I wonder if people would have the ability to buy music today if it wasn't associated with visuals--especially, a pile of plastic surgery and provocative clothing.
@@matthewweidemann8155 oh sit down. Pop music has been like this for *decades* at least. Now, as always, you get this sexualisation and commercialisation in the mainstream but if you spend more than 2 minutes looking outside of that then you'll find plenty of quality stuff. This video is about production tools, not "modern music bad".
To be fair I think there’s some oversight in saying they had no pitch technology. That’s not true. They would slow songs down on the tape to pitch shift the song to make singing higher ranges easier
@@KenFullmanso true. I was thinking it would be nice if singers had the same protective attitude about their “instruments” as a Yo-yo Ma or an Itzakh Pearlman, who I’m guessing would never allow one of their virtuoso performances to be “corrected” by some hack in front of of a computer monitor!
Robert Fripp said back in the day everyone was always trying to sound different and today they're all trying to sound the same. This is a prime example.
Amazon community manager here, please refrain from using the word “Prime”, this word is trademarked by us. We will be following your comments, if you continue to use the word prime without our express permission you will be hearing from our lawyers.
She's communicating through the sweeping tones of her voice. There's a raw tenderness that is vivid and real, like she's in the room with us singing us to sleep. It's human. You can't filter for that, it's pure talent and realness.
They won't be listening to Kelly Clarksons fake bollocks version..that's a certainty...SHE ..should be ashamed of herself if she really knows wtf is going on with this deceit...
As an opera singer, this is fascinating to me. I am sad that society’s ears in general have come to expect boring “perfection”. I wish we didn’t do this as much, the human voice is so magical and I love the vulnerability that a raw voice can bring. We of course work our butts off to find the centre of the pitches, but human souls cannot be truly tamed and that is why we love them! I say down with the mechanization of music and let’s back to the live theatre of sound! Thank you for your work and awareness here!
Have you listened to Sarabanda by Roberto Cacciapaglia? The singing is spine chillingly good, I use oneodio over ear headphones and I have to listen to it at 5 out 100 for volume. At 12 out of 100 it's way too loud for the headphones haha....
The thing is it's not perfection at all. The raw vocals are so much better. It's just snapped to notes that are a theoretical abstraction. I don't really understand the purpose of this type of thing - I mean fine if someone can't sing, but where you have a capable singer, just leave it.
I don't think people even want this. Music corporations want it, because they think it'll be better for profits. We didn't ask for it, it was sold to us. And I think the sales figures would vouch for the fact people are sick of this auto tuned sludge.
I think the “imperfections” in Judy’s voice makes it more intimate and conversational. She’s not singing “to you,” she’s drawn you inside her head and her heart to feel her wistful sadness. I always cry when I hear this.
When my son was a baby, less than 6 months old, I would play music throughout the day. When Judy and "Over the Rainbow" came on he immediately stopped playing with his little crib toys. He just listened, transfixed until the last note. It was amazing. This song and singer are magical. Speaks to all of us on a heart to heart level.
My youngest nephew was born on June 22, 50 years to the day Judy Garland died. The moment I saw him open his eyes, I thought: "You've been here before!" He's almost five now, and yet to watch "The Wizard Of Oz" (only my eldest nephew has so far. He liked Toto), but hopefully he'll like it, and "Over The Rainbow." He loves music from other eras.
I have twin nephews, they were born when I was 25. When they were three or four, I was baby-sitting them at my place, my sister-in-law gave me a video cassette of something like the teletubbies ( I don't really remember ) but I saw that IN my machine, was the musical "Oliver !" I tee'd it up to the "Om pah pah" song, and didn't tell them even that I was putting something on for them. And those two restless, impatient, and disobedient boys stood stock still, and their eyes BURNED into the screen, with their hands and legs bouncing along to the beat. When it was finished they giggled and ran around the room, SUPER excited by it.
We have to remember that Judy Garland was also an actress. She was bringing her character’s emotional struggle to that scene through her song. So many elements to juggle for a little girl. And her performance has wowed us for 85 years.
I disagree. I believe that because she was an actor, she had the ability to inject her own sorrow and struggles, and not those of her "character's sorrows and struggles," in the movie, "Meet Me In St. Louis."
Exactly right. You can't auto-tune feeling and soul into a performance. There will never be another Judy! (One reason I've seen The Wizard of Oz about 25 times and still watch every time it's on.)
I think she was lip-synching her performance during that scene. Her song was pre-recorded already before they filmed the scene. She didn’t have to sing again only just to have her to lip-synch over her singing parts. By doing this she had the freedom to show enough emotion for the scene. The song itself calls for a bittersweet feeling you can hear it in the harmony and the lyrics as well.
I’m a voice teacher and singer. Many of my twenty-something students have so much to unlearn since they have been trying to copy these unnatural sounds. They compress their vocal folds and go nasal, which in turn, throws off their pitch. I encourage them to find their own sound. Now your video gives me something very important to also bring to the mix. Thank you!
