What if..

Doppleganger · Joined: Jan 17, 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Scotland

Bit of a contentious subject here folks!

Disclaimer: I like her a lot as a singer and have bought quite a few of her tracks. Although she strangles a tad on her lower notes and sometimes on her top notes she has a lovely full voice and I love listening to her tracks, in particular 'En Aranjeuz con tu armor' and 'Caruso'. So this is not a dig at her - she has absolutely made the most of everything she has and good luck to her. Smile

If Katherine wasn't as beautiful and charming as she is (and she is!) would she have been as successful as she currently is?

Ok let's take it one step further. If she was overweight but still had the voice and the personality (which is lovely) would she still be as popular?

Quawkers · Joined: Jan 05, 2006 Posts: 264 Location: Duckland - Bucks

Thats a difficult one to answer Doppleganger I really think Katherines voice is far better suited to classical music as I personally can always hear the classical intonations in her voice when she sings more modern songs. Lovely voice but most definetely Classical Very Happy

xotic · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:16 am Post subject:

Since I don't have any idea of how successful she is (haven't heard of her before I visited that page), this is only a general remark. I think looking good is not everything, but - even in the all classical genre - it sure helps you a lot.

Nicola · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:17 am Post subject:

Well, lets not beat around the bush here. My answer to that is definitely a 'no'. I've spoke about this many times before and I always say the same thing. I am not afraid to admit that I have bought Katherines albums because she is beautiful. No joke. I picked up her first album and the only thing that can drive you buy a debut album when knowing nothing about the person and how they interpret the track listing... is the front cover. Katherine has an incredbly beautiful picture on the front cover of that CD: I bought it. I didn't like it. But I still bought her second album and her third because I just liked HER so much.

I took my parents to a classical festival (they hate classical) and they still enjoyed Katherines performances. My Mum said Katherine was great, everyone else was dire. Why would she say that? She doesn't have a clue about the singing voice, opera or classical (When G4 were singing Nessun Dorma she said 'this sounds just like Opera!' Neutral

) She liked her because she oozed charm and that charm doesn't come from personality alone, it comes from that beautiful face of hers...

She is so purdy...

Nicola · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:25 am Post subject:

xrainy · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:37 am Post subject:

you could probably say that about all artists.
people like their voices and buy the albums, but it is the actual person and their personality that makes music lovers become fans i think.

ie i like oasis music and would happily buy their albums but i wouldnt say i was a fan of theirs cos i think personally the gallagher brothers are prats. lol

i like Russell Watson for his voice looks and personality , if it was just his voice i doubt i'd be on a forum talking about him. so yeah i think looks and/or personality do come into it.

kcuteus · Joined: Jan 14, 2006 Posts: 172

I think it all is a mater of what someone buys a cd for.

With me I get alot of the new singers cds in the kind of music I like and if I like tham I get more cds. But I have to said with alot of tham there frist cds I am not to into but I still get there next cd to see how they get better and most of tham did so I get athouger cd of theres. Smile

Quawkers · Joined: Jan 05, 2006 Posts: 264 Location: Duckland - Bucks

I know exactly where your coming from Kim I know myself I usually buy second or even third cd first and work backwards to the first cd Very Happy

xotic · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:16 am Post subject:

Doppleganger · Joined: Jan 17, 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Scotland

I'm probably in a minority here. While Katherine is indeed beautiful inside and out, I could care less how she looks like if she still sounded the same. There's no doubt her qualities other than singing are the reason she got a 6 album deal and so on but that's not her fault. I don't think she is the greatest singer out there but she's still very good and sings many songs quite beautifully.

To me Katherine shows how much the classical crossover genre is mirroring the pop world. I just hope it doesn't go as bad as that genre where image > talent on almost all occasions. In fact, it's gone that way a little already but the good thing about this genre is you really can't fake not being able to sing much for long, given the fact that these songs must be sung in a certain technical way. Studio tricks can mask a host of faults, but they're not much good when you're being asked to sing live in front of an audience.

But yeah Nic kinda summed it up when she said her mum loved Katherine but hated G4, even though it was the same style of music they were both singing. My mum said the same thing when a TV ad of Katherine's came on. "What a beautiful voice she has", she said. I think she was really meaning 'what a beautiful voice and what a beautiful girl'.

Nicola · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:45 am Post subject:

Hey, whilst I agree her voice is really nice, I don't think she would have been good enough without her charm. Like you said, she isn't the best singer out there and she wouldn't have made an impact on any recording company.

No disrespect to her, great for her! I can't say I am crazy about any of her albums but I do like her very much. It's like Rainy said, you would have to like more than the singing voice to become a fan (not all the time though, I love Keedie but I don't know much about her apart from her voice). What I do know about Keedie is that she is only 5.1 feet tall. That is one hell of a shorty.

Doppleganger · Joined: Jan 17, 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Scotland

When I said she wasn't the best singer out there I was meaning against the best in the business. She's still a good singer (it's hard to sing classical music well!) and she did win a few choirgirl awards in the past. Her voice has yet to mature as well and it may be that she will then be as technically good as someone like Renee Fleming for example.

Hey there's a lot of 'wee shorties' with big voices. Amy Nuttall is only about 5' 3" as is Anastascia. There's a myth that to be a good singer you need to be a big heffer - certainly not true as I'm a (relatively) svelte wee thing myself! Wink

Stephanie · Joined: Jan 14, 2006 Posts: 66

I buy Cd's not because of looks but because of interest.

dai · Joined: Jan 15, 2006 Posts: 7

In my view Katherine Jenkins is one of the best things that has happened to classical singing.... precisely because she has such a wide appeal. She has brought classical singing into the homes of many, many people that had little or no interest at all before. Yes, for sure her looks and charm have helped promote her....that is wonderful. I happen to like her voice a lot... I may not be a purist and Katherine's voice maybe has to mature somewhat before a "traditional" opera role but to me she sings and performs very well. She will also not be a one day wonder...with such potential still to come and such success so far who knows?
Try a concert....she has one huge presence.
regards
Dai

Doppleganger · Joined: Jan 17, 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Scotland

I think you're right there Dai - she has introduced Classical Music to a new audience, probably more so than any other artist, Charlotte Church included.