Judy Garland Was An Entertainer, Not A Singer

I couldn't agree more

She just...was.

What Judy had was the gift to put a song over. In some songs, her phrasing is exquisite. She could "act" a song better than anyone. And most people remember her as a little girl in The Wizard of Oz, where she had an extremely adult voice. As a child, she didn't have the Shirley Temple "squeek." She had a mature voice. Even towards the end, when her voice was completely shot, she could still phrase a song, act a song, and deliver an emotional punch. She had that beautiful deepness to her voice that others only wish they had. No, she wasn't an Yma Sumac, but she knew how to work what she had.

I think of her as a very gifted singer. She moves me unlike anyone else. Ella is technically better, I guess, but she doesn't give me the chills of a Judy.

OP, you in danger, gurl.

Jo Stafford puts them all to shame.

Judy sings "Remember me to HAROLD Square." The square is named for a paper, The New York HERALD.

I could agree with that, OP, if you'll agree that you're more an idiot than an expert.

She wasn't an opera singer, she was a belter/crooner (if crooner can be applied to a woman)

She had power AND emotion to her voice -- even when she was going downhill...

Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz - Still brings tears when at the beginning, she captures the heartfelt longing of a young girl to fly "over the Rainbow. "

Judy Garland reminds me of those great singers - a lot were French like Mireille Matthieu who were able to effortlessly but deeply strike a sentimental Chord in their audiences. That quality is gone or mostly gone now. Kind of like National King Cole.

^^^Nat King Cole - obviously - but auto-correct had other ideas.

National King Cole lol sounds like a place to get your tires rotated :)

It had to be said!

And this was 1939. There was no auto-tune in those days.

And to think that this was almost cut!

For a non-singer, they sure cast her in a lot of musicals and gave her a musical tv show.

Thank you R13 and R14. - From R10.

The whole film was created literally around this little girl's vivid dreams and 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow' is a powerful emotional prelude to her singular and deeply personal inner journey.

There will never be another song like it nor another Judy Garland to give the magical lifeforce to those simple words so innocently sung.

Judy had passion that was reflected in her songs. You could HEAR her feelings. This is what singers like Adele, who also has a limited range but a great voice, lack today.

Her real name was Francis Gumm and she got those parts by putting her gums to work.

After all Louis B Mayer said, "Francis stays, she puts out," Deanna can just get out. Universal thanked him when Deanna saved their studio.

I couldn't agree LESS with the OP, Judy Garland was a phenomenal singer.

I like this video, Judy was really pretty in it!

Could someone please find and post that clip of Judy singing Zing! Went the Strings of My Heart when she was just a teen? If that doesn't prove her singing talents and abilities, nothing does.

My other favorite clip is her singing Who (Stole My Heart Away)? from either Words and Music or 'Til the Clouds Roll By (I can never remember which one); that number not only showcases her singing but also her phenomenal dancing (and she was pregnant with Liza at the time).

TIA!

Hear, hear, R18.

R10 - Here again. Some excellent comments on what's lacking in today's singers. Another one is the great Edith Piaf and a song she wrote: La Vie en Rose. I cut and pasted the story behind this song's success.

LA VIE EN ROSE BY EDITH PIAF

The song was performed live in concert for the first time in 1946. It became a favorite with audience.  "La Vie en rose" was the song that made Piaf internationally famous, with its lyrics telling about the joy of finding true love and appealing to those who had survived the difficult wartime.

"La Vie en rose" was released on a 10" single in 1947 by Columbia Records, a division of EMI, with "Un refrain courait dans la rue" making the B-side. It met with a warm reception and sold a million copies in the USA.

It was the biggest-selling single of 1948 in Italy, and the ninth biggest-selling single in Brazil in 1949. Piaf performed the song in the 1948 French movie Neuf garçons, un coeur. The first of her albums to include "La Vie en rose" was the 10" Chansons parisiennes, released in 1950.

Judy can really throw a zinger!

You can't get any better than this!

