In a message dated 4/19/2001 4:44:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, linda@f... writes: linda@f... writes:
<< "Let's take these as a given" - well! Considering the epithets that are usually attached to Ms Kirkby's singing, ("sublime" is the one I keep reading - I think millions of people would be quite simply astonished to hear anyone describe her as "horrible") I think you have no right to take them as a given; in fact I think you'd certainly be in a minority. >>
linda,
one cannot take 'sublime' as a given either. you yourself made the distinction between ms. kirkby and cheryl studer. prefering one over the other is probably more common than liking both. what is 'sublime' to one might well be 'horrible' to another. and i'm sure there are singers who sang duets with ms. studer in college who might be offended by your comments on her (i don't criticize your loyalty).
if a singer's recordings have to be altered in order to detect vibrato, then it is right to assume that it is fairly unnoticeable to the naked ear. lloyd might have to amend 'straight-toned' to 'pretty darn close to straight-toned'. on the other hand, one did not need to perform a spectral analysis on the singing of beverly sills towards the end of her career to tell if she had a wobble or not.
when i was in high school (early 70s), a bunch of us were discussing the harnoncourt recordings of bach cantatas. my friend ray was saying how horrible they were. a teacher of ours countered by saying "of all the recordings currently available, these recordings are closest to bach's intent." ray responded "oh! i guess i don't like bach as much as i thought i did."
mike
|
| |