Don't know if this has been brought up before but what are your thoughts on Jackie Evancho? The only time I've heard something remotely similar was when I heard a recording of Dame Kiri aged 5. Is this a natural voice or is she working her vocal chords to make this operatic sound, iykwim? Will this be damaging for her as she is so young?

I can't say anything concerning this as I am not so sure about it. I have heard her sing, I do love her voice but still I feel something is not right..

I find the wobbly lower jaw quite off-putting.

I would be concerned about the commercial exploitation of a child of this age. I know next to nothing about singing, but it seems that she is very likely to do some damage to her voice by pushing it so much at such an early stage. Makes me quite uncomfortable to watch...

Me too.

Hadn't noticed the wobbly jaw and now I'm watching her it is annoying and creepy. Still, what I'd give for her voice!

I hate this obsession the media/public have with children singing in an operatic style (wasn't she introduced as an opera singer on the BGT finals on saturday - wonder which opera that was?). There are far more skilled 10 year old singers out there that use their natural voices but will never get on tv because of it.

Drives me mad!!!

p.s. didn't Charlotte Church have a wobbly jaw as well?

I have not listened, but as soon as I hear the phrase "child singer sounding operatic" and wobbly jaw" I start to want to escape very fast. This is not in the vocal-health manual of voice development.

I heard it. If you closed your eyes you would think you were listening to a 30 year-old. The wobbly jaw is very reminiscent of Charlotte Church, and if possible, the voice is even more "mature" then hers. Dreadful.
But hey - she'll make millions. Who cares about vocal health? Certainly not her parents or her singing teacher!

I would query whether anyone who thought 'Nessun Dorma' was an appropriate aria for a 10 year old girl really had her best interests at heart. Yes, sheer exploitation. Sad that parents and teachers might think this is a good experience for her.

With the disclaimer that I know absolutely nothing about singing, I thought she was exceptional! I agree about exploitation of a child, but can someone explain about singing in operatic style and mature voices?

To me as a singer, listening to her gives me the same feeling I would get watching a child body-builder. Exceptional, maybe, but also a bit

Singing is different from playing any other instruments, because the instrument itself is also growing and developing inside you. Pushing it too much, too soon, can lead to damage later on.

I think that for the singers on the forum (especially the professionals - both teachers and performers) it is hard to listen to a voice like that without also hearing the [potential or actual] damage being done, apart from all the child-exploitation-lack-of-normal-childhood issues. So it is hard to get any pleasure from listening to it.

Thouston has put that very tactfully.

However melodious, it makes me shudder!

Parents know paedophilia is wrong as it damages children. This sort of thing damages children too, but somehow they let people exploit their children this way. Both are wrong.

Jod, I know you will not have meant it to come across this way but I think putting the term paedophilia and child singers in a similar context is highly offensive, especially to those that may have been abused. There is "wrong" and then there is "illegal and sick"!

Ok, from a musical point of view it may not be good for her voice but she is now a millionaire, soon to be a multimillionaire and if I could never sing again after making millions in a few short years then I wouldn't care!

Thanks for that
I hadn't thought about the way the voice develops as we grow, but that makes perfect sense now you've pointed it out. Having listened to her singing again on youtube, she does sound like a grown woman and it seems a little odd that such a big voice can come out of a little girl! Still, I guess to the majority of people she comes across as an exceptional singer and that's why she is enjoying such popularity.

I do find it offensive and sick and a form of abuse. I don't care if she is making money it is prostitu.tion with a small p and that is why it is so offensive and sick.

The sad thing is it is legal and it is exploititive.

If you find that offensive and sick then you have lived a very sheltered life. Using paedophilia, and now prostitution in the same context a singing is very offensive. Lets just hope there aren't people who have suffered from such reading this thread.

I think Thouston has put it very well. It is a little uncomfortable to watch and I don't think it demonstrates parents having their child's best interests at heart.

