Choose one for Jackie Evancho: Stardom now or a real singing career later?

I was delighted to discover during Tuesday night's "America's Got Talent" that my handwringing about Jackie Evancho's falsely adult sound and the evils of network television was premature. Her performance of the "Pie Jesu" from Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1986 "Requiem" was astonishing in all the right ways. Listen on the clip above. The sound was natural and uncovered, vibrato was achieved with very little wagging of the chin (a dead giveaway for poor technique) and her phrasing and intonation are the envy of many a professional.

Much of the anxiety music teachers express when they talk about Evancho's voice is worry about it being permanently damaged before it reaches full potential. If the 10-year-old girl wishes to pursue a career as an opera singer, this is a justifiable concern, but what if she doesn't want to wait until she's 30 or 40 (the age most opera singers become established) for the money to roll in?

Evancho has a rare natural talent and will have it for the rest of her life. But the Simon Cowells of the world don't trade in futures. The inevitable Christmas record will sell millions of copies, but then what?

If Evancho follows the same road as Charlotte Church, she will be worth $40 million by the time she finishes high school -- piles more than she would ever make as an opera singer.  By that point she likely will have destroyed her voice -- but she would no longer need it to earn a living.

The Julie Andrews model is: perform in a weekly revue and on radio while taking singing lessons; move to minor music roles in teenage years and then debut on Broadway at 19.

Evancho's parents have a tough decision to make even if she doesn't advance, especially since child stars are very rarely successful as adult performers.

Since "America's Got Talent" viewers are voting to decide Jackie's fate, she is, in a way, our responsibility. If you were her parents, what would you do? Jump for the sure thing (record deal now) or wait to see what happens when she is an adult and can make her own decision about her voice?

Discuss in our comments section below.

-- Marcia Adair

RECENT AND RELATED:

Vote: Is Jackie Evancho changing her sound?

Jackie Evancho's voice strikes a chord

Before Jackie Evancho: Remembering Julie Andrews, Beverly Sills and other young vocal prodigies

Hear Jackie Evancho, the 10-year-old with an operatic voice

Comments

[Alucardi]

Take the glory now and plan for the future. Yet foremost, enjoy growing up. Many young talented lin-lings get "raped" by the media and their demands. That's my biggest concern. No question she is the most talented young girls I've heard, but remember that she is also needs "her space". Money can buy conveniences but it can't buy true life "serendipity".

[brian b]

I love all these "Musicians" on here talking about proper vocal training etc...

You don't NEED that crap.

You need "TALENT" hence the name of the show.
Keep practicing your breathing techniques and vibrato/ chin analysis while she becomes a star.

And........THAT is why you will never be one.

Nothing like a disgruntled vocal coach that never made it. *Shakes Head*

[Jeffrey A Johnson]

Jackie has both ... there is no reason to think otherwise ... she is touched by the Almighty and is already an American treasure.

[richard speer]

jackie has made it easy to tell who has and doesnt have a heart,

if your can liaten to her songs without tears, you might check with your doctor, I'm sure their are voice authorities out there who may make all kinds of considered judgments about her voice, which may be correct.

none of that matters. the girl haS an angelic voice. all else drifts away and doesn't matter.

all that matters is there have been none like her. I've listened to Sills and Hepburns early recordings\. Nice but not in the same universe with this cosmic angel.

[Chiming In]

RE: icarusascending
"The concern with Jackie is that she doesn't actually have a significant understanding of vocal technique; the concern is that she is only mimicking the sound of someone with a considerable understanding of vocal technique."

I would refer back to her age and relative lack of experience, and ask how deep an understanding of vocal technique she can be expected to have at this point. She is learning vocal technique, to be sure, but she's still relatively new at this, so it's very much a learning process. For her age and lack of experience, I'm rather impressed by what she's managed to absorb to this point. She has much to learn still, but has learned much thus far.

I think her parents are aware how fragile this gift is at this point, and are not going to allow any overkill as far as whirlwind concert tours or the like. Jackie herself would love to travel the world and sing, but the people around her know better. I would hope that the opportunities that come from this AGT experience are used for the best vocal training possible, with a view to the future rather than today, and any appearances are at a minimum. Do a couple of CDs, maybe a few short appearances through the year (at the most), and let Jackie have her childhood.

[OJ]

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush... She should achieve what she can now and deal with later years in the future.

[Kim Verzi]

Just a thought....how about ask Jackie what she would like to do.

[icarusascending]

Back to "Chiming In":

I'm totally with you.

I intended to express in that particular post that the concern is that Jackie might not have enough of an understanding of vocal technique to withstand the touring rigors that might soon be imposed upon her by ambitious handlers.

