I enjoy watching clips of Britain’s Got Talent more than I do clips of similar “talent” on America’s Got Talent for many reasons, not the least of which is the actual talent. ¯\_(?)_/¯
Recently, though, Simon Cowell got me thinking about talent. (I know – surprising, right? 😉 ) He had a comment to a guy that was an unconscious dig wrapped in a compliment, something to the effect that Michael Bublé pretty much had the guy’s genre wrapped up.
That spurred me to think a bit about Bublé’s performances and his genre. Compare his singing to the guys who defined the genre. Yeh, nopers. Bublé’s performances lack life, a certain attitude that goes beyond mere emulation of a crooner’s delivery. Compare Bublé and Sinatra singing the same piece. I’ll grant you that Bublé’s instrument – his voice – is technically a better instrument than Sinatra’s, but there’s a world of qualitative difference in their performances.
That spurred me to recall a “new classic” – a 2003 live performance of “Mary’s Boy Child” by Cliff Richards and Helmut Lotti (sorta Europe’s answer to Michael Bublé). As they performed portions separately and then together, the differences between the kid and the Olde Pharte became starkly clear. While I am not fond of everything Richards did in his performance, it had real life, while Lotti’s technically accurate performance, complete with better vocal instrument, was just kinda lifeless, no matter how much he attempted to insert Copycat Richards elements.
And that brought me to memories of what may be the ultimate “talent ain’t all there is” evidence. Early in his career, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, arguably THE best solo voice of the 20th Century, and if not the best, then in the top two, performed (and recorded) Schubert’s Wintereisse song cycle several times in his early career, and was justly famous for giving definitive performances, however. . . later in life, toward the end of his singing career (in his late 60s), he performed and recorded the same song cycle. While his vocal instrument was fading at that time, the performances are at least an order of magnitude more artful and moving.
Why? I would like to suggest that, even though Fischer-Dieskau’s voice was a lesser instrument toward the close of his singing career, his understanding of the music and text had advanced greatly, and. . . yes, even as his voice was fading, he never stopped developing his complete grasp of his art, his “chops” as it were.
Just a few synapse firings. No real conclusion or tie back to the BGT/AGT lead in.