|
|
Post by natalie on Feb 25, 2009 9:38:32 GMT
I read your voice does not mature until 30 or so
|
|
|
|
Post by socalboy on Feb 25, 2009 19:06:55 GMT
Hi Chantelle:
I'd like to echo what Dave said. While I want to give it a bit more thought, I found your analogy very persuasive. Actors approach their craft with a variety of methods, all equally effective in the hands of a talented practitioner. Why not singers?
Thank you for your insights.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 25, 2009 20:11:05 GMT
I read your voice does not mature until 30 or so In some cases the voice itself peaks in quality earlier than it reaches full maturity. Two cases in point: 1) Barbra Streisand, whose voice was at its most supple and gymnastic when she was in her early twenties, yet her artistry/interpretive skills kept growing long after her voice begain to deteriorate; and 2) Whitney Houston, whose amazing technical prowess peaked by the age of 20 and slowly declined over the next 20 years. I think Hayley is at her vocally finest as we speak. I cannot imagine it getting better, although I can easily foresee her acquiring more skills in telling the story -- as per Sinatra's example (actually, she seems more in the Dean Martin mould)-- whilst her singing ability itself gradualy fades in due course. |
|
|
|
Post by chantelle on Feb 25, 2009 23:35:53 GMT
I cannot imagine it getting better, although I can easily foresee her acquiring more skills in telling the story -- as per Sinatra's example (actually, she seems more in the Dean Martin mould)-- whilst her singing ability itself gradualy fades in due course. Hayley... Dean... um, no.  Don't let the "cool" image fool you. Dean put a lot of effort and a lot of thought into crafting his songs-- when he wanted to. And when he really wanted to sometimes he was even better than Sinatra. The thing is, he didn't "want" to very often, and as a result ended up "throwing away" a lot of songs. Dean Martin's body of work as a whole, though excellent (the man could do no wrong!) has a very "careless" attitude. Hayley has never, and I doubt will ever, thrown away a song in her life! Again-- two great singers, totally different methods. (Although I would be interested to hear why you made the comparison, Steve.) The only comparison I can see is that neither one had/has to exert much effort to produce a great recording or performance. Singing was as natural as breathing to Dean, and also, it seems, to Hayley. Ah, sorry. This is probably off topic. Just had to jump in with that! |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 25, 2009 23:55:18 GMT
Hi Chantelle,
Thanks for your very interesting post. Yes, I think I see what you are getting at. But perhaps there is the issue of emotional intensity too.
Strangely enough I prefer Sinatra to Bennett. But prefer Hayley to any other female singer, although I regard Streisand as a very fine singer too. Why. Hayley's emotional impact may be simple, but it is also intense. And I think perhaps it is the intensity that appeals to me more than complexity.
Of course complexity and intensity are not mutually exclusive. Music can be both, as in the finest work of some rock bads like Yes and Pink Floyd, or even The Who. Or it can be neither, as in Muzak! To me,that is the main argument I have about Jazz - a lot of it seems bland.
This is why I take issue with Nicola. In no way can Hayley's music be described as bland.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Feb 25, 2009 23:59:28 GMT
Hi Chantelle, I knew a woman who would go into her sitting room on a Sunday and lock the door and listen to Frank Sinatra LPs on her own for hours, This was her pleasure, her ice cream, her chocolate, her personal pleasure. I can relate to this, My car is now "My Place" my personal space of pleasure, I can put on a Hayley CD and leave it to repeat for hundreds of miles without feeling the need to change the record. Different people relate to different artists or art forms, but in more or less the same way, they have found someone or something that moves them, be it music, paintings, poetry, shape,.....they have found something that touches them at a deep level, so who is anyone to say what that medium should be ...for anyone else. and by the way I was sent out by my parents to the cinema as a kid on a Saturday afternoon to watch Jerry Lewis films, I suppose, so they could listen to their John McCormac, Perry Como and Mario Lanza 78s. I also saw my first Hayley then, but it was the adorable Hayley Mills..  |
|
|
|
Post by chantelle on Feb 26, 2009 0:36:07 GMT
Edit // Deleting 95% of a post probably isn't very kosher, but I have a terrible tendancy of getting carried away, and I'm afraid I did just that with this post. Just because I happen to disagree with a turn of phrase that martindn used was no reason to turn Human Encylopedia and blast you all with my intellectual babbling. So I shall let my initial Hayley/Tony/Frank post stand, along with the very end of this post. Thanks for tolerating me!  // end of Edit I knew a woman who would go into her sitting room on a Sunday and lock the door and listen to Frank Sinatra LPs on her own for hours, This was her pleasure, her ice cream, her chocolate, her personal pleasure. That beautifully captures the essence of what I'm trying to say. Every person has their own "chocolate" (milk, dark, bitter, etc)-- their own "creme de la creme"-- and all are legitimate! Thanks, Comet!  PS- I think you had the better end of the deal. I would choose Jerry over John, Perry, and Mario any day, haha! |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 26, 2009 7:53:20 GMT
*le sigh*
It can be, and often is described to be so. I'm not referring to me, either. To many people, she is bland. That's not a straight forward red stamp on her face 'BLAND', it's just the opinion of some people, and if it's their opinion, it cannot be wrong, just as yours is not wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 26, 2009 9:16:09 GMT
*le sigh* It can be, and often is described to be so. I'm not referring to me, either. To many people, she is bland. That's not a straight forward red stamp on her face 'BLAND', it's just the opinion of some people, and if it's their opinion, it cannot be wrong, just as yours is not wrong. They may not be wrong, but they could be less than well-informed, particularly if they haven't heard Hayley's "Benedictus" or "Wuthering Heights". Bland doesn't apply in these cases. However, if it's being used as an overall assessment, based on total familiarity with her entire repertoire, maybe some adrenaline junkies have a point because her music is not aimed at them. |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Feb 26, 2009 15:33:23 GMT
Whether or not Hayley is "bland" is of course a matter of very subjective opinion. It may also have as much to do with the popular perception of her genre in general as it does with anything she is doing or not doing.
