Stacey Kent

[JSngry]

So, ok. The last few days or so, KNTU has been playing cuts off of what I just asssumed was a reissue of some old Joanie Sommers album (and if you only know Joanie Sommers from "Johnny Get Angry", know that she was no slouch as an "adult pop" type singer of standards as well).

I was really enjoying this stuff. The band swung loosely, sounded like they were having fun, and the vocals were extremely good - the pitch was dead on, the phrasing surefooted and elastic without being overly mannered, the lyrics delivered with a real sense of authority and understanding. Having hear an old Joanie Sommers album like this in the past but not remembering what it was, I was wondering if it was the same one.

Well, guess waht? Today, through the miracle of back-announcing, it was revealed that it wasn't Joanie Sommers who had been entertaining me, but Stacey Kent! Ordinarily, when sombody sounds this much like somebody else (and in fairness to Kent, she doesn't sound EXACTLY like Joanie Sommers, but close enough to fool me, who could identify Sommers on a "blind" hearing, but who doesn't know the subtleties of her voice well enough to distinguish between the original and somebody similar in timbre and style), I get really peaved, but I wasn't bothered at all this time. In fact, I remained pleased.

Why? Two reasons - ability and intent. The abilities of all concerned are very high indeed. I really thought I was listening to a vintage "West Coast" date. But more important was the intent. I got the feeling that these folks were all about "entertainment" of a high standard and nothing more. That's no slam at all either - I can dig good, old fashioned, "put on a smile and put on a show" stuff, and that's just what this seemed to be. It wasn't "jazz" in the sense of a personal creative expression, not at all. What it was was taking songs and a "style" and using those as elements in a presentation that was clearly meant to bring a smile to the face and a pat to the foot of those who were so inclined, and I'm not such a hair shirt maniac about "art" and such that I'm "above" enjoying the pleasures a good song well done, and that's exactly what this was. In the "old days", you'd hear stuff like this in hip supper clubs and lounges, a time and a place when "entertainment" was an art unto itself, and was not mutually exclusive to "quality". I dug it, and wouldn't mind hearing more. I doubt I'd spend money on a CD or anything like that (although I could concievably buy ONE to have on hand for road trips and such), but I hope that enough people DO so that Ms. Kent can continue to be heard on jazz radio and maybe even cross over into the "adult standards" market and it's airplay niche, a niche that has over the last few years grown increasingly hospitable to singers and material like this.

Stacey Kent & crew have a good thing going, based on what I've heard the last few days, and as long as nobody tries to convine me that she's a "real" jazz vocalist of significance (her "vibe" and "intent" are at odds with the "depth" that "real" "jazz singers" are all about, but that's cool - what she's into has a vibe and depth of its own, and pitting her against a "different" lineage ends up doing a disservice to both in the end. She doesn't need to be a "jazz singer" and "jazz singers" don't need her), I wish her much success. Save the labels for canned goods.

Hey - it made me happy. Good enough!

[tonym]

I was just about to start typing then noticed Bev was probably on the case.

Stacey is a Goddess (with a fantastic band). Simple as that.

cheers, tonym

[A Lark Ascending]

Stacey's huge in the UK. One of those people who started in the jazz camp but has gained an audience well beyond.

She is a target of a fair bit of flak, lumped in with the Krall phenomena, often attacked for her 'cutesy' sound (interesting interview in the current Jazz Review where Richard Cook, clearly not her greatest fan, attempts to get under her skin but just gets drowned out by her boundless innocence).

I came across her by chance on her first album about five years back, loved her singing instantly and have found every one of her discs a joy.

Over those six or so discs I don't think you can spot an ounce of 'artistic development.' She sings standard songs in a fifties style with a peerless swing-type jazz band. Did it on No 1. Still doing it on her most recent disc. And I lap it up.

She's also (so far) avoided the temptation to do a 'strings' or 'big band' album (though she has performed with these live).

