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
@@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!
I am a visual artist and do a lot of photo editing and it is so interesting to think of the similarities here. It is so easy to go over board with editing if you’re not thinking about it. The more you look at a photo, the more “normal” the edited version looks and the more you think you can push the “perfecting” of the image. Then you walk away and come back to it and realize you have a wildly fake looking person on the screen in front of you.
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.
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!
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.
Yeah, and it's not just with pitch correction. Since a lot of music is made on DAWs, there's a strong temptation to arrange the music visually too - to get your blocks lined up a certain way. It takes quite a lot of discipline to just not look at the screen and listen to the music instead.
That's only partly true. Look again yourself. Many of the notes were _not_ corrected. Why would that be? I maintain that the notes that were corrected were _audible mistakes._
I literally just said this today! My analogy was comparing grandma's famous roast turkey dinner to Asda (Walmart) frozen mechanically separated chicken nuggets.
We have to remember that Judy Garland was also an actor. 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'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.
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...
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. 💔❤️💔❤️💔
What so many people forget is that in tune means all instruments are in tune *with one another*. You touched on this (thank you!) when you showed how Kelly was "corrected" in the spot where the guitar was technically flat, and left uncorrected. I'm a jazz vocalist, and because of the improvisational nature of the music, we generally record everyone at the same time (in isolation or not, depending on the project), and use pitch correction very, very sparingly, only where really needed (and it can be on any instrument). Jazz singers are absolutely expected to have extremely good pitch accuracy, but we value humanity more than robotic perfection.
And what acoustic musicians (i would say especially brass, but I'm biased) know that apparently people using this pitch correcting software don't.... A Bb isn't always a Bb. If you're trying to get a chord to really ring harmonically then the 3rd/7th will be a bit flat and the 5th a tiny bit sharp. Compared to brass/strings/vocal music a piano will always be a tiny bit out of tune, harmonically, at least for things in keys other than C. Granted, overtones aren't going to be conveyed over your average TV stream.
@@boneman1982exactly!! I for instance hear Kelly's last tone as being very out of tune. It sounds really sharp. Well that's the major third which needs to be low in order to sound natural. I'm afraid the pitch correction actually made it less in tune right there.
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.
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._ )
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.
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 believe the phrase "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" applies. I agree that it's sad when natural voices and talent aren't appreciated; hence the taking over of auto tune and pitch correction. Yet I wonder if it's money has something to do with this--that is, if people, particularly non-musicians, have invested in it. Therefore, as a result, the industry makes auto tune & pitch correction the standard because their use=more money. I could be dead wrong on this.
The top singing artists these days have natural voices and talent. The use of tuning is everywhere, but there are still good singers. This is more a rant about technology than anything else.
Mic tech coloured vocal tones a LOT back then. She didn't sound like her recordings either.. just in a different way than singers today. It's a different version of processed, but picking the right mic was an art form back then. Still lots of love, un-amped solo singers to hear tho, always will be!
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.
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
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.
This is why people love live performances and unplugged concerts--the opportunity to hear the raw voice in all its humanity and appreciate the artist in their pure form. I'm sure if we had access to the masters for Kelly' s performance we'd see those lovely artifacts of humanity in them, which get beaten flat in the pursuit of perfection. The perfect truly is the enemy of the good. At the same time though... audiences and teachers and maestros have always been exceedingly demanding and fickle with performers. Always demanding perfection. It's just that now we see the effort that performers put into reaching for that perfection smoothed over by someone else. In making it perfect in post, it kills the achievement of getting close.
This was actually so educating for me, and so nice to see because I have this same app and I use it to make sure I'm on pitch when I'm practicing and I find myself getting so frustrated at being a little sharp or flat instead of directly on the line -- but you're right, vocal cords aren't the same as tuned instruments! This really shifted my perspective because it made me wonder if my ears are just used to hearing pitch corrected voices, since it's likely all I grew up with. Fascinating. Thank you.
Exactly. The comparison would likely be growing up with exclusively, digitally altered images of people and as a consequence rarely seeing the “imperfections” of the human body. Frightening consequences in both cases.
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
Judy was abused as a young girl by the studio working her to exhaustion so many times. She had no life as a young girl under contract. She was blessed with a rare gift and the studio took advantage of it back in the day when children and adults were not as protected by labor laws. Bless her…she gave everything until it emotional drained her. Her voice is a beautiful gift however she was a sensitive human the source of that beautiful voice. She was one of a kind.
Does anybody else long to hear the 1970s music like it sounded in the day? I don't enjoy the "remastered" versions. There's definitely a parallel with the Kelly-Judy comparison. I stumbled across some original Rolling Stones tracks on CZcams from live shows and they made me swoon. There's a richer, more energetic sound when it hasn't been sterilized. I even welcome the clicks and pops from my needle just like I heard it back then. I don't appreciate today's technology stepping on my music. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
Thank you! Now I understand why more recent recordings do not give me the same satisfaction. My brain is reaching for something that is missing. I thought it was me, just getting old. This is a great relief and quite rewarding.
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.
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 CZcams.