I didn't mean to express that, at 10 years old, Jackie needs to have the technical understanding of Renee Fleming. Not at all.

And to "brian b":

Young ballet dancers are not thrust into toe shoes from day one. They graduate to them over years of training--years required to strengthen the muscle and connective tissues, and to gain an understanding of posture and balance, etc.

Could a young girl strap on a pair of toe shoes, practice regularly and soon stand upright--and even create some beautifully expressive lines in the process?

Yes, she could.

But could this young girl experience negative physical repercussions for having done so prematurely?

Yes, she could.

Even so, an audience observing a performance by such a dancer might be profoundly moved by the beautiful physical and emotional lines created by such a dancing prodigy--even while educated dancers might point out that her ankles are buckling to a concerning degree, or that her lower back is too arched, etc.

Unfortunately, singing isn't so easily assessed, because the vocal folds aren't visible.

Many people seem to think that, from a technical standpoint, matching a pitch is all that's required of singing. And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not suggesting that Jackie Evancho is merely matching pitches. Not at all. She's clearly musically expressive.

But from a technical standpoint, efficient singing is about more than matching pitches. It's not about much more than matching pitches for Madonna, but for anyone choosing to pursue a certain purity of tone, singing is about more than matching pitches.

Furthermore, when a very young singer is pursuing and executing what we label as a "mature" tone (as Jackie clearly is), it's possible that the young singer is contorting their vocal folds in any number of questionable ways to achieve that mature tone in the short-term--but that doing so could create physical damage in the long-term.

Leon Fleisher, the concert pianist, is beyond talented. A musical genius. And yet this musical genius was still capable of crippling himself in the process of practicing and performing to the extreme.

I'm not trying to destroy joy or beauty via weighing in on Jackie Evancho. I wish her an incredibly fulfilling life, no matter what she chooses to do.

But it's possible that she's doing some unorthodox things with her vocal folds to achieve the mature sound that she's achieving at her age. It's possible. And it's possible that these unorthodox things will ultimately create irreparable physical damage to her vocal folds, which will end any sort of singing career.

It's possible, "brian b". It's not a guarantee, but it's possible.

[Synapse Associates]

It is clear that it is Jackie--not the parents--who is following a dream. It doesn't take a village, or Big Brother, or hand wringing from bloggers who arrogantly assume that they have her best interest.

Jackie is a obviously a happy and quite sweet girl who obviously loves and is loved by her family...and loves to sing.

And by the way, it is the Simon Cowells of the world who made the dreams of a dowdy, unknown, lonely Scottish lady come true in her 50s even when she lost Britain's Got Talent.

Thank God you weren't looking out for Susan Boyle's "real singing career."

[Steven Douglas]

Joy wrote:

"I'm curious, Steven Douglas - what did you want to be when you were a 10-year-old child? A fireman, perhaps? A policeman? The President of the United States? And at age 10, did you really have ANY clue of the reality of what your "dream" would actually entail in real life? I seriously doubt it."

Speak for your Projecting Self, Joy. I knew some of my greatest core loves and interests as early as seven years old, and pursued them with vigor. They branched out and bore fruit for me naturally as a result. No issues for me there. As such, I feel as though I can relate to Jackie on more levels than one, whereas you seem more to relate to your own self, or your own view of the so-called "reality" of life for an average child. Do seem to imply that Jackie "doesn't really know what she wants" based on her age. Yeccch! Bleccch! I had friends with parents who thought like that, and I felt terribly for them.

You continued with a red herring when you wrote, "The bottom line is that Jackie's parents have the right to protect their LITTLE GIRL from the potential of being exploited & used."

Well, I fully agree. Of course, that was not ever at issue. Stay on point, Joy. Focus. The only real issue brought up in this article had to do with the decision (by whomever) for early or later vocal development and career on Jackie's part, not the dangers and pitfalls related to exploitation on the parts of those in the world of commercial entertainment. Of COURSE it is her parents job to protect her, in all respects, and to keep her from ALL forms of harm, including those who might want to cause harm to her dreams.

"Jackie ... is very likely naive to the fact that there are people out there who are just waiting to exploit her to make as much money as possible for themselves, all under the guise of "helping" her fulfill her "dreams.""

News flash: Those "exploiters" you described come in all shapes, sizes, and levels of honesty and integrity. Jackie's parents really do need to get good people on their side to make sure everything is equitable and in Jackie's interests. BUT... "wanting to make as much money as possible for themselves" is the one thing that all of them SHOULD have in common, as any exception to that rule would not be worth talking to, or worth their salt.

[Liz]

She could have a career now. People will buy her CDs by the millions. Then later on in her 20s she can get married, have children and enjoy her children with the millions she's made.