I'm not as concerned about pitch correction being a crutch for singers as I am that people's ears are becoming so used to pitch correction that they think someone's a bad singer if their pitch isn't robotically perfect. I think that's why so many pop singers and broadway performers sound so uniform to me now; we've literally flattened the character out of people's voices and come to hold that as the gold standard.
I don’t know if that’s really going to be a concern. No one could call Judy pitchy here, she’s spot on. If anything, people are VERY forgiving of people who are pitchy as hell and can’t hear it at all. And when you say anything, it’s because ‘you’re jealous’, which is absurd. It’s more concerning that all music is being confined to a very narrow band of acceptability in the main stream. This is the AI affect but for music, bland sameness.
Character is the perfect word. There are so many technically excellent singers but they have no character and I find it so so dull. Judy’s voice here is so full of character and emotion, which makes this performance so moving and imperfectly beautiful
As someone who loves old, old bluegrass, one of my favorite things about those old singers is that their vocals aren’t perfect. Sometimes they hit a note really weird. Some of them people today would hear and think “how did they get famous with THAT voice?!” But you’ll never hear music that touches your soul more than those old bluegrass singers. A lot of those songs tell sad stories, and you can hear their voices crack when they sing, which creates this beautiful, real kind of sorrow that hits you where you live. You lose that when your goal is to make the vocals “perfect.”
My Grandfather had a wonderful voice and he would intentionally crack his voice on certain lines in a certain way that no one could ever reproduce, I have tried and just can’t do it, it was definitely a little off pitch and he would sort of bring the voice crack up then down at the end of a note. I would give anything to hear that again. I loved the way he sang “Oh Danny Boy” he would crack his voice extra on the “boy” it was adorable. I wouldn’t say he had perfect pitch or anything but his voice was so distinct and fun that you couldn’t help but love it and want him to sing all the time. It bothered me when I was a kid if someone couldn’t sing on key but not when my Grampy did it because he made it sound good.
@@trishaferrand1395 The song that I was really thinking about was The Little Girl and the Dreadful Snake by the Stanley Brothers. That’ll give you a good example of what I mean by voices you wouldn’t traditionally classify as beautiful, but are packed with pathos. As far as my favorites, Bill Monroe is called the father of bluegrass for good reason. He’s a good place to start, as well as the folks who played with him, like Earl Scruggs and Lester Flatt.
No matter the venue, or album project, or film, she always gave it her all... even in a now mostly forgotten (not to me, ever) animated film from the early sixties --- _Gay Purr-ee_ --- where she provided the singing (and speaking voice) for a cat named Mewsette. All her singing was great, but one particular song, _Paris is a Lonely Town,_ in the film illustrated how she could deliver songs in ways that made them her own and untouchable by anyone else. (FYI: The film's song lyrics were written by Yip Harburg, the same genius who wrote the clever lyrics for all the songs in _The Wizard of Oz._ )
Thank you for this video. My mother, born in 1928 was a prodigal opera singer invited to the NY Met Opera at only 16 years old. Judy Garland was one of her favorite singers of the era and I always wondered why an opera singer like my mother liked Judy Garland. This shows why.
My mom is 91 but when she was younger she sang in a trio on TV. My mom plays multiple instruments by ear. She can't read a note of music but can play piano, organ, zither, etc.. Mom complains to me that music these days does not sound the same as it did years ago, she says it's just not good anymore. Mom is not talking about types of music, she's not complaining about rock. Hiphop, rap etc. she means the music released now by new artist with songs like she used to love in the past just are not as good as before. I think maybe even though my mom can't read music, is not aware of which note is which, that she might be very aware of pitch correction and autotune. Because her musical abilities rely so much on her hearing shè might be really sensitive to the changes pitch correction and auto tume creates. I think I now understand my mom's compliants. Thank you, I can now show this to my mom and explain it.
In the Dune books there is a strictly enforced commandment that "thou shall not make a machine in the likeness of a human being". So there are no computers or anything close to "thinking machines". One of the sequels mentions that in the deep past humanity had revolted and destroyed all the thinking machines because they had come to hate how warped they were becoming by the machines. Instead of making machines to fit the needs and desires of humanity, humanity was conforming itself to work best with the machines. We are well into an age when humanity is letting itself be warped by the machines, trying to make ourselves operate like machines.
It’s not just vocals, pretty much all modern music is edited and often fully composed digitally. It’s too on the line that it doesn’t have that human element to it anymore. It’s accurate, but lacks emotion
I'm a professional singer by trade, and just THANK YOU. This conversation is something my friends and I always have, especially when it comes to teaching. I often have to remind my students that they're artists and not computers, and to stop feeling shame because they're not "perfect*
I am no singer but what you said is spot on. This so called "not perfect" thing is individuality and that makes each artist unique. "Perfection" is hearing a robot sing....