A regular radio presenter too on the BBC. She does a middle of the roadish jazz show on a Saturday with great enthusiasm and complete lack of pretension.

We'd like to keep her, please! You can have Sting or Phil Collins in exchange.

Edited October 22, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[Dan Gould]

We'd like to keep her, please! You can have Sting or Phil Collins in exchange.

No deal!

Nigella Lawson, and that's my final offer!

[chris olivarez]

No Bev.You can keep the aformentioned gentlemen AND Madonna-we want Stacy.

[jazz1]

She is a target of a fair bit of flak, lumped in with the Krall phenomena, often attacked for her 'cutesy' sound (interesting interview in the current Jazz Review where Richard Cook, clearly not her greatest fan, attempts to get under her skin but just gets drowned out by her boundless innocence).

I think that the problem with singers like Stacey Kent or DK for that matter.

is that it is "light weight " music, very pretty un demanding to the soul, but obviously lacks substance.

I like her stuff, but would never sit down and listen to it seriously, very nice stuff for dinner party.

It will be popular and attract wider audience than the more serious jazz singers,

there is a place for everything.

To me she sounds good while having ice cream with chocolate sauce.

[tonym]

obviously lacks substance

Stacey is inclined to sing standards from the pens of Richard Rogers, Gershwin et al. These tunes are loaded with harmonic and melodic genius. Not to mention lyrics way ahead of their time. Many jazz players, even the 'heavy' ones use these tunes as vehicles for improv., so how can a well sung, heartfelt rendition of such a tune 'lack substance'.

If so then how do you rate Sinatra's or Ella's attempts at the genre?

[JSngry]

Please, let's not argue. She sings jazzy material with a pop esthetic. She'd be as out of place at Baker's Keyboard Lounge as Betty Carter would have been at Mr. Kelley's.

If anybody wants to think she's a heavyweight jazz singer, well, go ahead. That's not ME you hear snickkering in the background. Honest...

And if anybody wants to think that she's a hack or that what she does as well as she does doesn't require an unique set of musical and interpretive skills, well, go ahead. That's not ME you hear snickkering in the background. Honest...

Pop singing is a whole 'nother game than jazz singing, and just because the material crosses genres, as do certain stylistic elements sometimes, that doesn't mean that they're the same thing, or that one is intrinsically "better" than the other, for that matter. Myself, I often prefer the best pop to mediocre (or worse) jazz.

If there have been comparisons to Krall, that's unfortunate. In terms of skill, Ms. Krall is a pianist first and a singer second. I can find technical and interpretive flaws with her singing that Ms. Kent displays not a hint of. As for "depth", they're both relatively shallow, but Kent seems to not make that a concern, and that works to her musical advantage, I think. Nothing too meaty on the one hand, but on the other, no tricks and no gimmicks either. Just good songs well sung. It's POP fer Crissakes! Krall, otoh, for reasons perhaps pertaining to her Lutheran upbringing, her roots in jazz, both, or neither, really seems to be trying to be a serious jazz singer, which is something I DON'T think she's equipped for, not yet anyway. Her phrasing is often awkward, at odds with the phonetic flow of the lyrics, and that's something that a good singer of ANY genre needs to have under control so they can proceed accordingly in whatever direction they choose to go.

I'd not say that Stacey Kent lacks substance, not at all. I would say that she lacks "depth" (or, to avoid fanning the flames of argument even more, what I[/] would percieve as depth), but I'm not bothered by that, because no pretensions whatsoever to the contrary are presented with her product. Thus, I don't even bother looking for any, and by not finding something I'd be ill-advised looking for in the first place, I avoid a disappointment that shouldn't have happened, and one that might translate into a disparagement of the talent that is borne of my self-induced misguided search. Better to take what is there for what it is and appreciate and applaud it as such, which as long as you have a reference bank that is broad enough and deep enough to allow for sufficient recognition as to what is what, is, I think, the ideal way to appreciate what all the musics of our world have to offer on their own terms.

