We of the unlearned peasantry, who might have had the impulse to step foot in your “high church” of song, are thoroughly disgusted by these relentless attacks, made by your high priests, upon one innocent young girl. Oh, “phantoms” of the stage – pray, what next? Will you demand blood sacrifice in reparation for our trespass?

    Never have I witnessed such sickening displays of insecurity, insincerity and antagonism, from supposed adults, and for reason that one child might upstage their spotlight. How ironic that the movie ‘House of Flying Daggers’ should seem apropos – for a cabal of character assassins is determined to bury a dagger into Miss Evancho – and any other mere mortal they perceive a threat to their shrinking empire.

    News flash for the hoity-toity paragons of vocal mastery: The “Dream” of Jackie Evancho is far more enduring than all the phantasms your cabal may invoke against her. We of the simple-minded masses may not know the difference between tremolo and timbre; we may not give a hoot about whether vibrato comes from hither or yon, but we do know a class act when we see one … and Miss Evancho has your obnoxious obsession with institutional “technique” outclassed by a country mile.

    Good luck on your attempt to discourage us … but don’t hold your breath – that would be bad technique!

    • warmonger says:

      If ever proof was needed of the sheer paranoia and mental instability of some of Jackie Evancho’s fans, Mr Bruce C. Desautels has just provided it in bucket loads.
      Poor little Jackie Evancho. With fans like these, who needs enemies?

      • Bruce C. Desautels says:

        Chum, you do yourself no good service with that remark. We who admire Miss Evancho are not the individuals who have made a career of attacking 12-year old girls. You and your ilk are the “unstable” sort in this saga — and, however well you may camoflage the intent, the motive is patently obvious: your clan of afficianados fear a child is going to steal your precious glory.

        The only “enemies” Miss Evancho needs protection from are those pathetic trolling clowns — like yourself — who cannot cease harping over her “poor technique” and other perceived “sins” against the false religion you have made out of the performing arts.

        “Warmonger”? Well, of course, the moniker suits you well. Less we digress from the antagonism that is central to this ongoing contest of wills: It was your ilk of insolent trolls who first invaded every YouTube site having a J.E. clip, just to post defamatory rants against a child.

        Sniveling cowards, such as yourself, are quite able to attack little girls; but, like the typical bully, when somebody finally gets in your face, you cannot take what you dish out.

        Warmonger, you forget the axiom: “The agressor sets the rules.” Your cabal of snobs invaded our realm, and drew first blood … Turnabout is fairplay, chum.

        • I’m finding here that Jackie herself is actually a lot less interesting than Bruce, and the others like him.

          I see perfectly well what she is – a sweet, talented girl who clearly means well, and who could have been a wonderful singer as an adult. Unfortunately, she caught the attention of a huge and powerful marketing machine, and so any chance of a normal career is more or less out the window. I neither like nor dislike her. I just see her for what she is, and that doesn’t really interest me.

          But Bruce! From a socio-psychological point of view, you’re fascinating!

          Why does Jackie attract men like you (and why do they always seem to be men)? Why do these men persist in attaching certain attributes to her – industriousness, purity, decency, family values, humbleness, etc.? Why do you idealize her innocence in this way?

          One wonders if in real life you are somehow threatened by the sexuality of women.

          And by the way, the ‘Opera Snob’ attack doesn’t work. Those of us who really know something about classical music can immediately distinguish the hype from someone who has arrived at success by traditional means. Jackie may be a real artist someday (if you would all leave her alone), but she sure ain’t one now.

          • Well said Steve. I agree 100% with what you are saying.

            I honestly think these fans do her an enormous disservice. Why does a child singer have this type of fan base?

          • Steve,

            Guessing from Bruce’s spelling ability, I don’t think he knows a whole lot about anything except maybe pick-up trucks with gunracks in the back.

            I’d guess that his infatuation with Jackie is due to having lived in WV his entire life.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            Steve:

            “I’m finding here that Jackie herself is actually a lot less interesting than Bruce, and the others like him. I see perfectly well what she is – a sweet, talented girl who clearly means well, and who could have been a wonderful singer as an adult. Unfortunately, she caught the attention of a huge and powerful marketing machine, and so any chance of a normal career is more or less out the window. I neither like nor dislike her. I just see her for what she is, and that doesn’t really interest me.”

            RE: Your attempt to back-peddle is laughable on its face, and quite insincere, considering the lengths you and your acquaintances have gone to besmirch Miss Evancho, those whom promote her talents, and her supporters. Did you forget that Jackie chose of her own free volition to take up this venture? It is her “dream” – not yours; but how charitable of you to determine the future of her success with a “normal career.” No bias there, I am certain.

            First was the false pretense – Jackie Evancho, the alleged “opera singer.” Alleged by whom – the Evanchos? David Foster? Who of consequence in her affairs made such assertions? Not one. These assertions were fabrications published by those in your corner. From that glaring falsehood, your fellow travelers took liberties to build their case against Miss Evancho. If she had made such claim, or had any in her immediate circle made such claim, then this avalanche of “expert” testimony have relevance. Since the premise is false, there is no rationale for the ensuing inquisition that you and your clever drones have since prosecuted. This spectacle, drummed up against Jackie Evancho’s qualifications to sing a few fairly well-known opera classics, is without justification. I note that you do not pillory her for singing Christmas carols or other popular music; but only take your liberties against her venturing into your territory … This fact alone gives weight to the charge of elitism.

            The more I read, the clearer the picture becomes.

            The envy against Miss Evancho earning money through the use of her talent (however you may grade its quality), grates on your bones – as it would for any elitist. You seem to believe that because your craft, when pursued as a professional career, requires “years of training and sacrifice,” therefore any “novice” attempting to sing from its repertoire is akin to one practicing law or medicine without a license. By your logic, no soul should ever sing a note of another’s composition, no matter the genre, for reason they may even slightly alter its rendition.

            All pretenses aside, the bottom line is money; or rather, it is about your envy of another’s gain. That a prepubescent girl should earn, in a matter of months, more income than you likely earn in a year – and do so without “paying dues” to the masters of the craft – is more than your ilk can accept. Worse, that she is even considered, let alone invited, to participate on the same stage among the “purists” of the craft! That Miss Evancho holds the ear, not only of the common man, but that she attracts the attention of “big shots” and world leaders – this is an insufferable insult for those of polished and privileged egos.

            Now, on to your more interesting and revealing attempt at slander, Mr. Psychoanalyst (Who is it now that practices a craft without license? Pot, meet kettle)…

            “But Bruce! From a socio-psychological point of view, you’re fascinating! Why does Jackie attract men like you (and why do they always seem to be men)? Why do these men persist in attaching certain attributes to her – industriousness, purity, decency, family values, humbleness, etc.? Why do you idealize her innocence in this way?” One wonders if in real life you are somehow threatened by the sexuality of women. “

            RE: I have suspected from the beginning, but restrained my charge, that you and your fellow elitist aficionados were a gang of progressives. Up to this point I did not make the assertion. Now I will.

            The litany of “attributes,” of which you apparently think unnatural tendencies, is yet still held by a majority as being laudable characteristics. The fact that you impugn them as unnatural reveals signals your true colors. First, I take note that the Evanchos are practicing Catholics, as am I; and, being such, we esteem industriousness, purity, decency, family values, and humbleness – as a matter of faith. And as opposed to the prideful egotism you and your elitist company have used to bludgeon we “common folk.” Particularly, your thinly veiled attempt to mock “purity” and “innocence” is telling. These are noble and desirable traits, particularly in a young girl or woman, but also in a man, as they represent the highest order of creation. Therefore your insinuation of sexual dysfunction carries an implied calumny, considering the age of the young lady at the center of this discussion. Less others wonder that it is you who entertains and seeks to project such thoughts; I must strongly protest that you retract the remark.

            “And by the way, the ‘Opera Snob’ attack doesn’t work. Those of us who really know something about classical music can immediately distinguish the hype from someone who has arrived at success by traditional means. Jackie may be a real artist someday (if you would all leave her alone), but she sure ain’t one now.”

            RE: If there be “hype,” sir, it is you and yours that own it – and down to the last syllable. All the subterfuge of harmful technique, poor enunciation, poor pronunciation, etc … All of it is bull crap, since the initial charge against Jackie Evancho is a trumped up pretext, having no merit whatsoever. Again the envy within this quotation is impossible to ignore. “Leave her alone”? You truly have no shame. Those who enjoy the talent of Jackie Evancho, were content to do so quietly – until your legion of “know it all” elitists scaled the ramparts in full battle dress, determined that there must be no peace while this girl is allowed to freely roam the stages of the world, and do so without your imprimatur.

            You should have held your peace – for it is written: a wise man has something to say, but a fool must say something. Again, you chose to draw first blood, friend.

    • And what florid prose. Like a bad Victorian pirate novel. I love it!

      • Bruce C. Desautels says:

        Have no proper rebuttal, eh, Steve? I must be dead on target. Thought so.

        • Bruce, it’s been fun, but I’m not going to waste any more time on you. I’m glad you have found something in life to be passionate about (even if that something is a 12-year-old girl). But will you still love her when she grows up and stops looking like a greeting card angel?

    • Bruce,

      Thy naivete knoweth no limits.

      1. Jackie Evancho has never claimed herself an Opera singer. David Foster (her producer) did suggest Jackie may pursue Opera, or pop, or classical, or whatever – but such decision is hers alone to make.

      Jackie Evancho will decide to be whatever David Foster (her producer) tells her to decide. How many life decisions have you ever seen a 12 year make on the basis of their life experience and inherent wisdom?

      2. None in Miss Evancho’s family have claimed Jackie is an opera singer. In fact, her father flatly stated she is not. He also said that all Jackie’s performances are premised on two criteria: First, Jackie’s consent; and, secondly, the event not conflict with other family responsibilities.

      Of course nobody claimed Jackie is an opera singer. She couldn’t even pass as a half-decent Zerbinetto.

      The “other family responsibilities” being counting and spending the money Jackie brings in?

      3. Jackie’s parents, siblings and kin are extremely protective of her – “exploitation” is not something they would allow on any level.

      Of course not. Love of music is their only motivation they know.

      4. Jackie is exceedingly diligent in her work ethic; and this is verified by all who know her personally – and it is stated frequently by David Foster.

      Of course David Foster states that frequently. He’s her producer, isn’t he? He can’t very well tell the press that Jackie spends most of her time being his cash machine.

      5. Miss Evancho’s “fans” are fiercely loyal. Yes, we are quick to defend her honor, as I should expect any decent human being would do for a 12-year old girl whom they see targeted with a campaign of calumny.

      I can just see you on a white horse in shining armor, Bruce. There’s a difference between calumny and pitying child exploitation. I’m sure you’d defend the honor of little kids everywhere in the 3rd world who work in the fields, weave rugs or do other kinds of manual labor from when they’re 8 years old. Unfortunately, they don’t get the fat checks that Jackie gets (i.e., which her producer and her parents administer as her mentor and guardians).

      Hold your dogs. The more fitting quote is “I would my father look’d but with my eyes.” “Rather your eyes must with his judgment look.”

      • @TomV,

        I would like a word about your answers to Bruce. My answers to you are numbered 1-5 just like your post.

        #1 “Jackie Evancho will decide to be whatever David Foster (her producer) tells her to decide. How many life decisions have you ever seen a 12 year make on the basis of their life experience and inherent wisdom?”

        Jackie does not decide to be whatever David Foster tells her to decide. She wouldn’t be the respected artist she is today if she allowed that to happen. A very wide degree of “Creative Control” says a lot, but so does the way she’s “Pulled Rank” so to speak, by exercising that Creative Control! she’s fair, objective, willing to listen and consider other people’s options.

        #2 “Of course nobody claimed Jackie is an opera singer. She couldn’t even pass as a half-decent Zerbinetto.

        The “other family responsibilities” being counting and spending the money Jackie brings in?”

        Jackie is not an Opera singer. She’s 12 years old and I see no point in your favor by trying to compare her to Elizabeth Parcells or Beverly Sills, and it’s Zerbinetta’s aria from “Ariadne auf Naxos” by Richard Straus. not Zerbinetto’s.

        As far as “other family responsibilities” go, you have no idea what the facts are. You have no way of knowing how much she makes, or what the Evancho’s do with any monies, so you are just making that up!

        #3 “Of course not. Love of music is their only motivation they know.

        Jackie’s Love of music is a very compelling reason for her to want to sing. This is a decision that Jackie made, when she was 8 years old, and she’s very good at it, but not by your elitist standards. In spite of people like you, she has no plans to stop singing!

        #4 “Of course David Foster states that frequently. He’s her producer, isn’t he? He can’t very well tell the press that Jackie spends most of her time being his cash machine.”

        Once again, no facts, only conjecture on your part. You have no way of knowing how much money David Foster has made because of Jackie, so it’s just another made up lie!

        #5 “I can just see you on a white horse in shining armor, Bruce. There’s a difference between calumny and pitying child exploitation. I’m sure you’d defend the honor of little kids everywhere in the 3rd world who work in the fields, weave rugs or do other kinds of manual labor from when they’re 8 years old. Unfortunately, they don’t get the fat checks that Jackie gets (i.e., which her producer and her parents administer as her mentor and guardians).

        Hold your dogs. The more fitting quote is “I would my father look’d but with my eyes.” “Rather your eyes must with his judgment look.”

        Yes Jackie’s fans are fiercely loyal. That’s because, unlike you they are all good people that understand what respect means, and they hate to see people like you trying to muddy her good name and excellent reputation.

        Here we go with the child exploitation again, and again all you have is cynical witticisms. You can’t back up a single one of your words with facts. You need to accept some responsibility for all the garbage you spout! If I was your father and looked in your eyes, I would be extremely disappointed in what I saw. Then again my children were raised properly, you weren’t! They’ve known not to tell lies, since they were toddlers. They already know that telling lies has consequences, and it always catches up with you!

        • Bruce C. Desautels says:

          @Russ

          Thank you, sir. I did not bother to respond to TomV, as I thought him not a very honorable man, considering his purely envious rant, short on facts and long on presumptive venom.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            @Russ Thank you, sir. I did not bother to respond to TomV, as I thought him not a very honorable man, considering his purely envious rant, short on facts and long on presumptive venom.

            Bruce,

            You are more than welcome. I think on this Blog, there are few attempts at Honor by the regulars, except if your name is in the Social Register (do they still print that anymore?). What get’s me is all the sneaky crap these people actually do pull. Look how they bad-mouthed “The Fresno Grand Opera”, after they Hired Ms. Evancho to give a concert there. I called all my friends in Fresno and told them all that Jackie thrives on the feedback she get’s from her audiences. I told them all, that if you like what you hear, be sure and let her know it. It was a two way love affair, from the opening note I wonder what they thought when “The San Francisco Opera” hired her as did Copley Hall in San Diego. Jackie’s sung at a bunch of other Opera Venues as well, but I need to go look up the names. Got to dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s around here.:)

            Hearing her live is Everest, and you are Sir Edmond Hillary! “The Jackie Evancho Experience” (as I call it), is amazing. As good as the BluRay of her PBS DWM Special is, it doesn’t hold a candle to hearing her live. It seems, you can’t record Heart, and that’s what Jackie is all about. No gimmicks, no electronic wizardry, just her pure voice, her love of God, her family, friends, and a gentle Heart to put it all together with!

        • malibusue says:

          Russ wrote:
          “Yes Jackie’s fans are fiercely loyal. That’s because, unlike you they are all good people that understand what respect means, and they hate to see people like you trying to muddy her good name and excellent reputation.”

          Russ,

          Like you did with the garbage you spouted with your fantastical story about Renee Fleming?

          If only your good children taught YOU not to tell lies.

          If you speak for Jackie’s fans, they need a new spokesperson. You have no credibility here.

          • malibuse,

            I have no credibility here? With all the liars from your clan here, and you tell me that I have no credibility. besides, I can’t help it if Janey is to stupid to read simple English. Of course, no one wants to read, when they don’t agree with what someone says here. not only that, I never made a direct quote because I explained that this was just bits and pieces that came out over a period of about 4-5 weeks. If people like Tim Page were so correct in their assessment, why was the article in question sanitized by WaPo? When it comes to people like the members here, I prefer cockroaches!

    • Opera Magic says:

      Please stop using David Foster as an example…Yvie Burnett too. Foster is an entrepreneur who as far as I can determine knows nothing about opera or classical music. He is a musician and recording producer who has worked exclusively with pop, rock, and popera performers. Burnett’s bio says that she sang with the Welsh National Opera and a couple of other opera companies as a “soloist”, yet I can find no recordings in which she participated or list of roles that she has sung. Was she perhaps in the chorus of these companies? She uses a very controversial vocal teaching method that is used almost exclusively by a few rock and pop performers. I find myself agreeing with the opera/classical singers and voice teachers who are overwhelmingly voicing concern for Jackie’s voice.

  22. Janey says:

    Renee Fleming insulted Lisa Evancho because the family doesn’t like opera? If that is Mrs. Evancho’s contention, I do not believe it. When would this have occurred?

    Realistically, I think asking the girl who sang O Mio Babinno Caro if she likes opera is a logical and expected question from the country’s leading opera singer. I am surprised that the Evanchos are not opera fans if it is true.

    I am most surprised that they are talking out of turn about Ms. Fleming, if what you say is true.

