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
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
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:47:19 -0800 skip Heller wrote:
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.
And don't you think that people like us will say exactly the same of Britney/Christina in twenty years? If you consider TV and entertainment, we can be sure that the "worse" is never reached; there is always room for improvement... That means that looking back at the past, with the help of nostalgia, kitsh, renewed interest, relecture of history, etc, and what we perceive as the sad state of current incarnations of entertainment, it is almost impossible to find a bad old artist :-). Everything from the past can be defended from one angle or another. On the other side the debate rages on current artists, due to total lack of perspective and confusion about the target of the product. Patrice (guilty of dismissing current artists).
on 11/13/02 1:00 PM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
you start to
think about how the Monkees weren't such a bad deal.
And don't you think that people like us will say exactly the same of Britney/Christina in twenty years?
Are they saying that now about Fabian?
If you consider TV and entertainment, we can be sure that the "worse" is never reached; there is always room for improvement... That means that looking back at the past, with the help of nostalgia, kitsh, renewed interest, relecture of history, etc, and what we perceive as the sad state of current incarnations of entertainment, it is almost impossible to find a bad old artist :-).
Look on VH1 BEHIND THE MUSIC.
Everything from the past can be defended from one angle or another. On the other side the debate rages on current artists, due to total lack of perspective and confusion about the target of the product.
I think the product's target is the axis on which this whole discussion is based.
Patrice (guilty of dismissing current artists).
skip h capable of similar dismissials, but not always
participants (3)
-
Nvinokur＠aol.com -
Patrice L. Roussel -
skip Heller