Pitch correction removes the natural beauty of someone’s voice. As the vocal chords express not just notes but emotion and sentiment. It is a lack of appreciation of the human element and forcing artificial intelligence into something organic.
Hearing a song that is supposed to be "natural" having been auto-tuned, is annoying. I heard a COUNTRY song that has a computer feel to the singing and get SO ANNOYED. OG Johnny Cash would NOT use auto-tune.
Yes, although arguably Apple has done far worse with their horrible iPods. Or more specifically with the horrible earbuds that they shipped with them. Those things damaged a lot of hearing and the only option for buying a lot of that music, other than on a physical medium, was through their store. At least now there are stores where you can get uncompressed tracks. I just wish there'd be more options for music that hasn't been extensively compressed. One of the great things about digital is that it doesn't have to be compressed to avoid skips.
I indeed started to cry. The difference is abysmal. Like Kelly' version sings to your ears while Judy's does it to your heart. It's beautiful. I never thought we would lose that.
Music is art and touches our soul. Art created with a machine, to me, doesn’t have the same vibe. Sad that the industry thinks they have to put out pitch perfect music instead of the real sound of Kelly’s voice
Garland’s version is iconic. It is said that the entire crew began to weep when she first began singing, what was captured is the second take. It’s such a masterful performance. So delicate. All the feels. 😊
No offense intended, but that isn't likely. She didn't sing live on the set in front of any crew. All vocal tracks were recorded on a soundstage with musicians only. During filming, the recorded performance would be played back and Garland would lipsync to the recording made earlier in production. Rex Harrison, on the other hand, refused to work that way. So, during filming of "My Fair Lady" he was recorded live on the set using a new high-tech invention: a small, cordless microphone. Best wishes from Vermont 🍁
It is possible that for both are true. Judy could have sang it live while filming and then they recorded it “clean” in a recording studio, to eliminate any unwanted soundstage noises, and then spliced out the film sound of her singing for the studio recording of it. She may have also just sang it during the rehearsals and this is where the story comes from.
Husband is a musician and I have a degree in communication and we both say THANK YOU!!! The voice is unique to the person and it has to do with anatomy, it is not a machine. When you auto tune a voice it loses it's soul, passion and sounds flat. That is just one of the reasons my husband and I like independent artists that have the freedom to write, sing and perform their art without the industry "turd shiners" in the studio ripping the heart out of their music.
Flat and soul are the key words. I love to listen to old recordings by anybody, singing on their porch, or in the kitchen, maybe a garage, you know it's real and it's not flat and it has soul.
Now I know why I’m such an obsessive vinyl collector. My friends keep saying I can listen to the same songs on (insert streaming service) and I just keep saying… that it feels different. That nothing matches the mood found at the tip of a record player needle… I’m only 39 but grew up listening to music decades and decades before me. I’m addicted to the soul, imperfection and raw soul that was available before all this processed boredom…
Playing with pitch is just part of the singers expression toolbox. This is why Judy has the ability to tug at your heartstrings. But sadly this is erased with pitch correction. But on a more technical note; If you are singing a major third note you would have to lower the pitch by a ~14cents to be in perfect harmony. So this would look flat on the graph but would be in perfect harmony in the moment of that particular chord. This is because just intonation or pure intonation is different from equal temperament. “Don’t be scared if your intonation differs from that of the piano. It is the piano that is out of tune. The piano with its tempered scale is a compromise in intonation." -Pablo Casals
Listening to Judy Garland sing Over The Rainbow, It causes me to cry because they'll never be anyone else who can sing this song. Judy owns that song, and we lost her too young back in 1969
It's not. Sia is stunning and writing amazing anthems. Mariah Carey. Same. There will be more. That girl that sang her own creation of I don't know my (edit) name. Grace Vanderwaal I think. There are wonderful composer-singers out there. Tracy Chapman: fast car, Can I hold you tonight. Music is ever evolving. Amd There are so many beautiful covers out on RU-vid.
When I was first learning about music production, my tutor told me to always beware of how your eyes can trick you into thinking you can hear something that isn't really there. He demonstrated by playing a section of audio in Logic, and then turned on a compressor plugin on the channel and played it again. Everyone in the room swore they could hear the compression on the track the second time round. But then he revealed the trick, the plugin was doing absolutely nothing, and was in fact bypassed the whole time. I'm convinced that this kind of pitch meddling is a side-effect of the visual feedback that comes with DAW software. Prior to their emergence, when everyone was recording, mixing and mastering on tape, producers and engineers had to rely solely on their ears to determine if a vocal or instrument was in tune, or if a drummer was in time. But since the early '90s, suddenly it's represented on the screen, with a mathematically perfect pitch or time grid to show you how "imperfect" the performance is. Any engineer with a perfectionist mindset, or even a touch of OCD, will not be able to resist the urge to "correct" it, regardless of how good it actually sounds. I really think we need to get back to mixing blind again.