    Janey,

    Is it possible that you somehow can’t read properly? If English is not your native language, I apologize. Do you make it a habit to misquote other people? Let me take this one point at a time and maybe you can explain to me, how you managed to get it all so wrong.

    “Renee Fleming insulted Lisa Evancho because the family doesn’t like opera? If that is Mrs. Evancho’s contention, I do not believe it. When would this have occurred?”

    Wrong! It was Rene Fleming who was insulted, not Lisa Evancho. Lisa said that they don’t like Opera, it’s too screechy, and Rene threw a fit. This happened shortly after Jackie finished second on AGT. You were 100% right not to believe it because you somehow understood it all backwards! My original statement read: “Ms. Fleming asked if Jackie liked Opera, and she took exception to Lisa’s answer, and took it as a deliberate insult.” Where does that sentence say anything about Lisa being insulted by anybody?

    “Realistically, I think asking the girl who sang O Mio Babinno Caro if she likes opera is a logical and expected question from the country’s leading opera singer. I am surprised that the Evanchos are not opera fans if it is true.”

    The problem with this statement is that the question was not asked of Jackie, it was put to Lisa, who doesn’t sing, and knows very little about Opera. When it was time for Rene to really shine as the US Ambassador of Opera, Ms. Fleming chose to lose her cool instead! I contend that this was deliberate on the part of Ms. Fleming, because all the questions Ms. Fleming asked Lisa were Loaded, intended to provoke a response, no matter how innocent the answer. I don’t think that Ms. Fleming knew or understood that Jackie sang Classical crossover! I believe she deliberately provoked the incident because of that! I think the whole ugly episode had a very profound effect on Jackie’s view of Opera and Opera singers in general. I don’t think she wants any part of anything so Elitist! Besides, there is no way in the world that you could ever turn Jackie into an Opera Snob.

    “I am most surprised that they are talking out of turn about Ms. Fleming, if what you say is true.”

    This last sentence of yours is meaningless, because you somehow managed to misunderstand everything I said!

    • Janey,

      In the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, in the AGT days, Lisa Evancho is quoted as saying, when asked if the family attended the Pittsburg Opera, that something very close to ‘no, opera sounded shrill and unappealing to them.’

    • Renee Fleming “threw a fit” at the Evanchos? I wasn’t aware Ms. Fleming even knew how to throw a fit. If she did, I’d imagine her Lucrezias and Armidas would have been better!

      I do wonder what types of conversations are going on at these fan sites about Renee. How are all of these supposed details public knowledge if they were between Fleming and Lisa Evancho? What is Mrs. Evancho saying?

      On the other hand, judging by your previous comments, most of what you wrote is probably fabrication. And that will be my final word on that issue.

  23. “Renee Fleming insulted Lisa Evancho because the family doesn’t like opera?”

    This poster made a mistake, I believe. Please disregard this.

  24. Good Lord! Another “wunderkind” getting hyped and promoted by a greedy management company and impressarios with dollar signs in their eyes.

    We’ve seen this “cute little girl singing like an angel” act with Charlotte Church already. Where is she today as an artist? Sure, she did get rich off her cute little girl singing act, but is recently more known for having a potty mouth, acting like a spoiled diva and not really producing anything that has any artistic quality or otherwise.

    When little Jackie gets into puberty and stops looking like an updated version of Shirley Temple, she’ll get get dropped by her managers like a hot potato, because they will have found the NEXT cute little girl who sings like an angel.

    In my opinion, her parents’ allowing her to be exploited for their and the music biz’s enrichment should be reviewed by a family court for breaking child labor laws.

    I have seen her show on TV, and find her theatrical gestures are highly disturbing. They remind me of Linda Blair’s performance in The Exorcist. Seeing and listening to her perform Nessun dorma gives me the shivers, because listening to this aria, written for a mature tenor (singing in a real opera, for those who don’t know) comes close to a 19th century circus freak show.

    I realize that nothing can be done now to help this poor child have a normal childhood and perhaps blossom into a singer with a lovely sound and good technique if properly coached. This wunderkind phenomenon has been around since Mozart, after all – and he suffered mentally from the exploitation by his father too later in life – so as long as there are people willing to be duped by cute little singing girls.

    Her hysterically devoted fans in the comments above must have a fixation on dolls which they have carried around since their lost childhood. All I can do is shake my head and pity the poor girl and switch the channel when she appears on TV after I have allowed myself the thrill of horror watching her for 2 minutes.

    Let’s hope that Jackie Evancho at least comes out of this show with some decent money in the bank in return for the psychological damage.

    • catmando says:

      you and the other detractors are completely irrelevant to Jackie Evancho’s life and career. You cannot influence even a smidgeon of either one. All you can do is sit at your computers and whine like little children, while Jackie will bring more awareness to Classical music than you ever will.

      • Sure catmando, sure. Keep telling yourself that.

        I couldn’t care less about Jackie Evancho’s life and “singing.” I am just offended by the way adults can exploit little kids.

  25. @ Russ

    Since when did O mio babbino caro and Nessun dorma become classical crossover???

    I must have Rip van Winckle’s syndrome.

    • catmando says:

      When Deanna Durbin, Sarah Brightman, Katherine Jenkins and Jackie Evancho decide the arias would sound good by themselves in a concert. Any aria a Classical Crossover singer feels he or she can sing is fair game. Notice that none of them have ever sung in an opera. They are NOT opera singers, no matter what the media may say, and they themselves don’t claim to be such.

      • Deanna Durbin was different in that even though she didn’t sing in operas, she had excellent singing technique. I don’t know if she could have sung in operas as I am too young to have ever heard her live, but when she sang arias, she sang them with excellent breath support, diction and phrasing. She would never dream using “but I am not an opera singer” as an excuse for wobble or lack of artistry.

      • What the heck is this “classical crossover” baloney? Is it like 007′s “license to kill” (good music with bad performances)?

        Katherine Jenkins has amply demonstrated that the bel canto arias she picks are ones she CAN’T sing properly. Don’t even get me started on Sarah Brightman….

        If you’re not an opera singer, why the blazes would you want to sing operatic repertoire? It just makes these “crossover” singers look ridiculous. Especially when they compensate for their lack of talent and singing ability with over-the-top TV productions that would have made Ziegfeld laugh himselt to death over their folly.

        “Crossover” singers should sing “Dominique, Dominique.” Italian folk songs or something from The Sound of Music. Julie Andrews had a lovely voice, and was intelligent enough to know that opera was not her field.

  26. The Truth says:

    I have read most of these comments and had a chuckle or two at some of these real Opera fanatics comments on why Jackie can’t sing in a whole Opera because her singing it is not up to proper traditional Opera standard . I really doubt it was her singing a classic song that the people enjoyed, and voted for when Jackie was on AGT . It was the way she sung it. Yes, I am sorry to say this but it was her voice, and style of singing that people enjoyed even if it was adult sounding. When she sang “O mio babbino caro” it was not only pleasing to the ears, the songs meaning was felt by me the listener. I know If the same song was sung by Jackie the traditional way with the ear piecing, headache causing squealing voice. She would of been knocked out from her YouTube audition because most music listeners don’t like that style of singing. The small fan base with Opera proves this. I am sorry to say this but traditional Opera style is dead to most of the outside world. Only the small group of people who does not like change is keeping the old standard going. Renee Fleming is really not that great in my opinion or even heard of by most people, Her singing style has no feeling in it at all. I listened to her version of “O mio babbino caro” and did not feel anything emotional with the song. If I did not know the lyrics, or know why it was being sung I would of thought it was a happy song judging by the way she was singing it. I know I will be bashed saying I am just a Jackie fan but in reality If it was not for Jackie, I would have no interest in opera songs.

    • Actually, O mio babbino caro is not a sad aria. It comes from a comic opera. Do you know the context? I’ll tell you – an old man dies and greedy relatives find a will that leaves all the money to charity. They want Gianni Schicchi to help them figure out how to circumvent it. Gianni Schicchi’s daughter Lauretta loves the boy, but his family wouldn’t allow the marriage unless Gianni Schicchi figures out a way to help them. So Lauretta begs Giaani Schicchi to help them telling him how much she loves the boy and how she wants to marry him. yes, at the end she threatens to throw herself into a river if he doesn’t do it, but it is questionable if she means it or is just manipulating him. Not to mention that until this last threat, when she tells him about her love, she is a girl happily in love. Sure, at the end she tells that she is suffering, but she is a teen in love not a dramatic tragic heroine, and she is most likely manipulating her daddy without having any intention of following up on her threat – how many teens threatening to kill themselves if they don’t get their way really mean it? The daddy agrees, and as nobody else knows about the fact that the old guy is dead, Gianni Schicchi lies on a bed pretends to be the dying man and leaves all the money to himself. So now that Gianni Schicchi is rich, the boy’s relative agree to the marriage. happy end. So no, Lauretta isn’t sad at all, she might pretend to be at the end of the aria.

    • The Truth, it strikes me that your world is very, very small. That must be why you don’t realize that you really don’t speak for the entire “outside world”.

      • The Truth says:

        I can’t speak for the entire outside world, just like you can’t make the outside world look larger than what it really is. Unless you meant to say Outer Space? If so you could include aliens from another planet in your post to try and make my world look smaller.. I can’t speak for them either.

        • TheTruth said “I am sorry to say this but traditional Opera style is dead to most of the outside world.”

  27. Facts please!

    Can someone please cite the media interview, news\blog article, forum posting or any other source anywhere that states or even remotely implies that Renee Flemming “was” (not “could have been”) insulted by a statement made by Jackie’s mom Lisa Evancho?

    Anyone? No? Why not? Could it be that because such an assertion is a complete fabrication entirely made up by one overzealous, emotionally misguided fan (or maybe their doppelganger) to imply a personal relation to the Evancho family that only exists in their fantasy realm, not reality?

    Attention Jackie Fans: you really really liked it when Lisa was actively posting at your favorite forum didn’t you? Hmmmm. Wonder why she doesn’t anymore. Could it be because of this kind of improvisation; obsessive fans supplementing their limited knowledge of Jackie’s actual personal and professional life with public embellishments to suit their own imagined or desired scenarios? Isn’t that what happened with the whole “Jackie training at Juilliard” brouhaha, which many Jackie fans admonished Mr. Lebrecht for referring to, forgetting who was the original source of that was?

    In my opinion this is just another, albeit all too common, example of the unhealthy emotional attachment and compulsion many of Jackie’s elderly fans have toward her personage.

    Jackie is indeed a talented child and deserves much better public representation of her fans.

    • catmando says:

      I agree with pretty much everything you say. We do have fans who are “overzealous” in their devotion to Jackie. Most, like myself, are indeed grandparents who feel protective toward Jackie because her parents won’t let her come on public websites and blogs like this one and defend herself. We feel we have to do it.

      However, cooler heads among us have convinced most of us to back off and that’s what we’re doing. We have had our say and you can accept it or not.

  28. malibusue says:

    Bruce,

    Like so many little-Jackie fans you seem to have quite the appetite for contrived outrage. So much so that you twisted the context of Steve’s remark so that it appeared as an inference about Jackie instead of her fans such as yourself.

    “One wonders if in real life you are somehow threatened by the sexuality of women.”

    The key word in that comment is “women”, Get it? As in adult females.

    The “leave her alone” remark is also not at all off base. Despite fervent protests against exploitation\deprived childhood concerns, no group is more reluctant to allow Jackie to be her own person and develop naturally as a child than this tribe of fans whose sentiments you espouse.

    Nowhere was this more evident than in the reaction to the backstage Boston AGT Tour video in which Jackie is recorded calling another child a “retard” and talking of dating a guy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkia6HzRqj0

    Such an uproar this caused among the Jackie fanatics that it prompted a concerted effort to suppress the availability of the video on YouTube, Facebook and elsewhere and the urging of fellow fans not to discuss it anywhere. Why? To most stable-minded observers, this was just a typical incident of a little girl being a kid, though certainly not befitting the pure, humble, angelic ideal that such fans have unfairly imposed upon her. It was most likely the delusion crushing “dating” remark that prompted the call to arms. Can’t have that thought in their mindset ever, so off go their spin-doctors in full force.

    Yes, if only such neurotic fans would leave Jackie alone, she might actually have a fighting chance. I believe these types, self-touted as devoted fans and protectors of little girls, are her real worst enemy, not opera fans, music critics and social commentators.

    • Bruce C. Desautels says:

      You, sir, are gravely mistaken about how I took Steve’s attempt to slander me with a thinly veiled innuendo — His assertion was plain enough: accusing me of being a stalker or a pedophile … That is how I judged his remark, and think it not an unreasonable interpretation. I did not take his statement as being directed towards Jackie Evancho, but only as one more example of his cowardly attempt to accuse me of something perverted. That is why I took um bridge to it.

      Regarding the J.E. AGT incident, which you write of: I honestly do not care, since the inccident is not relevant to my original point — and only point: the unfair personal attacks, made by your contemporaries, on a 12-year old child; and these judgments all based on a fabricated pretext — that Evancho considers herself on par with professional opera performers. Rubbish. That is the only reason I am “outraged” to the point of seeing the necessity in defending her against this onslaught of irrelevant comparisons, all of them made by those who seem to have more of an axe to grind about her success, rather than what was ever warranted by her “bad technique.” Since the girl does not think herself in the caliber of the professional opera singer, or even close to such, then why all the “contrived outrage” by your circle of critics? Your clan seems to be spoiling for a fight. As I have stated several times, It is those within your circle who drew first blood — and then you have the audacity to be amazed at the reaction you rightly receive?

      For my part in this circus of fools, I will only reaffirm that enjoy Miss Evancho’s singing, whether it meets your standards or not … I really do not give a damn that my doing so offends your refined sensibilities.

      I am only wont to point out that the vitriolic jabs at Miss Evancho’s “technique” are over the top, considering she never directly stated, implied or pretended to be anything more than a girl who likes to sing classics. That’s it. Period.

      You and your associates have attempted a smear campaign, without just cause. That has been, and remains the only point I have made on this subject, no matter all the subterfuge that Steve and his friends have attempted to obfuscate that point.

      Individuals, such as Steve and a few others, seem content to cross the boundaries of decency. That attitude only serves to exacerbate an already ridiculous argument.

      That is all I need state on the matter. For my part, this discussion is over.

      • Aw, Bruce. Please don’t take ‘um bridge’. It’s all in good fun. But don’t go away without answering my question (above).

        • Bruce C. Desautels says:

          Steve: “Bruce, it’s been fun, but I’m not going to waste any more time on you. I’m glad you have found something in life to be passionate about (even if that something is a 12-year-old girl). But will you still love her when she grows up and stops looking like a greeting card angel?”

          RE: Again, as I previously stated, sir, your inference suggest that you have a twisted mind. Typical to the liberal ability to be contradictory within two adjacient sentences, you first assert that you shall “not … waste any more time …” on me, but then proceed to ask me a question!

          To answer: First, I “love” Jackie’s talent, as being one of God’s gifted creatures — just as I “love” the talent of Miss Susan Boyle … and she is no “greeting card angel” by any stretch. But go ahead and entertain yourself with your perverted imagination. That is what I expect from a classless poltroon such as yourself.

          And now, sir, I am going to take you — and the rest of your conceited clique — to “the wood shed” … as we say in these parts:

          The Mind of the Liberal Elitist –

          Much of the commentary, written here about Miss Jackie Evancho, so perfectly presents the liberal mindset, as to exemplify its overarching character: Establishment “overlords” hell bent on determining how others must live their lives; and yet simultaneously – and in typical contradictory fashion – they reserve for themselves the most exaggerated liberties. Not that their opinion should be thought altogether misdirected; but rather because, unlike more circumspect individuals, their hyper sense of infallibility never allows that their opinions might be wrong. This is the crux of the controversy ginned up towards Miss Evancho, which, so far as presented here, is more pretext than substance.

          How generous are the self-proclaimed “experts,” to decide what is best for Miss Evancho. Truly, this is a most presumptive group of critics. With stupefying unity of purpose they each, without exception, judge what is best for Jackie Evancho and her “threatened childhood,” while they revile and dismiss the slightest contradiction of their judgments. These opinions they repeat ad nauseum, undaunted by the fact that this girl has oft stated the objective for her own childhood: “to live my dream!” But self-determination was never compatible with the progressive mind. Their profound arrogance leaves me to wonder how any of these obnoxious egoists managed to survive life to this point without getting the crap kicked out of them. Then again, I doubt that those within their circle would suffer themselves to be in the company of any but their kind. The “privileged” always know what is best for the rest of humanity, just ask them. Humility is not a trait they admire – unless it is directed to them, of course.

          The self-proclaimed “experts” haunting this blog claim to know better than Miss Evancho’s parents and those who are directly involved in her life on a daily basis. The “experts” here are wont to direct how things must be done with this child, as if they were intimately familiar with her situation. After all, they are “experts” in whatever subject they determine to discuss – from musical theory and singing technique, to parenting skills and child psychology! If anybody is guilty of “child abuse” it is this presumptuous clique of clowns pretending to know how another’s life should unfold. They have the answers to Miss Evancho’s life decisions – and that of every being that may approach the circle of the self-anointed masters of everything. Long ago, I was given the definition of the term “expert,” and it is most applicable here: One who knows more and more, about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing!