While I agree with most of what you say Musicalnitwit, I don't think it's fair to make a choice for the child of money over her voice. I wouldn't give up my voice for millions and I wouldn't have wanted someone do make that choice for me as a child.

Jod I think your post is really extreme. While it's not ideal it's in a very difficult league to what you have mentioned and I find it hard to see how you've drawn those conclusions.

Before we all fall out!

How on earth is her singing comparable to padeophilia?

She is an extraordinary child, and clearly gifted. Maybe her parents are pushy, maybe she is the driving force behind her success. We don't know, and nor are we in a position to judge her situation. There are many, many children who are gifted in all kinds of areas but I suppose because Jackie Evancho is in the public eye society feels able to pass judgement.

One cannot deny the existence of the pushy parent, the helicopter parent, and indeed the negligent parent, but similarly one cannot assume that simply because another set of parents have talented offspring they must have been abused in some way to make them so unusually good at their skill.

We should celebrate the success of others and use their inspiration to strive to better ourselves, and leave judging the quality of parenting to those actually involved in her life.

I put things this extremely to make a point. Exploitation is Exploitation and it is wrong it is sick and it is harmful.

Paedophilia was the choice of extreme evil I chose to draw attention to a moral wrong because it grabs the headlines. I deliberately used the verb to prostitute in lower case rather than upper case because the to prostitute is to exploit for monetary gain. To Prostitute (note upper case) is a specific case where ther service sold is s.ex.

Personally I find both distasteful. Both risk harming a minor, that is a person that has not reached the age of majority.

Am I the right person to attack here, the person who has exposed the fact this child is being prostitued on live television? After all this is what happened to the late Lena Zavaroni and she ended up suffering a premature death due to an eating disorder?

I'm certainly not out to attack anyone as part of this discussion, but I am afraid I don't agree fully with your viewpoint.

I was fully aware of the other (rather less widely used!) meaning of "to prostitute", and I am assuming that you deliberately used this word to highlight your point; it having hedonistic and extremely adult connotations.

You write "both risk harming a minor" as if paedophilia and Jackie Evancho's singing are parallels and I just don't understand how it is possible to draw that conclusion. You allege you are " the person who has exposed the fact this child is being prostitued" and again, I'm not fully clear of how you drew that conclusion as it suggests that Jackie Evancho's singing talents are being used in a corrupt manner. Perhaps I am naive, but the "facts" suggest that this young American girl won America's Got Talent due to her talent in singing in an operatic style, the audience (who, incidentally, would have paid for their votes to carry her through to the final) loved her and she is now performing world wide. Perhaps she enjoys it? Just a thought.

You a disregarding the risk to her long-term vocal health.

Perhaps I'm just a mother and a singing teacher who knows the real risks and would not allow my own children exploited in this way.

People let their children do all sorts of dangerous things. You could fall off a horse and break your neck. I'd rather a child risk their voice than their neck!

mmm one can leave them quadraplegic, the other leave one mentally scared as a method of communication is taken away.

Th big thing is if I let my boys ride a pony of their own free will, they are not doing it for reward, thus I am certain it is for pleasure... I take care to make sure that best practise is observed and therefore if there is a freak accident that is what it is.

I am not deliberately setting up an activity where I know harm will be done for profit.

This is a huge moral difference.

Again, you are making a big assumption here that she is actually being exploited. Perhaps there is a future risk of her harming her voice and undoubtedly as a singing teacher you will be in a position to properly evaluate these risks (I on the other hand am in no such position to comment). However, what you feel is appropriate for your own children is personal to you and I truly believe there is no "one size fits all" way to go about bringing up a child. I don't feel any one of us here has any right to make assumptions or judge her parents and I also feel that when you say you know "the real risks", you insinuate that nobody surrounding this girl does.

