54 replies to this topic

[CreativeAmyCanuckerGal]

Well, this is an interesting topic, and I'll add my 2 cents worth, how about Cass Elliot ( Mama Cass from Mamas and Papas), Patsy Cline, they had a distinctiveness to ther vocals when singing, and I'm a lifelong fan of both. I like originality in a person, and therefore that is one of the main reason why I like Amy, for her individuality....people can try to emulate/copy, but you'll never get the exactness.....and perhaps because I'm in my 40s, but , personally, I prefer for the most part with the exception of a few 80s bands, the music in general pre-1980s, especially, the Jazz era, Judy Garland, etc. There is something unique in any singer that has ever sung that stood out, they stood out for a reason, and people respected that, for the most part. Todays music, no matter the genre, in my opinion, just don't cut it, sorry, but that is my take on it.

[Mrs. Jones]

overall I think the same as everyone, she could have preserved her voice with some technique but she would be limited... She never liked limits lol

haha, exactly! She probably did learn some singing technique in performing arts school, but don't think she would've been keen to apply it! ;-) ... however, had Amy lived much longer, I wonder whether this would've become an obstacle for her. Would she have done something about it, sacrificed certain things to take care of her instrument?

[Birdieava]

amy was perfect in every way ...
i don't know anything about technique but she was amazing, every single time.

[amylove]

not about amy but I think we've talked about how losing her voice may have affected her

http://www.theboombo...nk2&pLid=243379

[missbeehive]

i think amy had a very good technique, specially singing acoustically (because of her posture, the movement of her jaw and her head, etc)- but the thing about singing live is that she wasn't always confortable. amy was an extremelly insecure person, and she responded that with her body, witch interfered in the quality of her voice.

[dykehaze]

Interesting discussion. Bottom line is Amy cranked it out like nobody's business. I'm a 54 yr. old musician and I've never heard anyone sing like her. I put her on the same level as Hendrix for pushing the envelope beyond what's been done before. Alcohol was obviously a factor (and perhaps a necessity). When her inhibitions came down it was an emotional onslaught that defies description. Sometimes I expect to see her innards coming up through her throat and out onto the stage. Just incredible. I think her bassist Dale summed it up best when he said that Amy gave it her all and in the end there was nothing else left to give. The intensity of her vocal performances was not and is not sustainable. Not sure how much training she had or how much technique she employed. It's really a mute point. She transcended the mechanics of singing with God given talent that one does not acquire or learn. You can't teach someone how to sing like Amy Winehouse. God rest her soul.

[Byron]

Interesting discussion. Bottom line is Amy cranked it out like nobody's business. I'm a 54 yr. old musician and I've never heard anyone sing like her. I put her on the same level as Hendrix for pushing the envelope beyond what's been done before. Alcohol was obviously a factor (and perhaps a necessity). When her inhibitions came down it was an emotional onslaught that defies description. Sometimes I expect to see her innards coming up through her throat and out onto the stage. Just incredible. I think her bassist Dale summed it up best when he said that Amy gave it her all and in the end there was nothing else left to give. The intensity of her vocal performances was not and is not sustainable. Not sure how much training she had or how much technique she employed. It's really a mute point. She transcended the mechanics of singing with God given talent that one does not acquire or learn. You can't teach someone how to sing like Amy Winehouse. God rest her soul.

Well, Amen to that!!!!!

[Soul Power]

Interesting discussion. Bottom line is Amy cranked it out like nobody's business. I'm a 54 yr. old musician and I've never heard anyone sing like her. I put her on the same level as Hendrix for pushing the envelope beyond what's been done before. Alcohol was obviously a factor (and perhaps a necessity). When her inhibitions came down it was an emotional onslaught that defies description. Sometimes I expect to see her innards coming up through her throat and out onto the stage. Just incredible. I think her bassist Dale summed it up best when he said that Amy gave it her all and in the end there was nothing else left to give. The intensity of her vocal performances was not and is not sustainable. Not sure how much training she had or how much technique she employed. It's really a mute point. She transcended the mechanics of singing with God given talent that one does not acquire or learn. You can't teach someone how to sing like Amy Winehouse. God rest her soul.