          The elitist snobs demand we commoners follow their prescriptions; but then they opine boldly, and without sense of contradiction, the “right to choose” whenever their own ox might get gored! Wherever the conceited interest of the elitist is involved, no man’s liberty is safe.

          Once in a while, they do expose themselves – as for example, the commentary made here that Miss Evancho is an “upstart.” How gracious their “concern.” Perhaps for some, their concern is genuine – but it is obvious that many of her critics contrive anxiety so to disguise the bitter contempt that plagues the liberal mind. But then these attitudes they focus not only upon Miss Evancho, but also they hurl the poisonous invective against any who may threaten their religion of privileged conceit, as proudly practiced in the dominion of the “experts.”

  29. people are pathetic of say all this shit about Jackie, all young musical prodigy has not failed, Charlotte Church was surrounded by bad people, she was not lucky

  30. germanoperafan says:

    At the end of the day, it all boils down to this:
    the self-proclaimed Jackie Evancho “fans” on this blog cannot accept that there are people on this earth — discerning music and opera listeners — who aren’t taken in by the PR machinery and the judge a 12-year-old girl’s voice for what it is: a 12-year-old girl’s voice with all its limitations and imperfections, pretty and promising though it may be.
    Instead of taking on board the very valid concerns and criticism of people — professional vocalists, teachers and people who are concerned about the psychological and emotional welfare of a 12-year-old girl who is very seriously at risk of being exploited by, and ultimately discarded, by a ruthless, profit-obsessed PR industry — these “fans” and “supporters” heap endless verbal abuse and obscenities upon anyone and everyone who dares offer any criticism whatsoever; who justifiably question the motives of Jackie Evancho’s family and a management that is seemingly prepared ton put a young girl at risk simply out of greed and profit; or who simply have the temerity to say they don’t like the product “Jackie Evancho” and prefer opera and serious classical music instead.
    Jackie Evancho is not the first child star with raw talent, a talent that — given proper care and tuition — could be nurtured and developed into something lasting and special. (It’s highly unlikely that she’ll ever become a real opera singer. But that really doesn’t matter.) She won’t be the last. What her so-called “fans” and “supporters” seem to be ignoring — to Jackie’s peril — is that many such child stars have ended up on the human scrap heap, emotional wrecks who die tragically early due to drug or alcohol abuse.
    No-one — not the opera buffs, nor the music critics — are denying Jackie Evancho’s right to make a career out of music if she so chooses, but only when she is old enough and independent enough to make such a choice for herself.
    Why can’t all these “fans” and “supporters” understand this?

    • @germanoperafan,

      When you can show a few Major Music schools or Conservatories willing to make a statement against what Jackie is doing because it’s harmful to her vocal health, or that she is being exploited, I’ll be perfectly willing to listen to what you have to say. If there was a problem with the way Jackie does things that would cause her to have vocal problems, these schools and conservatories would be outraged. None of them are! These are the Scholars themselves, the best of the best, yet not a word. You would have to believe that they would know a great deal more about “damaging flaws”, or “poor technique” than anybody here does! I’m also sure they would have a pretty good idea if Jackie was being exploited or not, as well. I don’t believe that any of these schools and conservatories would turn her down, if she applied there. Frankly I think she could wind up at the Royal Academy , in Toronto Canada. Jackie did say that she hopes to live in Toronto some day, the last time she was there, although she could go virtually to any school or conservatory her heart desires. There’s even been rumors that she will be recruited in Europe. Imagine the prestige for the school or conservatory she chooses to attend, if she so desires. They won’t be choosing her because she’d a cute little girl, they will be choosing her because she’s unbelievably talented. So you all just sit around and tell lies and half truths and twist people’s words . It really doesn’t matter because you can’t change history. In the end, despite all your whining and nay-saying she will still be successful, at anything she chooses to do with her amazing voice!

      • tiredofitall says:

        Russ, “discussion” with you is really becoming extremely tedious. Do you — in any one single sentence of your latest attack of verbal diarrhoea — offer any intelligent response to even just one of the many valid and legitimate points made in the blog-entry you’re supposedly responding to?
        No. You don’t. You simply churn out the same old tired phrases in endless repitition.
        I know the ability of participate in and carry on intelligent debate isn’t one of the strengths of many Evancho-lists who have very limited intellectual capabilities and who find it difficult to grasp a sentence that is made up of more than four words — especially when some of those words contain more than two syllables. But they really would serve their own cause much better if they would at least try to come up with coherent, logical, well-constructed, grammatically and orthographically correct responses, instead of all these endless torrents of drivel and abuse.

        • @tiredofitall,

          You say i don’t offer any intelligent response to even just one of the many valid and legitimate points made in the blog-entry you’re supposedly responding to?

          First of all, I seriously question the many claimed “valid and legitimate points”, made in the blog entry I responded to. I thought I made a very valid point in pointing out the fact that that none of the worlds greatest music schools or conservatories have had a single word of caution or warning for Ms. Evancho. I think it very presumptuous of you to think that there are people on this blog that are learned enough to contradict all these great schools and conservatories, because they have never said a negative word about Jackie Evancho, or how she is managing her voice and career.

          someone here once claimed that Jackie wasn’t talented enough to gain admission to any of the top schools. Honestly, I laughed myself silly at that one, because when she is ready, she will be able to choose any school or conservatory she desires to attend. No Prestigious school is going to turn her down. She would be “The Crowning Jewel” for any music school or conservatory that signs her. That’s not based on hype, it’s based on superior talent!

          • malibusue says:

            Russ wrote:

            “I think it very presumptuous of you to think that there are people on this blog that are learned enough to contradict all these great schools and conservatories, because they have never said a negative word about Jackie Evancho, or how she is managing her voice and career. “

            I have to agree with another observation Steve made: that Jackie’s fans are more interesting than she is, and will add to that: much more adorable as well.

            Of course Russ, until Jackie’s critics perfect the art of contradicting statements that were never made, they have no place doubting her “superior talent”

      • But Russ, that argument makes no sense. Why would a major school or conservatory suddenly make a statement about Jackie’s vocal technique? Do you really think they would want to be embroiled in a public discussion like this one? Besides, you would just argue with them, too. Let’s face it – you know you would.

        • Steve said:

          “But Russ, that argument makes no sense. Why would a major school or conservatory suddenly make a statement about Jackie’s vocal technique? Do you really think they would want to be embroiled in a public discussion like this one? Besides, you would just argue with them, too. Let’s face it – you know you would.”

          Steve,

          You answered your own question, No, they wouldn’t want to become embroiled in a public discussion like this one. I still don’t believe that they wouldn’t say something if Jackie was doing something harmful to her voice. It would be very easy to do without becoming embroiled in any controversy. A simple press statement regarding concern for Jackie’s vocal health, with no reply, would do it.

          I’m not sure why you would think I would argue with them though? Their job is to turn gifted, talented artists into brilliance. I don’t see any way I could argue with people far more knowledgeable, about Jackie’s voice and her vocal health than I will ever be! I’m certainly not learned enough to challenge their judgment, so no, I wouldn’t argue with them!

  31. malibusue says:

    Nowhere was this more evident than in the reaction to the backstage Boston AGT Tour video in which Jackie is recorded calling another child a “retard” and talking of dating a guy.

    @malibusue,

    The first thing is, kids Jackie’s age use words like ‘retard’. I think it’s a bi-product of Day care, along with several other words kids that age use. Kids have been using that expression for over 60 years, so it’s nothing new. I’m quite sure Lisa spoke to Jackie about it, and since we’ve never heard it since, I would say that Jackie got the message! it also has a completely different intent, when it’s said in that way by one child, to another. You must be the only one who didn’t get the joke it was intended to be, when she said she was “dating the guy from Studio A”. The faces she made while saying it, were a dead giveaway that it was a joke.

    The video has been up since December of 2010, so I don’t how was it suppressed? Funny, I’ve never heard of an attempt to suppress it!, and I’m on YouTube a fair amount, in many categories. All I can say is your viewpoint is a very narrow, and intentionally limited one! In other words, you are trying use your viewpoint to make a case, where no case exists! These are just normal children acting like today’s normal children act.

    • malibusue says:

      Russ,

      It’s amazing how your reading comprehension and selective memory works with regards to something written just one day ago versus events you allege to have happened two years ago between Renee Fleming and Lisa Evancho which you claim to know in detail.

      As I previously mentioned: “this was just a typical incident of a little girl being a kid”

      I completely understood the context of that video, though when the topic of it reappeared a couple months ago many in your tribe of Jackie worshipers were none too pleased and did indeed make an “effort” to have it removed from YouTube and Facebook, but obviously failed.

      I was almost encouraged by your response here to that topic, thinking: at last, you’ve finally accepted that Jackie is a normal child, and therefor not some immaculate angel who is sweet, humble and gracious at all times and embodied with supernatural powers that will allow her to surpass the consequences of her vocal techniques…..but only to read in a subsequent post your mention of her “superior talent”

      You also wrote: “I’m quite sure Lisa spoke to Jackie about it”

      Given the context of that circumstance, why would she? Or more on point to some of your musings here, how is it that you are quite sure? As another poster here alluded, I think you need to keep the Jackie related events occurring in your dream world private and not relate them in publicly accessible discussions as if they were factual.

  32. @Russ

    AGAIN, what did Renee Fleming do to hurt the Evanchos, exactly? Specifics please.

    You said, “Just ask Rene Fleming! In a stupid fit of Opera Snob, she has ruined any possibility that Jackie will ever pursue an Opera career!” [sic for capitals]

    You also said that Renee Fleming “threw a fit” after being “insulted” by Lisa Evancho. That is what you said. Reread your own comments.

    I think it’s fairly obvious that you’re fabricating the whole thing. It saddens me that some of Jackie Evancho’s fans have decided to attack Renee Fleming. The fact is – she is one of the greatest singers in the world. Little Jackie is not. That is the truth, no matter how much you attempt to defame Fleming.

    Sadly for Jackie’s fans, I doubt she’s even on Fleming’s very full radar. Ah, but perhaps that is the problem.

  33. The Truth says:

    I really don’t understand whats going on with all of the outrage. Is she really a threat to Opera? Is there some hidden conflict that is really not spoken of publicly but exists behind the curtain? Is this the true Opera scene? It reminds me of the movie Happy Gilmore when a hockey player entered the golf scene and the elite golfers thought it would ruin the sport . Some of these comments that I have read makes me wonder what I stepped into. It just might be something that existed for a long time but was only known to those who followed. This type of setting shown here ( team Edward or team Jacob) exists on almost every blog or forum in every search. This gives me the impression that it is scene related. I always thought it was about the music but it is clearly not in this culture.

    I will be seeing Jackie in June. I purchased tickets a few months ago within the first 6 rows to see the show.This will be the first show that I have ever went to without electric guitars playing loudly through amplifiers. My friend thinks I am nuts for going but what he does not know is I have a ticket for him too.I have seen many Rock bands from the eighty’s to now but for some reason I’m nervous on this one. Could it be I have stepped off the familiar trail too far, or is it change.

  34. wake you Jackie’s style is “Classical-Crossover”

    I would note that the site of the same name, Jackie is everywhere on top: http://www.classical-crossover.co.uk/awards/user-trophies.html

    • I watched that site and before Jackie came along the highest vote for any artist was well under 25,000 votes, By the end of last years voting Jackie reached 125,000 vote and no one else was even close.

      • Richard: “I watched that site and before Jackie came along the highest vote for any artist was well under 25,000 votes, By the end of last years voting Jackie reached 125,000 vote and no one else was even close.”

        That’s woundeful, but who cares??? Folks can vote multiple times which fans do often for their favorites.

        Jackie is talented, but sometimes some of her most devoted fans go way way overboard.

        Lets also be somewhat honest, if Jackie was lets say 21 instead of 12, do you really believe that she would be getting this same level of attention? IMHO NO WAY! .

        • Opera Magic says:

          Dear CR,

          “Lets also be somewhat honest, if Jackie was lets say 21 instead of 12, do you really believe that she would be getting this same level of attention? IMHO NO WAY!”

          I have to agree with you about this. The main reason Jackie gets so much attention is because the is 12 and she artificially produces a mature vocal sound. If she were 21, she would be soundly criticized if she sang the same way she does now. This statement isn’t meant to be unkind to her. It’s simply the truth. Actually, when child performers reach adulthood, they often get a rude awakening because they are then suddenly competing with other adult performers who are as good or better than they are. What was unique at 12 is nothing special at 21. Again, I’m not being abusive to a 12 year old in saying this. I’m telling the truth…and Jackie fans, don’t tell me that Jackie might see what I’ve posted. Her mother makes sure Jackie only sees what her adoring fans post. I do hope, however, that her mother also shields her from some of the more demented and vicious things some of her fans say.

          I also agree that some of Jackie’s fans go way overboard. They confuse popularity with greatness and go on and on listing all of her sold out performances and multi-million dollar CD sales. All this means is that she’s popular.

          She might have what it takes to have a wonderful career as an adult opera singer, but we’ll probably never know as her mother has made sure that Jackie knows how horrible opera is. This talented child should be allowed to make up her own mind about what type of music she eventually wants to sing (provided bad technique doesn’t bring her career to a screeching halt before she even reaches adulthood), free of the influence of her mother who makes statements like, “We don’t like opera”.

          • richard carlisle says:

            @OM

            Is there a problem with anything going on here: a perfectly legal campaign by the Evanchos that piles up millions of dollars …. and if they wait for a few years and come out then with Jackie’s better-trained voice they would have an uphill battle making any sort of living as everyone seems to agree.

            Why not let the Evanchos have their fortune– they’re earning it more than a lottery-winner ever could; maybe they’ll make better use of it than the average lottery-winner as well.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            Not disagreeing with anything you stated here, (Amazing, isn’t it!) — except your last assertion (presumptive conclusion). You make a rather grand extrapolation from this one statement made by Lisa Evancho. Mom may “not like opera” — but it is a stretch to imply “therefore Jackie will be prevented from” entering into training to follow a career path in opera. Even David Foster has stated that the decision of what form of music Jackie may ultimately pursue is her own choice to make. So, let’s not go off on a wild tangent about Jackie’s future (Hell, I won’t even do that!) Anything is possible, and particularly with this girl.

    • The Truth says:

      Thanks for the link.

  35. The grammar on here is appalling. If you’re going to argue, could you please use spell-check and remember rules of basic sentence construction?
    There is no way that anyone- yes, anyone- could say that “Jackie will be accepted to any conservatory that she wants to apply to” or that ” (she) will be recruited” by a top conservatory, at this point in time. While instrumentalists often have quite a bit of performance experience under their belt by the time those conservatory auditions roll around, singers do not, and they are not supposed to. The voice is a living instrument, and as such is very fragile and subject to any number of injuries. Top conservatories and teachers do not want students who have ingrained bad habits and since so much of singing is muscle memory, it can take years, and in many cases it is impossible, to retrain a body and a voice to work properly. While this youngster may look pretty now with her long curls and fluffy dresses, all of the surface trappings won’t mask years of singing with bad technique and poorly manufactured sound; and all those “extra breaths” that she has to take to attempt to sing pieces far beyond her current abilities will become second nature and lead to yet more problems that could well become permanent bad habits. The same with the incorrect pronunciations when singing in other languages. We’ve all known cute kids with a lisp (and NO, I’m not saying that this young lady has a speech problem)- “Wabbit” is adorable at age 4, but if not corrected, how many would think that word coming out of a 20 year old is cute? There is no way that a 12 year old, who has already been performing for half of her life, COULD sing with great technique, so one is left with two real choices: A) let her continue on and make piles of money singing to misty-eyed grand parents, invest the $$ so that she is set for years to come, or B) stop before any more damage can be done and let her make the decision when she reaches her junior year in high school and begins to compile her list of potential colleges.
    Jackie Evancho is a kid, for heaven’s sake, not an angel singing on a cloud. Let her be a kid, take piano lessons, and begin voice lessons with a good teacher when she is 14, maybe attend a good pre-college or summer program. She can take some music theory and ear training too. Then, if she wants to apply to a conservatory, she can learn the required audition rep and join that year’s pool of applicants. Like it or not, sopranos are the life blood of music schools, so she’ll have to be good enough to gain admission based upon what is heard in the studio on that day of the audition, just like everyone else. What she did when she was 12 isn’t going to matter a whit, nor should it..
    And by the way, why would anyone make an absurd comment about Jackie attending the RC in Toronto ? A little girl says that she “might like to live in Toronto someday” and you have her packed and moved?! I wanted to be an oceanographer at that age, but I found that I get sea sick and detest sand- kids have all sorts of wishes and dreams, that’s a CHILD’S PREROGATIVE! Please stop trying to predict the future for this girl; she will never be able to live up to the expectations that the well-meaning older folks are, even if unwittingly, making for her.
    Mr. Lebrecht, you may thrive on controversy, but please think twice and then twice more before you feel compelled to print anything more about Jackie Evancho. In doing this you’re contributing to the exploitation of this child and the more press this one gets, the more “creatures of media” that will be created to step in when she ages out of the ” cutsie” stage.

    • tiredofitall says:

      Hear, hear.
      Well said that man.

    • I just hope Jackie doesn’t turn to her parents someday, and say where do I go to get my childhood back.

      • Charles Hoff says:

        What kind of “childhood” for her is in your mind’s eye? An LCD scenario of M-F school, singing in the choir, giggling with friends about , putting-up with bullying (she is of small stature for her age), and the pervasive nature of public schools to discourage stand-out excellence?