The truth in this is that none of us actually have any idea of what Jackie Evancho's private life is like. My personal belief is that we should not judge others when we simply don't know what we are judging! (Though of course I respect that you would not want that for your children. I doubt I would want it for mine either,my reasons being that I want to stress the importance of academic study - but that's an argument for another day! )

There is a motto in the school of hard knocks called "been there done that got the T shirt"

I look at the other child progedies who like Jackie sang as a child and the number of them who end up washed out in the Priory or the American equivalent or dying prematurly is rather high.

I know this sort of voice production is not designed for a child of her age.

I know she is earning lots of money.

Then using my little social science brain I look back into history at what tends to happen to people in that situation and I see patterns of sadness, and no the people around them did not know what they were doing.

I see washed up people like Mozart and George Best and Lena Zavaroni and Karen Carpenter all who burnt bright and died young.

Now do you see the point I'm making.

...but, how do you KNOW this is the case for J.E?

I'm just wondering how fair it is to automatically blame the parents?

Singing is the one "instrument" that everyone thinks is natural. Before I started taking lessons, I never would have imagined that there could be a problem with teaching children how to sing. It's just something we all do. As I'm sure is obvious from some of my posts, I'm the kind of person who really likes to research things and know everything I can about what I'm doing, so I did learn about this when I started taking lessons. That said, this kind of information doesn't necessarily come up automatically. Perhaps the parents found what they thought was a good teacher, and simply trusted that, as a professional, the teacher would tell them if there were any potential problems or concerns.

The teacher obviously has a huge responsibility to the health of their pupils. Are there many teachers out there that would take kids and teach them opera without telling the parents about the risks? I know it's highly improbable, but is it possible for a child to healthily sing the way she does?

In a word No. That is the short answer the vocal folds do not connect fully across the throat. They are not designed to sing like that for at least another four years.

I thought this link here might interest some people, theres an interesting discussion in the comments section below the article. Similar story, classically trained professional singer concerned about what damage could be done to Jackie Evanchos voice...


http://www.studiothirtyplus.com/magazine/r...odigy_1788.html

This isn't even my field and it worries me... apart from anything else, she doesn't have the lung capacity (or the breath control - one or the other or both) to perform this repertoire. And breathiness goes in and out kind of randomly. Lots of potential which should be carefully nurtured rather than what we see here.

I think the article speaks a lot of sense. There are clearly issues with this little girl singing and performing in this way at such a young age and I think the article expresses them well.

I do find the parallels drawn in this thread between prostitution, paedophillia, paralysis and this girl potentially damaging her singing voice very strange. It's just another level completely.

Could it be that this girl is just a physical freak of nature, and I don't mean that in a negative way?

Just as a person who has exceptional academic abilities, or freaky sporting talent, her vocal chords may have developed differently? I know of a 3 year old boy who is better than most 11 year olds at cricket and a 6 year old golfer that would put most amateur golfers to shame. They are physical freaks (don't like that word but YKWIM). We see 6 year pianists who are phenomenal and that seems to be ok but it is a different matter when it comes to the voice. I mentioned at the start that the only person I have ever heard sound like that was Dame Kiri aged 5 and she turned out alright!!!

If the girl were a freak of nature there would be no need for the chin wobble - the sound would be being produced in a natural way without need for neck/jaw tension. Straining is the only way one can produce a sound that the vocal folds are not capable of making naturally, be that timbre or pitch.
In my mind there is absolutely no "risk" of damage to Jackie Evancho's voice - "risk" implies chance or possibility - there is no chance in my opinion - it is a certainty.
I'm willing to accept that her parents may not know about the risk certainty of vocal damage. I'd stake a bet that they are pushy and selfish - i.e. want the money, and haven't given a thought to the future.
The singing teacher should be in hiding, knowingly encouraging this type of voice production, and allowing this type of crowd-pleasing, but nevertheless totally unsuitable, repertoire.
I do fear for her vocal safety, and also for her mental welfare. It's all a big party at the moment, parents laughing all the way to the bank. But an eleven year-old growing up in the public eye, becoming rich, never to have had normal childhood to adolescent transition with school, friends and, dare I say, innocence, mixing with the rich and famous* - something will give. When she enters puberty will she rebel, as "normal" teenagers do? The poor child's life will never be the same again - she will never, never be able to revert to a normal life. She will always be famous, with whatever that brings.
*And being exposed to their behaviour (drugs, alcohol?), seeing se.xed-up dance routines and singers with next-to-nothing on, gyrating before the camera.
Very sad.

