Everyone knows about the computer and business jargon people use to look clever but what about theatrical jargon.
On programmes like over the rainbow, i can understand if they are told that the pitch, tune or emotion wasn't right, but what about telling the story of the song, i don't understand. You can only sing the lyrics that there are. The panel say other stuff like, 'you left me to interprit the meaning' but how can you, when you can only sing the lyrics that have already been written?
Its eally starting to annoy me when they say stuff like that. Then they pan over to the contestant who nods, but doesn't actually have a clue what they mean.
phrasing timing and emphasis , just as in speech pauses and emphasis are the punctuation this applies to singing as well and can affect how a song is understood by the listener... this might be part of it
That's why it's important to understand the emotions and intentions of the piece before you sing it, Molly .. especially in a competition.
Classical singers study favourite composers for years, so they can have a better understanding of the meanings behind different part of the music. That can make a great performance .. or a crap one.
I haven't watched "over the rainbow". Exactly what do Sheila Hancock, and the guy from Eastenders know about singing and stage musicals, to be able to judge and tell them what their failings are?
I just saw it for a few minutes last week while they were pontificating. Sheila's hair did look a bit wig-like. I don't know who John Partridge is seen him on EE once, (don't watch that either if I can help it). I think whatshisface lloyd webber already knows who he wants, it's just more televised humiliation.