What I can state definitively from my own experience, is that the PBS presenters in St Louis found her special quite boring. The only song she did which excited them was "Wuthering Heights".
For whatever reason, "Benedictus" didnt cause them to say good things.....
|
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 26, 2009 20:45:29 GMT
I'm sorry, but nobody really seems to be getting my point, though Milewalker is on my line of thinking. To put it plainly: IT'S A MATTER OF OPINION. None of this 'They're ill informed' or 'They are not hearing "Benedictus" properly' or 'If they think she's bland they are adrenaline junkies'. I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly about this, and I always have done, maybe it's just my generation where we have been forcefed liberal politics and tolerence, but an opinion can never, ever be wrong. It's linguistically impossible. That's all I going to say as I get a bit angry when I come across this kind of attitude. I'm sorry if I have offended you. Sincerely.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 26, 2009 21:27:29 GMT
Um, to be fair, I was just stating my opinion.
On topic... I think the mark of a too-good singer is an occasional polarisation effect. I happen to think Hayley is extremely amazing; others might find her totally blah. You don't find my sort of fanaticism unless the talent in question is freakishly awesome. I remember the jabs at Pavarotti, that he pandered to the undeveloped taste of the masses. Fact is (in my humble opinion, natch) he was the best tenor ever and should have been heard by the great unwashed (of which I am a card-carrying member). But unfortunately, his superiority also meant being a target for potshots. Sinatra was undoubtedly the best crooner of all time and that exposed him to unbelievable abuse on occasion. If he weren't quite so good who would have cared? Hayley is sufficiently great that she has provoked her share of less than charitable remarks. That's what greatness is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 26, 2009 22:47:40 GMT
Fair enough if that were the case, but you were not coming across that way. "Bland doesn't apply in these cases" and "In no way can Hayley's music be described as bland" seemed quite definitive to me. I beg your pardon if I misunderstood. I can't quite stay on topic, as I am not sure if I understand the concept of someone being too good at something, so I have nothing to add. I know that people say that once someone has reached perfection, there is no more room for growth, but what on earth do you strive for if it's not for perfection? Isn't perfection a goal reached, and once done, something to be enjoyed? Still, I don't think it's possible for perfection to be reached in the first place. Hence I can't understand the concept of being too good at something? |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 26, 2009 23:29:24 GMT
Nicola,
OK, point taken, what I really mean s that I cannot regard Hayley's music as bland . Perhaps that is what I should have said. To me she just isn't, and could never be even if she sang the most boring songs imaginable. But yes, it is subjective, and we are not all the same. So even if I sometimes state my opinions as fact, the fact is that they are still my opinions, and describe how I feel about Hayley's music.
I think on the issue of perfection, we listen to Hayley and think it is perfection because we have never heard anything better. Then the next time we see her perform, she proves us wrong by doing it even better.
BTW I at least cannot be an "adrenaline junkie". The pills I am taking turn off my heart's reaction to adrenaline. Is that why I prefer Hayley to what many might think of as more stimulating music..
Oh, I loved Hayley music before I ever started on those pills, in case you are wondering.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 26, 2009 23:40:56 GMT
Actually, I think music like Hayley's is a lot more stimulating than a lot of other 'faster' and 'louder' things that I listen to. I don't think that things that are in your face (or ears!) are stimulating. Rather, more the ones that are quiet and subtle. A lot of music can just be heard, but Hayley has to be listened to, which I think makes her more stimulating. As someone said before, as far as technical elements to her vocals go, that is perfect. But she could never be the whole package perfect, merely because of subjectivity. Though I am sure she could embody perfection for an individual. |
|