My brother has perfect pitch (like annoyingly perfect pitch but he's my annoying little brother [affectionate] so maybe that's why). And growing up i always just assumed I was a talentless musician because I had good relative pitch (but in our house that was nothing to write home about). This just made me realize that most musicians don't have perfect pitch. Like I am 30 years old and the earth has shifted beneath my feet. I feel like the editing is also partly to blame for this, too, not just growing up around a musical genius.
Also some people who have perfect pitch are actually worse at relative pitch, and sometimes can't even hear very tiny variations. I learned violin from a young age, I remember a pianist friend and I both taking this test of how small a variation in pitch you can hear, and while he has perfect pitch and could hear a note and tell you what it was (within the context of a piano that's tuned to a tempered tuning), I could hear much smaller variations in pitch than him. Really good relative pitch, and the ability to hear when the harmony is really ringing, is arguably much more important and I'd honestly argue more valuable than actual perfect pitch.
I relate. 34, and despite being told by trained musicians, many times that I need to record my improvised piano and guitar sessions - whenever I heard myself recorded my (relatively good) pitch issues drove me mental and I deleted it. I have been tested & can hear tuning with instruments tuning to within 2 or 3/ 100 ... Whatever 100ths of a semitone are. Hope that makes sense 😅. Trying to say - I relate to my world shifting!
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 🍁
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?
@@user-yt5pn9gr8v 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.
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)"
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
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.
This is so important. You are doing a wonderful service to us all sir. You are SPOT ON! Perhaps we will hear voices like her again because of people like you .
I haven't watched him a lot, but I've learned that he has that smile when he hears a fabulous voice! I'm far from a singer or a musician but I do enjoy watching him. I think the first time I watched him was his review of Karen Carpenter. It was fabulous. I was and still am a huge fan of her music. 😊
If you are talking about a female vocalist singing and you are about to let Judy take center stage yes you are smiling. You just played the unbeatable hand.
In the context of the movie, most certainly. But to find out later about her abuse, really makes me understand why it's so rich. It's like listening to a dying angel.
Her voice with that song gripped me as a child & decades later, when I was mourning my mother’s passing, I could not even listen to its haunting beauty. Judy’s rendition is sublime.
@@light2sugars So sorry to hear that. My mum died when I was in my mid twenties, and my girlfriend's mum 14 months later. That's when my girlfriend said that, if we had kids, they wouldn't have any grandparents.
I'm late to the game here, however, I LOVE the smile on your face when Judy begins singing. That is involuntary appreciation at the highest level and something we rarely see anymore! Good to be reminded that some things can be so pure that they should be left alone to be what they are!
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.
@@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)
This is a great analysis. As a trained opera and jazz singer, I appreciate different vocal sounds like Judy's, Billie Holiday, and many others with small imperfections that made their performances great!
You are absolutely correct! Those tiny differences between the way one singer and another sound are the reason we like one over another. Most people don’t recognise if a singer is spot on or not, unless it’s a banger, they only know if they like it or not! The way music is today, you can just substitute one singer for any other and it will sound exactly the same! Those little things in a singers voice are the things that make them THEM! 😅!
"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.
I’m 67 yeras old and grew up listening to all kinds of music, as my father was a Hi-Fi nut. We didn’t have TV until I was about 12 and instead, we’d spend our evenings listening to all sorts of music, from classical to Jazz and everything in between. I listened to great singers like Maria Callas and Luciano Pavarotti as well as Patsy Cline and other popular singers. As far as I’m concerned, Judy Garland’s rendition of this song is the absolute BEST. It will always be the best. There’s no way that anyone can do it better, ever. The sound of her voice in this song is simply beautiful. As a teenager I was forever spoiled by the voice of Karen Carpenter, easily one of the best voices of the last century, perhaps any century. I think this is why I find so much of what is music today is actually grating to listen to, when compared to the music of yesteryear, before Autotune came along. I actually can’t listen to music that has pitch correction, because it doesn’t SOUND right.
Thanks for the video! I'm 67 and have had tinnittus for 40 years. At last I understand why Judy Garlands original version of "Over the Rainbow" makes me cry everytime I hear it. It's a human sound and not a mechanical one.
You might be on to something. Some say we all operate on vibrations and Hz. Why does a symphony sound so good. A ton of slightly out of tune players creating human vibrations. 40 years ago is when everything was going digital. Hmmmm
@@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.
I love how you smile at the different places in the sound wave while playing Judy's version; you are are so genuine! I learned a lot from this video, thank you! I was always trying to be perfect, from now on, I will sing from my heart. And, I subscribed; I want to hear and see more!
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."
Two vocalists within my lifetime who seem naturally spot-on without so much of Judy Garland's (characteristic and delicious for its time) vibrato -- Karen Carpenter of The Carpenters, and Lani Hall of Brasil '66. These ladies were actually pioneers in multitrack voice doubling, where they sung with the same intonation over several takes with accuracy that seems to transcend pitch-matching into the more subtle effects of phase within pitch. The effect of these voices when separated in stereo channels was astounding!
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.
I remember reading a story many years ago (I believe in a Reader's Digest magazine) about a gentleman who loved the harpsichord and was wanting to learn how to make them himself. He took measurements, set up his power tools to cut everything perfectly and uniformly, but he was not satisfied with the sound of the harpsichord when he played it. It just didn't have the same quality of sound as the original (hand made) one off of which he had taken the measurements. However, when he made one by hand himself, he was able to get the rich sound for which he was looking. Perhaps those tiny imperfections of the human touch are what made the difference between a rich, pleasing to the ear sound, as opposed to a "mechanical" or "sterile" sound.