I have used correction when recording songs I haven't performed much or at all, and it has taught my ear to hear the note better so that my singing is more in tune. But I do agree with your analysis completely.
Why not make that a niche job for literally blind folks with the passion and capabilities? Make it well-paying and you can get some people that are on SSI for blindness only off the system and the system can quit bitching for once!
This is a most outstanding analysis! It's very clear from watching Garland's pitch analysis that she was very aware of exactly where those exact pitches were, and that any deviations from those pitches were intentional, as an artistic expression. There must be examples of live recordings of Clarkson that are uncorrected, that we could see analyzed, as comparison.
You're on to something. Consider Linda Ronstadt singing "Long, Long Time." That was one of Ms. Ronstadt's greatest hits, no doubt. Now listen to the late Melanie Safka singing the same song. You've cleared up something for me, and why I prefer Ms. Safka's "less" than perfect rendition. Ronstadt is so polished and wonderful. But Melanie's version just rips my heart out, and all the terrible things I've done to some of the women in my life come back and haunt me. .
I’m going to have to teach my back yard cardinals and wrens how to autocorrect so they can meet our human-centric standards. Why is the measuring tool (musical scale) given precedence over the emotional content?
@@JoePopp-k3o Thank you! The humans need a reality check. I heard of a study that exposed butterflies to false butterflies of a stronger hue. They were no longer interested in mating with "normal" butterflies, We are doing this in so many ways. We are making "Human" not good enough.
It's not just the beauty of Judy's vocal that gets me, but the pure emotion. You feel every word that she's singing, something that gets lost in today's autotune and pitch correction.
the best performance by Kelly Clarkson, the other singer here is the one on the night she won American Idol. theres something about it that brings me to tears. not just the fact that she's crying, there's a bit more to it there for me. she does have the ability to sing with striking emotion, if only they would still let her. it's on youtube if you search "kelly clarkson - a moment like this (winning performance)"
And to think that the producers actually wanted to REMOVE this song from the film!! They thought that the slow, melancholy mood of it would bring down the upbeat nature of the film. But a producer and Garland's vocal coach really fought for it, and happily succeeded. I can't even imagine this movie without it.
@@llamasugar5478 I'd like a share a story with you that reminded me so much of your post. 30-years ago, after I broke up with my girlfriend I was telling my 5 year-old niece that a slow song by the Eagles, "Best of My Love" made me feel sad. Then she shared something with me, too. She said, "I know what you mean, Uncle. I used to have a hamster, and it died."
"People and producers aren't listening anymore, they're looking". What a great point to make! Just like doctors don't listen to patients anymore, they only look at their charts.
@@normanclatcher I try to never take anything from the pharma companies, other than the occasional ibuprofen. Homeopathic meds aren't always effective, but at least they don't cause side effects worse than the problem they're supposed to treat.
My friend is blind and he used to run a recording studio back in the 80s but had to give it up, because - He said people weren't listening anymore. They were looking at screens.
@@TotalDecso perhaps the bots will learn to reproduce the mistakes of over-manufactured pitch correction and autotune, and the problem will never be fixed.
Makes sense: Look back at them yo-yos; now that's the way they did it, they played their guitars on the MTV. That wasn't working, that's the way they did it, they got their money for nothing and their chicks for free.
My old copy of Finale Songwriter had a setting called "human feel" or something, but when the feature was turned on, the notes would just become randomly inaccurate and it sounded awful. Like percussion hits would land randomly and spastically late or early to the point that it sounded like a novice who couldn't control their instrument or keep time. It wasn't inaccurate in a human way. It was as if the creators of the software had no respect for human creativity, and just assumed "human" meant "worse." I'm suddenly reminded of that evil iPad ad that just got taken down (May 2024).
This was so eye opening ! I remember as a kid, this movie would be on TV ( we had 3 channels back then) only about once a year. It was a major event for me as a child. Hearing Judy’s voice again almost makes me want to cry. It’s sad what the world has come to today, it’s all about the money, and very little integrity. Even an old timer like me knows Kelly has an amazing voice. I wonder if she knows that they corrected her vocals. I’d like to think she would rerelease the tune unaltered so we could appreciate the true amazing quality of her voice.
@@kentd4762 I'm 68 and first heard her sing this as a young child watching Wizard of Oz. Since then it's been my favorite movie of all time. Ditto on 'Judy's modernly "imperfect" version'. ;0)
Judy had recently turned 17 when the Wizard of Oz was released (born June 1922, film released in August 1939). So she was only 16 when her scenes were filmed. What a talent. I will always love Judy Garland.
How lucky we are because history could have turned out very differently: MGM's first choice for the role of Dorothy was Shirley Temple who let's be honest was a terrible singer, but thankfully they couldn't agree a deal with Fox who had Shirley's contract.