        Jackie has a lovely home in a semi-rural area outside of Pittsburgh, a loving family (some of whom are always with her when she’s away from home), numerous pets, and a well-grounded moral structure. She excels in her studies in on-line school, and exhibits a more thoughtful and correct speech mannerism in interviews than most adults. And the bottom-line is that she truly enjoys what she is doing. She enjoys the applause, and pleasing her audience above all. That’s what makes it fun for her. The positive feedback, and positive reinforcement are what drives her. Nothing else. Lisa Evancho has stated that the moment that singing isn’t enjoyable for Jackie, she will shut-down, and not sing. But it is enjoyable for her. She’s living her dream.

        David Foster crossed company lines to produce Dream With Me (something almost unheard of in the music industry). He’s also included her in his “David Foster & Friends” show on numerous occasions. Tom V call Jackie his “cash-machine”, but that’s so far off-base that it’s beyond laughable. The list of music, entertainment, sports, political, and financial figures (with reputations and money far beyond “needing” Jackie) that continue to INVITE her to perform keeps growing by the day. Go figure.

        Robert Redford and Susan Sarandon discussed seeing Jackie’s guest appearance on AGT last summer, and he *invited* her to audition for the part of his daughter in his upcoming movie “The Company You Keep”. He cast her immediately.

        She was *invited*, now a second time, to perform for Muhammad Ali’s CelebrityFightNight Parkinson’s Disease charity function. Ali first saw her while attending a David Foster Foundation Gala in Toronto.

        Donald Trump *invited* Jackie to be a part of a private David Foster & Friends concert at his Mar-A-Lago resort, and subsequently booked her solo concert at his Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.

        She was *invited* to sing for “Chefs For Seals” in Beverly Hills, and subsequently named spokesperson for the Humane Society of the U.S.

        Jackie was *invited* to sing at the Boca Raton Festival of the Arts 2011, where she sang along with “The Young Stars of the Met”.

        Jackie was a subject on the ABC 20/20 program “Special Powers: Super Humans”

        Though Sony Music underwrote the production costs, PBS’ Great Performances lent their name and reputation in producing the “Dream With Me In Concert” program. This had proven to be one of the most successful pledge-generating programs in PBS history. Local PBS outlets who had delayed or poo-poo’d showing it at all were scrambling to get it on the air after the initial broadcasts caused phone-banks to be swamped every showing.

        Jackie appeared on the Oprah WInfrey show, was *invited* to sing at Oprah’s private birthday party, and was requested by Oprah to appear in the farewell show.

        After two shows with David Foster & Friends in Japan, Jackie was *invited* back on her own to sing in a show celebrating the grand re-opening of the Bunkamura Orchard Concert Hall. Her own sold-out solo concert there followed a couple of days later. While there, she was also *invited* to sing for the Japanese Royal Family.

        She was *invited* to sing at the National Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony, and made enough of an impression on the President and his family that she was invited back to sing for the National Prayer Breakfast and Dinner…an event attended by many major international political and religious figures. Jackie and her mother were seated at the head table.

        Tony Bennett thinks enough of Jackie to share the billing with her at Ironstone Amphitheater this coming August 31st. He obviously doesn’t need to do this for money, reputation, or for any other reason other than wanting to.

        Her summer concert tour of 2011 was extremely successful, with her playing to sell-outs, or near sell-outs at every venue. No flashy lights, booty dancing, gimmicks, or other distractions. Just a small girl with an amazing voice and delivery in front of an orchestra. Maestro Constantine Kitsopolous (from the Boca Raton Festival of the Arts) thought enough of her to accompany her on tour, and conduct each performance.

        There are many more examples than I have listed here. And the list of invitations that the Evanchos have to turn-down because of scheduling, and their own enforced time-off requirements for Jackie, is even larger.

        And finally the subject of this blog: Jackie being *invited* to sing in St. Petersburg along with two great stars of the opera during a major international economic conference. Someone there, with a great responsibility to present the finest program possible, has decided to include 12 year old Jackie Evancho – untrained, unpolished, and patently undeserving of the honor – at least by the writer (and some of the commenters) on this and a few other increasingly insignificant blogs, who think that she should be at home playing in the yard. All of the above listed disagree with you. So do I.

        Norman, have you obtained a copy of the “Dream With Me” CD yet? Have you sat down and relaxed with a glass of wine, and really listened to it like I suggested? If not, I’ll be glad to send you one.

        • Charles Hoff says:

          The text editor removed part of a sentence in the first paragraph. It should read “giggling with friends about (insert name of pop-singer here),”

        • Bruce C. Desautels says:

          Wow! Best commentary I have read yet. Thanks for sticking it to these elitist snobs. The best revenge is to be successful — and dear Jackie will be so, and long after most of these presumptuous old has-beens are molding in their graves.

    • catmando says:

      OC I’m only going to say this one time.

      1) Jackie is NOT hurting her voice. She is a lyric Soprano and as such sing naturally sings in a high register on the music scale. She can sing Nessun Dorma as well as Concrete Angel and not strain her vocal chords. Two Otos have already given their blessings to the vocal range of her music selections.

      2) Jackie is NOT being exploited. She CHOOSES to sing professionally. It is what she has wanted to do for three years. But her parents have said if she wants to stop she can stop. She and her older brother can go back to day school, her mom will go back being a housewife, and her father will go back to the home security business he had before all this exploded for Jackie. I don’t think that will happen though, as much as her detractors would like it to.

      2) Oh and I bet Julliard would be glad to have Jackie as a student. She could study piano, violin, songwriting, voice, whatever she wanted to do.

    • Opera Magic says:

      Dear OC.

      Thank you for your insightful post. As you can see by catmando’s post and other posts by Jackie’s musically uneducated fans, her fans by and large just don’t get what you’re saying.

      “1) Jackie is NOT hurting her voice. She is a lyric Soprano and as such sing naturally sings in a high register on the music scale. She can sing Nessun Dorma as well as Concrete Angel and not strain her vocal chords. Two Otos have already given their blessings to the vocal range of her music selections.

      2) Oh and I bet Julliard would be glad to have Jackie as a student. She could study piano, violin, songwriting, voice, whatever she wanted to do.”

      These statements by catmando (who, judging from the writing style is probably Russ) tell it all. Nobody who knows anything about singing would make comments like these. The above statements stem from ignorance.

      You, OC, obviously know a great deal about singing and vocal training. I applaud your rational and educated comments.

  36. malibusue says:

    BTW Russ, since you failed to come up with any citations supporting your claim of conflict between Renee Fleming and Lisa Evancho, it looks like someone else went looking, and this is what they found from archived Amazon forum postings.

    [***
    Posted on Jun 29, 2011 6:31:14 AM PDT
    L. Evancho says:
    "Since speculation was brought up, here's the story on Renee Flemming. jackie's manager said that she had expressed an interest in meeting jackie. They skyped in a "get to know you" fashion. Renee was curious about jackie's interest in singing, but nothing indepth was mentioned. Renee did not sit there a rave about jackie nor did she say anything negative. It is my understanding that there may be an opportunity (renee's schedule is filled for many years to come) for jackie to sing with her or at one of her engagements in the future. This was a long time ago, so I don't know where things stand right now. She is a very busy woman."
    ***]

    Russ, I believe you owe Renee Fleming an apology, as well as many others for misleading them.

    And again, please keep your fantasies of Jackie’s life to yourself.

  37. richard carlisle says:

    In wasting time and energy with exhaustive discussions on the exact nature of Jackie’s flaws, I would like to point out her critics would likely HATE her if she performed perfectly… she’s young and inexperienced and if lacking flaws she would have no chance to improve in the future– a lamentable situation!

    What SHOULD be addressed is the sad fact “Classical crossover” has been employed as an appropriate term…. think about it– who is crossing from what to what? Answer NOBODY… rather a meeting somewhere between opera and pop is going on here, and there was an appropriate term used previously: POPERA, which describes perfectly the mixing of two genres rather than “crossing” from one to another.

    If somthing as foolish as this has been allowed to take place, forget all the other issues that are so trivial as to be almost completely uninteresting.

    And as for Jackie’s invitation to Russia, just keep in mind that life is a popularity contest rather than a technicality contest– proven simply by the fact Renee WASN’T invited.

    • Bruce C. Desautels says:

      “And as for Jackie’s invitation to Russia, just keep in mind that life is a popularity contest rather than a technicality contest– proven simply by the fact Renee WASN’T invited.”

      LOL … You get the second prize for that observation … Sorry, but Charles Hoff’s commentary took first place!

    • It pains me to say this, but her pretty little 10 year old soprano voice now sounds exceedingly screechy and shrill itself, like the opera singers her mom hates, except some can hear that it is a voice in decline. She has lost that pure, open sound reminiscent of a boy soprano, the sound her fans responded to. She sounds, as someone er pointed out, not at all ready for performances, and those $100-$250 tickets for her concerts, well, what a rip off.

      • It pains me to say this, but her pretty little 10 year old soprano voice now sounds exceedingly screechy and shrill itself, like the opera singers her mom hates, except some can hear that it is a voice in decline. She has lost that pure, open sound reminiscent of a boy soprano, the sound her fans responded to. She sounds, as someone er pointed out, not at all ready for performances, and those $100-$250 tickets for her concerts, well, what a rip off. carman

        Carman I suggest you stick to working on cars instead of music criticism. You will make more money and show yourself more educated.

        • catmando says:

          “It pains me to say this, but her pretty little 10 year old soprano voice now sounds exceedingly screechy and shrill itself, like the opera singers her mom hates, except some can hear that it is a voice in decline. She has lost that pure, open sound reminiscent of a boy soprano, the sound her fans responded to. She sounds, as someone er pointed out, not at all ready for performances, and those $100-$250 tickets for her concerts, well, what a rip off. carman Carman I suggest you stick to working on cars instead of music criticism. You will make more money and show yourself more educated.”

          catmando,

          I believe you accidentally sent this to me instead of Carman. :)

        • Interesting comment. I won’t pretend to know much about singing or music, only to be fascinated by some aspects of it, such as the voice of this child, other singers, various musical instruments and the question of what it is about them that captures people’s attention and interest, including mine.

          Right. That said, I have noticed changes in Jackie’s voice. The changes I note seem to be maturity, rather than damage. I have noted from the YouTube clips one or two instances that sound as if Jackie was not quite ready for the performance. Who knows?

          One thing that did occur to me though, is this:
          In many of Jackie’s performances, what we seem to have witnessed is a gifted child experiencing sheer joy at a level that is rare to behold – she’s just about jumping out of her skin at times, she seems just that happy. That itself is a thing of beauty, and I think part of what has endeared her to so many people. I personally don’t think I’ve ever seen such sheer happiness in a child, and I doubt that I’m alone in that (tragic as that may be from another perspective).

          As this girl matures cognitively and experientially, there may be times when the significance of a given performance dawns upon her. So we may see a new type of performance anxiety from time to time. I think this is what I’ve seen on one or two occasions in the YouTube clips.

          But hey, what do I know?

          • I’ve done it again haven’t I? Not differentiated which Steve I am. So just to clarify. I’m the Steve that is not THE Steve but another Steve. I guess it make’s me THAT Steve. There ya go: It’s That Steve Again (ITSA). Tommy Handley might roll over in his grave on that one. Right, I’ll get out of your way now. See ya later.

    • @richard carlisle

      So, Renee wasn’t invited to Russia and Jackie was, you say. Jackie won the popularity contest. Interesting that you think that.

      • richard carlisle says:

        Guess you have a better explanation.

        • @richard carlisle

          That the busiest soprano in the world was busy elsewhere?

          • richard carlisle says:

            For something this prestigious she would unbusy and reschedule no doubt; the thing is there is no sign she was invited and declined– she doesn’t seem to have been invited in the first place…. more research?

          • @richard carlisle

            Per chance, you were joking? You believe Renee Fleming should cancel her engagements in order to attend an oligarch party? Why would she have the slightest interest in doing that?

          • richard carlisle says:

            Janey, Renee Fleming would not be where she is if she had ignored all principles of PR; let’s assume she still has some interest in PR strategy or that her agent has… OK? Now, if she had been invited and were unable to attend this would have been announced just to avoid looking like she hadn’t been invited…. further, why would you write the meeting off as trivial when a world-class baritone like Hvorostovsky is attending– do you even know who he is– google La Traviata April 14– world attendance (including HD movie ) approximately 500,000.

          • Janey,

            I would assume that scheduling conflicts occur all the time for entertainers, and I’m quite sure that a busy entertainer would have a difficult time making any event on short notice. The Japanese organizers for her Bunkamura Concert approached Lisa Evancho about a tour of Japan for Jackie in 2012, and Lisa told them there was no time available. She was requested to sing at Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee, a very prestigious, once in a lifetime event and a great honor. Jackie was already committed for the dates required, and regretfully, had to turn the organizers down.

            Lisa Evancho manages Jackie’s schedule with an iron hand, to be sure that Jackie is well rested, and includes copious amounts of down time for Jackie to be a normal kid, and have lots of time with her friends and family. If Jackie had her way about it, she would be performing twice as much as she does now, but it will be quite a few years before Jackie will be allowed that heavy a schedule. Jackie’s health, both physical and emotional, and her well being are far more important to her family, than money and fame! No one is sitting around counting the money!

          • Richard, Why would Renee Fleming be interested in performing at this event? She has already sung for heads of state gathered for the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg in Russia, in addition to memorial of the 9/11 attacks at Ground Zero, the Nobel Prize ceremony, the Beijing Olympics, Buckingham Palace, the White House, President Obama’s Inauguration celebration, the wedding of Prince Albert of Monaco, the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution, the World Cup ceremonies, etc. On June 20, she will be in the midst of a run of a new production of Arabella at the Paris Opera. These opera performances are scheduled years in advance. Not only is she not the type to run out on her previous commitments, but I am sure that she finds performing in an opera to be more artististically rewarding than going to Russia to perform one or two arias. Go to youtube and you will see that she has sung with Dmitri Hvorostovsky on many occasions including in St.Peterburg and Moscow. Check out the DVD they made together St Peterburg or the excerpts from Eugene Onegin they sang in Moscow.She is the biggest female opera star in the world and she doesn’t need the gig in St. Petersburg and she certainly doesn’t need to explain why she is or is not going there.

          • @richard carlisle

            Thank you for the laughs. Yes, I am well aware of Dmitri’s brilliance and his career. I have seen him perhaps a dozen times and met him at events, also, as a fan.

            Ms. Fleming needs no PR from a group of oligarchs. How ridiculous. The event will not be carried or noticed globally, except in the biographies of the participants, and she certainly has no need to share Dima with Sumi Jo. It is not an official state performance. This is insignificant for someone of Fleming’s stature. For someone starting out and attempting to get footing in Russia, it is an impressive “get” and Ms. Evancho should be proud.

            I am perplexed by your need to diminish Renee Fleming’s career. Why the constant comparison? Or perhaps, you really do consider Ms. Evancho to be in the same genre as Ms. Fleming?

            Jackie Evancho’s fans must develop some perspective or you all risk harming your golden angel more than helping her. I would suggest you may have already done so.

          • Janey says:

            “Jackie Evancho’s fans must develop some perspective or you all risk harming your golden angel more than helping her. I would suggest you may have already done so.”

            Not according to Dr. Scott Kessler, her Otolaryngologist in NYC, and Dr. Clark Rosen, head of the University of Pittsburgh’s Physicians UPMC Voice Center! I think the local vocal experts here on this blog are just a tiny bit out-ranked and out-classed!

          • richard carlisle says:

            OK, listen up– research from both websites:

            1) Renee and Dmitri headlined a gala two years ago in St Petersburg; you would think a reason to want to be there again with him.

            2) Renee will be in Paris in June, performing in Paris Opera on the 14, 17, 20, 24, 27.

            3) Sure she’s busy on the 20th, but if they wanted her at the meeting they could have scheduled it on the 22nd– comfortable enough between the other dates and a much easier trip than coming from the US.

            SO WHAT IS GOING ON?

          • @richard carlisle. The pathological need you and other Jackie Evancho fans have to attack Renee Fleming is too disturbing to continue. I hoped we might get somewhere, but logical and rationality do not exist in this conversation.

            Traveling as you suggest, singing a major opera after such traveling, would be ridiculous, even if Fleming cared to participate, which, given oligarch involvement, is impossible to imagine.

            I wish the best for this child and have no doubt she if far more respectful than you. I hope she is not openly subjected to your kind of adoration.

            All the best.

  38. richard carlisle says:

    POPERA: Please allow me to offer a definition of this phenomenon–

    Partially trained artists select nuggets of the entire opera repertoire and present them in a generally less formal manner than in a conventional opera format with the hope of appealing to a greater proportion of the general public.

  39. Bruce C. Desautels says:

    Worth considering: If any of the so-called “experts,” posting here, were sincere in their concern for Jackie Evancho, then I would expect, out of common decency, that they would make their concerns known PRIVATELY to the Evancho family … That is, if they are actually the professionals the claim to be. The fact that these individuals have rather chosen to publicly scandalize Jackie and the Evancho family refutes any claim the critics may have to sincerity.

  40. Fantabulosous says:

    “life is a popularity contest rather than a technicality contest”

    Yep, and that’s why the Grimm reaper won the 2010 “America’s Got Woes” contest instead of Jackie.

