One of my last posts was talking about the emerging of young classical musician. I mentioned Jackie Evancho, the runner up of America's Got Talent, as one of them. My idea written in that post was like I treat the 11-year-old Pittsburgh native as a final-made Diva. But I was wrong. I've should not consider Jackie in that way. She was just the product of a talent show who needed to explore more her vocal technic then she deserved the Diva label - thinking of Renee Fleming or other pro opera/classical singer who got the label without not having a musical learning academically.
That whole eye-opening idea coming after I read
this Washington Post article, posted online Dec 30 by Tim Page. Entitled "Talented Young Musician Run The Risk of Burning Out Early", the article emphasizes on how we sometimes are confused on the label 'prodigy'. We mistreat a star, apparently a product of talent show, as a professional performer. Sometimes we say, in the case of child singing sensation like Jackie: "Wow, she sings like an opera star. Superstar! Praise the Lord for her!". Too premature to say so. Page says:
'By certain standards, Evancho may now be a "superstar", as Andy Warhol* would have understood the term. But she has many years of work ahead of her before she becomes any sort of musician - and I fear that this premature and unwarranted exposure will ruin a genuine and valuable talent'.
Agree. By his saying of the premature labeling 'will ruin a genuine and valuable talent' means that we must aware of the way we value the talent of a singer. We cannot 'value' Jackie who had been only months in the competition the way we value Renee who's been dedicated her whole life to study and perform classical music for almost three decades, or vice-versa.
On how Jackie sings an aria, in this case the Puccini's great work of "O Mio Babbino Caro", Page considers her as if 'she is trying hard to fill gigantic shoes that may well fit her someday but could easily wreck the way she walks if she persists in wearing them now.'
No need to rush for a girl like Jackie to sing the grant aria like that Puccini's work. She's talented indeed, but we prefer to see hear her singing like that, maybe, ten years later, after she matures her singing technic. Instead, as Tim suggests, Jackie should sing something that fits for 11-year-old girl. He adds: 'Why not folk songs and smart pop music and maybe some of the simpler Schubert lieder* instead of grand opera?'
(This case reminds me of Hayley Westenra. She was dubbed as classical singer when her first world-wide released album Pure came out as she was just sixteen years old but she denied it by filling most of her albums with simple traditional or folk songs. I think Jackie can learn from Hayley, singing songs that appropriate to her age)
The main issue here as Page wants us to consider lies on the way we label 'prodigy'.
'the cult of the prodigy has always struck me as one of the most debased aspects of the music world. If I were king, I think I would put some kind of ultra-restrictive law on the books that would permit the best and the brightest of our children to flower to ripeness, follow their curiosities, study their art, learn about joy and heartbreak and, ultimately, to turn into people before they are trotted out as the latest phenomenon.'
Page sums someone is eligible enough to be called 'prodigy' after s/he has learned tons of ups and downs of something s/he works on. Jackie, you got many homeworks to do.
Well, if you think this article is trying to discredit Ms. Evancho's talent, you are obviously wrong. Instead, it helps us to fix and re-shape the way we think of how to label someone properly, with a detail outlook of what and how she's done something.
So, the old saying is always true : don't judge a book by its cover
*avant-garde director who is inventing the famous term "15 minutes of fame"
*song performed by one singer accompanied by a pianist