Here’s the deal. As a singer, I can hear that she is sighing and crying and emoting a feeling in every slide, shake, and tremulous fall. This is acting through her singing. Only a voice can do this. Certainly not a piano, although some good pianists will try to sing bel canto, they just can’t change the pitch and percussive quality of their instrument. But a voice can. And that’s what is magical and musical about a voice. Judy?She’s perfect. Can’t touch this.
I can't sing, but I love music- all kinds of music, and the emotions and stories it inspires. I listen to a wide range of genres, but I LOVE when vocalists audibly gasp, groan, grunt, cry, yell, even scream. When the words devolve into sounds because words can't express it. And I wonder if this is why! Because if they're doing that, they're probably not correcting the rest of the performance. Or if they are, the emotion is coming out in the non-lyrical vocals Most of the songs are punk, metal, or experimental so panting and screaming goes with that aesthetic, but they tend to be the ones that stick with me. Some examples are Soap&skin's Sugarcreek and... basically most of Viagra Boys' discography. Often artists don't have a ton of songs like that, just a couple so it's a very eclectic mix
@@slitheen3 I'm a singer and whenever i employ the "cry technique" i ask myself "Dude, why the fk do you not ALWAYS use the cry technique". It makes a world of difference. Its the blues even if the scale used is not. Try crying mary had a little lamb to yourselves at home..you'll see how cool you sound. Its awesome.
I think the point should be that as a non-singer you can hear and feel it. If the nuance required the audience to all be expert singers, it would be a failure.
You are so right here. It's just a shame that producers are trying to make every singer equal to each other. Individual expression is almost completely lost.
@@stoneneils I've not heard of that technique before but I cry very easily and it completely stops me being able to sing. How do you do both at once?!
Thank you. Now I understand why live performances are so much better. Also why my husband and I enjoy older recordings so much. Now I know why it doesn't sound quite right.
Another reason Judy singing this song is so emotionally powerful is because for most of her life, she was a very unhappy person. And the meaning of this song touches something deep in us because it's what we all yearn for...to be truly deep-down happy.
thats the problem, u cant be happy all the time there has to be a good balance, happynes is just dopamine/endorfine or something being released in the brain, to much of it is bad. Not enough is bad to so try to keep it balanced
When Kelly sings it, I'm like, "Wow, that's impressive." When Judy does it, by "...once in a lullaby," I'm crying. And watch his face. He can't help but grin every time Judy sings. It's an energy thing.
Can't believe I FINALLY found someone who cares about pitch corrections on live performances as much as I do. You may already know about this but tons of singers RERECORD portions or entire songs after the performance. I saw a livestreamed concert by a band I loved and the singer had heavy dysphonia and in a song, his voice went super hoarse and gave out. Seeing the official release of the concert later on I noticed that mistake was now recorded over and had I not seen the livestream I would've been none the wiser.
I've only voice recorded with a studio set up like this once and I remember being so frustrated because the guy working with me kept trying to correct me for "sliding into that high note" he kept showing me the line and how it started just below where he wanted it. I did take after take and was about in tears when he finaly said I got close enough. I just couldn't understand it because I liked the way it sounded when he played it back and it didn't sound weird or wrong... now I think I understand better... maybe he was expecting something my human vocal chords can't actually do... he was used to manipulating instrument sound files rather than working with singers so I guess that makes sense.
Analogue recording is very stressful, 24 track tape costs a fortune, something like 500 quid for 30 mins, so the Vocalist has to get it right within a few takes, plus all the equipment in an analogue studio might cost millions, now all that can be done on a laptop, modern producers would crash and burn, a good producer will know what they want to hear as a starting point, before you even sing a phrase and work with you to get there, or sometimes go down another road, you should be able to trust them, when singing I just let them do their Job, when writing songs, I often sing the song myself to them to give them ideas if the starting point.
@makinganoise6028 sounds like you would be fun to work with... the set up we where using was all digital, I would have understood more if we were working with tape.
@@chandrasunny it does help with songwriting for another singer if you are a singer yourself, as you can put yourself in their position, tbf recording is often not fun, it's fantastic, when everyone on form and you get a great take, but rarely happens, so you need someone who can join up all the pieces, with youth comes energy and passion, (strops and bickering), at my age, just looking for the easy path without the drama, I'm always looking for good people to work on Projects, run with songs I've written, Jester's Heart is my Pop project, see if any of it dings your bell
@@makinganoise6028 Which is part of why many of the greats would spend so much time in rehearsal before even entering the studio. It's hardly even just the cost of the tape, everything tends to be rather expensive and for much of the history of the recording industry, there wasn't even enough studios to cover the potential demand. It wasn't like today where you could relatively easily set up a studio in your own home that would be good enough for demos and practice.
