Hearing Is Knowing

Friday, December 26, 2025

I had planned to wind down this listening series—focused on long-appreciated vocal artists—by stepping back and making observations about sound and musical genres. But something unexpected has happened along the way. By focusing closely on artistic styles, writing about musicians’ unique deliveries, and staying deeply attentive to how musical communication actually works, I’ve found that I can’t quit listening.

I’m no longer paying much attention to genres, backgrounds, or music as accompaniment to productivity or outcomes. Instead, I’m listening, paying attention itself—and seeking presence. I want to stay with sounds longer—to hear them doing their work.

Many of my earlier thoughts about “hearing music” resurfaced recently when I was visiting a neighbor’s garage. On most Friday nights, a group of long-time friends gathers there simply to play music together. No audience. No metrics. No urgencies beyond the shared pleasure of making sound and keeping time.

My “hearing memories” revived and renewed something essential. I have known—personally experienced careful listening and how it compels. Such listening feels vital. Yet, today, we mostly listen differently. Because we’re immersed in musical worlds that too often demand performance, circulation, and justification.

I’m not into re-circling nostalgia. I’m not into longing for vanished eras or arguing that music was once “better.” I’m into something more elemental that’s happening. By listening carefully, again, to humans singing, vocally or instrumentally—I am hearing them—as fully inside their voices.

This listening slows one down. Asks for patience. Asks not to scan ahead for what might be coming. Instead, it asks for staying with what’s here, now. Close listening alters the sense of time: it makes songs stretch, silences matter, and imperfections more meaningful than distracting. A sincere listener is less interested in quantity—or heavy listening—and far more in depth.

Something within me softens while listening to a singular voice, human or instrumental. There are sounds that don’t carry a brand or a narrative. They carry a “life”—shaped by contradiction, limitation, courage, and persistence.

Listening closely and hearing an artist’s lived history is a form of genuine respect.

I don’t expect others to hear exactly as I do, or to be drawn to the same voices. I’m simply inviting participation and noticing. Consider what sounds make you stop and lean in? Consider what sounds refuse to fade, even after a song ends, and a voice winds down?

Close listening helps us know where originality truly lives—and, equally important, in the encounters between the sounds and listening. It’s renewing my feelings of curiosity and wonder, pairing them with the acceptance that not everything needs sorting, explaining, or resolving.

Some things ask only to be heard.

I plan to keep listening—slowly, attentively, and without rushing to name what I find.

If you’ve been listening along with me, we’ve shared those quiet spaces between notes. We feel quietly grateful—and very much in the know.

— Diana

Unique Voices

Wednesday (Christmas Eve), December 14, 1015

I’m delighted to find myself right around Christmas—perhaps the most musical time of the year—thinking about music again and wanting to write about it.

My recent music-related posts have been about listening, particularly to performers with unmistakable presence and unique delivery styles. Their voices cannot be replicated, which leads to questions worth considering.

Why do some voices resist imitation completely? Why do certain singers and musicians remain instantly recognizable, even though there have been generations of covers, tributes, and technical study?

We often say a voice is “one of a kind.” That’s rather vague—almost sentimental. Actually, it’s because listening itself is remarkably precise. We hear a single note and recognize the artist immediately—before melody, before lyric, before context. We know who it is almost at once.

That recognition doesn’t come just from technique. We know that vocal ranges can be matched. Timbres approximated. Phrasing analyzed and rehearsed. And yet, we hear some artists as possessing something essential that never transfers.

There have been countless tributes to Ella Fitzgerald, Nina Simone, Janis Joplin, and Amy Winehouse. Many are impressive; some are genuinely beautiful. But they don’t feel complete. The outer shape may be there, but the interior weight is missing.

It seems logical, then, that a singular voice isn’t built from sound alone. It’s built from a life—and a particular life is audible, in timing, pressure, and its collision with the world.