Yes thank you so much for putting into words what's been going on w a lot of music. It explains why I always look for covers that are not heavy on the autotune.
I say that all the time relating to music. Play a drum machine for her for 5 minutes and she'll lose her mind. Especially with a group of musicians. Everyone's clock is different. It's the art of getting as close to each other as possible. The slight differences are most likely what make the music vibrate in a human way. My grandmother could play the piano and sing. I'm positive it was a technical disaster. But I can still feel it today. I never once thought it wasn't perfect. It was absolutely perfect to my soul.
I learn SO MUCH from your analyses. Thank you for honoring the authenticity of the human voice, and for explaining what is lost when there is too much machination of those subtleties. I love your work, and I appreciate your demonstrations and your commentary. I told a friend I was listening to "Nigel" talk about Julie Andrews and Karen Carpenter and Judy Garland, and she knew immediately who I was talking about, as she (unbeknowst to me) also watches you, but SHE knew your proper name.
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 has been such an enjoyable video to watch. I do love how informative it is and enlightening, but my favourite part - by far - is watching your smile as you listen to Judy.
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
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.
This is such an interesting conversation, and not at all what i expected this video to be. Thanks for explaining in a way that I can understand with no music background.
First, Over the Rainbow is a beautifully written song, sheer poetry. Second, and most importantly, Judy Garland's performance of it is one of the most heartbreakingly gorgeous vocal performances of all time. Music is all about emotion and feeling, and she nails it. I've seen the Wizard of Oz countless times and this song gets me every time. And to imagine it was added to the film at the last minute. It's a shame what is being done to great singers these days. The great ones don't need this "fix".
Yup. Someone who could not only sing but act: the just inhabits the song in a way no one else could since. One of the best vocal performances of all time.
@@binkwillans5138 I just listened to the Cassidy version. Agreed: incredible singing talent and delivery. However I feel it also falls in to the category that slightly irks me, which is that so many people...female singers especially...seem to so often slow down songs to a dirge in order to add more emotional gravitas. For me the Judy version is overall superior, has more flow, more coherence.
This is such an amazing video. I just started recording my voice and was thinking I was almost always of tune even though it didn't always sound like it. As an amateur, your video will change how I edit vocals. Thank you!
& 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.
can one blame me then for being stuck to everything that has been sung before the 2000's?? I feel like am old reptile at 42 but seriously, i cant stand the vicals after 2000. Though I loved Chers 'Believe' when it came out, little did I know back then what was about to come
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 🥰
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?!
@@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
Tragically, they’re removing the RICHNESS of the human voice with that pitch correction. It makes me so sad that we’re losing that richness from the music of my childhood. I’ve been in awe of and mesmerized by Judy’s voice since I was a little girl. Thank you for showing us this. Hopefully some young, budding studio musicians will see your channel, learn from your expertise and grow up to stop doing this! 🙏
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
I couldn't agree with you more! I'm a classically trained musician, play several different instruments, was a total band nerd and can sing fairly decently from what I've been told. We are such a VISUAL species, and it's a shame what we don't respect our ears more! Like you said, if it sounds good, just leave it. But these producers only care about what they're seeing on their computer screens and it takes away from the authenticity of TRUE, NATURAL TALENT.... Music can be so healing and is so beautiful and I hope someday soon we can realize that and cherish our natural gifts. it's like quantity over quality with all of the fake things we hear, nothing is real anymore. But it should be. Great video, thanks! 🎷 🎵🎺 🎶❤
If we (I) had the opportunity to reshape my mouth and teeth to sound like someone else, I have for many many years, have wanted Judy Garland's. Now and forever. I love singing others...Ella, Billie, Winehouse etc., But Judy had Imo the most beautiful talking voice, and singing voice. This is my own opinion and does not have to be your truth. Thank you so much for sharing this with us.
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.
Yessssssss! My exact sentiment!
Me too
Hm, there is still opera and live music without amplifcation.
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
"You're not even allowed to appreciate the accuracy of somebody's natural voice." What a great observation and what a cultural loss. Excellent video.
Yes, it is a form of censorship, isn't it?
It's like putting frets on violins. There's a huge part of expression being lost in the mix.
ginny - in the worst sense of the term!
Producers don't want any purely natural voices from the past to reference because it undermines their promoted pitch corrected influencers.
@@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!
"Producers aren't listening anymore, they're looking. "
That's an amazingly astute thing to say.
I am a visual artist and do a lot of photo editing and it is so interesting to think of the similarities here. It is so easy to go over board with editing if you’re not thinking about it. The more you look at a photo, the more “normal” the edited version looks and the more you think you can push the “perfecting” of the image. Then you walk away and come back to it and realize you have a wildly fake looking person on the screen in front of you.
That's such an interesting comparison! It makes a lot of sense.
Right on. I’m a graphic artist and musician. It’s the same thing with editing. Photoshop and Melodyne are the “drawing” of life.
I completely understand this, great comparison
Use actual film for a while. Polaroids even. What makes a photo good should never be the editing.