It would be fascinating to hear what Judy Garland's voice would sound like if all modern corrections were applied. And what a very informative analysis. Great breakdown.
@@StanEngland It was the role of Esther in Meet Me in St Louis (1944) that she didn’t want to play. Judy was 22 and she didn’t want to play 17 year old Esther.
I think you are wrong. Judy Garland was 26 during the filming. Shirley Temple was the first choice because she was the age of Dorothy in the book The studio would not release Shirley Temple so they altered the age to something a 26 year old Garland could play. Her singing is good but the movie would have been better portrayed by Shirley Temple .
@@cindyhoffman5547These are well-documented facts. Judy Garland was born in 1922. Wizard of Oz began filming in 1938. Judy Garland was 16 years old. It would have been her first major starring role at MGM since signing her contract in 1936. She wanted the role of Dorothy. Yes, Shirley Temple was briefly considered due to her age and her huge star status, but Oz's producer's Mervyn LeRoy and Arthur Freed have stated that they always wanted Judy Garland for the role.
@@deuxjournalistes2993yes and thank heavens Judy got the roll! Shirley Temple was great in her own way but definitely would not have produced the work of art Judy did for us to enjoy
@@stevedisintegrationrules6892 I mean part of the problem is that they won’t LET her be, they poke and prod at everything after it’s done and can’t leave well enough alone. It’s not any failing of Kelly’s I wouldn’t say.
lol same! I was like, that’s different from usual, and I clicked. It was a pretty interesting video! I studied ceramics and then went on to work in a tile showroom- people on average do not like natural variation, in that context, and it feels very much in keeping with the theme of this video.
I love the smile that immediately crept onto your face the moment Mrs. Garland began to sing. It's like going through your mothers old keepsakes, and finding that favorite Teddy bear you though you lost when you were 6 years old. Doesn't matter how old you are, it's just as comforting as it ever was.
Bravo! ❤ Thank you for this video ❤ I'm a vocalist.. and I totally agree 👍 This is the difference between the warmness of an old vinyl recording and a re-master ❤❤
My dad, who would have been 95, grew up listening to Judy Garland. He sometimes teared up when he listened to her. Later in his life, he heard Kelly Clarkson, but she didn't move him the way Judy did. You just can't beat those beautiful natural voices.
Your father teared up because this is precisely the allure of the contralto singing voice. It is a rich, stirring, dark, sombre, haunting voice that stirs up emotion. This is the lowest and rarest female voice type and and Judy was a fantastic one. That was why she sounded like a proper grown woman far beyond her years in the film! That's not the sound of a 12 yr old, more like a woman in her mid twenties
I am 59...My parents were born in 1917 and 1924 (😮). He saw Judy in NYC back in the 30's before "The Wizard of Oz". I think she was 14 at the time. He adored her! ❤
It's funny to try to explain this to people now-- that you couldn't "tape" a show for later. You had to CHOOSE and you had to BE THERE. And many times there were competing shows and you just couldn't watch one of them.
❤ I didn’t wait for TWOO, I waited for the Wizard of Oz 😉 Just like autotune, there are some acronyms that shouldn’t be used. 😉 let’s,please, call it what it is. It’s The Wizard of Oz, doesn’t that have a much more magical sound to it 🥰
Could not agree more. As a former professional string player I feel it is so sad that this pitch “correction” is so pervasive. Because locking pitches to a scale where every note is based on equally spaced semitones does NOT give you the best sounding result to human ears. Those doing this “correction” may in fact be making the final result sound worse. This was a compromise made hundreds of years ago for the modern piano. One of the most memorable moments in my music career was playing in a professional symphony in Australia. I forget the piece and the conductor now, it was many decades ago, but he kept stopping the piece we were rehearsing and telling the woodwinds they were not playing certain chords in tune. He even had them play and hold each chord in turn. We retuned and played again. We all thought he was crazy. Then he had them play and hold again while he pointed at each person in turn and by waving his finger told them to be a little sharper or flatter. And all of a sudden the chords just LOCKED IN. You could both hear and feel it. It was AMAZING! Each player had been in tune to A440. But the CHORDS themselves were not in tune internally. And what about Jazz? Would you ever want every jazz singer and instrument pitch corrected? I found something very similar when playing fretted vs. fretless bass in a big band. While my fretted bass was in tune, it didn’t sound that way in some pieces and chord inversions. Playing fretless enabled me to fit the pitch of my notes to the chord, the singer, or the band. Being very specifically “out of tune” gave a far better result overall.
I’m a classically trained singer, and saxophone player. I was thinking about this same idea the whole time I was watching. It’s important to be able to find the center of a pitch and work on independent tuning, but in a tonal context you have to train the ear to hear what being in tune actually means!! In most cases, if you’re not playing/singing the root of the chord, the pitch you’re on is going to be “out of tune” to the tuner, but in tune within its context.