    • richard carlisle says:

      We’ll never know what went on with unpublicized arrangements between the officials and Jackie’s family– would you want your 10-year-old to be subjected to the demanding schedule of the winner?

      Do you think Jackie is in a much better place today because she didn’t get first place? Probably so.

      • I’m not really sure I would want any 10-year-old child subjected to the demanding schedule of coming in second place either…

        These are all things that need to be considered.

        • CR says:

          “I’m not really sure I would want any 10-year-old child subjected to the demanding schedule of coming in second place either… These are all things that need to be considered.”

          @CR,

          That very last sentence conveys it all. The key word being “considered!” The rank and file of this blog don’t consider Jackie worthy of anything? Consequeltly, they show her no consideration at all. They ignore the fact that most of them know that Jackie is extremely talented, Dispite Norman and Tim’s own addmissions that she “is extremely talented!” You’re concerns for her vocal health, and about her very suspect parents, you would have others believe sit home and count the money. It would be an admirable concern if it were true, so I ask all of them, why do you try to destroy this child’s dreams?

          • @Russ, AKA TheOneJr,
            No one is destroying any child’s “dreams” because the Evancho’s will do what they want despite adequate warnings from concerned listeners. In fact, no one is attacking her either. This is the fantasy of the silver haired knights in armor just itching for a fight.
            OK, she is “extremely talented” but so was Callas when she went to Martinell in in New York after studying with Hidalgo and performing Tosca (among other operas) in Greece. He told her, “you have a good voice but you still need lessons.” After about a year and half, she travelled to Italy and continued her grueling studying with the best conductors and coaches.
            One can have talent, but there is the need to do the work. It is insulting to put on the stage such half-baked renditions of “opera”. Why doesn’t Jackie (or rather her promoters) stick to what she does best, popular songs and not ruin her voice in the process?
            There are A LOT of talented kids everywhere, and hundreds, if not thousands, who compete for places in the best music schools. SORRY, but if a student sings with perfect intonation, steady breathing, a wide tessitura balanced from top to bottom, doesn’t have irritating habits like a chin waggle or arms churning the air, doesn’t have sandpaper in the lower register, will be chosen ahead of one who does. And, SORRY to disappoint you, (who have heard Jenny Lind, no doubt in your mind’s ear, otherwise how could you compare the voices?) the best music schools are bombarded with applications from MANY very accomplished kids. So it is very difficult to choose and accept who may be more suitable. How can anyone have the audacity to suggest that a red carpet will be waiting for her at any of these schools, unless of course a substantial sum is passed or other political pressures are brought to bear.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            @Cabbagejuice:

            “No one is destroying any child’s “dreams” because the Evancho’s will do what they want despite adequate warnings from concerned listeners. In fact, no one is attacking her either.”

            Really? How would you describe the remarks made by TimV ?

            This is yet another example of your insincerity. One more attempt to back pedal.

            Did you, or any of you comrades here, make even one attempt to directly contact Mike or Lisa Evancho, so to PRIVATELY state your “concerns”? Did you, or any of your comrades here, make the attempt to contact David Foster, or any of the individuals that me involved in managing Jackie Evancho’s fledgling career, to DISCRETELY annunciate your “warnings”? You see, sir that is how PROFESSIONALS conduct themselves. That is how sincere critics convey HONEST concern.

            No. Rather you and those who criticize Jackie’s “technique” (etc.) acted to PUBLICALLY humiliate her; and worse, you acted to scandalize Jackie’s parents by alleging bad intentions on their part.

            Common decency demands that legitimate “concerns” be affected DIRECTLY and PRIVATELY to the parties involved. But then, judging the commentary I have read here on this blog, what would those of your caliber understand about decency or charity?

            It is so much easier to direct a tirade of unsubstantiated accusations and insulting presumptions, using pseudonyms to hide behind. I note that, with few exceptions, none here possess the courage to post their remarks using their real names. That speaks volumes about the sincerity of all your “concerns.”

            The issue is not about whether your technical points are valid, for I admit that perhaps they are very valid. But that is really not the salient issue. The most glaring issue, which you and the others are incredibly obstinate in refusing to acknowledge, is the METHODS you use to convey these “concerns.”

            Your METHODS lack charity, and you therefore lack prudence. That is the reason why those who support Miss Evancho are exasperated, agitated or otherwise angered by the negative commentary; however, you and your comrades are too prideful, too conceited in high-brow opinions, to understand this point.

          • @Bruce C. Desautels
            What a joke to say that it is only right to “annunciate” one’s warnings (presumably as in “annunciation”) privately, when 1) the money counters wouldn’t be bothered to stop for a second and 2) they can, like anyone else, in fact, may even be reading posts like these. (“Hi, there!”)
            After all, if the whole internet were only full of exuberant praise (not good either pedagogically speaking) why Jackie is allegedly not permitted to freely peruse online?
            But it is the nature of criticism, that anyone who makes money from entertainment cannot be shielded from it. So why don’t you blame the parents first for putting her under scrutiny? Maybe some people who feel something might not be quite right and is unable to put into words their own misgivings, need professional guidance in articulating them. One big concern is not singing in a child’s voice (even in popular music) that Tim (but not only him) pointed out.
            Why should the big money makers (not only her family) be protected from criticism?
            And if they won’t be bothered by private communications, at least they can’t say “we weren’t warned” because they are aware of the downsides of what they are doing and the possible (actually probable) future damage.
            Sorry, in showbiz: “if you can’t stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen”.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            @ cabbagejuice:

            “What a joke to say that it is only right to “annunciate” one’s warnings … when 1) the money counters wouldn’t be bothered to stop for a second and 2) they can, like anyone else, in fact, may even be reading posts like these. (“Hi, there!”)

            RE (1): Again, you are PRESUMING an attitude on the part of the Evanchos and those managing Jackie’s career. You have not facts, but personal assumptions. More pointedly, you did not answer the question of whether you, or any of the other critics, have ATTEMPTED private contact. This is stated with the caveat that any of you are truly RESPECTED PROFESSIONALS in the industry, so that your “opinions” would actually carry weight. My guess is that not one of you are of substantial merit, else you would not make all this “static” on a public forum. Professionals do not conduct themselves in this manner, unless all other legitimate avenues have been exhausted.

            RE (2): Non-sequitor straw man argument. The reality is that if those supposedly qualified critics, such as you, were pursuing this matter respectfully and through proper channels of communication, then there would be NOTHING PUBLICLY AVAILABLE to read on the issue.

            You and your comrades created this controversy. You and your fellows created the scandal. It is you and they who are libel for its truth or falsity. The burden of proof is on your shoulders — It is not the Evanchos’ obligation to satisfy your judgments — to prove themselves innocent of the charge. You must prove guilt. So far, you have failed in that obligation. For every point made here, you answer with yet another unsubstantiated PRESUMPTION. Moreover, you resort to logical fallacy by requiring that those whom you accuse of wrongdoing disprove a negative.

            You made the accusations — not them. Do you think them so vain as to search the web for every remark made, positive and negative? Then again, you probably do, considering your incredibly presumptuous ego.

            PS: Apparently my spelling and grammar are more important in your consideration than your answering the issues honestly and without making straw man presumptions.

          • richard carlisle says:

            Very well said Bruce; you are kind to take time to be that polite to someone who questionably deserves it… but do you really mean “notoriety”– A bit unnecessarily negative perhaps… and when and if someone uses her influence for a cause she will do what she believes in — if she maintains her level of character displayed to date– and if she takes up a cause it will likely be in such a way that it will do her as much good as the thing she’s helping.

            We really owe it to her and to ourselves to pay as much attention to her diplomatic potential as her musical ability.

            I’m still bugged by prevailing terminology; Jackie in an interview said she disliked “popera” as a definition of her
            art… but she didn’t CROSS OVER from anything, so forget that term… what she is really: a classical concert performer rather than a dramatic or opera star, and that’s where she started and will probably stay for some time (no crossover).

            Renee Fleming is a crossover jazz performer when she works in that genre, being initially an opera star.

            Sarah Brightman IS a classical crossover artist since she started as a broadway performer and switched to classical concert.

            Why not identify something properly before attempting to discuss it.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            @ Richard Carlisle;

            “… but do you really mean “notoriety”– A bit unnecessarily negative perhaps … etc.)

            Yes, thanks. I could not think of the correct word (duh!). And I do believe, based on her present temperament and rather mature attitude, That Jackie will not jump aboard every ship that passes. I agree with your point on “classical crossover” — she would be wise to use the term “classical” instead. But then no matter what term she uses to express her “genre” of musical interests, somebody will probably get bent about it (chuckle)

            I do hope she steers clear of the pop culture . To many classless jerks in that arena. Last evening, while reviewing a performance Jackie did on “The View” (Gag me) She was questioned about her I-Pod music, and made the usual reference to “Lady Gaga” Joy Behar, (a classless witch) actually had the imprudence to ask Jackie if she would sing “Born this Way” — Jackie gave a pretty emphatic no (more like “Hell no!” id I may be so bold) This is what I mean by the liberal twits getting ready to do their corrupt routine on this girl. That pisses me off, being a dad and all.

            BTW — Here is another angle about which many of Jackie’s “critics” seem clueless Some of us “fans” are parents … That is reason enough why we get a bit “testy” when any adult “expert” starts taking unwarranted pot shots at a 12-year old child, and particularly a girl. I was raised with a strict rule: “Don’t hit the girl” … That includes verbal “hits.” I guess some individuals around these parts did not have that kind of upbringing.

  41. Wow! I came across Jackie Evancho a few days ago and decided to have a look around the web to see what her plans for the future are, because I think she has potential. At 12, she’s clearly still at the beginning of whatever her career may turn out to be. Who can blame her and her family for cashing in on the situation, particularly as it’s clear Jackie loves singing, particularly to audiences? Smart thing to do in this day and age – you never know what’s around the corner. In all other respects I’ve seen nothing to suggest that she’s not just an ordinary 12-year-old.

    Then I came across this blog. Fascinating, as discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin usually are.

    I would like to thank you all for one of the best laughs I’ve had in a long time!

  42. To sums things up…

    #1 Does this child have talent? I would say a definite YES.

    #2 Is this child being somewhat EXPLOITED? …to a certain degree…YES! Sony is trying to make money off of a 12 year old child. This one folks should be an obvious no brainer!

    NOTE: Please don’t try to use the line “what kids do in third world countries is alot worse.” TG this isn’t a third world country, and our standards in regards to child labor is a lot different here.

    #3 Do many of her most devoted fans go way overboard in defending her at times….a definite YES! It doesn’t help her cause at all when you attack others who bring up reasonable points.

    #4 Do some of her critics go too far at times? Yes to that as well…critics who compare Jackie to those kids in beauty pagents go too far imho. They should be a bit more professional when writing about Jackie.

    #5 Do some of her fans go way overboard when they try to comapre her to some of the greatest sopranos that have ever lived? A BIG YES TO THAT! Please pull back from the land of OZ folks.

    She does have the potential to have a nice long term career, but only time will tell.

    • richard carlisle says:

      Let’s try a shortcut through all the exhaustive rhetoric:

      Jackie’s singing, flawed or perfect, is IN FACT A SHOWCASE for her PERSONAL BRILLIANCE… give her twenty years and we’ll have the most impressive Secretary of State ever known in US history.

      Google Shirley Temple (who didn’t sing as well).

      • “Jackie’s singing, flawed or perfect, is IN FACT A SHOWCASE for her PERSONAL BRILLIANCE… give her twenty years and we’ll have the most impressive Secretary of State ever known in US history.”

        A tad over the top, don’t you think?

        Maybe in twenty years Jackie will be an airline pilot or a police officer or an engineer. If she is still singing in twenty years, GOD BLESS HER!

        Some of you Jackie fans really crack me up at times. :-D

        • richard carlisle says:

          She won’t be singing– that’s just an avenue of introduction– do you know what personal brilliance means? In this youtube age that just overnight created the most powerful individual in the world (who came from minimal background)– and Jackie’s got HIM amazed– times are changing, just look around.

          It’s not her singing, it’s her SUBSTANCE, if you can relate to that… there are far better singers that are far less popular— think about it.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            I agree on this point. I have seen a few postings on some of the YouTube video blogs, where a certain individual, one apparently of substantial wealth and influence — is putting the “dare” to Jackie, regarding her expressed love for people and animals.

            This individual is letting Jackie know that he intends to call upon her, at some future date, to put her philanthropic “tools” (for lack of a better decription) at his disposal, so to advance an unspecified but infered “humane” agenda.

            Looks as if the liberals, with all their “pet” global causes, are going to come out of the woodwork with solicitations to use Jackie’s notoriety. Now that will be “exploitation (IMO) This is going to create conflicts.

          • “It’s not her singing, it’s her SUBSTANCE, if you can relate to that… there are far better singers that are far less popular— think about it.”

            Sad, but true!

            I hope those others don’t continue to be overlooked…

  43. malibuesue says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Russ,

    Talk about not being able to read!!!!

    Scroll up or link to your comment to Janey on April 17, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2012/04/russia-awaits-little-jackie-evancho-in-an-opera-night.html#comment-19127

    Where you stated:

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    “Wrong! It was Rene Fleming who was insulted, not Lisa Evancho. Lisa said that they don’t like Opera, it’s too screechy, and Rene threw a fit.”
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    “Ms. Fleming asked if Jackie liked Opera, and she took exception to Lisa’s answer, and took it as a deliberate insult.”
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Your LIES are right there. Those are YOUR WORDS.

    There are no “bits and pieces” anywhere to support your maligning statements about Renee Fleming and you know that. However, there is a statement by Lisa herself that completely contradicts your bogus assertion.

    At this point I genuinely feel sorry for Jackie, her family and her dedicated followers in that you are one of the most strident and unrestrained representatives of her fan base – and just won’t go away!

    Your pathological obsession with Jackie Evancho is so intense that you have apparently developed some sort of lucid hallucinatory domain in which you coexist in her family’s personal life in a role such that you have intimate knowledge of their private thoughts, communications and actions. The problem is when events fabricated into your fantasy realm are transported into the reality you participate in here. In either of the worlds you shift about, it is saddening that you evidently believe that in attempting to publicly muddy the reputation of Renee Fleming, you elevate Jackie.

    You are absolutely shameless, or at best, so psychologically disturbed that you don’t realize your actions. If the latter is the case, hopefully a close friend or family member will take note of some of your writings here and elsewhere and intervene, getting you the help you need.

    • malibuesue says:

      “However, there is a statement by Lisa herself that completely contradicts your bogus assertion.”

      It isn’t Lisa’s post. There were some problems with a fake Lisa running around on Amazon for a while, which caused a number of problems. The post you mentioned was just one of them.

      • malibusue says:

        Russ,

        This too, you know is a lie.

        On the Amazon site, if such a thing occurred, then the fake username’s posts would have been removed or required to have their username renamed, in which case all prior posts would have been relabeled with the new username. That’s how their system works. Try it yourself. Change your username and you will see that all your old posts will reflect your new changed user name.

        The fact that Lisa’s post is still there under the username that she used just last March is further evidence that you are F.O.S.

        http://www.amazon.com/gp/communities/search/ref=cm_cd_search_basic?cdQuery=flemming&cdPage=1&goBtn.x=0&goBtn.y=0&cdThread=Tx1ZL9TFCL3ZT77

        You like to go around all over various message boards and blogs acting as if you have intimate knowledge of the things Lisa says to her children and what she thinks. Do you think Lisa approves of you trashing Renee Fleming, who has been nothing less than gracious toward Jackie and her family?

        Seek help Russ. You’re completely out of control.

  44. Like so many others, I find the rabid manner in which some of Jackie’s fans go about promoting their appreciation of her appalling, though it must be said that for every Russ-like Jackie fan there’s likely many others at the opposite end of the spectrum who represent their appreciation of her and her music more gracefully.

    There is the case where a few Jackie Evancho fans became disappointed by the cancellation of her Charlotte, NC concert due to the disruption of their preplanned\prepaid vacation plans for attending that event. A different Jackie concert was already scheduled to occur in New Jersey during this same week, so in response, another fan decided to forgo significant rental income from a vacation property that he operated nearby and provide his facility free of charge to these fans, and in the lucrative summer season, all in generous accommodation to them so that they could still attend a Jackie concert as planned and with comfortable lodging and minimal inconvenience. Also there is the more recent event in which some Jackie fans have come forward pledging financial assistance to family of Jackie fans in Russia so they may attend the event in St. Petersburg, that they otherwise could not afford.

    These are just a couple tidbits. I’m sure others could provide better details and other anecdotes of similar gestures, but I thought it appropriate to offer these for some much needed contrast to the otherwise vitriolic representation of Jackie fans overtaking the discussion here.

    • @Carmen,

      The “Russell Parsons” on Amazon, according to his profile resides in San Bernardino, CA. (I wonder how quickly he’ll remove that item?)

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1B8L6E75ZB0L2/ref=cm_cd_et_pdp

      That city has a population of roughly 210,000 people so absolutely possible for more than one person with that name there. However men of that same name, age group, and interest in young children, well that could narrow it down significantly, but still not a guarantee that it’s the same person.

