>"Er, no. It was you, I recall, you who started up the "out-of-date" hare. "
My Out-of-date referred to a revivalist (as much as he might despise the species) using revival techniques long abandoned by the revival
Your 'out of date' was a rejection of revival and traditional singers using traditional techniques which - apparently are past their sell-by date.
I repeat - what is your point of describing them as out-of-date and if they are, why on earth should you bother your arse about t
records of singers singing exactly in the way that you have have described as "out-of-date"?>

I think you've misinterpreted my flippant flipping of your own words back at you. I've never mastered this "joke" thing that people are so good at.
To make it clear: I'm not the least bit hung up on notions of "old-fashioned" or "out of date". All the singers you mention, so far as they're known to me, sound pretty good to my ears, and I can quite accept they're masters of their craft. But as I said before, there's more than one way of telling a story. I like their way, and I like other ways too. It's even possible I like them for the same reasons you like them. "Sell-by date" is not an expression I introduced into the debate.

>"chosen few"
Please do not misrepresent my argument - I saidfall into the hands of people who neither like nor understand it" - different argument altogether<

It's just the secret society sound of letting things "fall into the hands" of those who are unworthy of ownership. But they're just words. We all use 'em.