[S. O'Neil]

Joy, well said. I think Steven Douglas is making the assumption that because Jackie is out here in the public that she necessarily must be there because she loves what she does, when really you can't make that assumption just because 10 year olds do have the capacity to love what they do.

Maybe she does and maybe she doesn't. Because what 10 year olds has the capacity to get a parent to understand that they might have a different philosophy about happiness in terms of balancing quality of life against having to earn a living, since they're not the one in the relationship working to feed the family and put a roof over the parents' heads. That's assuming kids even have the capacity to formulate a concept about life/work balance without ever having held a full-time job and paid the bills.

This conversation gets played out in every family - a child asks a parent why they have to do something they don't enjoy like practice classical music for an entire hour each and every day because they find it boring and repetitive. And the parent explains that it's because they have a gift and that's how you get better. End of story.

Or look at it from this angle - you think it's really likely the case that it's Jackie that's been the one begging her mom to let her practice opera every day, and it's been her mom that's had to warn her about the possible dangers of doing permanent damage to her vocal chords by moving forward at such a young age, which thereby puts her at risk for affecting her chances of having a long-term career in singing? With Jackie being the one to say that yes she appreciates the risk she's taking and that she's weighed the pros and cons and believes that peaking in terms of money and fame while she's a kid, and then 'retiring' by 24 like Charlotte Church if that's how things turn out is how she'd prefer to live her life?

I mean come on ... I don't know how people could be so cavalier about the risks Jackie is incurring by seeking to win a show so that she can do a cross-the-country-tour at age 10. I don't think that's being very realistic to avoid dealing with those concerns by assuming that they're just not going to happen ...

[erick]

I can't believe the fuss about this mildly talented little girl. She sings ok, in her little breathy and very wobbly and VERY SMALL voice, but she has no understanding of what she is singing, her dynamics are childish and she has copied Sarah Brightman from intonation right down to the hand gestures.

If you want to see a truly great child singer, go to YouTube and look for Judy Garland at the age of 11 singing to a photo of Clark Gable.

The voice is big and assured, the timbre vibrant and deep, the understanding of what she is singing astonishing and the dynamics and musicianship unparalleled. She sings like a 40 year old woman, not a child, and her style was totally original: no copying of anyone. She was unique and a true marvel, a freak of musical talent. This little girl is not so appalling as Charlotte Church, who had virtually no talent, but she is nothing very special, either, even with the coaching that is darkening her voice.

[Mick]

I'd like to hear her sing something from West Side Story.

[anonymous2000]

Okay, I am praying and hoping that my commentary here is not misconstrued or improperly classified as me being a "hater" of Jackie Evancho. She has the most beautiful voice I have ever heard, bar none. Truly amazing in every way. However, here is my concern. She is still just a LITTLE girl. Children only have one time in their lives to children, and this is her time to enjoy her life as a little girl. Also I think that her parents should be very careful about how much of the spotlight they allow her to have at such a young age. They need to make sure they allow her to have a normal environment, to make sure she still continues to develop as a child, a person, and not just as a singer or star. I worry about her development as a child, it is so crucial for her to continue being a child. Yes, she should still use her talents, and I am not at all saying that she should not use her talents, certainly she should. But, if I were her mother, I would make sure that there is a healthy balance between the world of Hollywood and her own back yard. Children these days grow up so fast, and it's a shame that so many children are missing out on just being a child. There is so much joy to be found in the simplicity of childhood. This is certainly an amazing opportunity for Jackie, but I would caution her parents to make sure that they are still providing a well-balanced lifestyle for their daughter. I read some of the other posts about Jackie damaging her voice and who cares because she will have made enough money, it won't matter at that point. But let's be clear: this little girl smiles the way she does because of her passion for singing. Teaching a child that money means more than her passions in life is not at all a well balanced lesson. If her parents are smart, and hoping that they are, they will make sure that her AMAZING jaw dropping talent is cherished and nurtured, and taken care of in a manner that will not allow her to damage her voice and hurt her future, but will only help her to blossom. The only way a flower can bloom is with sunlight yes, but also with water and other important ingredients. Like most things in life, too much of anything is normally never a good thing. Anything to the extreme takes life out of balance, and for an amazingly talented little girl, her parents have the responsibility of ensuring that this healthy balance not just exists, but is encouraged moving forward.

[icarusascending]

Amen, erick.

I haven't researched Sarah Brightman's intonation or hand gestures, but it wouldn't surprise me if Jackie was borrowing heavily from her.

Whatever the case, I know my Judy, and you're spot-on about her talent.