That's a great comparison.
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.
Excellent summary.
Great video. ROCK right back at you.
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.
@@DiamondCake2 Lol 😅👏
They also continuously say the same thing over and over.
Judy used the underside of the pitch to convey melancholy. This is stylistic and absolutely perfect.
Yes!
I'm ignorant about music but what you said makes sense, because that is what is felt. What an angel.
I am so in awe of your technical analysis.❤
Yes!! It’s an artistic choice, you can tell just by listening!
Yes!
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!
I never thought of it, but you make a very valid point: this has been happening since we started being able to SEE the "imperfections".
That's a very interesting observation and i think it makes a lot of sense.
The music industry has damaged music tremendously. Thank you for bringing awareness to this issue.
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.
Another example of how they’re about the money way more than the music. Pitiful. No advanced society we
Agree😊
@@SmallSpoonBrigadei like Bose and Sennheiser
@@inezeatonhence Antonio vivaldi, Armin van buuren, pachelbel , js Bach, Rossini, Tchaikovsky , Shostakovich is amazing forever
"They're not listening, they're looking" - nailed it.
Yeah, and it's not just with pitch correction. Since a lot of music is made on DAWs, there's a strong temptation to arrange the music visually too - to get your blocks lined up a certain way. It takes quite a lot of discipline to just not look at the screen and listen to the music instead.
It's like when your the one taking photographs you never really see what is in front of you.
You could eliminate this whole issue by only listening to classical music sung by fine singers. No artificial ingredients…
That's only partly true. Look again yourself. Many of the notes were _not_ corrected. Why would that be? I maintain that the notes that were corrected were _audible mistakes._
Yeah that was the remark that jumped out for me too
So Judy’s voice is to music like your Mom’s home cooking is to a meal. Most of what we hear today is like ultra processed fast food.
Nice analogy.
Well said
I literally just said this today! My analogy was comparing grandma's famous roast turkey dinner to Asda (Walmart) frozen mechanically separated chicken nuggets.
Well said
Exactly
We have to remember that Judy Garland was also an actor. 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'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 if it's what I found on Amazon you have quite an eclectic group working with you on this project.
@@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.
Can I suggest that you ought to edit Judy Garland's performance to show just how much we're losing with over-editing?
that would be incredible!
This would be so interesting!
Please don’t
@@CherylSCampbell I agree it would be super interesting
Love to hear it ABd
...and in another 85 years people will still be listening to Judy.🙂
That's for sure brother!
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...
I agree 100%
Yep...! 🙂👍 -70SomethingGuy
She had that lighting in a bottle. RIP.
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. 💔❤️💔❤️💔
What so many people forget is that in tune means all instruments are in tune *with one another*. You touched on this (thank you!) when you showed how Kelly was "corrected" in the spot where the guitar was technically flat, and left uncorrected. I'm a jazz vocalist, and because of the improvisational nature of the music, we generally record everyone at the same time (in isolation or not, depending on the project), and use pitch correction very, very sparingly, only where really needed (and it can be on any instrument). Jazz singers are absolutely expected to have extremely good pitch accuracy, but we value humanity more than robotic perfection.
And what acoustic musicians (i would say especially brass, but I'm biased) know that apparently people using this pitch correcting software don't.... A Bb isn't always a Bb. If you're trying to get a chord to really ring harmonically then the 3rd/7th will be a bit flat and the 5th a tiny bit sharp.
Compared to brass/strings/vocal music a piano will always be a tiny bit out of tune, harmonically, at least for things in keys other than C.
Granted, overtones aren't going to be conveyed over your average TV stream.
@@boneman1982exactly!! I for instance hear Kelly's last tone as being very out of tune. It sounds really sharp. Well that's the major third which needs to be low in order to sound natural. I'm afraid the pitch correction actually made it less in tune right there.
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....
@@arcturus4067 Not only that, but not giving up when it doesn't sound good. That's what mixing and mastering is for 🙌
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.
You get the teacher of the year award
“Seeing Judy Garland at one of her worst performances was better than seeing 95% of all other singers during their best performances.“
Darn right with that!
I listen to Judy Live at Carnegie Hall often. By far the best live album ever, it must have been absolutely awe inspiring to have seen her perform.
@@Joelsellers29 ive never have considered listening to her music before, thanks
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._ )
Yah. ♡
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.
While she was stuffed full of drugs, cigarettes, and coffee to keep her slim during filming.
@ninaappelt9001 what a time
Sad!
He should demo a song from a later film like Easter Parade or Meet Me in St Louis
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.
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.
“If it sounds good leave it “ is a great statement. Sad times when we don’t appreciate natural voices and talent😢.
I believe the phrase "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" applies. I agree that it's sad when natural voices and talent aren't appreciated; hence the taking over of auto tune and pitch correction. Yet I wonder if it's money has something to do with this--that is, if people, particularly non-musicians, have invested in it. Therefore, as a result, the industry makes auto tune & pitch correction the standard because their use=more money. I could be dead wrong on this.
id go as far as to say the reality is actually much worse; we are elevating no talent acts
The top singing artists these days have natural voices and talent. The use of tuning is everywhere, but there are still good singers. This is more a rant about technology than anything else.