Louis Armstrong could not have sounded as he did had he been born into comfort. Nina Simone’s music cannot be separated from her intelligence, her anger, her discipline, or her refusal to soften herself. Janis Joplin’s voice—carrying both defiance and hunger—is inseparable from the era that shaped her and constrained her. Amy Winehouse sang with an emotional directness that felt almost too exposed in a culture that practices concealment. Peggy Lee, writing deeply emotional songs, sang in a soft voice, creating impact not through force but through rhythmic shifts and carefully placed pauses.

Imitating artists cannot replicate another’s suffering—or the precise way an individual metabolizes experience prior to releasing it as sound.

And releases aren’t always tidy. Singular voices may include strain, cracks, or unevenness. They often ignore rules of prettiness or balance. In fact, polish can become the enemy of recognizability. Too much smoothing erases the friction that makes a voice distinct.

Many technically perfect performances leave us untouched because they arrive fully resolved—closed, complete, leaving no space for a listener to enter. I’m always wanting to feel a connection, sensing a presence that’s still unfolding.

Unrepeatable voices leave room and feel porous. They allow us to sense the human being “inside the sound”—the one thinking, remembering, insisting, sometimes even breaking.

Social timing matters, too, because certain voices emerge when the world is ready—or perhaps not ready—for them. They arrive as tensions that matter to listeners. A voice shaped in opposition, one that defies erasure, carries an urgency that cannot be rehearsed into existence later.

Voices that last are reminders that originality does not belong only to the past. They show us that originality is fragile, and dependent on conditions—social, cultural, personal—that cannot be mass-produced.

And so I return, again and again, to certain artists. Not drawn by nostalgia, but by recognition. They keep reminding me that music is one of the rare places where individuality can survive intact—and unflattened.

Another post will focus on genre, and why it can fail us when we try to describe what moves us most. Meanwhile, I’ll keep listening for what refuses to be copied—and wondering what it costs, and what it requires, to sound like no one else.

— Diana

Hearing A Presence

Friday, December 19, 2025

Tomorrow is the winter solstice of 2025—the day our planet offers its fewest hours of light and quietly turns back toward longer days. The semi-annual solstices are about timing. And that has this one reawakening me to a listening experience I’ve somehow overlooked.

While I’ve reflected on—and written about—voices that enter a room and change its atmosphere, I’ve left one essential vocal artist standing quietly at the doorway:

Peggy Lee.

Not because she demands attention—but because she never does. With Peggy Lee, less is always more.

Listening to her becomes an exercise in recalibration. Lee doesn’t lean forward into the listener; she lets the listener come to her. In doing so, she alters the very terms of engagement. You don’t consume a Peggy Lee song. You lean in. You adjust your breathing. You become careful.

Where Louis Armstrong carries weight—joy braided with sorrow—and Ella Fitzgerald moves with brilliance and lift, Peggy Lee works in a narrower register. A deliberate narrowness. A choice. And within it, something quietly commands—and happens.

Peggy Lee’s timing is everything.

She doesn’t rush toward a lyric; she places it. Sometimes she arrives a fraction late. Sometimes she lets a word trail off, as if deciding—mid-phrase—how much truth to reveal. Silence, for her, isn’t an absence but a tool: a held breath, a raised eyebrow—one you can hear.

In songs like “Fever,” the drama isn’t in volume or flourish; it’s in restraint. Lee barely raises her voice. She doesn’t sell the song; she assumes it. Her confidence isn’t showy. It’s settled. Adult. World-aware.

Listening to her, I’m struck by how much authority can live inside softness.

Peggy Lee’s presence feels personal without being confessional. She doesn’t invite us into her interior life so much as let us sit nearby. She doesn’t ask us to identify with her pain or her triumphs; she asks simply that we notice—and pay attention.

Perhaps that is why Peggy Lee’s singing still feels so modern.

In an era when performance often leans toward maximal expression, she reminds us that meaning can reside in what is withheld—that intimacy can be created less by exposure than by precision. She teaches us that timing—true timing—isn’t just musical, but emotional.

