What should you consider when reading a singer's bio?

Nothing.

Whatever the bio says, it has no bearing on what you're about to hear.

A singer could have Rome, London, Vienna, and St. Petersburg on their bio and still be mediocre. There is much that goes undisclosed on a bio.

Perhaps a singer sang Violetta from La Traviata in Rome. What may not be shared is that the performance was in someone's house and eight people were present.

Maybe another sang Rodolpho in La Boheme in New York--25 years ago.

Further more, what is the purpose of a bio? Ideally it shares some of the highlights from a singer's experiences as a performer.

What tends to happen in a bio is that a singer tries to impress the audience with what they've done in the past.

At worst, a bio tries to mislead an audience into thinking a singer is better than they currently are. I remember going to concerts and thinking I didn't like a singer but they had impressive credentials so perhaps I just didn't know what was good.

Anymore I don't read a singer's bio until intermission--if I read it at all.

I did recently read a bio before a concert--a concert that was so disappointing that I couldn't bring myself to write about it.

The bio was heavy with impressive piano and conducting credits. There were prestigious schools and institutions but everything screamed great musician mediocre voice.

He was a great musician and sang every note correctly, that is the notes that I could hear. The space wasn't that big but the voice was so small that it completely disappeared about half the time.

All this to say, we can like or dislike singers regardless of what their bios say.