That Duffy young one is class, I've got my ticket for March

Must admit I hadn't cottoned on that The Beatles hoo haa was a wind-up. Still glad I had the opportunity to have my say though. Maybe guessed it was a bit of a provocation. But then I'm known to be slow on the uptake at times. Didn't occur to me Hootenanny was not live either, but then I wasn't really thinking about that when it was on, and wouldn't have cared anyway.

Thanks for your clips and such anyway, and I'm with you on Duffy also.

Must point out that I've no idea if Steve originally posted as a wind-up, but that he certainly wound up loads of people. I hope there's a subtle difference. You know what, it never occured to me about Hootenanny either.

What a masterpiece. Sexy too. Can I say that?

Forgot Jack Osbourne was a member.

I'm really really sorry but I'm just not getting it. I have tried honestly - I've watched the videos & listened to the clips and yes I agree the girl can sing but I'm left cold. I doubt she'll be troubled by my lack of enthusiasm.

What point? You've missed the one that was being made here. Where do you think a comparison point between Millicent Martin, Alma Cogan, Kathy Kirby, Helen Shapiro and Brenda Lee exists?
Apart from the fact they're female and they sing. On that basis, Frank Ifield, Tom Jones, Engelbert Humperdinck, Joe Cocker, and Rod Stewart are equal.
The point about what I've heard of Duffy (two songs) is that she's a young singer whose heart and soul seems to be in the right place. Probably because it's based loosely on a 60's soul feel. Rockferry was a great pop single. Be grateful that there are young singers coming through that haven't been to stage school along with every other parent-driven f*cking nightmare that pops up via the likes of Cowell, singing a million-notes-a-second urban 'RnB'.

In answer to your question, yes the rot has set in so far that anyone who has a good voice and feel gets us interested. It probably set in as far back as 1956, though. It's why somebody who sounds like they're not from the same mould as the others makes us look twice. Helen Shapiro and Brenda Lee are far more than 'reasonably competent' singers. Helen Shapiro has an amazing voice and is a poor choice of a 'disposable' pop singer. Tell that to those who've heard her singing jazz with Humphrey Littleton, or to Charlie Gillet, who signed her to Oval.

Putting down decent new acts by labelling them Winehouse imitations, or in your instance 'a tribute act who doesn't know who she's paying tribute to' is as careless as saying 'isn't that what singers are supposed to do?"
Anyone got any got any Jess Conrad? He must be as good as Otis Redding then.
For the record:
Alma Cogan - 18 chart entries between 1954 -1960
Helen Shapiro - 2 Number ones at 14 yrs old, Beatles her support act early 60's (they wrote 'Misery' for her).
Kathy Kirby- 5 top 40 hits
Millicent Martin??? Could sing but more of an actress
Petula Clark & Brenda Lee? Look 'em up yourselves.

Lulu?

When I listen to Duffy I hear a lot of Carmel in there, especially in the backing of the Mercy track you put up, which I think sounds excellent - couldn't really see what the fuss was about with Rockferry.

She seems to be caught up in the hype which overtakes young artists nowadays because I think as writing about music features more in the mainstream media they are prone to build someone up quickly in the hope that they can knock them down again somehwere further down the line. And if they concentrate on a small number of artists their readers don't have to dredge too far back in their memories to rememeber who they are talking about.

The better music media like The Word have always taken a broad brush approach and covered artists at various stages of their careers and tend to go with the one mans meat etc view.

I don't have a paritcular fondness for The Beatles, Dylan, Neil Young, Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin who feature heavily in this magazine/blog but then again I haven't met many people in my life who like (or have heard of) Steely Dan but I don't loose any sleep over it.

Each to their own.

Point by point:

1. I'm not missing the point; you're the one who's changing it. I was responding to the original one: the Colonel's comment "If she'd been around in the 60's we'd all be collecting her stuff on reissue now [...]". I disagreed - an acceptable use of the Reply button, I thought.

2. As for the list of Sixties chanteuses, the comparison wasn't being made by me, but by almost everyone I've ever seen talking about her. I didn't build that bandwagon. I just jumped on it in the hope of rocking it a bit.

3. As for Duffy's "heart and soul" being "in the right place, probably because it's based on a 60's soul feel", what's the difference between that and a tribute act? Aren't tribute acts' hearts and souls in the right places? At least they're honest about what they're doing instead of attempting to reinvent a now-rather-rusty wheel.

4. I didn't call Helen Shapiro "disposable" - why do you think I linked to that YouTube clip? To sneer at her? What I actually said was "disposable-'60s-pop singers", not "disposable '60s-pop singers", i.e. it was the music that was disposable, not the artists, as the tell-tale hyphen should have made clear. (Although, that said, Helen Shapiro was certainly treated as disposable by the "reckid inztry" who bundled her into Abbey Road in her school uniform - she was basically a has-been by the time she was 20, her decades-later much-deserved revaluation notwithstanding.)

5. What's "careless" about saying that singing is what singers are supposed to do? I mentioned it because it seems to be something that's been forgotten. Learning your craft is for wusses now, it seems. "Real" artists have "something to say". Painters and sculptors can't, in the main, draw or sculpt -- a bloke shuffling about in a bear costume? Ooh, I'm lovin' it! Give him a Turner Prize! - and singers and instrumentalists can't, in the main, sing or play their instruments. So when one comes along who can, we react as if we were witnessing the second coming of Ella Fitzgerald, rather than what they actually are: merely competent performers. Call it the Peter Potts syndrome.

In short (er, okay, in very long), my point about the whole retro chanteuse vogue was simply that for an artist today to assume the stylistic mannerisms of the artists of 1963 is a laudable exercise to the same extent that it would have been laudable for the artists of 1963 to have emulated the now-'n'-happening hits of 1918 (also 45 years earlier). Yeah, exactly.

Jackie Trent sings Jaques Brel?