Right. The “tempered” scale is a compromise, adjusting the sharps and flats to be the same, when they’re not. There were even early piano designs the had both the flat & the sharp - 2 black keys right next to each other - but it was too complicated. Different piano tuners tempered the scale differently. They’d “stretch octaves”, pitching upper octaves higher, or they’ll sound flat, even though they’re not. Violinists know this, good singers do it right by ear, the software just knows the tempered scale and conforms the human voice to the piano keyboard. So “perfect” is actually wrong.
Awesome video! There is so much I could comment on but the thing that will stick with me, and that I appreciate 100x more than the insightful and articulate analysis is the absolute JOY in your face when you hear Judy sing! You Sir, are a beautiful human and my life is richer for having shared in your human-ness and joy! 🎶💎🎶
The thing about singing 'flat' or 'sharp,' unless it goes too far off key, obviously, is that it suggests what we know as a psychological component of emotional content, which we are drawn to intuitively. Being flat (under the pitch) suggests hesitance or caution, while being sharp (above the pitch) suggests eagerness or anxiousness. We all know this intuitively because we've heard this range of human emotional content in the voices of those around us since birth. Mechanical application of pitch-correction software tends to erase this natural emotional content, thus the altered 'perfected' voice sounds 'wrong' to our ears somehow.
& why we all agree - if Dorothy had been played by Shirley Temple = an utterly different tone, delightful no doubt, but missing the pathos, thus probably not becoming a classic.
Excellent presentation! Thank you. I had a female vocalist in my studio from a Cirque du Soleil show here in Vegas perform a vocal track. First take, no edits, no pitch correction. It was a beautiful moment for everyone in the control room with me. All pro musicians, we all just looked at each other in musical bliss. Everyone said, "leave that take just the way she did it"... Thank you Celia.
The thing about Judy’s gifted voice was extremely natural but came from a place from deep sadness and trauma. And you can hear it throughout the years as she sings this song. 💔❤️💔❤️💔
I am one of the lucky people that saw judy garland at the talk of the town, I think it was either 68 or 69, and i was 14 at the time, All I can remember is judy sitting on the front of the stage singing this, Everybody was in tears, a very emotional moment. Even the bouncers, the staff, Everyone was one the front of thier seats. and everyone still asks, why couldnt she be saved from her management as well as herself. RIP
Wow, AWESOME video and you absolutely nailed the issues! I'm a songwriter and musician and sing on my own demos much of the time. I've used Autotune for years, and Melodyne for a shorter time, and while most people will not hear the artificiality you've shared here, I can often tell that something doesn't sound right. I often undo what the autotuners have produced, and go with my original vox recordings warts and all. Over the Rainbow and Judy Garland's recording of it is my all-time favorite song and recording! Thank you for putting in the time to create this video!
Judy had one of the best voices ever! Her "The Man Who Got Away" from the movie A Star Is Born is one of the best vocals you will ever hear! Sends chills down my spine!
I remember seeing ASIB on the teevee many moons ago. When Judy started in on The Man That Got Away, I was transfixed. I actually wondered if this was real life?
@deniseward8003 Funny Girl was a Barbra Streisand film released in ‘68 and though Judy Garland passed away in ‘69, her last feature film (I Could Go On Singing) was released in ‘63 (though she was to be in Valley of the Dolls in ‘67 but was replaced due to unreliability)
@deniseward8003 haha, I think we all have those wee mad moments where we are most definitely thinking of one thing but say or write another. I bet you had a genuine actual Judy Garland film in your head but it was a Streisand one that got typed.
I never felt that way about either performance. Judy's was technically beautiful, but lacks feeling for me. The cover that actually teared me up is from the Hawiian man, Israel IZ. His performance just breaks your heart somehow, even though he sings it w/ such true joy.
My cousin is a model, and she is adamant about modeling without touching up photos. It is the exact same idea here. We need more people speaking out against this.
I remember watching The Wizard of Oz, over and over, when i was a small child, and i would burst into tears every time, when Judy sang this song. It's shameful that the music industry erases the humanity from every vocal these days 😞
This was definitely the highlight of one of my favorite movies for me. I even had a 45 record of Judy singing this song. I would listen to it over and over again. As a five-year-old I actually would fly over the rainbow, like any child with a great imagination.
Kelly can sing, I would have really loved to hear her actual expression in the performance. 😕 it’s a shame we’re not able to hear the raw performance anymore. Thank you for continuing to shine a light on what’s happening Fil. We appreciate you
Judy's version is a truly timeless masterpiece. It's beautiful. It's natural. It's allowed to be real, and so it feels deeper and more believable. People will be listening to her rendition of this song long after all of us are gone. Incredible breakdown of both versions, and I loved this video. Well done!
The imperfection is what makes it human. If everything is "perfect" it's not really music anymore. It's like a flawed brush stroke in a masterwork that makes it original because a copy is done too well.
