on 11/13/02 12:33 PM, Nvinokur@aol.com at Nvinokur@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/13/02 2:11:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, ecstasymule@hotmail.com writes:
<< ortunately, with the britneychristinabackstreetnsync phenomena, we're getting past that focus and returning to the days, a la sinatra and doris day, of musical interpretation..
don't forget perry como
What's wrong with Sinatra and pre-Rock Hudson Doris Day? Also, in terms of the interpretive choices available to a pop singer today, is there anything that really makes the Top 40 interpretive venture as admirable as what Sinatra accomplished? The Britney squad isn;t exactly offering up definitive interpretations of songs by Alvin, Waits, Ridgway, Prine, or even Randy Newman. As much fun as people make of Doris Day, you go back to her early stuff, and she was really quite good (and, if you don't know her early work, maybe you should check it out). One of the reasons her early stuff -- even through the score of YOUNG MAN WITH A HORN -- was so good is because the songwriting was there, courtesy Irving berlin etc. Is Shakira taking on any material that is on such a high level of craft as Berlin and Porter? If what you have to interpret isn;t all the spiffy, your personal level of craft probably isn;t going to make it up to the Sinstra/Riddle level of interpretive craft. If you've heard aetano Veloso's FINA ESTAMPA, you see how there's still room for interpretive genius. You look at Christina or Britney, you start to think about how the Monkees weren't such a bad deal. skip h