Best female vocals on CD

Rachelle Ferrell

First, let me admit that my previous post was a bit over the top - I wrote it as I was listening to Billie on my headphones and was struck (as always) by how "different" DK is from . Now clearly, "different" is not the same thing as worse, and I certainly did not mean to indicate intellectual superiority over anyone who likes DK. To my ears DK, despite (and ironically, perhaps because of) her lush voice sounds superficial and uninteresting - that's all. I agree with Craig's assessment of Margo Timmins - intimate, seductive, haunting - she certainly is all of that and more - and these are precisely the adjectives that DON'T come to my mind when I hear DK. To paraphrase another cliche, its all in the ears of the listener, I guess.

Gentlemen; I like the idea of a truce too, and I admit my post re: Diana Krall was sarcastic in places. To tell the truth, I have not yet been able to put into words what it is about her music that appeals to me, but I listened to DK for 3-4 hours last night and just sort of "melted" into her soft, breathy, husky, intimate vocals on her ballads; very relaxing and engaging. I also note that her band creates an amazing amount of "music" for just three pieces. BTW I program out all the uptempo songs. Happy Listening. Craig.

Having just caught up with this post, I am going to break some of the truce. But there is an important point here. For those of us deep into jazz, there is something about jazz that many audiophiles do not get. Jazz is cerebral as well as emotional, and can be more cerebral than classical music because it can more readily break new ground. Craig, I am with Rayhall and Srama on this one, and guys - don't give way on this. Jazz is about the creative use of instruments, not just about pleasant sounds. I can enjoy listening to a Dianna Krall record - perhaps as much as you do Craig. The voice can sound wonderful and the recordings are very good. But to someone into jazz, there is a whole lot more that music can offer - like my post above acknowledging lots of nice voices listed here, but few great singers - there is a difference. To someone into their jazz for the delight of new interpretations or new ground, Dianna Krall is decidedly average - she is akin to very good candy-floss - fine in the right setting, but not the same thing as creme brulee. I have had trouble trying not to sound "superior" about this, and have probably failed. I really hope this does not offend anybody who really likes Dianna Krall, especially Craig - but there is a whole different world to jazz singing that is, for some of us, the best thing this hobby offers, but which the likes of Dianna Krall does not have the rare skills to enter.

Hi Redkiwi; I appreciate your response and explanation about what it is that jazz lovers really appreciate. As noted above, I'm not into jazz, in fact my entire jazz collection consists of a few Natalie Cole, Nat King Cole, and now some Diana Krall CDs. Further, I delete the "up-tempo" music on jazz CDs. Also a few Barbra Streisand CDs if jazz wants to claim her. I do have a lot of Ray Charles, but it's for his soul, rock, and ballads-- I delete the jazzy stuff. In short, I have little expertise or interest in the genre, and thus not much to contribute. After reading some of these posts (re: jazz) it occurred to me that I may like Dianna Krall's jazz/ballads because they are very "unjazz" like, and more like pop ballads??? Blues, Soul, rock, pop, newage, and even some C/W are mainly what move me, and unlike Redkiwi (and I think Rayhall, and Srama), I'm not often into the cerebral aspects of music, but prefer the emotional side much more. This post is sort of personal, but it gives me a chance to respond to Rayhall, Srama, as well as Redkiwi. Cheers, Craig.