Posted:
Thanks to Indian Idol and the incredible rise in importance given to the social media lately, I have happened to read many people's thoughts and opinions that they came up with while judging contestants' performances. Some people, in fact many are with the opinion that the winner is supposed to be able to sing complex numbers (they mean classical numbers) and people who can't judge that kind of singing are not qualified enough to participate in voting.
But that doesn't make sense to me at all. To me, every song is supposed to be composed or sung with the sole objective of impressing listeners or make it sound pleasant. The more listeners the song impresses, the bigger the credit. There shouldn't be a classification like easy songs and difficult songs as such. A professional singer is one who can make any song sound pleasant. Not all classical singers can sing songs like Tum hi ho with the right feel. Some great people created classical music with the intent of helping singers to posses the quality of singing any song with ease. That and only that should be the purpose of learning it, but should never be a parameter to judge a singer's potential. In M M Kreem's words, classical music is like a driver's license. The ones that have the permit to drive not necessarily can drive better than the ones that do not. Are you able to do justice to the lyrics, pick the right feel, respect the composition and last but not least, sing it from your heart? Then you are a good singer. If I have to be a singer too in order to be able to understand how good of a singer you are, then how does that make sense?
If I seem to be supporting my inability to identify a classically-potential singer with this post, then I need to be corrected. Please feel free and find some time to correct me. I need to improve my perspectives.
comment:
p_commentcount