Mic tech coloured vocal tones a LOT back then. She didn't sound like her recordings either.. just in a different way than singers today.
It's a different version of processed, but picking the right mic was an art form back then.
Still lots of love, un-amped solo singers to hear tho, always will be!
They even autotune Lenny Kravitz. Why???? It's so unnecessary.
At least we have his non-pitch-corrected work from the 90's.
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.”
Some examples? Would love to know your favorites.
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.
Tammy wynette, for example @@trishaferrand1395
And emmylou Harris
@@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.
It’s so telling that Judy’s voice immediately brings out your smile.
I love how Fil starts smiling when Judy first sings, it’s so sweet 😅
Judy’s version could easily make a person cry… It’s called being an artist, not a robot.
Exactly! As soon as I heard her, I completely forgot the first singer.
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
@@ShanonMarie007
Indeed. Unfortunately, it's now happening in more than just the 'music' industry. 😕
Well put. "Singers" of today are computers. Will there ever be any more like Judy? Or Steve Perry?
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.
Me, too! I welled up as soon as Judy started singing. The way she sings that is so vulnerable and lovely.
Well put. ❤
>I always cry when I hear this.
Same here.
Me too. Still, one of the greatest movies ever made.
@@rkb2092 First movie that scared me as a tiny kid, I would run and hide behind the couch when the Wicked Witch showed up.
This is why people love live performances and unplugged concerts--the opportunity to hear the raw voice in all its humanity and appreciate the artist in their pure form. I'm sure if we had access to the masters for Kelly' s performance we'd see those lovely artifacts of humanity in them, which get beaten flat in the pursuit of perfection. The perfect truly is the enemy of the good.
At the same time though... audiences and teachers and maestros have always been exceedingly demanding and fickle with performers. Always demanding perfection. It's just that now we see the effort that performers put into reaching for that perfection smoothed over by someone else. In making it perfect in post, it kills the achievement of getting close.
This was actually so educating for me, and so nice to see because I have this same app and I use it to make sure I'm on pitch when I'm practicing and I find myself getting so frustrated at being a little sharp or flat instead of directly on the line -- but you're right, vocal cords aren't the same as tuned instruments! This really shifted my perspective because it made me wonder if my ears are just used to hearing pitch corrected voices, since it's likely all I grew up with. Fascinating. Thank you.
Exactly. The comparison would likely be growing up with exclusively, digitally altered images of people and as a consequence rarely seeing the “imperfections” of the human body. Frightening consequences in both cases.
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.
My daddy was the same way. He would have been 102 last month.
I believe it. Modern music is missing something. The ONLY modern artist that even comes close right now is Laufey.
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.
Now, the music lacks the human depth.
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
Judy was abused as a young girl by the studio working her to exhaustion so many times. She had no life as a young girl under contract. She was blessed with a rare gift and the studio took advantage of it back in the day when children and adults were not as protected by labor laws. Bless her…she gave everything until it emotional drained her. Her voice is a beautiful gift however she was a sensitive human the source of that beautiful voice. She was one of a kind.
Good grief. Try to focus.
Yeah those kids at Nickelodeon and Disney were so protected by labor laws.
It was unheralded talent, incomparable ❤
That's tragic but I've got news for you people are...not really protected by those laws still
Does anybody else long to hear the 1970s music like it sounded in the day? I don't enjoy the "remastered" versions. There's definitely a parallel with the Kelly-Judy comparison.
I stumbled across some original Rolling Stones tracks on CZcams from live shows and they made me swoon. There's a richer, more energetic sound when it hasn't been sterilized. I even welcome the clicks and pops from my needle just like I heard it back then. I don't appreciate today's technology stepping on my music. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
The pure joy and appreciation on your face listening to Judy singing is as moving as she is.
Thank you! Now I understand why more recent recordings do not give me the same satisfaction. My brain is reaching for something that is missing. I thought it was me, just getting old. This is a great relief and quite rewarding.
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.
This was the only song my parents woild sing to soothe my little sister as a baby. Decades ago now.
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.
Music is so very powerful❤️
Exactly this! Good singers hypnotize younger audiences. There is your unmistakable sign!
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.
Why does this make me so sad? It feels like something very special has been lost forever.
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 CZcams.
Why forever?? Everything is temporary. You're just 'awfullizing'!:)
The only way to combat this is to SING! Sing in your everyday life and especially sing to children.
It's because our voice is our Humanity and it is being taken away.
Just don't listen to pop. Plenty of better music out there.
I had no idea that this was happening. You’re quite the teacher. 🙂👍Thank you.
My brother has perfect pitch (like annoyingly perfect pitch but he's my annoying little brother [affectionate] so maybe that's why). And growing up i always just assumed I was a talentless musician because I had good relative pitch (but in our house that was nothing to write home about). This just made me realize that most musicians don't have perfect pitch. Like I am 30 years old and the earth has shifted beneath my feet. I feel like the editing is also partly to blame for this, too, not just growing up around a musical genius.
Also some people who have perfect pitch are actually worse at relative pitch, and sometimes can't even hear very tiny variations. I learned violin from a young age, I remember a pianist friend and I both taking this test of how small a variation in pitch you can hear, and while he has perfect pitch and could hear a note and tell you what it was (within the context of a piano that's tuned to a tempered tuning), I could hear much smaller variations in pitch than him. Really good relative pitch, and the ability to hear when the harmony is really ringing, is arguably much more important and I'd honestly argue more valuable than actual perfect pitch.