[A Lark Ascending]

I'd say Stacey Kent does not 'affect' depth rather than that she 'lacks depth.' But I'm never quite sure what 'depth' is anyway in music.

She certainly sets out with no intention to 'make a major statement' (to bring another portentous cliche). You won't find anything about 'bearing her soul', profound utterances or making a grand artistic statement. Read any of her interviews and you'll hear her say no more than that she loves the songs, loves the style, loves singing them. No more. There's not a jot of pretension surrounding her.

In presentation or interpretation you won't find anything remotely original on a Stacey Kent album...except a totally distinctive voice backed by excellent players.

If you're not charmed by the voice and the easy delivery then there's nothing for you on a Stacey Kent album. And no reason why there should be. There are plenty of other jazz singers to listen to.

All I know is I play her discs regularly. Whilst the discs of many a contemporary singer considered 'profound' lie unplayed on my shelves.

Possibly a measure of my own shallowness...

[JSngry]

Depth is where you find it. And what you want or don't want to make of.

So, that leaves the field....REALLY open!

BTW, I found a CD of the aforementioned Joanie Sommers doing a set of brief standards w/a Shelley Manne band listed on-line, and sampling it, I'd say that those who dig Stacey Kent might enjoy this one also. It's HERE, replete w/short audio samples of every cut. Having listened closer, I'll say that although their voices have very similar timbres, but that Sommers uses a vibrato that Kent seems to have not much use for and that decision is one in Kent's favor, imo. But it seems like a set in the same light and breezy jazzy-pop-standards bag favored by Ms. Kent, so some of y'all might want to check it out.

[A Lark Ascending]

Depth is where you find it. And what you want or don't want to make of.

Could not agree more.

When a TV show host decides to break up the interviews by entertaining his audience with his version of 'My Funny Valentine', just because a song is needed at that point in the schedule, then I can buy that there's a certain lack of depth. It's filler, something to fill a three minute slot and probably of no great significance to the singer.

But to accuse Stacey Kent or Diana Krall of lack of depth...well, its presupposing a great deal.

Now I know there are some listeners who like to think that when they listen to a performer that they are not just listening to a musical performance but are somehow connecting with their lives, their 'pain'.

When Krall and Kent sing all you hear is two very good singers engaging with musical material they clearly love and trying to sing it in a way that makes sounds that might appeal to an audience. They're taking notes and arranging them into patterns. They produce patterns I like (I like Kent's much more than Krall's but...). I can understand that others might not like those patterns. But how we get from there to 'lack of substance' I'm not sure.

I don't have much time for Jane Monheit. Why? I don't much like her voice. But I'd never be presumptuous enough to accuse her of lack of depth. For all I know she's studied hard and means every note of it. It's just that what comes out doesn't click with what I like to hear.

[JSngry]

Well, I don't have a prolem with "depth issue", simply because we all have areas in our life, emotions, experiences, whatever, that go "deeper" than the mundanities of everyday life (but not all areas of everyday life are mundane, nosiree Bob!). Something taps into those areas, and we feel a depth of response that we don't get from the "common" stuff. So, if I say that Stacey Kent laks depth, all that means is that what I get from her doesn't penetrate beyond the first several layers of my psyche.

The problems I DO have though, are several - first, since we are al individuals, we have at least as much difference between us as we do commonality as far as specifics go. So what strikes me deeply might not mean squat to all but a few others, maybe not even anybody. But that doesn't invalidate my esponse to whatever the stimuli is, it just means that I need to realize that whatever it is that's triggering that "deep" response is something that is not something that is going to trigger the same response in too many others. Accept that, move on, and don't get my feeling hurt when nobody else "gets" it. And if I don't get what moves somebody else, not mock it too cruelly.