Listening to Peggy Lee, I don’t feel dazzled. I feel addressed. She seems to change the room not by rearranging the furniture, but by lowering the lights.

Today, finding her again, I’m not merely listening to the music. I’m listening for something within it—a presence that doesn’t announce itself, but waits. Patiently and unmistakably, for anyone who slows down enough to hear it.

— Diana

Listening for Presence

Thursday, December 18, 2025

Yesterday, I wrote my first of several planned posts about listening to music, and I paused. Soon, something different and subtle struck me. I was highly focused on writing about music, but wasn’t rushing off to research or make lists. Nor was I working on organizing sections, say about eras, or trying to build arguments toward a point of view. Instead, I found myself involved in actively listening itself.

I wasn’t listening constantly, nor methodically—but differently, very thoughtfully. More slowly. More attentively. I found myself listening for something, and not simply to something. That “something” has always been hard to name, but it’s something I constantly search for–and I always recognize it instantly when it appears.

To me, certain voices don’t merely enter a room—they change the space. The air feels altered, and as a listener, I feel myself being addressed—and personally. This doesn’t depend on volume or virtuosity. It’s likely to arrive in a whisper, a pause, a cracked note, a breath held just a beat longer than expected.

Here are examples: While listening to Louis Armstrong, I realized I’m not just hearing sound; I’m hearing weight—as if he’s carrying joy alongside sorrow, humor braided with endurance. When Ella Fitzgerald sings, I hear something like generosity in her phrasing—as though she’s opening space rather than filling it. Nina Simone’s voice creates a world where feeling becomes thought itself—urgent, unyielding, refusing comfort. Janis Joplin sang as if nothing were protected. Amy Winehouse sang as if she already knew the cost.

Here’s what strikes me: these are voices that don’t ask permission. They don’t soften themselves for acceptability. They don’t sound engineered to land well—they sound natural and necessary.

When I hear them, the idea of “performance” feels inadequate. Performance suggests polish, presentation, and a certain distance. Instead, I hear presence. I sense the singer fully inside the moment, and bringing me along without barriers between experience and expression.

Presence can’t be trained into someone, and presence can’t be copied. One can imitate another’s phrasing, tone, and even style. But “real presence” isn’t a technique; it’s a condition. And listeners know it when they hear it.

I often think about how rare this feels today—not because artists lack talent, but because so much contemporary music is filtered through expectations of marketability, branding, perfection, and constant visibility. Today’s technologies create pressure to be seamless, consistent, and endlessly repeatable. Earlier music, by contrast, often allowed unevenness. Performances included roughness, surprise, and even discomfort.

That may be why I return so often to voices from earlier decades—or search for modern artists who feel somehow outside the machine. I seek those whose sounds are as though something real is happening to them as they sing, not just through them.

I’m not suggesting that suffering creates great art, or that pain is a requirement for authenticity. But lived experience—fully inhabited—leaves traces. Great artists allow those traces to remain audible.

Listening in this way makes me consider my own habits. How often do I listen while doing something else? How quickly do I move on when a song doesn’t immediately reward me? How conditioned have I become to smoothness—to ease?

This is my second post about listening to music. Not to make a conclusion, but to create something more like a tuning fork. A small way of noticing what resonates—and what doesn’t.

In another post on this topic, I hope to stay close to this question: What makes a voice unrepeatable? Not better. Not more famous. But singular—so that no matter how many imitators try to cover an original, something essential refuses to transfer.

For now, I’ll keep listening for presence. And I’ll gamble that once you hear it, you can’t un-hear it either.

— Diana

Hearing The Originals

Wednesday, December 17, 2025

My neighbor—professionally an engineering type—recently introduced me to his garage-based music studio. He and several long-time friends meet there every Friday night to play together. They don’t bother with advance planning; they simply gather and do.

The garage, a crowded but tidy man cave, half houses a skateboard collection, several motorcycles, and a pristine classic BMW convertible. The other half is filled with musical gear—guitars, a professional drum set, a keyboard, seating, and a large TV tuned to YouTube, making music videos instantly accessible. My neighbor says he’s felt intimately connected to music of all genres since he was a little boy.

