Ok folks, I thought I`d just be fair here:
First, I simply can`t understand why there is so many people outthere that are so extremely fond of this signer. Her voice sound very mature for her age, and she looks pretty average, too - at 14 or so, she allready looked like a young woman. While she had a distant (she looked already ruther mature than) foretaste of a child prodigy at her very first debut on this album, she eventually grow out of this status few years later. What could, *could* make her a slight point of interest, was the fact that she allready at 12 attempted to sing professional arias and songs thus being a child prodigy, is now no more. She growed up, and being in her 17`s, she doesn`t look like a child anylonger. Her voice and especially her technique, however, seem to be unchanged and that is, in my opinion, one of her gratest disadvantages up to date. Without a slightest exaggeration, her voice have a great portion of terrible shrillness, often forced and nasal notes, that are mostly harsh and unpleasant to the ear. While it`s true that it have some sort of mysterious freshness and purety about it, though ruther distant, it is at the same time obvious that her technique seem incomplete, her style outdated and weard - her voice, with few and infrequent notes of beauty and melowness, is mostly violently penetrating and uneven. It`s enourmous luminosity and harshness is striking to the extreme - and it gives more pain to the ears, ruther than satisfaction. To summoraze it all, I want to conclude saying that while I find the voice of Charlotte Church to be ruther curious and beautiful, at the same time, I find her technique poor at best and terrible in general - if she doesn`t change her technique, she may never have a right to claim that she sings in a true classic style. No way.
Cheers.