...and to think yesterday I was thought of as the person who was naive.

What is happening to this girl is legal. It is just as distasteful and immoral as any other form of exploitation of a minor.

I hope that does not happen and it will be very sad if it does. However, singing that genre of music she will be surrounded by a "different" class of people. Her attire is appropriate and the make up she wears makes her look as if she isn't wearing any. I doubt her parents will have access to the money and will only be allowed to use some for expenses incurred.

I have to say that the jury's out here. At the end of the day she is being paid huge amounts for doing something she loves or she could wait and try and compete with the 18-30 year olds trying to break into the opera world. Of course she needs to be "managed" carefully, in all senses, but if she were my child then I think I would give her this opportunity. We only have one short life and I'm sure she would have more regrets not doing this than doing it, and the money will set her up for life even if she stops tomorrow.

That's another point of view, of course. But it's unlikely she'll stop tomorrow, is it? I think she's on one ever increasing spiral now.
And she won't be surrounded by a "different" class of people - look who she's mixing with now! That won't change because the true opera/classical world won't touch her with a bargepole. They have the same views as we trained teachers.
It's true we only have one short life, but if they had done things "properly" - i.e. nurtured the voice and let her have proper training at the appropriate age, she could have had one h*** of an operatic career, spanning a whole lifetime, earning just as much and getting the accolades, and, probably, a more satisfying career.
Patience, as they say , is a virtue. Plant a seed, water and feed it and your reap bounties. This is like forcing a cucumber. Tasteless and short lived.

Yet more wise words, and for the record if she were my child I'd take my chance on the big picture rather than the fast bucks.

If the jury is out it only is because it is made up of 12 ordinary people rather than 12 people with specialist knowledge, or that two specialist witnesses did not make their cases strongly enough.

I think that is very arrogant Jod. Yes, I am not musical but I have vast experience of the television world, especially childhood stars. I cannot go into it but I am not a non-specialist in this area.

As for her parents, they didn't even know she could sing and it was her grandparents that entered her for a talent contest. Only at that point was she "spotted" and having unmusical parents that do not understand the voice I suspect they got swept up in the whole thing and were not offered proper guidance. It's all very well for us to sit on our high horses judging but I'm sure there are things that members do on here with their children that I would be appalled at and vice versa. I have a friend who thinks I am abusing my child by sending him to choir school and I think she is abusing her child as he only eats bread and nothing else!

As for going off the rails: sadly, over 75% of the students at my state school were drinking and taking mild to heavy drugs by the age of 14, so it happens regardless of lifestyle!

Right, off to thump on piano!!!

Ann, I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's sad that she won't have the opportunity for the type of career she could've had with the right handling. Charlotte Church is an excellent case in point of someone who is marketed as a sweet and innocent child, hits their teenage years and rebels in a very public way with access to the 'wrong' people who take advantage. She's in her mid-20s and the best part of her career is over. That must be tough to deal with.

Jod, you weren't called naive because of your views that she shouldn't be allowed to sing in this way (which I agree with) but because of your assertion that it was comparable to really extreme forms of child abuse and exploitation.

Right so I'm either naive or arrogant over exactly the same point depending on your perspective.

I'm naiive/arrogant if i feel that for a family to prostitute (note lower case) their daughter's vocal talent for short turn profit, despite two vocal experts stating on this forum that this will damage her voice in the future and possibly cause her psychological harm is not morally wrong. Furthermore that although this is legal, this misuse of a child is as distastful as paedophilia as it potentially causes as much psychological damage as there is enough empirical eveidence over Centuries to demonstrate this.