I relate. 34, and despite being told by trained musicians, many times that I need to record my improvised piano and guitar sessions - whenever I heard myself recorded my (relatively good) pitch issues drove me mental and I deleted it. I have been tested & can hear tuning with instruments tuning to within 2 or 3/ 100 ... Whatever 100ths of a semitone are.
Hope that makes sense 😅. Trying to say - I relate to my world shifting!
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. 😊
garlands voice the whole reason she got the part they unfortunately thought judy wasnt 'pretty' or 'thin' enough by their ridiculous standards
The worst part is the ugly 440 tuning. 432 would be so much better.
Especially when you take into consideration that that song was specifically written for her, not her voice, for Judy.
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 🍁
To me these “imperfections” are where emotions of the singer come in to tug at your heart strings.
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. .
Agreed! The emotional angle was screaming at me watching those lines in between the tones as written.
So true. Songs with meaningful lyrics fall flat because the voices don't show the nuances of true human emotion.
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?
@@user-yt5pn9gr8v 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.
I love your face when Judy starts singing. Pure contentment.
An imperfect note adds to the emotion, which is why we like the singer and the song.
I love your analyses. Thank you.
The imperfection in the brushstroke gives it life.
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)"
Wabisabi!!
Because life isn’t perfect in the first place
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.
ding...ding..ding..we have a winna!!
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…
Let's remain humans
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
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.
This is so important. You are doing a wonderful service to us all sir. You are SPOT ON! Perhaps we will hear voices like her again because of people like you .
That little smile he makes when he starts to play Judy. That pure joy of knowing what is coming is what we're losing with autotune.
I haven't watched him a lot, but I've learned that he has that smile when he hears a fabulous voice! I'm far from a singer or a musician but I do enjoy watching him. I think the first time I watched him was his review of Karen Carpenter. It was fabulous. I was and still am a huge fan of her music. 😊
I noticed that too - and it brought ME joy to see that genuine appreciation of 'natural' singing.
If you are talking about a female vocalist singing and you are about to let Judy take center stage yes you are smiling. You just played the unbeatable hand.
There’s a rich depth and poignancy in Judy Garland’s voice that brings me to tears. Every time.
In the context of the movie, most certainly. But to find out later about her abuse, really makes me understand why it's so rich. It's like listening to a dying angel.
Her voice with that song gripped me as a child & decades later, when I was mourning my mother’s passing, I could not even listen to its haunting beauty. Judy’s rendition is sublime.
@@lor3999 my mother just died too , I feel exactly the same. 💔
@@corporalkush2060 … now you’ve done it …😢 her performances as an older woman are hauntingly tragic
@@light2sugars So sorry to hear that. My mum died when I was in my mid twenties, and my girlfriend's mum 14 months later. That's when my girlfriend said that, if we had kids, they wouldn't have any grandparents.
I'm late to the game here, however, I LOVE the smile on your face when Judy begins singing. That is involuntary appreciation at the highest level and something we rarely see anymore! Good to be reminded that some things can be so pure that they should be left alone to be what they are!
Your reaction and expression as soon as Judy started singing...priceless!
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.
There can be beauty in imperfection. I don't think you can have emotion along with digital perfection.
I knew somehow as a little kid there was something different and special about how Judy sang that tune.
dont worry, emotion correction is in the works.
Always makes me tear up 😢
Gets lost? It's been lost🤷
Kelly can sing, she's nothing to write home about.
"aren't listening anymore they're looking"
Perfect way to say it.
Sadly just looking at a computer screen rather than listening to the performer. I'd rather listen to Judy's modernly "imperfect" version any day.
Brilliant!❤
Nothing sounds natural anymore. The natural imperfect nuances stir the soul. Something machines will never do.
That started for me with Linda Ronstadt.
@@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)
This is a great analysis. As a trained opera and jazz singer, I appreciate different vocal sounds like Judy's, Billie Holiday, and many others with small imperfections that made their performances great!
You are absolutely correct! Those tiny differences between the way one singer and another sound are the reason we like one over another. Most people don’t recognise if a singer is spot on or not, unless it’s a banger, they only know if they like it or not! The way music is today, you can just substitute one singer for any other and it will sound exactly the same! Those little things in a singers voice are the things that make them THEM! 😅!
"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.
And this is why I don't trust pharmaceutical companies.
Homeopathic all the way.
@@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.
If I ever become a producer, I’m going to listen. I may get some backlash, but it’ll sound better in the end.
Truth. I think we need to go back to audio only for a lot of stuff.
@@snicksabea Radio dramas.
Close your eyes, and let your mind follow the story you hear...
Judy Garland’s voice just had so much character and emotion. One of kind
Now I want to hear Judy's one pitch corrected for comparison.
Nooooo leave the original the way it is.
@@FransceneJK98 Just for curiosity, its not like I'm suggesting changing it in every copy of the film going forward 😂
@@FransceneJK98No it would be interesting because it would show that we are stripping people’s voices of something necessary, a realness is taken out.