      What is very curious however, is how the “Russ” on Amazon responded when someone attempted to out the offender as a poster there. Didn’t really do himself much justice in his reply which was:

      “As it happens, I know exactly who this is, and he is not a poster on Amazon, or on any of Jackie’s forums, so Mr/Ms socalcoast is about to be sued for slander. I will elaborate if you will give me your temp email address. He is absolutely no threat to anyone, least of all Jackie, and he did not commit the crime, according to the victim, who personally told this to me. Please remove the address, if you wouldn’t mind.

      Warmest Regards,
      Russ”

      Talk about having some piss-poor bad luck!

      Not only is there a person of such background of same exact name age, location and interests, but it’s someone he knows personally, and he even knows the victim, and on such a close personal basis that this victim confides to him on such matters.

      Wow! Whose little puppy did this guy kill in a past life?

      • Russell Parsons says:

        Sharon L says:

        “Not only is there a person of such background of same exact name age, location and interests, but it’s someone he knows personally, and he even knows the victim, and on such a close personal basis that this victim confides to him on such matters.”

        @Sharon L

        The only problem with your above statement, is the facts you state are incorrect. While there is a person of such background, we do not share the same name, and are not the same age. I’m 5 years older. We do share the same location, as he has been my caregiver ever since I suffered a severe heart attack in 2006. While we do share some of the same interests, like hunting, fishing, and NASCAR, I like sports, most genres of music, and Marine Architecture.

        As far as knowing the victim (daughter), she’s only been to visit us about 8 times, in the last 3 years. She arrived here on her 21st Birthday, almost unannounced. “Hi Daddy, I’m flying into Ontario airport, please pick me up”, click! A kind of thing, that for some reason, only Daughters can get away with pulling!

        We talked a fair amount, while she was here the first time, but she sought me out. Mostly it was about her Dad the man, and his life after all this mess started. I think she was trying to find something to fill in that empty space in her life that would show her he was still the same man inside. She saw right away that he still is!

        She approached me about getting needed Court documents and forms, since all the necessary Court offices for the state are about 2 miles away from me. I can get many things needed for free, that were costing her a bundle in postage, for all the required “Return Receipts”. I’ve been helping her ever since. She’s a very determined young lady. I’ve always thought it a bit odd, that given the charges, he didn’t go to prison, but instead served 6 months in the County Jail, and 5 years probation. When I asked him why he didn’t take it to trial, he said that they threatened to put his then very young daughter on the witness stand, and there was just no way he was going to allow that to happen. With all the guilt she was feeling, it would have overwhelmed her. He wasn’t concerned about what she would say because he knew she would tell the truth, and he also knew that they wouldn’t believe her. His options were 6 months or risk 5 years, and probably be far worse for the daughter’s mental well being. He took the 6 months! Under the same circumstances, I would have done the same thing before I would put my child through a devastating experience like that!

        As to why you thought it was curious about my threat to socalcoast, he’s a kid! 13 I think, I forget. He accused me of being Russell Parsons, I can prove I am not, which makes it slander, so I made my threat, knowing full well that he would bail. He deleted all his posts, and unsubscribed from Amazon.

        As to how long it will take me to delete any of my profile info, I have no intention of changing it, I haven’t done anything wrong, and it’s not my profile, so I can’t change it anyway. I stand behind my friend 100% His daughter has more than convinced me that both of them are telling the truth, and she is determined to win. She’s gotten a far better education than any of her siblings, and speaks much better than they do, so I think, as determined as she is, she has a very good chance of prevailing.

        BTW, thank you for the integrity you showed with your post. I sincerely appreciate that!

        Sincerely,
        Russ

  45. jackieforpresident says:

    I’m surprised and shocked at Slippeddisc, I really am.
    All this debate (221 entries and counting) was started because this site announced that Jackie will be appearing in St. Petersburg.
    The REAL news behind this — completely missed by Slippeddisc, but exclusively revealed to me by very reliable sources — is that Putin is going to ask her take over as Vocal Professor at the Moscow and St. Petersburg conservatories.
    Brilliant news, eh?
    What’s more, the music acadamies in London are vying to have Jackie take over their vocal and opera departments, too.
    Apparently, it is now realized that all the vocal teachers and professors over the past three or four hundred years have been doing it completely wrong. And now Jackie, along with Katherine Jenkins, are being brought in to shake things up and show people really how to sing “Nessun Dorma” and “O mio babbino caro” PROPERLY for the first time since Puccini wrote them.
    But the brilliant news doesn’t stop here.
    There’s more.
    Jackie has been asked to sing Isolde this year in Bayreuth.
    During her off days, she’ll nip down to Salzburg to sing Königin der Nacht under Harnoncourt, as well as Emilia Marty in the new “Makropulos” there.
    It seems that Katherina and Eva Wagner in Bayreuth are hoping Jackie will join them in running Bayreuth, making way for other “classical crossover” stars to appear in Bayreuth and really open it up for everyone.
    Jackie is already working on her Brünnhilde for the new Ring in 2013, with negotiations running full pelt for Katherine Jenkins to sing Sieglinde, Kundry and Brangäne, Paul Potts to sing Siegfried and Andrea Bocelli to sing Tristan.
    Really, Slippeddisc. I’m disappointed.
    I used to read this blog for all the latest up-to-the-minute news about the world of opera and classical music and you failed to tell us all this?`
    Shame on you.

  46. StageMomMadness says:

    While “Russ” appears to be wrong about a rift between Jackie Evancho’s mom and Renee Fleming, he is not incorrect about Lisa’s contempt for opera. Here is what she stated on Jackie’s “Oh Holy Night” forum on Amazon.

    “L. Evancho says:
    I guess we need to take a poll on every song the masses find suitable for her to sing? The fact is, this was JACKIE’s interpretation of the song (not the follow note for note that opera singers have to do) and the fact that she CAN sing the song better than any child and many adults. Again, I’ll say, rather than encouraging a singer who shows so much promise, they’d rather bash someone inclined to a dying artform. I don’t care how many opera houses there are out there. Most are operating over budget, losing money, and without the elitist sponsors, would be clossed down. “

    Source:

    http://www.amazon.com/Jackie-The-Next-Chapter/forum/Fx3JN1LFHSWBMX5/TxPUNPKRM8EY9X/70/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=1733&asin=B00472O3C8&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx37YXCLOCBTANC#Mx37YXCLOCBTANC

    BTW, thanks to those posting about the Jackie Amazon forums. They’re goldmines of entertaining kookiness :-)

    • Cabbagejuicer Supporter says:

      BTW, thanks to those posting about the Jackie Amazon forums. They’re goldmines of entertaining kookiness ,

      So is this place! Its like hanging out with a bunch of talking Encyclopedias!

  47. catmando says:

    The only thing that shocks me about Lisa’s post above is she misspelled ‘closed’. She’s better educated than that. When the top American operatic soprano(Renee Fleming) has to resort to putting out a pop album(which by the way has bombed), that might be a clue something is really wrong with American opera.

    Jackie sang at a wedding at the Ringling Museum in Sarasota last night(where Dream With Me In Concert was filmed). She sang six songs. Now she is in LA for her Monday night performance on Dancing With The Stars. She will sing with the Italian Tenor Vittorio Grigolo(never heard of him is he good?). Starts at 8PM EST.

    • richard carlisle says:

      Vittorio is making a bit of a splash in formal opera — good voice/acting ability– after appearing with Hayley Westenra in West Side Story– a waste sad story, but they’re both rebounding nicely.

      Jackie had a good duet with Josh Groban, this should be as good or better.

    • jackieforpresident says:

      Jeez, get real will you. Opera a dying art form?
      It’s been around more than 400 years. And opera houses in Europe are fuller than ever.
      Look at the Slippeddisc entry on April 18th. Statistics show that 7.3 million people in Britain — 15% of the adult population — want to go to the opera.
      Wonder what the proportion would be of people wanting to go to hear Jackie Evancho in concert. 0.15% or 0.015%?
      When Jackie Evancho is long burned out and on the scrap heap of “classical crossover” (whatever that is) and the pop charts, guess what? The opera houses will still be full. Jackie Evancho has, if we’re overgenerous, a career of maybe five years left. She’s a long way to go before she gets anywhere the 400-year mark.
      What a bunch of delusional saddos.

  48. Many of Jackie Evancho’s supporters are to classical music what Sarah Palin’s supporters are to politics. Frustrated, often bitter, disaffected and often angry, they see themselves as victims of the mean, awful “insiders.” This has become obvious here in comments that are often as bitter sounding as they are incoherent.

    These fans/supporters believe the “insiders” intentionally stop them from achieving more – not because they are inexperienced or less accomplished – but because the insiders are elitist snobs. Just as Palin’s supporters rail at those pointing out her lack of education and experience, so too do Evancho’s most fanatical supporters.

    You see….the need for education is an elitist lie. If a standard is too high, it is because the person who set it is a snob and the standard is stupid. If something or someone is respected more than Palin or Evancho, that something or someone must be attacked, vilified and otherwise diminished. In these minds, this is a war – Palin and Evancho both are weapons to be used against those they see as wanting to keep them down. A weapon against those who are assumed to have more.

    Opera represents something to these people. I suspect this group would be thrilled if opera were to die, and they hope their angel can make that happen.

    There was a time when we embraced education and achievement in the United States. Now, it is practically a crime to attend an Ivy League school. Twenty or even 10 years ago, we worked hard to pull ourselves up to what others had achieved; now, we work hard to pull those over-achievers down.

    • Jacob Fan says:

      Music and Politics? That does sound like you.
      Lets hope all classical crossover fails and anyone that’s a underachiever will listen to their own music, so the over-achievers could be left alone and have no one to rant about.

      You all could buy the Super Duper 200th anniversary Deluxe Remastered “Limited to 100″ Over-achievers edition of the same boring music that gets re re re re released over and over again for only $5.99 or .99 cents in the junk bin.

      Why even do that? When you and your colleagues could dig up the original artists,extract their DNA , and clone them. You would not want the Clones to ruin their voice, so each of them will serve 59 years in music school . You could open up OPERA Park with your perfect pitched duplicates! That is if you are still alive to attend! You could talk Politics and find something wrong with the clone to complain about.

      I really hope Classical crossover does fails, so the underachievers could listen to the new craze! Classical&Rap crossover .With Subwoofers loud enough to knock that fat lady off the stage,

      • Kind of funny that this music you call “boring” has survived for centuries whereas the music that was popular in that same period has disappeared….

    • Opera Magic says:

      Dear Jacob,

      I understand exaclty why you mentioned Sarah Palin. Both Palin’s supporters and Jackie’s fans are people who think they’re in a war with elitists and snobs. It was an apt comparison.

  49. Wow, they sure are busy over there at Amazon. I wouldn’t bother to go through the 5600+ posts already in just one forum of JE so am grateful to the poster here who copied Lisa’s comment. It’s fascinating to observe the sharp business acumen (rather expected anyway) together with cultural ignorance.
    Maybe a person like that could understand that a lot of kids who play piano like to perform the “Für Elise”, but how many dropped notes, incorrect rhythm, lack of flow and contrast, playing in a different key, etc., would be acceptable before the piece would not be Beethoven’s anymore? Well, the excuse is: It’s HER interpretation!!!
    But it is NOT Nessun Dorma, Ombra Mai Fu, O Mio Babbino, or Ave Maria anymore either when the syllables are chopped up or when there is no discernable melodic line and much more. It’s a kind of plagiarism, using the work of someone else and bastardizing it to fit one’s conceits.(And I hope she reads this!)
    There is not a lot happening in the Sarah Pailn camp so I don’t know what she or her supporters have to do with the inverse elitism of many Jackie supporters. Business acumen and political experience have to do with knowing and exploiting what the people want, telling them what they want to hear. It has little to do with integrity, reliability or consistency. Unfortunately, one cannot get to be a public figure, even in music, without a huge dollop of political savvy.

  50. What Palin has to do with with Jackie is beyond me.

    Lets not turn this into her AMAZON threads. :-)

  51. I really hope Classical crossover dies quick! So us Overachievers could enjoy our music the way is was meant to be heard. Anyone here hear that they are coming out with a new but same re re re re re release of Ombra Mai Fu in all of its original glory. Its the Uncut, Ultimate, Unrated, Extended Cloned edition. Only available for a limited time and limited to 100 Solid Gold records..There is plenty for all of us! The sad news is it will not be released for 70 years.

    Yes! They have done it! They have dug up the entire crew from the 1738 opera Serse by George Frideric Handel and cloned them. They are 12 years old now but to protect their voice, each Clone has to go to Music school for 59 years before being able to perform.

    My colleagues are walking a extra 10 feet a day on our treadmills so we are alive release day.

  52. Opera Magic says:

    To Richard Carlisle,

    Gene Kelly may have popularized ballet, but he was an adult, fully trained, and very competent ballet dancer. Jackie is a child, who has very little training. I think the issues here are that A. Jackie’s voice is likely to be damaged by her use of poor vocal technique (and please don’t tell me about all of the people who are “protecting” her voice) and B. that the most rabid Jackie fans pulverize anyone who dares to make the slightest suggestion that she needs training and will very likely damage her voice with her use of bad technique. If you people think that recording execs, entrepreneurs, or any of the other people who are making money off of this little girl really care about her and her voice, you’re delusional. If they cared, they’d allow her to be trained before launching her career. I don’t want to hear about how she sings with a new, innovative technique that she herself invented either. The way she sings flies in the face of established singing technique that has been used for centuries. The type of “technique” that Jackie sings with has been proven to damage voices, sometimes beyond repair. Listen to child singer, Jacopo Menconi, sometime. He’s a little kid, but he sounds like an adult singer at the very end of a career. His coarse tone and his inability to control pitch and vibrato come from vocal abuse which equals singing with bad technique. His voice is likely to never recover. Oh yes, there’s a third issue here too. C. Opera fans are elitist snobs. Well, I’m an oera fan, but I also listen to and enjoy country, rock, jazz, Broadway, and pop. It’s as if liking opera is some sort of black mark against a person that forever brands him or her as snob that looks down from some musical Mount Olympus and hurls lightening bolts at the people who don’t like opera.

    • richard carlisle says:

      @OM

      First, I’m not a stereotype Jackie fan— rather a free-wheeler giving not an iota who makes money, whether she ruins her voice, etc…. rather stunned that a ten-year old can make a decent sounding album –DWM– that I enjoy (no chin wobble)… she’s accomplished the unthinkable in creating a record that may live on its own for some time in the future and so many people can’t relate to it and use it for an excuse to start fighting (let me herein state that it is only human to fight– if there is no opportunity to have a racial conflict there will instead be a religious one; if there is no religious issue a fight will be over money or over land or over an insult that turns one family against another or brother against brother fighting over inheritance wealth….. and if all other sources of conflict fade away then a man will look in a mirror and take a hammer to it—- yes yes yes we must fight!!)

      That said, I want to emphasize our common ground: I love all musical formats, especially opera (Renee’s innovative surprises, Anna’s intense dramatic talent, Angela’s calm control in her high range) even checking the latest rap to see what’s developing there; I’m really more of a musical sociologist, recognizing the impact of music on social processes, which is endlessly interesting…

      My point is there is nothing to fight about– we have a phenomenon in our midst and why not accept it since it can’t be erased (no way to take all those CDs back, they will live on), stop worrying if she’ll lose her voice (Jenny Lind did and got it back) and if she ends up like Charlotte Church, who’s still performing with a different kind of voice, that will be fine as well since Jackie’s brilliant charm appeals to her fans, not just her voice.

      Let’s all resolve our differences that didn’t exist in the first place and look for a better reason to fight; perhaps even kiss and make up– pardon the cliche.

      • @richard carlisle or is it someone we have heard from before, because there is NO ONE else who keeps dredging up the alleged metamorphosis of Jenny Lind as some kind of evidence or excuse except Theone and his alters? Sorry, but those who are concerned about the overuse of adolescent voices are not “fighting”. That’s just the point, you JE fans put on your battle gear because rational criticism is seen as some kind of affront. It’s all VERY threatening to your self-opinions.
        And how do you know the album she made didn’t have a chin wobble behind the scenes? And how do you know that if she ends up like Charlotte Church with a truncated version of the vocal possibilities she had, that the girl as a woman will be happy? This is what you wrote: “I’m not a stereotype Jackie fan— rather a free-wheeler giving not an iota who makes money, whether she ruins her voice.” That is incredibly selfish to admit – as long as the girl gives pleasure, who should care if she is knocking herself out doing so?
        I don’t want to hear either that “she is fulfilling her dream”. Sure, what talented kid wouldn’t love the opportunity to perform and all the attention that comes with it? Responsible adults should be the ones to balance if fulfilling a dream is practical or safe at the time or should be postponed.
        No one here, I presume, is going to take a hammer to a mirror if they can’t fight about something. Someone in the previous posts suggested you should get help – no, no, no, we are NOT “fighting”!

        • richard carlisle says:

          What a blessed life you have with nothing more to worry about than whether there was a chin wobble when the CD was made… guess all CD purchasers should now unite with a class action letter addressed to Jackie and company insisting she reveal if her chin wobbled at that point in time.

          Keep coming with the laughs as there is nothing more important than laughter, including Jackie’s charm.

          I feel an obligation to be serious on one point– the crux of discontent on the part of critics– the problem that is troubling them and I do admit it is a valid point– which is: the humiliation/degradation/audacity for a 10 year old to steal material from the classic expert/experienced clique of performers who spent many years developing their skills and a kid comes along and pulls the rug out from under them– outselling recordings from all the pros– little wonder you want her to wait: the older she is the less humiliation for the establishment.