Now tell me if this 11 year old girl was your daughter that with a clear conscience you would feel happy letting do this. I would not.

I did not spend time studying Instrumental Knowledge Voice and reading specifically about Children's voices for professional reasons and working with childrens voices with both AoTOS and BVA members be told by rank amateurs I do not know my field.

Totally agree with Ann C on this one. I was asking myself whether I would have felt any happier had she been singing (instead of 'Nessun Dorma' - would it be possible to think of a less appropriate aria for a 10 year old girl?!) a Folk Song in a natural voice - as children do in Eisteddfods, Music Festivals and so on. Of course, they are not being broadcast to the world.

I would have been slightly happier - but not much. I think the TV exposure is every bit as harmful as is the undoubted damage that is being done to her voice. Could it only happen in America - where there is a 'Pageant' culture, with over-dressed and over-made-up 4 year olds imitating adults? Not so long ago, the 'public' would queue up to gawp at freaks. This was in fairs and circuses. Now we have You Tube. Sorry MNW, I can't find any redeeming features here at all.

There is more to life than money, and there is a lot to be said for a childhood spent in total obscurity. Real talent will always emerge in the end.

I would not want fame for myself, I would absolutely hate it. When I was a child I would have rather liked to be famous for something, children don't understand the full implications. A child has no choice in the matter if fame is thrust upon them in this way, and yet it will change this little girl's life fundamentally.

It would have been far better for her to develop a proper career as an adult singer, than to be put on show as a novelty.

Jod, does ot not bother you that you continually offend by using the terms prostitution and paedaphilia? Maybe you should get yourself down to a crisis centre to see the effects of both!

Where do we draw the line - should there be no child actors, should Ronan Parke not have been allowed on Britain's got talent?

No why should I. I used the verb to prostitute = to exploit for monetary gain. You used the term Prostitution.

I used the phrase paedophilia as an example of an illegal immoral predatory act that is carried out on minors .

As far as getting down to crisis centres are concerned. You are making presumptions me. You do not know anything about my life, about any or if any harm has been done to me or my family or whether I have or have not seen any members of the psychiatric profession. Now who is being arrogant!

Agreed: see my earlier post about the adult connotations.




I believe I used the word naive yesterday. If this is the source you are quoting, I suggest you re-read my post as the word was used about myself.

Before typing I suggest you read EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID.

1) THIS IS MY FIELD.
you have admitted it is not yours.

2) IT WAS NOT YOU WHO CALLED ME NAIVE.
other people here are entitled to their opinions too.

3) I DELIBERAELY CHOSE A CONTROVERSIAL FORM OF EXPLOITATION TO COUNTERPOINT WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE TO MAKE PEOPLE REALLY THINK IS THIS RIGHT.
Instead I have been called all sorts of names under the sun. I ask you instead of reaching for your keyboard and pressing send without engaging your brain. Stop and think.

I don't know what you are an expert in, but if was as patronising to you in your specialist field, I'd be pretty hacked off and justifiedly so.

No one was patronising you Jod but merely asking you (in a round about way) not to use such offensive terms, which has nothing to do with your profession!

However the point here was to use one verb which was non offensive but offense was read into it, and an offensive activity because I is offensive due to the fact it exploitative and taboo.

The physical and emotional damage that can be done this child are potentially as great, but they are in an area that is not taboo. Therefore the only moral difference is that one activity is seen by society as acceptable and the other as taboo even though in both cases children are being damaged.

Well excuse me for causing offense but that is moral balderdash and ethical piffle.

I don't want to go into details, but someone very close to me suffered abuse as a child. I cannot say I was offended by JoD's post, but took it in the spirit it was intended. I think that perhaps the comparison is a bit strong in this case, but I think JoD has strong feelings about it because of her profession. It would be helpful to stop arguing about this now and carry on with the discussion.