I had a music teacher in elementary school who had a voice very much like Judy Garland's voice here. When I was a kid, I didn't really think much of it or appreciate it, but she also sang at church. As I got older it always became such a joy when she was the cantor and we got to hear her incredible voice. And to top it all off, she could sing that well while playing the piano or organ beautifully at the same time. Typing this all out it almost seems like I'm just making this up, but I guess that's the state of music in the modern world, that such a talent would be disbelieved out of hand.
Could tell instantly when Judy started singing how beautiful her voice was and how accurate, but most importantly too, how natural. Watching it on the screen and seeing that in action was pretty amazing.
I am unbelievably grateful to you for this! I am a singer/songwriter. I had had thyroid cancer, and the two surgeries changed my voice from a lyric soprano to a gentle mezzo. It also made singing in tune, which had never been an issue previously, an ISSUE. When I recorded and then re-listened, it was mortifying, while at the same time, enlightening. I had to be humble and really listen as I sang. It is much better now! And I don't use auto tune! So there! What you hear is the real me! Thank you!
I remember being 6 years old and watching The Wizard of Oz. I couldn't believe a "little girl" (like me?) could sing like that! I was amazed and awed. What a great talent, and such a tragic life story. Judy was the greatest.
That's it: it's why i love early demo recordings of my favorite musicians & try to buy most songs not recently "Remastered". It's the raw sound that makes you feel like you're in the same room with the musicians-it's why fans love 'Live' recordings!
The natural beauty of Judy’s voice overwhelms every other attempt at this song for me. As someone else said on here, even as a young child - 5 yrs and on - every time this song came on in the movie it brought me to tears. Our family watched this movie every year, growing up in the 50’s and 60’s. Judy’s voice was a God given voice and blessing for all of us. ❤️🌹✨
I can't thank you enough. As a former singer, I've often wondered about some of the contemporary singers today that I hear every once in a while. I am so glad that you gave these wonderful examples. I don't know if you ever actually read these comments but I wonder if you've ever vocally analyzed the Boswell sisters? They are so overlooked for revolutionizing 3 part harmony and just introducing and doing little things musically that had never been done before, but they're completely overlooked by the annals of jazz.
One of the very few PERFECT scenes in cinematic history. Everything from acting, script, directing, costume, make-up, set, cinematography, lighting, and song with melody, lyrics, production, and of course, VOCALS, all in balance with each other. The definition of iconic. But there's also one other piece that is maybe fortuitously accidental magic. Near the end of the song, Judy is in a two-shot with Toto, and at just the right moment he reaches out his paw to her, as if to say, "Wherever you go I'm going with you." And of course, he did.
Really check-out the facts about the film. The cast worked constantly were bullied and abused put on drugs to keep them going. The 'witch' was poisoned by her make up permanently. People were very badly treated plus loads more issues. Not such a fairy tale film.
As a kid watching Toto give Judy his paw, I smiled because it was so cute. Now, it brings the water works because it’s an impossibly beautiful moment 🥹
Listening to the Kelly Clarkson section, I heard the music and thought it sounded nice but felt nothing, listening to the Judy playback immediately brought tears to my eyes and I could feel the music.
Thank you so much for this video! Sad and scary as I find the truth you tell, your words deepen my gratitude for the wonderful, unpredictable beauty of each of our natural human voices and every other un-"corrected" sound - all of the un-"corrected" songs - of birds, of ice sliding off the roof, of the clink of my spoon in my soup bowl, of a certain place where a mountain stream gives voice as it slides over a particular stone. I don't mean at all to diminish the gravity of what you're saying. Only that the amazing matrix of natural sounds we humans inhabit, and in which we naturally participate, is for me a consolation and maybe somehow a source of hope.
Thanks Phil. The thing l immediately notice about Judy is not only her voicing of the lyrics but her phrasing as well. She deliberately comes in behind and lingers after the beat....her phrasing then interplays with the vocal. There is a sense of mischief and magic in this performance which can't be replicated.
I think that's also because too much of the end result today is direction, editing, stitching, yada-yada. It's the extra sh*t that reduces the quality of the result.
I love how you can't help but smile when you hear Judy singing. It's an emotional reaction that I have, too. Try as we may, it's something that can't be helped. She just utterly destroys me every time. I've said for some time that Judy Garland must've had another brain just for singing, because it's just not possiible for ordinary humans to sound like...like that. When I watch "The Wizard of Oz", I can stop after "Over The Rainbow" and be happy. In tears, but happy.
Alan Wilder formerly of Depeche Mode mentioned this same concept in an interview but in the realm of rhythm. He talked about particularly in electronic music at the time , now virtually every recorded genre, the beat is being quantised and manipulated to absolute precision. Essentially taking all of the humanity and imperfections out of the music leaving it robotic and forgettable. It’s the small imperfections that make the music much more interesting and alive. Lovely video mate