I sat at the keyboard as he softly strummed a guitar, and we talked about music. I confessed—somewhat sadly—that I’ve fallen out of touch with much of today’s popular music. He queued up a few videos, introducing me to some of it. I was honest and explained that I’m a fan of what I call “the originals.” He understood immediately and shifted the screen to Louis Armstrong, singing alternately through his famous horn and his unmistakable voice. Then came Ella Fitzgerald, gently and passionately interpreting Summertime. We discovered that we share a love for a very modern original as well—Alison Krauss—and listened to her duet with Brad Paisley. Our wandering also touched briefly on cool jazz.

I keep myself too busy to pause and listen as often as I might wish. But after that evening, I revisited my old CD stacks from years of collecting and turned again to YouTube to hear artists I’ve loved for a long time. All of it stirred a familiar question: what is it that makes particular voices call to me so strongly—over equally talented and wildly popular newer artists?

I don’t consciously resist what’s new. Still, I find myself drawn back—almost involuntarily—to certain singers and musicians. Their work feels different, not just in style, but in kind. Especially the voices now gone: Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Nina Simone. Peggy Lee. Édith Piaf. Janis Joplin. Mama Cass. Amy Winehouse. And then there are current figures who still carry that same sense of singularity—Lady Gaga, Robert Plant, Alison Krauss, and a few others.

The word genre doesn’t help much. Jazz, blues, folk, pop, rock—the labels slide off what I’m trying to name. These artists don’t feel as though they belong to categories; instead, the categories seem to bend around them.

The same holds true for certain operatic voices that live vividly in my memory.

Perhaps what my favorite artists share isn’t an era, or even a particular sound. Maybe they share something closer to presence. When they sing—vocally or through an instrument—it feels as though something real is at stake. They aren’t merely performing a song; they seem to carry history, experience, contradiction, and truth all at once.

It’s striking, too, how many of these carrying voices are women’s. Not exclusively, of course—men like Sinatra and Nat King Cole clearly belong in this conversation. But with women, attention so often slides away from the work itself and toward their personal lives, their struggles, their supposed instabilities. Even celebrated women artists have rarely been allowed to remain simply artists. Their inner lives became public property, open to speculation, and too often eclipsed their undeniable musical intelligence.

I’m not going to look for neat answers to complex social realities here, and I’ll leave formal sociology aside. This is a more personal inquiry—an attempt to understand why certain musical patterns never release their hold on me.

Once I begin listening in this way, a much larger story presses in. Many of the voices that move me were shaped by what we now call American music—especially the blues and everything that grew from it—emerging from histories of profound suffering, endurance, and enforced silence. Acknowledging that responsibly requires slowing down, and resisting the urge to compress slavery, survival, and cultural inheritance into a paragraph or a slogan.

I’m not qualified to explain that essential history fully. Instead, I plan to begin here, at the edge of listening.

In future posts, I hope to explore this territory more carefully:
– what originality really sounds like
– why some voices can’t be replicated
– why genre so often fails to describe what moves us most
– and how social history—race, gender, power, visibility—shapes music and how we talk about it

This first post is simply a doorway—an acknowledgment that something important lives here, much like what keeps my neighbor’s Friday-night studio jams alive. And my growing wish to explore it deserves attention rather than speed.

For now, I’ll start listening again.

And I’m inviting you to listen with me.

— Diana

Remembering “Sounder” (1972)

Sunday, September 21, 2025

Over coffee yesterday morning, I started thinking about a long-ago movie that featured a dog and a family. It’s one of my all-time favorites and has stayed with me more than most. Today’s header photo, a still from that movie, shows Sounder the dog, the father (played by Paul Winfield), and the eldest child (played by Kevin Hooks).

