Classical-Crossover.co.uk

[nicola]

I compare artists, not singers. The voice is only one part of an artist.

[martindn]

Hi Nicola,

Well, for me, I'm unusual in that I am not a visually oriented person. So I mostly ignore the visual aspects of musical performers, to me what they sound like and the words they use are everything.

I think even Hayley is more visual than I am, even though she like me loves sounds and words.

I rarely watch TV or films, mostly they bore me to death. I can't keep up with the images. I'd rather read a book than$ watch a film of the same story. Not that I bother with fiction much anyway, the real world is far mor einteresting than the predjudices of authors.

As an engineer I was taught that a picture is worth 1000 words. But for me, I'd rather read the 1000 words than try to decipher somebody's drawing.

So you will perhaps understand that I judge a singer entirely by what they sound like, not by what they look like, which to me is irrelevant.

If Hayley looked like Susan Boyle, I would still rate her the finest singer I have ever heard.

If you are a singer, the voice, and how it is used, is what matters. If you are an actor it is acting, if an instrumentalist it is your playing. It would be best if musicians eschewed the media of TV and films entirely. We don't need to know what they look like, only what they sound like.

The use of the wrong criteria to judge musicians is one of the problems i have with TV talent shows. Looking at BGT for example, the visual acts always seem to have it over the sound based ones. Understandable since thats the way most of the people who vote (and most people in general) are.

If I'm listening to music, I couldn't care less about hw well the artist can dance, or how they dress. Those are side issues. The music is all that matters. And for me, music that lifts the spirit is superior to music that primarily affects the body, emotions or intellect.

Martin D

[Elliot Kane]

I think Nicola is right that there's a huge difference between judging someone as a singer and judging someone as an artist.

Hayley is certainly the best female singer I have ever heard, but she's neither the best musician nor the best songwriter, nor is she really pushing music into new and original directions.

Were I asked to judge someone as an artist, I'd certainly consider all of those things.

I very much doubt I use the same criteria as Nicola does, nor would I expect our musical tastes to be remotely the same (Barring Hayley), but I can certainly understand how she might rate someone higher than Hayley in terms of overall artistic accomplishment.

[nicola]

Elliot hit the nail on the head. What makes you think I was judging by appearances? What has that got to do with being an artist?

[mihizawi]

I think the same as you, Elliot and Nicola. However, I tend to think that Hayley is always growing up at an increasing pace both as an artist and as a musician, and her love for music as a whole and the hard work she's clearly always done, are aspects that are pointing her to possibly become a very big artist and musician. Piano and guitar playing, compoosing and writing songs, her experiments with so many different styles, all those things seem to be leading her to become what I call a 'total musician'. I don't think there's any sense in trying to discuss who is the supreme artist in any art, but I certainly think Hayley will be even bigger than she is now.

Michal

[nicola]

Piano and guitar playing, compoosing and writing songs, her experiments with so many different styles, all those things seem to be leading her to become what I call a 'total musician'. I don't think there's any sense in trying to discuss who is the supreme artist in any art, but I certainly think Hayley will be even bigger than she is now.

I already think she's a "total" musician, otherwise she wouldn't chart so high! But, like you, I think there's a lot more to come from her. She is still in her early twenties!

[mihizawi]

By the way, Nicola, there's something I've been wondering about and I wanted to ask you. There was a concert some time ago with the participation of Faryl and many other artists (a charity concert, was it?) that you said you would review. Is the review out somewhere on your page? Will it ever be or you've resignated from writing it?

Michal

[nicola]

I decided not to write any reviews on concerts in the end. I might do in the future, but I found that it took the fun out of me going, as I had to keep writing notes down, etc. I'm also not confident with them on a structural level.

I'll still review a concert if I am specifically asked to by management or the artist, but that's it.

