> Ho Hum.... Once again, and let me make myself clear, I HATE opera! I refer
> to it as stuffy because to me that is what it is. If that doesn't suit
> you, you can stuff it! I could say bag it but I just love the word stuff.
> Now let us get to POTO. Although Gerry Butler wasn't a trained singer, and
> yes it was evident, he played the role of the Phantom brilliantly. This my
> friend is my opinion and believe me I have the resources to back it up!
> Unfortunately everyone went to this film with the wrong expectation. If
> they wanted the stage play then they should have gone to the theater, paid
> the big bucks and enjoy. According to ALW the movie was to have a
> "Rock & Roll" attitude and to my evidently untrained ears, I
> absolutely loved the music and thought the acting superb. I must thank you
> for the quickie lesson you gave on the genre of opera music although it's
> of no interest to me, it was a nice gesture on your part. You really got
> to show your stuff! You will be happy to learn that Mr. Butler has decided
> to avoid any future musicals thanks to the likes of a lot of critics with
> a bad taste in their mouths or chip on their shoulder. It's really too bad
> because I for one of many would love for him to do another. Just one more
> tidbit for you to bite on. I thought at the tender age of seventeen Emmy
> Rossum was fantastic!

I am sorry that you feel this way about opera, because in my own experience, it is a vibrant art form that does indeed hold interest. The people who I have most often talked to who say that opera is stuffy are people who do not see opera on stage. They hear the old recordings of Maria Callas and Luciano Pavarotti, who I agree sound rather stuffy. The ones that do see opera and still call it stuffy are people who see poor productions. I remember seeing one production of Verdi's "Macbeth" that was excessively poorly staged, and it did seem stuffy. However, I recently saw a production of Otto Nicolai's "The Merry Wives of Windsor," and the comedic talent of the characters in that opera kept it fresh and interesting.

I feel that opera is given a bad reputation because of its misconception as a decadent singer simply standing on stage in a fancy costume, surrounded by an expensive set, singing in a language that the audience does not understand. However, from the early 20th century, and with the advent of Stanislavski's technique for actors, the Phantom's line, "Carlotta must be taught to act, not her normal trick of strutting 'round the stage" was taken seriously, and every singer who was admitted into any repertory worth its salt was required to take method acting, allowing audiences to better connect with the characters onstage.

BUT... on topic now:

Dear Gerry, I felt, did not play the Phantom brilliantly at all. I felt he barely played the Phantom in basic. He gave us a wonderful view of the Phantom's vengeful and obsessive sides, but without any hints of anything else, giving the character a shallowness that entirely negated the pity the audience is meant to feel for him.

Now, as for his voice, and the movie being a more "Rock and Roll" version: I think it's sad that people use Rock and Roll as an excuse for out of tune, uncontrolled voices. It's really just a cover-up. The reason I say this should be quite clear if one only takes a look at rock and roll history. The Beatles, Journey, The Mars Volta, and especially Queen, all display some level of vocal training and control. I say "especially Queen" because Freddie Mercury was an opera singer. The lead singer of The Mars Volta can bend his voice around notes higher than some women can sing, through the use of the whistle range. Each member of The Beatles recieved vocal training through their public schools, as well as some outide vocal training. Each of these rock singers can hit a pitch and keep it, without gravel in their voices, without pinching the sound to a harsh point. I haven't even begun with people like Rufus Wainwright or Clay Aiken, who were also classically trained, or even someone closer to the classical end of the pop/art scale, such as Josh Groban. All these people contain some element of rock vocals, but they do not use it as an excuse to sound bad.

I am sorry to hear that he's decided not to do musicals anymore. He really could do quite well in them, if they cast him in the right roles and he continued his vocal training. Unfortunately, this is not his role. No inexperienced singer, no matter how good they are on their own, should ever attempt to play The Phantom. It's an incredibly difficult role to pull off, vocally. It's a two-octave range, which is difficult for quite a few trained singers, and, as good as Andrew Lloyd Webber is at writing melodies, he has very little sense of vocal ease.

See, as a vocalist, certain vowels are easier in certain ranges, and these vowels differ between male and female singers, and to some extent from person to person, though they tend to overlap quite a bit amongst singers of a particular gender. For Andrew Lloyd Webber to write the second syllable of the word "aLONE" (in the phrase "You alone can make my song take flight") on the highest note of the Phantom's range is crazy, unless the Phantom is an extraordinarily well-trained singer, with strong vowel placement and good resonance.

And, as a vocalist, let me say that good resonance is the hardest thing in the world to train in at all, much less get it consistent across vowels.

Emmy Rossum, at age seventeen, and a student in the Metropolitan Opera's youth program, should sound better than she did in the film. I know fourteen-year-olds who sound better than she did in the film. Obviously, not having heard her sing live and unmic'd, I'm in no position to judge her vocal abilities on the whole. I do like her vocal quality on the whole, but this, I feel, is not her best work.

The female voice does not reach full maturity until about age 25. This could be why Emmy Rossum's voice was not at the level it should have been at, especially since not everyone's voice develops at the same rate, and hers could easily be a late bloomer.