It came to mind after I’d just finished reading a New York Times piece about “all-time best movies,” in which the writer asked readers to email him with their own favorites. As a former heavy-duty movie buff, I started thinking. The article listed some great films, but it left out the one that immediately came to me: Sounder. That 1972 film has never left my personal best list. I felt so strongly about its absence that I did something I’ve never done before—I emailed the writer, explained briefly why Sounder belongs there.

Reflecting further, I recalled the film’s extraordinary cast: Cicely Tyson, Paul Winfield, and other fine actors. Their performances earned Oscar nominations, and the film itself did something Hollywood had rarely attempted—showing a Black family’s dignity and endurance in a powerful, touching way.

The story follows a sharecropping family in Depression-era Louisiana. Daily life is already difficult before the father is jailed for stealing food to feed his children, leaving his wife and son to carry on. What struck me then—and still does now—is the quiet strength of that family, the boy’s coming of age, and the resilience that carries them through.

And of course—Sounder, the family’s hound dog. His loyalty and presence underscore the family’s strength and make the story unforgettable. Remembering him today, I half-wish I had a hound dog of my own.

Sounder is central to the film—both literally and symbolically. Loyal and loving, he represents resilience and hope, even when he’s gravely injured early on. The story’s emotional core is tied to the boy’s bond with Sounder, and how that love helps him endure his father’s absence.

The film received four Academy Award nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Before then, no movie featuring an all-Black principal cast and story had ever received such high recognition. Its excellent director was Martin Ritt.

To me, Sounder belongs on every “best movies” list—as a film about survival, love, and hope. Remembering it reminds me that sometimes the quietest stories stay with us the longest.

— Diana

Trailblazer

Saturday, February 22, 2025

I will write about Nina Simone, who just had a birthday.

I still love hearing her voice; there’s never been anyone like her, a force in music and activism. Simone was a trained classical pianist who blended jazz, blues, classical, and soul. Her singing voice communicated raw emotions and solid convictions.

You’d never a’thought she’d evolve into a fantastic artist. She was born into an impoverished household in 1933–her mom was a preacher, her dad a laborer, and both loved music. Simone’s mother took the baby regularly to church. As the story goes, Simone was about three years old when she managed to climb onto the organ seat and toy with the keys. Soon, she actually taught herself to play a church song. Soon, parishioners recognized her prodigious talent; and later, affluent individuals in the community recognized and paid for her outside music lessons.

Simone became classically trained and an outstanding student. Although she wanted a career in classical music, the racial barriers of her time pushed her toward jazz and blues. She worked in that arena to support herself while making an indelible musical mark.

Her piano style wasn’t just melody and rhythm; it was her powerful expression of personal and political views. Her song compositions, like Mississippi Goddam, To Be Young, Gifted and Black, and Four Women, were unapologetic about racism and injustice in the Civil Rights era. She captured its pain and resilience.

I used to listen to Simone’s singing voice channeling her deep emotions—distinctively communicating, delicately or thunderously. Her adoring fans made her a revered figure—”High Priestess of Soul.” Her music isn’t easily categorized because it isn’t simply about love, loss, and revolution.

She had a complex personal life–mental health challenges, financial difficulties, and brutal husbands. Her volatile temper alienated some and endeared her to others. Eventually, Simone became a world citizen who lived in various countries: Liberia, Switzerland, and France. She always was an enigmatic figure.

Simone died in 2003. Her musical influence continually grows as young generations discover (and cheer) her fearless artistry, outstanding musicianship, and commitment to justice. Her legacy is a “voice of truth.”

Dear Friends: Simone, a musical genius, is still “an original.” Diana

Ah, Mary!

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

I recently ordered the complete series Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman—partly for nostalgia and fun. The show aired years ago, and it had faded from my memory for a long time. But things about today’s social or political climate triggered a recollection, and suddenly, I found myself remembering how much I had once looked forward to each episode. That spark of recognition led me to seek it out again. Ordering the series is just the first step—I want to revisit what made it so compelling back then and see if it still holds up today.

“Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman” was a groundbreaking television series. It redefined the boundaries of satire and soap opera storytelling. It aired from 1976 to 1977. Created by Norman Lear, the show was a darkly comedic, deeply unsettling reflection of American life. It tackled topics that traditional sitcoms and soap operas avoided, like mental illness, consumerism, violence, media sensationalism, and the quiet desperation of suburban existence.

The series resides in a fictional town, Fernwood, OH, where suburban housewife Mary Hartman seeks the kind of domestic perfection promised by Reader’s Digest and TV commercials. Instead, Mary finds herself suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. There are mass murders, low-flying airplanes, and waxy yellow buildup on her kitchen floor.

That show was too controversial for any network at the time. Before long, however, it sparked Lear’s next series, the winning All in the Family. Archie’s and Edith’s dilemmas (similar to Mary’s) led viewers to recognize and appreciate many disconnects between people’s long-held beliefs and the demanding modern “adult” world.

These shows exposed cracks in the American Dream. Mary Hartman had that perfect blend of humor, strangeness, and originality that set it apart. While All in the Family tackled social issues head-on with a more traditional sitcom format, Mary Hartman took a subtler, almost surrealist approach, revealing the absurdity of American life through its deadpan satire.

I hope to find the same layered meanings in it now and if it may feel fresh and bold enough to hold up today.

Dear Friends: Lear was a genius; I expect to find “Mary…” holding up still. Diana

Mr. Love

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

I was delighted to see my long-time friend Judy shopping in the department store where I work part-time. She reads my blogs (thank you, Judy) and “loves Chase” (my puppy from hell!). I was about to offer Chase to her, with delivery, but she was too fast; she showed me a picture of her new Corgi puppy. Judy and her hubby Greg are Corgi folks, so they and their yard’s gorgeous garden are safe from Chase.

Yes, Chase is still with me. I hold my breath when coming home from work and going up the driveway. In my head, a little prayer: “Please let him be around, still, confined or loose, and above all, safe.”

Lately, Chase has been greeting me happily from inside the dog-fenced area. Yes, I’ve been letting him stay in there with his buddies because he hasn’t been digging out. Maybe because the wintery grounds are frozen, resisting his efforts. That reasoning doesn’t make enough sense because Chase is a strong and determined critter.

Do you think…could we even begin to hope…that he’s maturing?

In March, Chase will turn three years old, when a dog is considered mature. Oh, how I’ve been waiting–from when he was four or five months old!

That’s when I saw he could boing straight up and successfully climb over any known fence, no matter how tall. That’s when I found him routinely escaping by digging under fencing–any section of it, despite chicken wire–set deeply into the ground–to prevent that.

Aw, Chase!

Well, Mary loves you, and so does Judy. That’s no potential relief for me, as Mary lives far away in CA, and Judy already has a couple of Corgies. So, Chase, you’re still with me, and thankfully, you’re still safe.

Dear Friends: Fun seeing Judy! After the holidays, we’ll catch up over lunch. Diana

Point Of View

Monday, July 22, 2024

Yesterday, I had a lovely visit with my long-time artist friend Janet. Several years ago, she and her daughters created a much-loved Christmas costume for my donkey Pimmy; our team had lots of fun participating in parades and photoshoots with well-dressed Pimmy.

Janet and I caught up with one another before taking a tour of the High Desert Classic Horse Show. The gorgeous, drool-worthy, and awesome jumpers made me happy to be a horseperson and to grasp their athleticism and fun. Horses are amazing and wonderful creatures; humans develop a partnership with a horse–and actually, a relationship unlike any other.

Janet is an artist and sees everything through an artist’s eye. She has always encouraged me to take second looks and to adjust my perceptions. I love that, and thinking about it makes a connection to my part-time work selling fine jewelry. I encourage customers to perceive gemstones and designs in different ways. For example, offering a viewer a jeweler’s loop and teaching its use clarifies design details.

Thanks to Janet for helping me remake connections among art, relationships, and practicality. This trio fuels most of our thoughts and perceptions.

Dear Friends: She says also that once we connect, we can forever reconnect. Diana