But even beyond that, I get irked by the equating with "lack of depth" with "lack of substance", or "lack of worth". It's just unnescessary, I think, and greatly narrows our appreciation of life. I mean, there is so much pleasure and joy to be had in the simple things, things that might not be usually thought of as "deep", but things that still can bring us happiness that we would otherwise not have. Maybe it's simply semantics, but to me, "deep" and "important" are different things that only sometimes overlap. And even at that, I think that if one lacks an appreciation of the so-called "simple pleasures" of life, that one is a lot more prone to an exaggerated or incomplete view of what might really be "deep". When your whole life is about misery, gllom, doom, and despair, well, what room do you have for a good sunset? And what is going to happen when you decide to prioritize in terms of what experiences you want/need to have to move your life in the direction you'd like it to go in? Seems to me that you're going to end up with more of the same whether you want to or not, because it's all you give value to, consciously or not. So I think that there is a VERY important place for things that make us feel good, even if they're not particularly "deep". We NEED that balance, I think, and we need to be able to feel good "just because". I'm not at all about denying portions of our humanity just because they don't make us sweat, cry, ponder, whatever.

Now, I thnk it's foolish to go the opposite way, to deny anything that gets under our skin and takes us over and makes us feel too "uncomfortable". We need both. In the jazz and other "art" worlds, I see what I feel is too much of the former attitude, but in the "regular" world, I see what I feel is too much of the latter. The unexamined life and all that. I think there needs to be a balance, and I seldom see one today. Not that tthere's EVER been a society that has achieved it, but hey - this is the one I live in, so that's what I have to address.

Even worse, I think, is the tendency to dismiss that which is relatively "light" but EXPERTLY executed. That's what caught my ear with the Kent stuff - everybody was doing what they did at a very high level, and they sounded like they were having a blast doing it. I like that. So much of life entails "doing a job", and I don't doubt that that's what the Kent gig is for all concerned - a job. Now, the "arts" crowd will no doubt agree, but they'll likely use that as grounds for dismissal. But I don't. I can't. What, somebody pleasse tell me, is WRONG about going about a task that you enjoy performing in such a manner that you do it excellently? And waht is so horribly evil about deriving pleasure from being damn good at what you do? And even more, what is so damn wrong with creating a product that you enjoy and then selling it to other people who enjoy it? Not a damn thing as far as I can see. I wish the people who designed and built coffee makers had the same enthusiasm in THEIR work as I sense that Stacey Kent and her band have in theirs!

Too oten, we worry about if we should feel good about enjoying something or not, and I personally think that that is absurd. Short of criminal acts that bring harm to others, if something makes youo smile, go with it for crissakes! It doesn't lessen you to enjoy good craftsmanship joyously executed, it makes you a better rounded, and yes, "deeper" person. Take it for what it is and groove on it. That goes for the deep and the shallow alike - it's all part of the whole, and a person who knows one spectrum but not the other (and that goes both ways) is missing out on so much of what life has to offer.

If I want to be touched, moved, provoked, etc., I know where to go for it. If I want to get a simple kick and a good feeling that might not be as "simple" as some would want me to believe, I know where to go for that. I'd not be without both options, as well as those in-between. It's all good.

[A Lark Ascending]

Eloquently put, JSngry. Very close to my feelings.

I suppose I'm just unsure of what happens with the 'deeply emotional stuff.' I get a huge thrill hearing Stacey sing 'I Guess I'll Have to Change My Plan.' I also get one listening to the last movement of Mahler 10.

Now the musical complexity that goes into the latter, the multilayered nature of it, the fact that I can come back countless times to it and hear something anew. Maybe that is depth. Or the fact that it suggests a depth of emotion far more complex than the Kent example.

I suppose where I'm undecided is if that intensity is musical - Mahler's greater ability to handle more complex musical patterns, greater ambiguity etc than Kent or Dietz/Schwartz; or emotional - an ability to communicate a greater depth of emotion than the latter two (three!). I'm inclined to feel the former.

But that's an academic argument that should not have any impact on the way we enjoy the music.

