in which blockbuster arouses the question of what constitutes a "good singer"

7:29 p.m. x 2003-08-08

it hit me today why i have a lower opinion of amy lee's (evanescence) vocals than others, despite the fact that she has visible range and talent.

it's personality.

the personality of one's voice is equally as important as it's quality. it makes your voice yours. amy lee sounds like many other female singers i've come across, though they can't necessarily do what she does with it - it's still not terribly unique. on the other hand, courtney love's live recordings rank amongst some of the funniest material i've ever heard. but she's good - her voice is her own, and it's difficult to replicate.

an astounding vocalist possesses a voice that is beautiful and his/her own. katie jane comes to mind, as does the singer of sleater-kinney (whose name escapes me right this second, forgive - i know it's janet, carrie and corin but i forget who does what @_@) and i'm sure more but i'm hardly even thinking right now.

and forgive me for the lack of attention this diary has recieved lately. i'm in a very bad patch, but as long as i have beautiful people and material items to perk me up, i'll improve again in no time.

*final note* - my apologies to the owner of the montparnasse diaryring - when i joined, i thought i was going to have the time & energy to write (and the topic is a great one, too), but i'm afraid i'm in little a state to do anything. except practice my blank stare and read "spoon river anthology" before school starts.

i dread the return to six a.m. PMS-laden HELL.

if anybody should ask i'm going to a seminar
pieces of the moon
sensitive heart, you're doomed from the start
(& etc)

anybody can be just like me, obviously.
not too many can be like you, fortunately.
KL 02-11