Katherine Jenkins

[knight66]

This singer has seemingly just signed the most lucrative classical recording contract ever.

I have just heard her voice for the first time. Infirm tone, every other note squeezed like toothpaste, a wobble when pressure is put onto the tone.

The way of the world I guess. No doubt if she was very ordinary looking, no one would give three three minutes studio time.

Mike

[prémont]

No doubt if she was very ordinary looking.

Do you not think she is ordinary looking?

[The new erato]

Who signed her? Seems very EMI.

[knight66]

I suspect EMI, though the news headline I heard did not specify. As to her looks....she is quite pretty and that is part of the key here. If she was ordinary looking, no one would sign her with that small talent. She is a product, like toilet paper, but obviously, not remotely that useful.

Mike

[Tsaraslondon]

What I can't understand is how Classic FM Listeners can't actually hear the difference between the various singers they play. Classic FM plays a broad spectrum of singers, not just the Katherine Jenkinses and Russel Watsons of this world. They play singers of the past like Callas, Tebaldi and Pavarotti, singers of the present like Fleming, Gheorghiu, Villazon, Florez and then they play Katherine Jenkins and Russel Watson; sometimes singing the same repertoire. I once heard Jenkins singing a truly awful rendering of Un bel di (in English). Can't listeners hear the difference? Evidently not, and this is what saddens me. Pavarotti was hugely popular and yet most Classic FM listeners can't seem to hear that his Nessun dorma is in a totally different world from Russell Watson's.

[knight66]

I guess this is not just about the music, but the pretty-faces and the interviews, the appearances in various magazines. Gigli is long dead, so no current interest in beating cancer, or having been bin-man to Barbican Beefcake in one year or whatever.

People have to be able to hear the difference in the refulgent, golden sound of Pavarotti and the relatively parched and more effortful Watson. But Watson is here and now and personable looking and has his chirpy son of the sod persona; sod him.

Mike

[Peregrine]

This singer has seemingly just signed the most lucrative classical recording contract ever.

I have just heard her voice for the first time. Infirm tone, every other note squeezed like toothpaste, a wobble when pressure is put onto the tone.

The way of the world I guess. No doubt if she was very ordinary looking, no one would give three three minutes studio time.

Mike

Presumably you saw her on the Andrew Marr show? She followed the 'Prince of Darkness'....! (Mandy)

Agreed about looks, just eye candy, but oh, what eye candy...

[knight66]

Yes, a morning news BBC prog. But I did not see Andrew M. I now recall I did hear Jenkins once before and was surprised how poorly she sang. I must have blotted it out of my mind....I wonder why.

Mike

[Brian]

The deal is with Warner Music.

[Novi]

What I can't understand is how Classic FM Listeners can't actually hear the difference between the various singers they play. Classic FM plays a broad spectrum of singers, not just the Katherine Jenkinses and Russel Watsons of this world. They play singers of the past like Callas, Tebaldi and Pavarotti, singers of the present like Fleming, Gheorghiu, Villazon, Florez and then they play Katherine Jenkins and Russel Watson; sometimes singing the same repertoire. I once heard Jenkins singing a truly awful rendering of Un bel di (in English). Can't listeners hear the difference? Evidently not, and this is what saddens me. Pavarotti was hugely popular and yet most Classic FM listeners can't seem to hear that his Nessun dorma is in a totally different world from Russell Watson's.

Perhaps these differences aren't as self-evident as we imagine? I think that, in general, listening needs to be learnt, not so much in a pedagogical sense, but in terms of becoming familiar with the sound world, the repertoire etc - kind of like how tonal differences in a particular language might at first elude speakers of another language. We're posting on a classical music forum so we're all geeks beyond redemption , but the Classic FM crowd may well be more desultory listeners, as far as familiarity with the classical field goes, but also referring to the kind of casual background listening the radio sometimes fosters.

Having said that, I've never heard Ms Jenkins sing, so she may well be so unremittingly horrible that I may have to retract all of the above ...

I do, however, remember reading a couple of years ago that she and somebody (maybe Russell Watson?) had a sell out concert at one of the football stadiums up here.

[Tsaraslondon]

Perhaps these differences aren't as self-evident as we imagine?

