Dusty

[Harrowby Hall]

T Does anyone know if Marvin Hamlisch's education at the Juilliard School of Music was a full-time one, with the regular school curriculum being taught as well as the focus on music?

Marvin Hamlisch was a student at the Julliard School of music from 1951 to 1964. I think that you should note that "school" in American English is a generic term which includes all levels of education. Universities are "schools".

The Julliard is one of the world's half dozen or so premier university level conservatoires (along with the Royal College of Music and the Royal Academy of Music in London). Most conservatoires have associated educational facilities which enable very gifted children to develop their musical skills while they are undergoing mainstream education - it was such an institution that Hamlisch attended from the age of 7. In England there are also the Yehudi Menuhin School and Cheethams School in Manchester which perform a similar function.

[SusanDoris]

Marvin Hamlisch was a student at the Julliard School of music from 1951 to 1964. I think that you should note that "school" in American English is a generic term which includes all levels of education. Universities are "schools".

The Julliard is one of the world's half dozen or so premier university level conservatoires (along with the Royal College of Music and the Royal Academy of Music in London). Most conservatoires have associated educational facilities which enable very gifted children to develop their musical skills while they are undergoing mainstream education - it was such an institution that Hamlisch attended from the age of 7. In England there are also the Yehudi Menuhin School and Cheethams School in Manchester which perform a similar function.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten those last two. I asked the question because the children of a friend of mine had some kind of scholarship to attend the Royal Academy of Music, because of their skills on their chosen instruments, but used to go every Saturday for tuition. 

[SteveH]

Floo,

Dusty Springfield - best singer ever.

I wouldn't go that far, but she was certainly quite something.

[SteveH]

NS,

Ordinarily yes, but not in this case. Dusty being the greatest singer ever is an immutable law of the universe. You can no more disagree with that than you can disagree with gravity. If you don't believe me by the way, ask Trent – he knows.   

I think you mean Joan Baez. Dusty was to Joan as Bell's is to Laphroaig: good, but not in the same league.

[Aruntraveller]

I think you mean Joan Baez. Dusty was to Joan as Bell's is to Laphroaig: good, but not in the same league.

You see now you've gone and introduced a further layer of complexity. Joan was a singer-songwriter which in my mind I keep as a separate category, perhaps I shouldn't, but I do. So I have many favourites in this category who I don't put in the interpretation grouping.

So Joan, Joni M. Carole King, our own home grown ones including Alison Moyet (of course!).

Singer songwriters' songs come with the advantage of being directly linked to their creator and that brings a different, maybe unique, perspective to the performance.

[Robbie]

Dusty wrote and co-wrote some songs.

[Gordon]

I think you mean Joan Baez. Dusty was to Joan as Bell's is to Laphroaig: good, but not in the same league.

Glorious voices both, of course, but they were each operating in different musical genres - Joan Baez was primarily a solo acoustic folk singer whereas Dusty was more of a pop/soul based singer whose performances usually involved a full-band backing.

As such I'm not sure they can be compared on the basis of one being 'better' or 'worse' than the other, since subjective taste is surely a factor: and on that basis I prefer Dusty.   

[jeremyp]

Dusty Hare: England fullback 1974 to 1984. Holds the record for the most points scored in a first class Rugby Union career.

[jeremyp]

Glorious voices both, of course, but they were each operating in different musical genres - Joan Baez was primarily a solo acoustic folk singer whereas Dusty was more of a pop/soul based singer whose performances usually involved a full-band backing.

As such I'm not sure they can be compared on the basis of one being 'better' or 'worse' than the other, since subjective taste is surely a factor: and on that basis I prefer Dusty.

For me it's not so much the singer as their delivery of individual songs. I've had the privilege of seeing Joan Baez live and while I rate her very highly, "Son of a Preacher Man" is higher on my list of favourite songs than anything she's done.

[Nearly Sane]

https://youtu.be/RcNgs3HVNz4

[Aruntraveller]

Dusty wrote and co-wrote some songs.

She did, but only four as far as I can ascertain. It certainly doesn't push her into singer songwriter territory.

[Gordon]

She did, but only four as far as I can ascertain. It certainly doesn't push her into singer songwriter territory.

I'm not even sure Joan Baez can be considered a 'singer songwriter' since, it seems to me, she either sang traditional folk songs or the songs of others (such as Bob Dylan or The Band) - I'd have thought a 'singer songwriter' would be someone like, say, Paul Simon or Joni Mitchell.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not even sure Joan Baez can be considered a 'singer songwriter' since, it seems to me, she either sang traditional folk songs or the songs of others (such as Bob Dylan or The Band) - I'd have thought a 'singer songwriter' would be someone like, say, Paul Simon or Joni Mitchell.

After Diamonds and Rust most of her stuff is self penned.

[Nearly Sane]

Happy birthday, Dusty - If You Go Away

https://youtu.be/wyCVxPEPx5Y