"John" wrote: > Intuitively, I do appreciate the idea that a musician like Andrea Bocelli can > be considered a scientist of the genius kind. The same could be said for > Monet and other artists--writers included.
Andrea Bocelli? Andrea Bocelli? Andrea Bocelli? I'm a minor opera fan -- mostly I listen to the great tenors and sopranos singing the most time-honored arias. Let me tell you that, even as a guy who knows almost nothing about music, I can say that Andrea is not an opera singer. He just doesn't have the range or control. That said, when he mentored kids on American Idol last year, he sang circles around all of them -- he is very serious and obviously appreciates music beyond my ken. But, to my ear, he's a whole notch less than most of the serious opera singers. Since he puts out CDs with operatic endeavors, I'm guessing that he's not selling to the opera cognoscenti, but instead is doing operatic popularization. That said, I very much agree with the info from Judy about the various ways to grok reality, and Andrea surely has some insights that could be "translated by God" into some very decent summations about reality. But, Andrea is no Einstein -- he's much more at the level of, say, "grad student" when it comes to grasping the eternal realities. Now, Mozart or Bach -- they could give Einstein a run for the money. And I own quite a few of Andrea's CDs so I'm not a "lesser talent" snob -- my being a fan of American Idol proves that -- heh heh. What I DO like about Andrea's singing is that he picks songs that fit his "package," and the songs he sings that I cannot find other also singing, DO create a mirage of emotional depth that the notes themselves cannot convey if they are on paper and if another singer must interpret them they may not reach Andrea musical clarity. IOW, I like his stylings. Edg