I’m 67 yeras old and grew up listening to all kinds of music, as my father was a Hi-Fi nut. We didn’t have TV until I was about 12 and instead, we’d spend our evenings listening to all sorts of music, from classical to Jazz and everything in between. I listened to great singers like Maria Callas and Luciano Pavarotti as well as Patsy Cline and other popular singers. As far as I’m concerned, Judy Garland’s rendition of this song is the absolute BEST. It will always be the best. There’s no way that anyone can do it better, ever. The sound of her voice in this song is simply beautiful. As a teenager I was forever spoiled by the voice of Karen Carpenter, easily one of the best voices of the last century, perhaps any century.
I think this is why I find so much of what is music today is actually grating to listen to, when compared to the music of yesteryear, before Autotune came along. I actually can’t listen to music that has pitch correction, because it doesn’t SOUND right.
Thanks for the video! I'm 67 and have had tinnittus for 40 years. At last I understand why Judy Garlands original version of "Over the Rainbow" makes me cry everytime I hear it. It's a human sound and not a mechanical one.
Garland's
@@francoisleveille409clearly you knew what they meant
@@francoisleveille409get a life.
@@sarahjeanne9551 You defend bad writing.
You might be on to something. Some say we all operate on vibrations and Hz. Why does a symphony sound so good. A ton of slightly out of tune players creating human vibrations. 40 years ago is when everything was going digital. Hmmmm
Man, I forgot how beautiful Judy’s very first “over” immediately was, it instantly grabs your heartstrings and yanks, haha.
What a beautiful natural singing voice Judy has,Kelly is no where near Judy's level of talent.
@@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.
What a truly superb analysis and presentation. People need to see this. Kudos.
I love how you smile at the different places in the sound wave while playing Judy's version; you are are so genuine! I learned a lot from this video, thank you! I was always trying to be perfect, from now on, I will sing from my heart. And, I subscribed; I want to hear and see more!
The visible joy you take in listening to Judy singing here is just wonderful to see.
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.
As a kid I hated slow songs and sad songs but I liked that one
Even as a child, I was struck by the longing in this song. Like, “I’m not entirely _sure_ about what I want/need, but I’m missing 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."
@@tiffsaver 😢 A good reminder that even very young people feel/understand loss.
@@llamasugar5478absolutely. Painfully so.
Two vocalists within my lifetime who seem naturally spot-on without so much of Judy Garland's (characteristic and delicious for its time) vibrato -- Karen Carpenter of The Carpenters, and Lani Hall of Brasil '66. These ladies were actually pioneers in multitrack voice doubling, where they sung with the same intonation over several takes with accuracy that seems to transcend pitch-matching into the more subtle effects of phase within pitch. The effect of these voices when separated in stereo channels was astounding!
Fil, you have such a gift for communicating and educating! 🙌🏼
I agree. I could listen to him for hours.
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.
Love this analogy, gets right to the emotional connection between Judy G and an appreciative listener.
What a lovely and thoughtful comment. Thank you.
That is the perfect analogy 🧸
I remember reading a story many years ago (I believe in a Reader's Digest magazine) about a gentleman who loved the harpsichord and was wanting to learn how to make them himself. He took measurements, set up his power tools to cut everything perfectly and uniformly, but he was not satisfied with the sound of the harpsichord when he played it. It just didn't have the same quality of sound as the original (hand made) one off of which he had taken the measurements. However, when he made one by hand himself, he was able to get the rich sound for which he was looking. Perhaps those tiny imperfections of the human touch are what made the difference between a rich, pleasing to the ear sound, as opposed to a "mechanical" or "sterile" sound.
its about Physical, direct contact i think.
Yes thank you so much for putting into words what's been going on w a lot of music. It explains why I always look for covers that are not heavy on the autotune.
I say that all the time relating to music. Play a drum machine for her for 5 minutes and she'll lose her mind. Especially with a group of musicians. Everyone's clock is different. It's the art of getting as close to each other as possible. The slight differences are most likely what make the music vibrate in a human way. My grandmother could play the piano and sing. I'm positive it was a technical disaster. But I can still feel it today. I never once thought it wasn't perfect. It was absolutely perfect to my soul.
I learn SO MUCH from your analyses. Thank you for honoring the authenticity of the human voice, and for explaining what is lost when there is too much machination of those subtleties. I love your work, and I appreciate your demonstrations and your commentary. I told a friend I was listening to "Nigel" talk about Julie Andrews and Karen Carpenter and Judy Garland, and she knew immediately who I was talking about, as she (unbeknowst to me) also watches you, but SHE knew your proper name.
You do good work, thank you.
I’ll continue to listen/watch .
At my age (68) no matter who else attempts to sing this song all I ever really hear in my head is Judy.
Give Eva Cassidy a try.
Listen to Eva Cassidy sing it. Her version is not Judy's, but her interpretation is unique and very moving.
Amen!
No one can out-sing Judy's version.
No one comes close to Judy ….Judy’s Over the Rainbow is one of the best songs ever recorded IMHO
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.
Such a shame. I imagine his work sounded better because he did listen.
Grids are your friends, but technology is gonna take us all out the production. Gonna be VR bots soon, and ppl sitting on couches.
@@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 really opened my eyes. I mean, my ears.
Loved this video! Thanks for this!