I'm very much with you on the benefits of being open to music of all manner of shapes and forms, simple or complex.

Interestingly I give Mahler as my example of possible musical depth...yet there are plenty in the classical world who would dismiss his music as vulgar Late Romantic schmaltz. Where I get irritated is by that need of some to denigrate. I'm not sure where it comes from.

To take a more suitable comparison, Stacey Kent and Billie Holiday. Without a doubt I'd place the latter as the greatest (and the one who ultimately moves me more). Now in my case it has nothing whatsoever to do with emotional depth...I think there is a real case of reading Billie's life story into her music and consequently finding it 'deep.'

To me Billie Holiday is the greater performer partly because she was the first to really do the things she did the way she did; but mainly because she was able to desconstruct and reconstruct a melody with an imagination that would appear to be way beyond Stacey (or most other jazz singers!). She made more interesting patterns! And she disrupted them in the most audacious way without turning the song to anarchy.

Yes, if we must pin our admired musicians into hierarchical positions then Stacey stands well below Billie (something she would probably be the first to admit).

But then supermarket sausages stand well below the haute cuisine of the Dorchester in the culinary stakes (well, so I assume. I've never been to the Dorchester!). But I'd not want to be without my regular meal of supermarket sausages.

[chris olivarez]

JSngry did mister back announcer tell you which cd you were listening to by Stacey?

Edited October 24, 2003 by chris olivarez

[jazz1]

Eloquently put, JSngry. Very close to my feelings.

Actually this is exactly what I tried to express with my post.

I am sorry if I stired the pot, it was unintentional, I do like Stacey and actually own a few of her cds. Stacey Kent does serve a purpose.

Lack of Depth, feelings, substances, whatever, all I tried to say is that I don't listen to Stacey Kent with the same expectations that I would have when I listen to say Jeanne Lee.

I can listen to Stacey Kent while reading a book, or having a meal with friends.

When I listen to Jeanne Lee, I sit down and devote my full attention to the music

My expectations are much greater.

Both serve a purpose, but if I a want goose bumps Stacey just does not do it for me.

Vive la differenc.

[Alexander Hawkins]

I was lucky enough to play in a master class she gave at a school over here in the UK a few years back. Musically, it was nothing heavyweight (this is not a slur - simply that the class was to encourage pupils to do some singing themselves, so it was lots of 'call and response' over the blues, etc.), but she was an incredibly nice person, and, as Bev said, completely devoid of all pretension etc.

[JSngry]

JSngry did mister back announcer tell you which cd you were listening to by Stacey?

Yeah, buty I couldn't tell you the name. The tune was that old Sweeney Sisters favorite "The Trolley Song" (a song that can be a surprisingly effective vehicle for jazz singing, as witnessed by Barbara Long's nice version on Savoy). I think it's off her newest album.

[A Lark Ascending]

Actually this is exactly what I tried to express with my post.

I am sorry if I stired the pot, it was unintentional

No pot stirring assumed.

I'm intrigued by the way we all react to music, particularly the supposed dividing line between 'light' and 'substantial' music. I don't actually have fixed views but am inclining to the view that much 'profundity' is actually projected on music by the wishes of the listener.

I find terms like 'depth' and 'substance' quite vague. 'Originality', 'distinctiveness', 'craftsmanship' strike me as much more precise terms for assessment.

The way the thread developed just had me chasing that hare again!!!

[JSngry]

I know quite well what 'depth' and 'substance' mean to me, and offer no apologies for doing so. But I'd not be so presumptuous as to assume that that's what they should mean for anybody/everybody else.

The cliche "you gotta stand for something or else you'll fall for anything" rings totally true to me, but so does "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Balancing those two premises is an ongoing, often frustrating, contentious, and perplexing struggle, but that's half the fun of it all, I suppose. "From the oyster comes the pearl", doncha know.

Cliches - if they didn't already exist, we'd have to invent them!