You made me love you. ;-P

[Betty Moore]

When I read this from erick :"I can't believe the fuss about this mildly talented little girl. She sings ok, in her little breathy and very wobbly and VERY SMALL voice, but she has no understanding of what she is singing, her dynamics are childish and she has copied Sarah Brightman from intonation right down to the hand gestures."
Are you a vocalist, Erick? And if so, I can only assume that you are a mediocre, jealous one. All of the truly gifted, humble singers that I've ever been privileged to sing with have been confident enough in their own ability to be humble, gracious people. People who truly enjoy hearing others sing. Oh my goodness, to think that a grown man...I assume, has nothing better to do than to trash the talent of a truly gifted little girl. I honestly can't stomach it. I've seen some posts here in which people have belittled Jackie's talent because it's being enhanced with amplification. Yet these same folks also feel that she may be damaging her young voice by trying to sing beyond her years. Make up your minds, you don't want her to ruin her voice but you think, that at 10 years old, she should be projecting to a huge audience with no mic. She says she practices an hour a day, with her singing coach...how does this rob her of her childhood? Is her life the same as that of a child who doesn't publicly perform? Of course not! Yet, it is her parents who have the responsibility to maintain balance in her life, to allow her to use her gift and still be a little girl. I pray that that's exactly what they're doing. I love to hear this phenomenal little girl and I love that she dresses like a little girl and demonstrates respect for the others in the competition.

As to all of us having a say in this child's life...nonsense! I'm a mother, my son's welfare was my concern, mine and my husband's. Our part in this is to enjoy the wonderful voice, obviously God given, of a lovely little girl. Someone decided in these posts that she had no joy in what she was doing. What is wrong with you people? Can't you hear, or see? You have no idea what goes on in her head or heart. You don't know the dynamics of her family life. Who are you to make such hurtful, ignorant comments. Millions of people, like myself, have been blown away by the beautiful music of Jackie Evancho. I've been struck by how mannerly she is, how well spoken and gracious.
Why don't you get your head out of your...hmmm...maybe you'd be able to hear her better. Oh, and you might find something more important to do than to insult a gifted little girl.

[AGTfan101]

Jackie is a prodigy. If I were her parent, I would, for now, limit her appearances and recordings and continue her voice training. By the time is 13 or so, however, it will be her decision. If she has a passion for performing, I would let her. I hope that she will be kept (and will keep herself) under wraps a bit, however, because I think she should pursue an opera career. But then again, I am not an expert. I would want an expert to confirm that she is indeed a rare talent who will succeed if she decides to go the opera route.

[Al]

Jackie is a classical crossover singer and not just opera singer. She is having fun now and I don't think she will ever be an opera singer. She ALWAYS said she is a classical crossover singer. I think people think she is opera singer because that is how AGT want to introduce her. Right now AGT tell her what to say, what to reply and what to sing etc. Let see what happen after AGT.

[icarusascending]

Betty,

Jackie might--might!--be damaging her voice due to the mature color she is likely imposing upon it--not because she's singing with, or without, a microphone. So there has been no conflict in posted comments, as I see it.

Prodigy, or not, that dark, mature vocal color (in her lower register) is not part of a child's physical makeup, when it comes to producing an operatic vocal sound. And vocal color has very much to do with physical makeup. Many singers, of all ages, recklessly push down their larynx and swallow their tongue as a short-cut to achieving a dark tone, but there are negative repercussions to such a "technique."

Blah, blah, blah...

The issues with sound amplification are directed at AGT. AGT is promoting Jackie to have this enormous "operatic" voice. Maybe they haven't come out and stated that explicitly, but they're also not discussing the degree of amplification. It appears that they're marketing an illusion for the sake of television ratings.

No one's asking Jackie to be anything other than herself. But NBC (and other media) wants everyone to swallow this latest "story" hook, line and sinker, without any rational assessment or investigation.

As I've written, I find Jackie's YouTube home videos, sung without microphone or musical accompaniment, to be the most informative with regard to her talent. It's the closest we're likely going to get to an organic sound, an organic performance.

If the microphones, blaring musical accompaniments and undulating sapphire and fuchsia lighting on AGT don't bother you in a "prodigy" performance, that's terrific. But for some, such a presentation tends to look like smoke and mirrors--with no disrespect intended toward the little girl immersed within the smoke and mirrors.

We've seen something so similar before with Charlotte Church.

The world is starving for authenticity. NBC might not be offering it.

Lastly, these blog comments are directed toward the other adults reading this blog. A discussion, of sorts. We're discussing this phenom that NBC is marketing. Yes, some comments are harsher than others, but regardless, these comments are not being sent to little Jackie Evancho.