          However, you wounded opera fans (don’t forget I love opera also), there is a strong possibility the people who have been attracted to her recordings may very well go to the next step up and take an interest in traditional opera with an eventual increase in popularity and support, not to mention dollars….I’m not the only one able to appreciate both treatments of the classics.

          Cheers and much laughter.

  53. richard carlisle says:

    A thought for the nastiest comment poster: OK, if you have a pet slug (just guessing– there aren’t many life forms that could live in harmony with your attitude, not even sure a slug could), why not then spend a bit of time teaching it some tricks like playing dead or standing up straight or at least getting it to enjoy being petted…. perhaps learning to find compatibility with it would be a first step toward developing respect for other humans.

    • @richard carlisle or any of your other alters, I find this offensive: “there aren’t many life forms that could live in harmony with your attitude.” When you attribute feelings YOU have to others, it is called projection. Your statement is just another example of the hostility of JE fans. They can’t accept anything except blind worship. Gosh, in another era or another place like North Korea, your attitude might be considered a virtue.

      • Bruce C. Desautels says:

        @ cabbagejuice

        Suitable handle … since you leave such a bad taste … Personally, I think you – and the other caustic respondents that feign “concern” for Miss Evancho – are, in plain English, just miserable bunch of “pr*cks” doing the bidding of Norman L.

        I notice he has not the stones to reply to any of these remarks — Norm just lets his henchmen do his dirty-work for him.

        Why don’t the lot of you give it a rest. You are not going to change the opinions of any who appreciate Jackie Evancho — “poor technique” and all.

        What you do not seem to understand is that Jackie herself probably does not give a rat’s a$$ about your informed opinions.

        As I stated previously … This affair should have been a PRIVATE matter, brought DISCREETLY before the responsible parties; but that is premised only on the consideration that those here who make so much out of this girl’s supposed deficiencies, and the ramifications connected to them, are truly sincere — and are the PROFESSIONALS they claim to be.

        Why don’t you all just drop this subject? Let it go. You are beating a dead horse. Or is it that Norman L just loves the attention he receives on this otherwise lifeless blog he runs?

        • malibusue says:

          Russ\Edward Richard CarlisleHal9000\TheOne and perhaps Bruce too? Or is there some infectious group-think going on among some of JE’s fans?

          The content of the Bruce’s above post has some remarkable similarities to sentiments of someone posting as “Russel Parsons” over at Amazon.
          (link suppressed)

          More weird stuff from this guy too. He’s apparently claiming that it was Norm who edited his post and inserted the inflammatory things about RF

          (link suppressed)

          My goodness!

          • I have removed the amazon urls because they contain allegations that are untrue, fantastical and defamatory. I am not a psychiatrist, but I suspect they may be the product of an unbalanced mind. The rule on this space is: no abuse. I will not link either to abuse on other sites.

            I share the surprise of many of our readers that fans of Jackie Evancho, some of them apparently linked to her family, should promulgate such bilge. It is an unusual and unhealthy phenomenon. NL

          • malibusue says:

            Very well Norman, and my apologies as I didn’t see your reply here yet when I posted at the other article.

            I will back off on responding to him and if others do as well, perhaps things will cool down.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            I am my own person. I am who I claim to be. I do not disguise my identity, and have no need to assume anyone elses.

      • richard carlisle says:

        @CJ:

        I don’t know of any mean comments from you, my pet slug comment was not directed your way; just keep contributing comments like how much we should worry whether Jackie’s chin wobbled as she made her CD which in turn should affect how guilty we feel, which in turn should affect how much we should allow ourselves to enjoy her CD, and finally how compelled we should feel to send a group letter asking Jackie to actually admit whether her chin wobbled as she made her CD.

        Another comment please– make it one more day filled with laughter!

        Many thanks for being humorous rather than mean.

  54. I will keep on saying this…some of Jackie’s hard core fans aren’t helping her cause.

    I have no idea if some of the folks posting have a strong connection to Jackie and her family, but if they do, shame on them as well.

    Come on people, GROW UP!

    • Bruce C. Desautels says:

      Disclosure: I am not related by any degree to the Evancho family. I am neither a family friend, nor an acquaintance. I am not related to or associated with the individuals or entities involved in management of Jackie Evancho’s career, or any of the known affiliates concerned with the details. I am not the “fan” type, nor have I ever seriously followed the career of an artist, in any genera, although my interests cover a wide range – from classical to opera, from to jazz to big-band swing, from bluegrass to western, from barber-shop quartets to rock. I am a self-taught musician, having played guitar since the age of 12 – I am now approaching 52. I have no personal interest in Miss Jackie Evancho other than an appreciation of her natural talent and showmanship.
      I learned of Jackie Evancho only two months ago, via a happenstance perusal of classical music videos placed on YouTube . Similarly, my discovery of Slipped Disc was accidental, via a post to my facebook page, made by a “virtual friend.”

      The reason I have acted in defense of Miss Evancho, is to challenge the unfair, unsubstantiated and often “below the belt attacks” made against her character, her musical ability – and worse, the considerable calumnious presumptions made against her family and management personnel – as posted by individuals at various websites. These websites I have visited but for the purposes of learning more about this unique young lady and discovering new material she has performed.

      What troubles me specifically with regards to the Slipped Disc blog, is that its owner, Norman L. – an established and respected professional – should have intervened against the obnoxious inflammatory insults and outright libelous posts that were thrown about by various individuals writing on his blog. Individuals on this blog, whether right or wrong in their supposed professional or otherwise stated opinions of Miss Evancho’s technique – or lack thereof, as it were, have taken unreasonable liberties in their criticisms. Norman L. has allowed these criticisms to progress way beyond the acceptable boundaries of decency.

      The irony is that while Jackie is a public figure, she has done nothing untoward against opera, nor has she the power to affect any action that would have a material and substantially negative impact on the livelihoods or teaching methods of those connected with the profession. She is no threat to its continued life or the careers of its adherents. On the other hand, those professionally involved in opera do have the power to negatively impact Miss Evancho’s embryonic career – if for no other reason than by the sheer weight given their professional opinions. This reason alone suffices to warrant that all professional critiques should be advanced through PRIVATE channels. That is PRUDENCE. That is CHARITABLE. Jackie Evancho cannot do injury to the established actors within the opera world – but you of the operatic world can do substantial injury to her – both materially and emotionally.

      Now on a different note, the questin comes as to why there is “something” about Jackie Evancho – a unique something that is very different in the effect she imparts on the soul when she sings. The “it” is not always present, but whenever this “it” is on target – the bull’s eye being her “groove” … or as some have stated, “her zone” – when she occupies and commands from this height, then there is nothing that any other performer comes close to affecting on the individual. That is my personal opinion, based on 40 years of musicianship.

      Perhaps this indefinable “it” is a spiritual quality; but whatever the quality, in my opinion, it goes directly to the heart. I suppose that is the reason why the “musical technocrats” do not connect with Jackie. They cannot see the forest for the trees. Despite all the points made about Evancho’s “flawed” or “dangerous technique” – and I am NOT arguing whether those observations are accurate – because they may well be, or may not – the fact is that she “connects” with her audience in a very emotionally “deep” way. There is a mode of “feedback,” a symbiosis that takes place between Jackie and her audience, where she actually touches the heart of the individual – as if she were singing directly to them. That is true art. “It” is an aspect of Jackie Evancho’s style that cannot be adequately defined or learned by any “proper technique.” “It” is THE quality that makes Jackie Evancho different than any artist I have ever appreciated. “It” is what makes her special to so many diverse peoples – and from every walk of life, from every corner of the world.

      Unfortunately for those who study proper vocal “technique,” where careers much depend on one’s ability to convey the “proper interpretation of the piece,” as it is supposed the composer intended, there is perhaps no way to convey the experience of the “Jackie effect;” because such is akin to asking a chemist to describe love – it cannot be done through any empirical formula – you either get “it” – or you don’t.

      • richard carlisle says:

        Bruce,

        Wherever Jackie’s inspiration comes from we and she even, don’t know; one thing about it is its transferability that allows conveyance to others as evidenced by your understanding and clearly inspired statement concerning this blog situation that has been so muddied by argument-winner type “contributors” … some of the past comments whether mean, confused, vulgar or inordinately selfish could have been contributed to the trash, but NL may have had his reasons for inclusion.

        Let me say about Jackie on a strictly musical level (you seem to have a background) that she has done at least two noticeable innovations: 1) going up at the end of “Mio Babbino Caro” which impresses me as an improvement, something I haven’t heard from anyone else and miss when I do listen to others including all the top opera sopranos, past and present. 2) at the end of Nessun Dorma not only does she hold the middle syllable of the last PIETA for a full six seconds like the best opera performers, but to top it off then adds another extra PIETA, this time holding the last syllable for the full term… all best shown in her guest appearance on Britains Got Talent a few months ago– a stunning performance … and one other thought: look at her British guest appearnce on QVC for some excellent performances.

        Thanks for your comment.

        • Bruce C. Desautels says:

          @ Richard Carlisle:

          Rich, thank you. I agree with your observations about OMBC and ND … Although these are not the traditional form of the endings (and I am by no means even close to knowledgeable about opera) I believe Jackie’s “version” is a positive change. But, then again, I am not a “purist” — so what the heck do I know?

          My guitar playing came natural — I had no formal training. One day, I just decided I wanted to play guitar, picked up the instrument and started playing BY EAR (To this day I hate to read music, because it takes away from my natural abilities — yes, I am an impatient fellow!)

          I taught myself all the important scales: the Harmonic Minor. the Melodic Minor. the Major Pentatonic. the Minor Pentatonic (Blues), the Chromatic. the Major. the Ionian. the Dorian, the Phrygian, the Lydian, and the Aeolian; I used to practice, for 3-5 hours per day, several patterns of chord forms and progression up the neck. I taught myself to finger pick, first to learn Dust in the Wind, and then later so that I could play Classical Gass, Alice’s Restaurant … and bluegrass.

          I mastered several very difficult leads — two in particular: the opening to “Crazy On You” (Heart), and the opening to “I Know a Little” (Lynyrd Skynrd). I learned several tunes from Rush — Broon’s Bain, The Trees, Red Barchetta, Limelight, Closer to the Heart, Fly by Night, Spirit of Radio, La Villa Strangiatto — THAT is incredibly difficult. I am considering Joe Satriani’s “Surfing With the Alien” — because I am just nuts! On the classical side, I am working on Pachibel’s Cannon in D — tough to do without a true classical guitar … and I am attempting Flamenco (I used to attend Flamenco shows in New Haven CT.) There is also some Peruvian music (Jesus Vasquez) that I am working on (My wife is from Callo) So, yes, I have a fairly rounded interest in music … but I consider myself a rank amateur when compared to a prodigy such as Jackie Evancho! That is hard to admit. LOL.

          • richard carlisle says:

            Bruce:

            Good to know you’re that into the magic of guitar; a moving company that I hired had Peruvian workers and they played CDs from their homeland: a nice opportunity to enjoy a new kind of music I found preferable to Mexican, Cuban or Brazilian… seems like a good addition to your repertoire.

            I’m an avid listener only, no performing….my activities are in wood and metal sculpture along with some painting; my talent is in my hands rather than vocal cords, though musically my one strength is tone sensitivity– both instruments and voices .. I don’t know if I could detect whether a soprano is ovulating but I can tell if she’s on the way up or down in her career.

            And when it comes to tone I have to mention Hayley Westenra with her unique resonance and airy, ethereal, infinitely pleasing manner — not intense like Jackie but a voice even more interesting with overtones and resonance that I’ve never heard from anyone.

            Her first album at age 16 titled “Pure” is a delight impossible to tire of endless listenings… incidentally at age 24 her voice is still intact but the early album has an enthusiasm unequaled since.

            I can’t encourage everyone enough to listen to the best of the best; the great opera arias are such talent and accomplishment showcases…. an aria that should get more attention since male duets are few and far bertween, is the Pearl Fishers duet by Bizet and there is one version most pleasing by Michael Schade and Russel Braun– Canadians well known as opera performers in and outside their country; don’t think it’s on youtube yet but I’m fortunate to have their CD.

            Sopranos past and present are an endless topic, don’t know how familiar you are but Renee Fleming, Natalie Dessay, Angela Georgheiu(?) and Anna Netrebko are the headliners– a future discussion– in the meantime you must youtube Maria Callas’s version of Vizzi d’arte– she soars into her high range like an eagle taking flight.

            Let’s continue to swap info about the magic of this art for the ears and soul, recently so enhanced by JE.

            Richard

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            @Richard,

            Richard, I must apologize for not getting back to you sooner — I am swamped with work. Suffice for now to say that I much appreciate both H.W. and R.F. They are each very unique, and I enjoy listening to their beautiful voices, particularly to H.W. … and, yes, “Pure” is an incredible work, particularly Dark Waltz. J.E. did a nice rendition of that piece (the critics here notwithstanding) in her own “special” way… A very haunting melody that leaves one to ponder its true meaning, and I have read some humdinger explanations (roll eyes). Have you ever seen or heard Cecelia Bartoli? My God! That is one INTENSE woman — She’s funny, intense, and beautiful … Oh, to pitty the man who landed her! He’s got his hands full, LOL!

          • richard carlisle says:

            Bruce,

            Glad to know you found “Pure” (Hayley with family management started at seven, still going strong at 24, kind of flies in the face of some Jackie critics) and as for Cecilia– guess you guessed why I didn’t suggest… if you see more of her work,interviews, etc you may arrive at my point of disinterest;… a handful all right.

            Janey suggested some youtubes today– please check out Angela Georghiu — the last notes in that performance have a tone unsurpassable, probably never equaled– listen carefully for the reward of the day(lifetime?).

            As for Renee (met her, have a signed CD) — brilliant, kind, not to mention long sustaining and can she ever impress when you hear her clear high range, especially in a hyper-complex aria like something I heard recently on the car radio (might have been from La Trav– will try to find out) another magical amazer.

            Good listening is good living.

            Richard

        • catmando says:

          “…at the end of Nessun Dorma not only does she hold the middle syllable of the last PIETA for a full six seconds like the best opera performers, but to top it off then adds another extra PIETA…”

          You have the wrong song. That was O Mio Babbino Caro, her first song on the show.

          • catmando says:

            It was ‘Vincero’ on Nessun Dorma.

          • There is a big difference between a soprano floating a G# in the head voice (not that high anyway, meaning the aria was transposed down a minor third) and a tenor having to sing a crowning B in full voice. This was probably the only authentic note Jackie sang in her own voice in the PBS recording in 2011, as she is a light soprano who should take those notes easily. The rest was sandpaper and trembling – a sure sign that the timbre is manufactured, no matter how many fans like it.

          • richard carlisle says:

            Cabbage juice:

            If I might have your attention for an interval sufficiently extensive to direct you to the performance under discussion: Jackie’s guest appearance a few months ago on Britain’s Got Talent where she sang Nesson Dorma stunningly well; please comment on this performance if you wish rather than a performance I’m not familiar with and which might be in some way inferior.

            Seems to me you are quite immune to the “Jackie effect”…hope this doesn’t carry over to other aspects of your potential happiness… people with open hearts can receive blessings that you might find beneficial..

          • richard carlisle says:

            Catmando, thanks very much for the correction– right song, right syllables– just substitute vincero for pieta… I should be more careful with my Italian vocabulary of less than ten words.

          • HoosierDaddy says:

            cabbagejuice,

            Isn’t producing music that a performer’s audience likes kind of the whole idea? Especially in accepting others hard-earned money in return. Aren’t basically all performances, whether they be film, theater, comedy monologues, musical, and so forth, products of manufactured actions that are not natural to the performer, including feigned emotions employed by opera singers when singing arias at concerts?

          • richard carlisle says:

            HD:

            Good point, perfectly said — let’s just watch the evasive maneuver coming up next.

            Thanks for contributing.

          • Producing music the audience likes is the point, of course, but only if it is produced safely. A manufactured timbre is a very different thing than acting. The former has the potential to thicken vocal muscles while creating muscle memory that would be very difficult to undo.

            In essence, in my opinion, much of Ms. Evancho’s timbre is a special effect, which has been wonderfully explained by Opera Magic. In movies and in the theater, there are controls in place stopping the use of special effects that aren’t safe – even if they can be done. By the same token, Ms. Evancho can produce the sound she is producing, but that does not mean she should. Further, I would hope that her fans would want her to be safe and not sing dangerously just because they like it. You may, of course, disagree about all of the above. Please understand that it will not change my opinion.

            Yes, she is talented. No, she should not be singing in the way she is. (Note that I did not say she should not be singing.)

            Finally, I am very immune to this “Jackie Effect” of which you speak. Her voice is not a voice that moves me, and her performances leave me cold. I do not identify with a child singing about love, loss and suicide in the least.

            In contrast, I have been brought to tears by the amazing performances of some of opera’s greatest singers, both in operas and in concerts or recitals. All singers have an “effect” on their core audiences. It is not unique to this child. It is called being a fan, and all singers have them (although none in quite this form).

          • richard carlisle says:

            Janey,

            Points smacking of validity perfectly expressed… I have trouble caring about content delivered in Italian that certainly I and possibly she as well — neither of us– understand or want to.