But Classic Response, in a nutshell:

All Angels - Outstanding! Their Sound of Silence was beyond beautiful!
Raven - They were incredible as usual. I was happy for them to have such a big stage to themselves.
Camilla Kerslake - There were a few wobbly bits, but she did really well. I enjoyed her a lot.
Amy Dickson - I don't know her, and her repertoire didn't give me any incentive to find out.
Rhydian - Benedictus made me cry, Somewhere made me very happy. One of the highlights.
Natasha Marsh - I love Natasha, but she didn't pick the songs I'd like to hear from her. Queen of the Night would have been amazing. But she was great anyway. I really loved her.
Faryl - She chose really boring songs to sing. Doesn't get worse than Amazing Grace and the Prayer, but she went for it. She was okay, her voice was great, but her braces were effecting her diction.
Blake - Boring
Escala - I could give a very long rant about why I hated their performance, but ultimately, they used a backing track instead of the orchestra, and there was no evidence to suggest they were even playing live. Just leg stomping and moving around between themselves. They actually made me angry.
Paul Potts - Apart from introducing 'Nessun Dorma' as the 'performance that everyone's been waiting for the whole night', he seemed down to earth and relaxed. But his Nessun Dorma is overrated. Didn't really enjoy him much.
Brighton Festival Chorus - They finished the night with Barber's Agnus Dei - a really depressing end! Beautiful though.

[mihizawi]

Hi, Nicola, I understand that detailed reviews require lots of work, so, let's leave that for professional critics who get paid for that (OMG, getting paid for listening to wonderful music... what a dream of a job, lol). Yet I thank you for this short summary of your opinion.

By the way, you follow me on Twitter, don't you? I actually mainly use it to post the programs of the concerts I attend to and then a short note with my impressions and sometimes a highlight (I am usually not too critic... world class classical music performers is not something I feel qualified to be critic with). It's not that I think anyone is very interesting in that, but I thought of that just to give some use to my twitter account (besides the main use, that is following Hayley, xD). But now the two concert seasons I attend to are finished, so not much tweets to be expected on concerts till October.

Michal

[martindn]

Hi Nicola,

Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean by "as an artist". If you mean being a good all rounder, and being judged on the basis of the peripheral things that might affect a peformance rather than what that artist is best at, it seems to me a bit perverse.

Hayley is without doubt one of the finest vocalists on the planet, so I judge her on that, and the various aspects of it like the power range and control of her voice, her vocal technique. I don't primarily judge her as a songwriter, pianist, dancer or anything else that is not her primary strength. There are others that are better at those secondary things, and I would not mark down her wonderful vocal talent because of that.

This means that in a chart like yours, it is difficult to compare artists who have different strengths. It's a bit like BGT, how do you compare a bunch of acrobats against a dog handler or a singer?

Hayley's primary talent has put her where she belongs in your chart. Some of the other things she does are not even attempted by some of the others - I don't think Sarah Brightman plays piano or any instrument on stage for example, so do you mark her down for lack of ambition? I don't think you should, she does what she does, and so does Hayley.

Many other artists don't write songs, yet we still enjoy them. Yet does someone who is a world class singer have to be marked down because they try to grow in other directions too, and experimant with that? I think that is a bit unfair.

Martin D

[nicola]

Martin, the Editor's Top 20 is just that. My own personal top 20, who I like the most, and in almost the right order (it changes everyday). I wouldn't even dare to compare such different artists to one another and state who is better than who - that is entirely relative and up to the individual.

I have simply told you what I find important in an artist. Please respect that. Having a lovely voice is great, but it doesn't particularly mean anything to me if they simply sing Amazing Grace to a typical arrangement. I'm not saying Hayley does that - I'm just giving you my line of thinking.

I respect that you value the voice, but not everybody looks for the same things in an artist, and that's their own choice and taste, as it yours to value the voice.

I am utterly grateful for your support of my site, but your responses to anything I do that doesn't put Hayley at the centre of attention, or at the top of all things, always seems to be an attack. My website is for all classical crossover artists, it's not there just for Hayley. Please respect that other people have other favourites and some don't even like Hayley at all. They are not wrong. They are not right. It just seems you are projecting your own values onto everyone else, and also think that my website should be run by your values. Martin, if you want a website run by your values, please make one. I'm serious. I'm all for different opinions and more places to find information on wonderful and talented artists.