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. I remember a non classical music listening friend of mine once telling me she had caught the Lesley Garret TV show one night, on an occasion when Renee Fleming just happened to be the guest. Her words to me? "Well I may not know much about classical music or singing, but even I could hear the difference between a so so voice and a great one." (Fleming's being the great voice in question). Now we on this board may argue about the relative merits of Fleming, compared to, say, Schwarzkopf, Janowitz or Leontyne Price; something which my friend would no doubt have more difficulty with; but anyone with half an ear should really be able to hear the difference between Russell Watson's rendering of Nessun dorma and that of Pavarotti, just as she could between Garrett and Fleming.

[Guido]

First video I clicked on:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=whyexXZFqh4
Really horrible.

[Ric]

Katherine Jenkins is a market's product, and Renée Fleming is really a great singer. We can't compare them.

And Renée is very pretty too! .

[Brian]

Katherine Jenkins is a market's product, and Renée Fleming is really a great singer. We can't compare them.

And Renée is very pretty too! .

If you are not being sarcastic, then I would like to append to this, that Renée Fleming was a great singer. 

[Ric]

If you are not being sarcastic, then I would like to append to this, that Renée Fleming was a great singer. 

It's possible that you are right, since the voices of singers lose capacity with the time. The voice of Fleming is not a excepcion. Also it's truth that Fleming has had a career too shallow in the last years.

Nevertheless I think that saying that Fleming only was a great singer can be unfair.

[Senta]

Wow, I watched two of her YouTube videos. I'm sorry, but there are better singers than that with more air, line, feeling and control at pretty much any decent university music school.

She's cute, but to me fits musically in that realm of the dreamy Irish crooners and Andre Rieus and other stuff that shows on PBS for pledge drives. Please call now!!   I'm sure she would certainly elicit large donations...

[Tsaraslondon]

If you are not being sarcastic, then I would like to append to this, that Renée Fleming was a great singer. 

Whether one likes her mannerisms or not, Fleming's is still a world class voice, something that Katherine Jenkins's will never be.

[Guido]

Whether one likes her mannerisms or not, Fleming's is still a world class voice, something that Katherine Jenkins's will never be.

This might not be the place to ask, but what are Fleming's alleged mannerisms? I have only one recording of hers, but wuld be interested to hear what people criticise her for.

[Sarastro]

This might not be the place to ask, but what are Fleming's alleged mannerisms? I have only one recording of hers, but wuld be interested to hear what people criticise her for.

Mannerisms are in the way she sings the music...though I personally do not like her for being dull and unmusical. I hear the dullness as well in her early recordings, such as Rosmonda D'Ighilterra, and do not think she ever was that great. As for me, she was just well managed/produced/advertised and presented as the new American diva, though at that time America had others, much more deserved to be called divas. I do not say she is a bad singer; no, she's well trained, but she is a mediocrity!
Also, she was booed at La Scala in 1998 for complete misunderstanding (particularly for tons of unnecessary high notes) of the bel canto style - I fully agree here. Let's listen to the dumb Rosmonda on youtube: aria and cabaletta and then try to compare to Sutherland's and Sills's renditions there as well!

Fleming, as well as Netrebko, though a hundred times better, is a nice illustration to what a well branded mediocrity with a good PR team is like, as opposed to June Anderson, a rare singer who, I think, is (was) underestimated in the States for absolutely no reason...maybe she needs a good PR manager. Though it seems that music is more important to her than a glamorous image.

[Sarastro]

Tried to listen to convince myself I am wrong, but...am convinced in the opposite. What did I hear? The sound is pretty soft, but it is not a pure ringing voice, rather a fading pale tone with substantial vibrato. Each piano, though well done, does not grow and bloom but rather dies away. Pretty well sung, but there is no brilliance, no splendour of the voice...and so unnatural. So...just mediocre.

But listen to Sutherland!! Young and beautiful, a unique rendition! The cantilena is impeccable - smooth and tender; crystal and heavenly sound; stylish dynamics, each phrase is literally breathing, growing, sparkling. No screaming on top notes + captivating agile coloraturas in the cabaletta. And the piano! A hundred of exquisite pianos, nuances! Just incomparable.