            Should I ruin a good thing by knowing too much– or complain about thunder sounding ominous when I know it will bring life’s primary substance minutes later…. would you want my concern over such content just as cabbage juice would have me guilty as charged for the possibility her chin wobbled while making DWM… of course you don’t have to answer since it’s a given –OK– so here’s an unresolvable that won’t go away, no counter comment needed.

            But may I offer a huge however in a belief there is common ground, in fact one cornerstone of AGREEMENT: when she sings “I still love you” in the song “Lovers” it really offends me and I wonder with her other innovations she didn’t rewrite that line to a platonic “You’re still with me” or whatever…the song also pushes her high limit painfully and she might even advantageously delete it from the repertoire.

            No need to beat dead horses in other debatable Jackie issues, and if you like to do anything but argue can we agree that Maria Callas in her youtube “Vizzi d’arte” created a masterpiece and if so are there other opera highlights on youtube comparable in quality you’d be willing to share that might allow sidestepping the energy-wasting kind of documented disagreements.of this blog?

            I live in the midst of many good ingredients with flat land delivering exotic sunrises and sunsets, sparse population with minimum road traffic, good radio reception providing the best of classics– hosted wonderfully– all in addition to a computer that offers youtubes played through an amplifier allowing enjoyment of immortals from Caruso to Netrebko… none of it reason enough to close my ears to an occasional phenomenon.

          • richard carlisle says:

            Janey,

            Just discovered a Deanna Durbin youtube singing Nessun Dorma– would really appreciate your opinion of her technique– just search youtube Deanna Durbin Nessun Dorma… totally beats Sarah Brightman IMHO (you don’t think that’s saying much).

            The clip is taken from the movie “My Butler’s Sister” made in 1943… do you know she made more than twenty movies?

            Thanks, Richard

      • Opera Magic says:

        Nobody has made attacks against Jackie Evancho’s character on these pages. Nobody has attacked her in any way. The only negative posts on this page have been about her poor vocal technique that may damage her voice. We’ve also said that she needs a good teacher to show her proper singing technique and thus keep her voice in good condition so that she may have a long career. Neither of these things is a personal attack on Jackie’s character. people who want her to get a good teacher and learn proper technique are not attacking Jackie’s character. The only people on this blog wo are engaging in character attacks are the Jackie fans hwo are attacking those of us who say she needs a tecaher so that she will sing with the technique she needs to make her voice last. The ‘Jackie Effect” and her “spitirual connection” will not protect her voice from the damage that improper technique can cause. Please listen to little Jacopo Menconi to hear what bad technique can do to a child’s voice. His voice has a coarse tone, his vibrato wobbles terribly, and he has lost control over pitch. In other words, he sounds like an adult singer at the end of a very long career. This damage in all likelyhood, cannot be repaired. He might have had a long career as an adult if his voice hadn’t been ruined. We’ll never know. Here’s a link to one of his performances. It’s very sad.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiGCOyByTp4

        Certainly she connects with her audiences, but a connection with the audience will not protect her voice. All singers need to learn proper technique…and I mean all singers, not just opera singers. I have no idea why you’re going on about what people in the opera world are saying about Jackie’s voice. Jackie doesn’t want an opera career…or at least her mother doesn’t want her to have an opera career because she, the mother, doesn’t like opera.

        • Bruce C. Desautels says:

          @ Opera Magic:

          Go back and read all the comments made here by these “concerned” professionals. One had the nerve to refer to Jackie as being a “little upstart;” another refered to her as a “money-making machine,” etc …

          There have been remarks made impugning her using hand gestures. Do hand gestures also act to “damage her voice?” It seems some — not all, but enough here to show a pattern of contempt — have looked for any excuse to ridicule this girl.

          Several of the “concerned” boldly asserted that her parents were exploiting their child, looking to “cash in” on her success. Still others refered to those responsible for managing-producing her music to be money-grubbing exploters.

          The “experts” here all but accused those involved with Jackie of committing “child abuse” (In fact, I think one poster actually did make the accusation.

          Then was even one unscrupulous clown who made the absolutely inexcusable inuendo that implied pedphilia on the part of myself — or, for the matter, any man that appreciates or defends this girl from unwarranted criticism.

          Moreover, slander is made on the character of Jackie’s parents — and I consider this an indirect attack on Jackie; or do you perhaps believe that the girl lives in a vacuum, totally isolated from these increasingly venomous insults against her parents?

          So, don’t tell me the criticism is only professional concern for Jackie’s voice. The written record proves otherwise. As I stated, I have no dog in this fight, other than a sense of fairplay — both for the child, and for those who think highly of her ability and accomplisments, even if they are not up to the perfect standards insisted upon by the experts. Again, if these concerns are truly justified, then they should be dealt with on a PRIVATE level — NOT via public humiliation. THAT is the crux of my disagreement.

        • richard carlisle says:

          OM:

          But also look at Hayley Westenra’s career (one of Jackie’s — or used to be– idols) performing since age 13 (see youtube), family managed similar to Jackie and still thriving in every way at age 24… one of the unique voices in recent times; you’d probably enjoy her if you don’t respond to Jackie and her technique.

      • Bruce!

        My goodness. Finally, some comments of substance from you. But it was a long road getting to this point!

  55. Sadly Opera Magic, some of her hardcore fans truly live in the LAND OF OZ!

    ALL of the comments about Jackie’s long term VOCAL HEALTH have been respectful. I think this young lady is very talented, but some her fans, I truly believe, think that the rest of us should roll out the RED CARPET every time she walks down a street.

    • Let me clarify! A least on this blog all of the comments about her vocal health have been respectful.

      • Opera Magic says:

        Dear CR,

        I should have clarified what I said to show that I meant that all of the comments on this blog about her vocal healty have been respectful. Thank you for directing my attention to this.

        The negativity, that has come from the people who think Jackie needs a teacher and that she may be damaging her vocal health, has been directed at the over the top Jackie fans who, as you say, “think that the rest of us should roll out the RED CARPET every time she walks down a street.”

  56. @richard carlisle or whatever else you call yourself, the BGT vid was slightly better than the Nessun Dorma in PBS, but not by much. The aria was still transposed down and as I wrote before to float a G# in head voice is not a big deal for a light soprano or choir boy even. Jackie’s comfort in that particular region, not the trembling in the middle and lower range shows that her voice is not being used properly at all. I don’t know what those silly choir members were doing there except to make the “Jackie experience” more spectacular.
    Even more fascinating though was your own comment below: “she’s even better than her most fervent supporters realize…even Maria Callas, who had much more time to develop technique, didn’t surpass her pure-spirited dedication. We are all witnessing a new kind of miracle!”
    Why do I get the impression that this is some kind of déjà vu from a person who not only has a habit of comparing Callas and Shirley Temple unfavorably to Jackie, but also has the notion that Gene Kelly popularized ballet. As for the latter, many dancers have had ballet training like Cyd Charisse (whom he danced with) and men like Patrick Swayze but didn’t pursue that particular means of expression.
    You claim that not only opera but ballet is on the way out:
    “… what Jackie can/will do is impact opera in a way similar to Gene Kelly’s popularizing of ballet…. there will still be traditional opera just like traditional ballet still.happens, but billions — not millions — more people will enjoy a Jackiesque smoothing process– no more lovers with faces four inches apart screaming at each other about their mutual adoration.”
    Well, the last time I checked, opera is still alive and kicking, as so is ballet!

    • richard carlisle says:

      CJ, (or whatever you call yourself)

      Think about what dedication means– nothing to do with performing,– only the quality of motivation that got someone to where that person is in a given field of endeavor… I could have compared her dedication to a gold-medal athlete who achieves in spite of a handicap… DO NOT MISQUOTE ME BY SAYING i COMPARED PERFORMANCES.

      And now for a separate topic: She performs in order to share what she feels is a gift from God: another indication of the quality of her dedication, something she seems sincere about.

      Finally my thanks for another laugh of the day: you properly quote me as saying traditional opera and ballet will continue, and then proceed to state I didn’t say that?

      My prediction that Jackie won’t eventually scream at her partner four inches away how much she adores him does not imply that traditional performers will cease the practice.

      I feel there is a valid concern over her chin wobble that critics bring up time and time again, but isn’t that a matter of reducing her level of vibrato and the wobble will decrease– I defer to your technical knowledge in this regard.

      • Opera Magic says:

        To Richard Carlisle,

        No matter what you think, opera singers do not “scream”. It may sound like screaming to you, but it is not. Please do some research into singing technique before you make statements like this.

        Jackie is wobbling her chin in an effort to produce more of a vibrato. Also, her vibrato has become heavier over the past year or so. Simply telling her to reduce her vibrato and stop wobbling her chin won’t accomplish this.

        • richard carlisle says:

          OM, I use the scream word so those unfamiliar with opera terminology will understand… please give me the correct word and I’ll consider using it if I refer to the elevated vocal volume mode again, mayby a chance for us all to learn.

          Now the other point, the ongoing chin wobble; it looks to me like she simply increased her vibrato as a sort of experiment to a higher intensity and the chin followed along, but it was too much vibrato and that was obviously realized and now at least in the Dancing… show, she had it back under control rather nicely leaving the way open for another barrage of complaints about half-dressed dancers and misuse of a religious song for dancing — new and desperate material for some additional discrediting and all with a wee bit of merit in my opinion but still overblown by the critics.

          Finally, what do you mean “won’t accomplish this”…

  57. catmando says:

    I think what OM means is telling Jackie to do something that has to be done by changing her technique will not work unless she is shown the correct way to do it. Jackie needs a voice coach but I think Team E is waiting for post-puberty for her lungs to fill out and her voice change before they spend money on a coach.

    But I could be wrong…

    • Most probably they have to avoid like the plague, proper voice teachers who will start from scratch and have her sound like a kid. The problem with that is she will be just one of hundreds of thousands of adolescents with lovely high voices. The clink of the cash register will be silent for a couple years or so except for outgoing money spent on music tuition.

      • richard carlisle says:

        CJ,

        You make earning money seem a bit inappropriate but here we are stuck in a capitalistic system that seems to condone pursuit of the buck… sure, why not return to the barter system with a modified Ebay approach– what a refreshing turn-about — Jackie would probably prefer to paid with a million kittens — no more bothersome trips to the bank, then she could loan them out to those in need of rodent control after she trains them not to hurt but rather strategically relocate those troublesome pests…perhaps she would receive more acclaim than singing brings according to the humble opinions of her critics.

      • Beatrice Hannigan says:

        An example of Jackie singing in her natural voice can be found here, starting near :42 in the video.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAPamp5jcLk&t=41

        Truly unremarkable, but more noteworthy are the scenes that follow of her warming up her voice, before her “expert” vocal coach, the tensing up, clenching of her fist, heaving of the chest, etc.

        • richard carlisle says:

          Beatrice,

          Was hoping to see the incident showing her not wanting to hurt an intrusive ant– a character illumination that voice critics constantly disregard… the fact of her human substance including her stage etiquette– the way she acknowledges her fellow performers, the gracious smile before she sings, the even more gracious smile after… to pick on only her voice is quite an irrelevant way to judge her– why not expand your view to include more of her human side– then perhaps you may understand her popularity.

          • richard carlisle says:

            Please allow me to correct: …incomplete way to judge… (rather than irrelevant)

          • Oh Richard! The depth of your humanity consistently reduces me to tears of….. oh, I can’t type anymore again…..

          • My kids and husband don’t kill ants either, or moths or spiders, so what is your point? “Her concern for ALL living things” – isn’t that over the top? A lot of singers and performers have good stage etiquette. Is this supposed to be unusual? Why does this look like a personality cult to me?

          • Beatrice Hannigan says:

            Richard,

            The behavioral traits you mention are indeed admirable, but again there is this persistent translation of critique of her singing into attacks on her person, the reason for which, I can only surmise is because that is so much easier to defend. Her popularity is not misunderstood and is of little issue. With some more insight you’re apt to find that many of her critics, or so called “opera-snobs,” in reality, are more so in Jackie’s corner, respectful and appreciative of her humanity than most of her fans populating these blog comments. This also includes taking seriously the young lady’s proclaimed desire to make a career of her singing and not just be a passing fancy; to which, I believe many music professionals here are mindful of in sharing their knowledge of harmful practices that will stymie Jackie’s longevity as a singer.

          • Bruce C. Desautels says:

            @ OM (CC to cabbagejuice and Norman L.)

            Perhaps; OM … but, unfortunately, respondents, such as Mr. Cabbagejuice, seem unable to make commentary without taking opportunistic “swings below the belt “– as, for instance, his constant inference to the “ca-ching ca-ching” money grubber mentality he presumes upon Miss Evancho’s parents.

            According to Mr. “Cabbagejuice,” those in Jackie’s orbit will never allow her time off for “proper vocal training,” because such hiatus would halt their “cash flow.”

            This asinine commentary, directed at Jackie’s family and associates, is what causes her “fans” to go ballistic.

            Professional criticism is one thing, but this envious drivel amounts to slanderous. Got that Norman L.? At some point you might think seriously about reining in your “boys” – because, if enough of this garbage gets into print, YOU might be facing a legal problem.

            Mr. Cabbagejuice will not bridle his envy long enough to stay constructive, which reveals that he really has no interest in being an honest critic – but rather hides behind the title so to take his liberties with the facts. His presumptuous out-of-bound remarks are what “piss off” those who appreciate Jackie Evancho’s “diamond in the rough” abilities — whatever the deficiencies. Truly, despite the “conventional wisdom” to the contrary that is thrown about this blog, many of her “fans” do recognize these problems — it is not as if we are deaf! However, the rude commentary that passes itself for “concern,” makes otherwise reasonable people turn a “deaf ear” to Jackie’s critics, even though we may not disagree with their proper criticism.

        • I wish “experts’” like that were rare, but unfortunately that is not the case. But as is said, “By their fruits, you shall know them.”

        • richard carlisle says:

          Beatrice,

          An unrelated item– not offered for debate in any way… just would like your opinion of Jackie’s innovations such as going up at the end of O Mio Babbino Caro and adding an extra Vincero at the end of Nessun Dorma… is it your opinion that innovations are strictly forbidden and if so was it proper for Luciano Pavarotti to make the first dorma in Nessun Dorma three syllables (dor-a-ma) rather than the customary two?

          Thank you,

          Richard

          • An extra high note here and there done by singers and other instrumentalists like string players, are not unusual. They are certainly not “innovations” and in this case, are meticulously thought and written out by Jackie’s arrangers. These days Jackie is singing “O mio Babbino” transposed down so this is no high wire act either to end on a G or G#.
            If you want newsworthy, Maria Callas holding a high Eb in alt at the end of Aida for several bars in Mexico is worth talking about and remembering. And as for Pavarotti, Italians have a habit of ending syllalbes with vowels. I don’t believe he actually added an “a” in the middle of Nessun Dorma but if he sounded faintly like that, it’s his language and he can do what he wants with it. Some recorded Italian singers of the 20′s and 30′s smooth the transition between two consonants with what seems like an extra vowel but it is not. However that is a really fine point for a person who thinks there is an aria in Tosca by the title of “Vizzi d’arte” – don’t you think, Russ?

        • Opera Magic says:

          Dear Beatrice,

          Unfortunately, the musically uneducated among her fans…and there are many…think the fist clenching, tensing up, and chest heaving, along with the chin wobble, poor breathing technique, and dropping her larynx to produce a more adult sound, are all adorable. They simply don’t understand that the use of poor technique can damage her voice. I also agree with you that it is unfortunate that her fans take the slightest suggestion that she uses poor vocal technique and needs a good teacher as horrible criticism of her character.

          I do thank you for your insightful comments.

      • Opera Magic says:

        To cabbagejuice,

        That’s exactly right. A good teacher would make her start all over again and sing with her normal child’s voice. As you say, then she would be just another kid with a nice voice, among many other kids with nice voices. I imagine Jackie’s parents and recording execs and handlers all run away like crazy from decent voice teachers. Jackie’s multitude of fans wouldn’t like that “natural child’s voice” at all and the cash register would be pretty silent.

    • Opera Magic says:

      To Richard Carlisle,

      That’s exactly what I mean. She has to be shown the proper way to do such things. BTW, she doesn’t have vocal problems because of her small child’s lungs. I’ve heard many well trained singers her age and younger who never have to gulp for air every few notes. The small lungs thing is just an invalid excuse for her bad breathing technique.

    • Opera Magic says:

      Oops, that last commet about Jackie having to be taught the right way to do things should have been addressed to catmando.

  58. @Bruce C. Desautels If I were a man, I wouldn’t bother about little girls who sing. I wouldn’t get ballistic or “pissed off” when someone says a girl needs voice lessons otherwise she runs a serious risk of ruining her voice. If a performer has been thrust in the public eye and are selling a product, not very cheaply either, then those responsible have to answer to public criticism that they would not acknowledge privately.
    Anyone has a right to speculate why this is so. Why is an 11 year old constantly performing all around the world if it is admitted that she has obvious vocal faults but doesn’t take voice lessons!? Those who have experience with this sort of thing can deduce the reason behind. it. I would even imagine a scenario where the parents may have consulted with expert(s) and the expected answer would have been for her to “stop singing for a year while her technique is reconstructed and strengthened”.
    And, BTW, my name is Janet Inoue, piano and voice teacher, currently teaching in a conservatory of music.

an ArtsJournal blog