[martindn]

Hi Nicola,

Yes, I agree entirely, each of us has our own ideas and preferences, and long may that be so. I don't expect you or anybody else to agree with mine, but I do think I have the right to express them. I was not trying to attack you or say that you are wrong. You aren't, that is your opinion and you are expressing it, which is exactly what you say you are doing. I actually enjoyed reading it. I enjoy your site very much, and thank you for the considerable effort that you are prepared to put into it.

In the end it comes down to what we most enjoy listening to. I enjoy many, I think most actually, of the artists featured on you site, not just Hayley. I wasn't specifically commenting on your top twenty, after all, that is yours and yours alone.

There is often some sort of general consensus though. If we all have a vote for example, as in your user chart. some artists are more popular than others. And some very popular artists and whole genres I dislike, rap music for example. We are not all the same.

I was trying to get some sort of tighter definition of the term "as an artist", and why this should differ from "as a singer", "as a violinist" etc.. If an artist is a singer, what else is there to judge but their singing? You either like it or you don't. I find this idea of two different standards confusing.

It sounds as if choice of material is a major condideration for example. Well that may or may not be more or less in the artist's control. Oftem we don't know how much control the artist has. If it is not in their control, you can't criticise them for it, because the decisions were made by someone else.

Yes, I know some CC "standards" have been done to death. They are now only worth doing if the artist can either do something new and original with them, or perform them better than they have ever been performed. Hayley often does the latter, so I think the former is less important with her than with some other artists, although she is clearly listening to her critics and growing in that direction too.

Elliott has a go at defining it. But as I say, some singers don't write songs, others perform material that has limited scope for innovation, true classics or opera for example, so should artists be criticised for that? That's why I feel that "as an artist" is a minefield. We will probably all disagree on what we think it means, and we will have to apply different criteria to different artists. In the end it can only be subjective. Vocal and instrumental ablility is much easier to define, since there is a technical aspect to it that can even be measured!

In the end, the only thing that matters is your own personal likes and dislikes. I know I see things through the filter of mine, and so I venture to suggest, do you. You have said there are artists who perhaps could qualify as CC that you deliberately don't put on your site. That is your choice, and you have every right to make it. As we all do.

Best Wishes

Martin D

[nicola]

Which artists are those? I only ever say about ambiguous artists that I have to make the call, but I am more than willing to be persuaded otherwise. That was the sole reason my own forum was set up, but not many people contest to my decisions. I encourage anyone to do so. I do not believe that I should be the sole source of deciding if somebody fits or not. Never, though, would I say I'm not adding an artist when they are blatantly crossover. I don't pick and choose. I welcome everyone. I wouldn't turn anyone away, as long as they're eligible.

Elliott has a go at defining it. But as I say, some singers don't write songs, others perform material that has limited scope for innovation, true classics or opera for example, so should artists be criticised for that?

It's not just about song-writing. Purely as an example, are you aware that Sarah Brightman has co-written, what? 5 ... 7 songs from her whole catalogue? And they are mostly only lyrics? Hayley's already trumped that number. But Sarah does control her own sound, she does select her material, she does produce her own concerts, she does come up with the concepts for her albums. She has a vision, she has a goal, she keeps to it. Nothing to do with song-writing. I think you'd have to follow Sarah closely to understand the full scope of what she does.

Not all singers are song-writers. Many singers are just singers. They have no artistic input into their material, like Faryl. That's fine - I'll respect them as singers, as that's all they are. I wouldn't "criticise" a singer for just being a singer if that's all that they want to be and are happy with that. I also wouldn't criticise a singer if a record company hasn't given them any control. I will, however, criticise the company for doing that, and it does force me to acknowledge the fact that that singer is nothing more than a singer, despite whatever it is that they want to do, and since I prefer artists to singers, that forces me to like them less by default. They simply are what they are. Some singers are opera singers, and they, in turn, will be acknowledged as opera singers. No, they are not artists to me, but that's not a criticism. They have chosen their path and I respect them for what they are.