[A Lark Ascending]

I know quite well what 'depth' and 'substance' mean to me, and offer no apologies for doing so. But I'd not be so presumptuous as to assume that that's what they should mean for anybody/everybody else.

Which is my problem with the terms. They are often bandied about as absolutes when they are highly relative to the listener. Someone wants to express his/her failure to enjoy musician X...their music becomes 'lacking in depth.'

What is also interesting is how often the lacking in depth/substance charge is levelled at musicians who have become popular or been taken up by listeners outside the jazz world. Now it might be that the musician has decided to stick to a few simplistic tricks to find a wider audience...but it's equally likely that the accuser is finding it hard to reconcile 'popular' with 'substance.'

Tell me Stacey Kent lacks 'originality' and I'd agree. But I'd tell you that she does what she does with consummate 'craft'.

The ace I'd play in her favour is her 'distinctiveness', not in the sense of being an innovative musician but simply in having a sound quite peculiar to herself, one I find very affecting. But I suppose we're back in a highly subjective world there...I could see others finding her lacking in a 'distinctive voice.'

My point is that we'd all do well to be careful dismissing musicians for their failure to live up to absolute standards. Those absolutes strike me as being chimeras.

By the way, 'The Trolley Song' is off her latest, 'The Boy Next Door'! It's currently the record I do the ironing to!

[JSngry]

Sure. I just take it for granted that when I somebody else talks about things like "depth" and "substance" that they're just expressing their own opinion (I know I am) an proceed accordingly, unless I get the impression that an edict from on high is being handed down, in which case I usually rebel, even if I agree with the opinion.

I used to be real careful about adding "in my opinion" & stuff like that onto every sentence (or so it seemed), and still am sometimes, but these days I figure that we all know each other well enough that it pretty much goes without saying that for most of us, these are opinions being expressed as such, and not attempts at writing The Ten Commandments in jazz terms, if you know what I mean.

I'll give you an example - Lon & I hold totally opposing viewpoints on latter-day Wayne Shorter. TOTALLY. But I've know Lon long enough to accept that, because I know him to be a great guy with a lot of knowledge and very acute ears. So if he's wrong about Wayne (JUST KIDDING!!! ), I respect his opinion, because I know it's coming from somebody with enough knowledge about and sensitivity to the music that he's GOT to have some good personal reason(s) for feeling as he does. Similarly, when I post really RAVE things about this stuff, he doesn't bust my chops on it, because I think he knows ME well enough to respect that I've got some deeply persoanl reasons FOR liking it.

In spite of all the strongly expressed opinions masquerading as "fact" in these forums, I doubt that there's more than a handful of individuals who REALLY believe that their opinions, no matter how passionately felt or deeply informed, should pass as gospel for anybody besides themselves. They'd not last long if they did.

Of course, everything I've just said above is STRICTLY my opinion, so...

[chris olivarez]

If a musician wishes to express his or herself in a deep and profound manner more power too them they have my respect and admiration. On the other hand there's not a damn thing wrong with someone doing something well even if it's not original. If they're having fun and bringing joy and happiness to themselves and others well I personally have no problem with that as a matter of fact I can dig that kind of approach. Music ideally should fit your mood at the time sometimes that is deep and profound and sometimes you need something that pleases you and makes you feel alright. There's room for both.

[A Lark Ascending]

JSngry,

I take your point.

Though I have to say that in the case of both Lon and yourself I never get the sense that you are doing anything else than expressing your opinions, opinions based on extensive listening. As is the case with most posters here.

I too frequently sink into superlatives when expressing enjoyment. I'm very conscious of my use of 'wonderful'! I try and be more cautious in expressing my dislike of things.

Except for Sting. He's shallow, lacking in depth and substance and unbearably irritating! And I mean that with total objectivity!

One of those smiley things denoting irony, self-deprecating humour or whatever.

[JSngry]

Sounds like the facts to me, Bev!