Well said, indeed. When I first discovered Amy, I found myself thinking about Hendrix quite a bit. When I first heard him, I was like, damn...nobody told me THAT was possible with a guitar! Same with Amy: in many ways, I think of first hearing Amy as the first time I really heard singing. When people talk about great singers I almost think of Amy as playing a different intstrument; making any comparisons seems pretty ridiculous, becasue it's as if she invented that instrument and nobody else has even learned how to play it. Class of her own.

[soulman88]

Not sure where you're getting information from that Whitney's technique was "awful" - it wasn't perfect (hardly anyone's is) but it was good and certainly nowhere near awful, though it was worse as she got older. Whitney had a case of a high or tense larynx to try and keep a more chest-dominant belt the higher she went and that was the only part of her voice that was damaging on a technical level - she had great breath control and stamina but unfortunately smoking, drugs, stress and overworking cut that short as the years went by.

Mariah is a great technical singer - again, not perfect, but one of the best. The thing with Mariah is that she was singing through her nodules, which is dangerous and shouldn't really be done but she managed to do so and control it when she was in good health but when she wasn't 100% well you could always tell in the quality of her voice. Her decline had little to do with anything technical (she nearly always kept a neutral larynx) - it's her nodules and how she was overworking in the first decade of her career that eventually took its toll on her.

Again with Aretha - another brilliant vocalist with extremely good technique - it's age and decades of chain smoking that are responsible for her decline, nothing to do with technique at all. So I'd disagree that compared to them Amy's technique was not that bad - she was good but again not technically great and it was indeed stress, drugs, smoking and alcohol that meant she was hardly ever in good voice when singing live - her overall vocal technique was nowhere near their level. However you can't really fairly compare her to Whit, Mimi and Ree because they have naturally larger and more powerful voices and are powerhouse vocalists with songs that are extremely hard to sing, whereas Amy's voice was very small in comparison and her songs are not vocally challenging, hence why you might be lead to think that they're voices changed for the worse so drastically.

- - - Updated - - -

"Amy's vocal creativity would have been limited had her technique been more conventional. And that intuitive creativity she had is part of what really makes her stand out." - Aretha Franklin and Mariah Carey's vocal creativity are second to none and their techniques have very few flaws, so it's not "conventional techniques" that limit one's vocal creativity at all.

- - - Updated - - -

thanks for the post.

i also think that age plays a factor aswell as lifetstyle.

not sure if you saw the queens jubliee concert this year - but paul mccartney, elton john and stevie wonder sounded awful.

they are all getting on now.

I saw that concert and Paul McCartney wasn't great but Elton and Stevie have still got it. Age doesn't always have anything to do with it - Amy wasn't old? Not everyone is perfect every day so I don't think it's fair to pick out one video where they don't sound on top form and they're are plenty of singers who have aged but still sound great. Patti Labelle is one of many,

[Birdieava]

Not sure where you're getting information from that Whitney's technique was "awful" - it wasn't perfect (hardly anyone's is) but it was good and certainly nowhere near awful, though it was worse as she got older. Whitney had a case of a high or tense larynx to try and keep a more chest-dominant belt the higher she went and that was the only part of her voice that was damaging on a technical level - she had great breath control and stamina but unfortunately smoking, drugs, stress and overworking cut that short as the years went by.

wow you seem to know your stuff!! im still learning about singing, for example,i didnt know that voices can ''come back'' as whitneys coach is saying here ... i mean, i noticed how amys voice did recover quite a bit overtime after she got healthier,,, i guess its much like everything else in the body? the voice tends to heal?? also, i wonder if whitney and amy did not smoke, what would have been the difference? i know many singers dont even ''talk'' if they have a show, but smoking seems not to hinder many singers or prevent them from having a career ... seems pretty normal actually. i thought it was a huuuuge no no.