Do I like Paul Potts? No, I don't. Will I ever buy one of his albums? No, I won't. Text book singer. Do I criticise him for it? Not really. I criticise Cowell for giving him such dire material, but I wouldn't blame Paul for what he is. I simply just don't like him as much. Others think he's wonderful though. Good for them, good for him.

I, personally, am not crazy about "singers". I like some, there are a few on my list, like Jonathan Ansell, Camilla Kerslake, All Angels, Katherine Jenkins (up to a point) etc. But ultimately, I do not like the genre being stagnated, and that's what many of the "singers" do. Which makes me turn my attention to the innovators, the artists, that create something new, distinct, and refreshing. I favour them over the singers, especially, as most of the time, their voices are just as good as the "singers" and sometimes better.

My reply to you was a general reply to many posts you've ever made to me. I encourage you to say whatever you like, but many of your opinions are expressed with an air of authority that suggests other people are wrong or are not quite right in the head or something. Perhaps keep a closer eye on your tone (now there's advice I should take for myself).

[martindn]

Hi Nicola,

Yes, sorry about the tone, I didn't mean to offend you.

I think there are several artists you admit to omitting, perhaps Susan Boyle is the biggest name among them.

Yes, I'm aware that Sarah has a lot of control over what she does. And I agree, I think that is a good thing if an artist has the ability to cope with it, and wants to express themselves in that way. As you say, not all do. But Sarah has been doing it for years, and Hayley is rapidly moving in that sort of direction. Faryl, I think, is too young yet to have much to express, just as Hayley told you she used to be in your interview with her. You have to find out who you are before you can express your individuality.

I can see where you are coming from with your support for innovation though, it's something I always respect even though I don't always like the result. I always want to have a reason to buy an album, and if it is not significantly different from lots of others that i already have, there is no point. Stagnation would not be good, and in the end CC would die out of sheer boredom.

But I like fine singing too. If someone sets new standards of technical excellence like Hayley, I will buy their music for that reason alone, and any innovation will be a bonus. What she sings is less important than her voice and the way she uses it. Nicola Benedetti is perhaps another that falls into that category (not voice though obviously). Whatever they perform is spellbinding. But artists like them are exceptions to the usual rule I think.

If all singers do is churn out inferior copies of music I already have, I don't buy it. I don't own any Paul Potts either, not because there is anything wrong with his singing, but because to me there isn't anything sufficiently special about his versions of those songs that will persude me to buy his albums. I do buy Faryl's music though, I suppose again, because her voice shows huge promise. Katherine Jenkins I blow hot and cold over, but I do own all of her albums except the "Best of".

Martin D

[nicola]

Susan Boyle? You're right. She's as crossover as Michael Ball is. i.e. not at all. She's Easy Listening and MT. These genres overlap but when an artist sits comfortably in one of them, I don't think they belong in crossover. No one's even mentioned to me that she should be on my site, nor would I expect them to. If two or more people made a case for it, they may persuade me, but no, I don't think she's at all crossover. I think I have the biggest problem with Celtic Woman. Since I get countless of requests for them, I think I am going to relent!

It's funny about KJ, many people are at odds with her. Liking her sometimes, disliking her at other times. I'm the same. I like what she's done with Foster though.

I like Faryl - although she has no artistic input, her team make the effort. She's recorded quite a few refreshing things. And no, I wouldn't expect her to be an artist right now. I'd expect her to grow - if she wanted to. But I like Decca/UCJ a lot of the time. It's as if recently they've realised the standards aren't enough. They'll leave that to Simon Cowell and his prime time exposure.

Sarah has had 30 years in this business. I think after all that time, she has earned the freedom she has made for herself. Unfortunately, this freedom that Sarah enjoys very often has to be earned by the artist, and even then they don't always get it. Like most things in the this industry, it all seems to be about how much money you have. Sarah had money from her divorce to do whatever the hell she liked, and so she did!