"Producers aren’t listening anymore, they're looking." Exactly.
This is what happens when people prioritize so-called perfection over natural talent and skill.
Prioritize money too 😉
Not perfection--standardization. Mundanity. Boring sameness.
@@rikk319✌🏼
Yep, as long as they look hot doing it.
Amen! @@rikk319, Amen!
Very educational! Fascinating info delivered by a very bright, well-spoken professional with a great teaching style as well.
This has been such an enjoyable video to watch. I do love how informative it is and enlightening, but my favourite part - by far - is watching your smile as you listen to Judy.
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.
Truth. She suffered for this movie. All of them did, but she really, really did.
Great post. The role looks and sounds simple but knowing the backstory, it just makes appreciate the performance of Judy Garland.
Seems the deck is stacked against child stars, The stories are numerous as we all know.
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
Agreed, poor girl.
I’m not sure why CZcams dropped you in my suggested videos, but I’m so glad it did! What wonderful commentary!
Thanks!
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.
Same! So random but right up my alley
Same for me as well, subscribed!
This is such an interesting conversation, and not at all what i expected this video to be. Thanks for explaining in a way that I can understand with no music background.
You make GOOD videos. This is a GREAT video! Thanks man!
" Producers aren't listening...they're just looking." Exactly....succinct and so true..!!
First, Over the Rainbow is a beautifully written song, sheer poetry. Second, and most importantly, Judy Garland's performance of it is one of the most heartbreakingly gorgeous vocal performances of all time. Music is all about emotion and feeling, and she nails it. I've seen the Wizard of Oz countless times and this song gets me every time. And to imagine it was added to the film at the last minute. It's a shame what is being done to great singers these days. The great ones don't need this "fix".
Yup. Someone who could not only sing but act: the just inhabits the song in a way no one else could since. One of the best vocal performances of all time.
The Eva Cassidy live version is equally beautiful and un-pitch corrected.
@@binkwillans5138 I just listened to the Cassidy version. Agreed: incredible singing talent and delivery. However I feel it also falls in to the category that slightly irks me, which is that so many people...female singers especially...seem to so often slow down songs to a dirge in order to add more emotional gravitas. For me the Judy version is overall superior, has more flow, more coherence.
Agreed. And she sings the actual melody.
i still get weepy when i hear judy sing this...
Pretty amazing actually seeing the pitch on a chart. Judy had such a beautiful voice. Thank you for sharing.
This is such an amazing video. I just started recording my voice and was thinking I was almost always of tune even though it didn't always sound like it. As an amateur, your video will change how I edit vocals. Thank you!
Man I still get goosebumps listening to Garland's Rainbow. Her casting is what made Oz one of the greatest movies of all time - and always will be.
Exactly.
& 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.
A great explanation of why contemporary singers' voices resonate with utter and complete soulessness.
can one blame me then for being stuck to everything that has been sung before the 2000's?? I feel like am old reptile at 42 but seriously, i cant stand the vicals after 2000. Though I loved Chers 'Believe' when it came out, little did I know back then what was about to come
Thanks for posting. Excellent explanation
Thank you for this. I will now search for a recording of the great Judy Garland singing over the rainbow.
I remember as a child waiting all year every year for the annual broadcast of TWOO, just so I could hear this song. ❤
We did as well; it was a yearly treat we all waited for! ✨🎈💃🌺🎉❤️
Same!
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 🥰
Me too ❤️❤️❤️
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?!
Perfectly assessed! Thank you for the brilliant insight ❤
i love how much knowledge you have of theory. Definitely encourages me to study more! 😅
And Judy is only 16 years old when she performs this! Incomparable!!
And she didn't want to do it because she desired more grown-up roles.
@@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
Judy’s voice is so much warmer!
First time I've watched one of your videos. GREAT JOB!!
Thanks for these thoughts! I came across this video randomly, and found it quite interesting. 👍🏻
Tragically, they’re removing the RICHNESS of the human voice with that pitch correction. It makes me so sad that we’re losing that richness from the music of my childhood. I’ve been in awe of and mesmerized by Judy’s voice since I was a little girl. Thank you for showing us this. Hopefully some young, budding studio musicians will see your channel, learn from your expertise and grow up to stop doing this! 🙏
that performance was always how I wished I sounded when I sung as a child! it’s beautiful and moving
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
I couldn't agree with you more! I'm a classically trained musician, play several different instruments, was a total band nerd and can sing fairly decently from what I've been told. We are such a VISUAL species, and it's a shame what we don't respect our ears more! Like you said, if it sounds good, just leave it. But these producers only care about what they're seeing on their computer screens and it takes away from the authenticity of TRUE, NATURAL TALENT.... Music can be so healing and is so beautiful and I hope someday soon we can realize that and cherish our natural gifts. it's like quantity over quality with all of the fake things we hear, nothing is real anymore. But it should be. Great video, thanks! 🎷 🎵🎺 🎶❤
If we (I) had the opportunity to reshape my mouth and teeth to sound like someone else, I have for many many years, have wanted Judy Garland's. Now and forever. I love singing others...Ella, Billie, Winehouse etc., But Judy had Imo the most beautiful talking voice, and singing voice. This is my own opinion and does not have to be your truth. Thank you so much for sharing this with us.