Of course she was a singer and a great one. Contraltos seldom have as big a range as a mezzo soprano or lyric soprano. But Garland had a beautiful rich tone, impeccable timing, great phrasing and musicianship, as good as Sinatra. The real hallmark of her sound is the incredible volume she had to her voice. Volume is about more than loudness. She became known as a big belter and that hindered her as she aged, because not every song should be sung that way and she had many other ways that she was just as good at interpreting musically. Listen to her version of I Can't Give You Anything But Love or A Cottage For Sale to hear her at her more restrained and refined. The slow build of this performance with the swelling crescendo in her voice as she goes from the bridge back to the verse of this song is masterful and quite astounding in power. Yet she didn't dismantle a song like her future imitators would. There aren't many classic American songs that Garland didn't sing uniquely well. She had a widening vibrato as she aged and that sounds dated today, but her voice was a beautiful rich instrument for most of her life.

Simply sublime. Nobody can top it. Nobody!

Gorgeous!

Judy's version of Get Happy in SUMMER STOCK is iconic!

Thanks so much for the link r23!

What a pleasure to see and hear the utter purity of Judy's young voice a year before Oz!

The OP is an idiot. Judy Garland was a marvelous singer. There's no denying that.

She's been dead for forty five fucking years. Let it go.

OP is a troll. He can't possibly believe that.

[quote]Judy sings "Remember me to HAROLD Square...

She does not. That's just silly.

I think Judy sings with her greatest range and sensitivity in this clip not many have seen. It was a filmed tribute for the Will Rogers Hospital. This top note is the high end of Judy's range which was not often used by her. I think it's lovely.

In r33's clip, I hate how in the 1940s and 50s every song had to have an angel choir. Judy didn't need those shrieky sopranos behind her.

Note how every thought in the lyric registers on her face as she sings "As Long As He Needs Me" in R25s clip.

That to me was the magic of Judy Garland.

No one can do that today. No one.

And so she draws you in. It's as if she's sitting down with a good friend and pouring her heart out. The words seem spontaneous, as if the words are her own.

LOVE R3

It was the quality of her voice that made Judy the best female singer of the 20th century. Doesn't matter about range or technical ability (although she had quite a bit of that). Her voice was unique and distinct and instantly affected your emotions when she sang. There will never be another like Judy. To say she wasn't a great singer is preposterous and the mark of someone with very limited musicality and appreciation of great musicality.

I was better

OP, you troll, who do YOU consider a good singer? I'm dying to see your response.

[quote] I was better —Deanna Durbin

Except nobody remembers who you were. Everybody knows Judy.

Though nobody remembers them and nobody here even knows them, Deanna Durbin and Alice Faye were far bigger singing stars in the late 30s/early 40s.

I think the OP is Mickey Rooney, who has gone off his med again. Mickey was an entertainer, not a singer.

Not only was she a great entertainer, a musically versatile singer with the most dynamic and soul stirring voice, she was on occasion a true artist.

It's too bad she was so messed up and died too early. She would have done some wonderful versions of Sondheim's music. "Losing My Mind" "Nothing's Gonna Harm You" and "Everybody Says Don't" would have been sublime.

Diva Devotee gets many things wrong, but this is a pretty accurate description of Garland's technical ability and vocal quality.

Vocal Type: Middle-weight contralto Vocal Range: 2 Octaves 3 notes (D3-G5) Tessitura: E3-Bb4 Whistle Register: No Vocal Pluses: A fantastically identifiable voice – best known for her roles at MGM Studios, but also for her extensive back-catalogue; the entire voice has a warm, rich, incredibly velvety quality.

The low notes, encompassing a D3 [Old Man River] have a darkness that pervades much of the voice, and as most contraltos tend to, this part of the voice seems incredibly easy for Judy to hit both from the beginning of her career [F3 in Over the Rainbow original] until the end.

The middle range, starting at about B3 and up until Ab4, had that same richness, only now with more variations for volume than the lower range offered. Her voice sat incredibly easily in this part of the voice, and didn’t show any signs of fatigue even into her later years.

The high range, when executed using a ‘belting’ technique as she did through most of her later career, had an incredible capacity for power and dramatic highs, though they generally had to be built up to in the later section of a song. The belting range could be taken up to D5 [Get Happy], and the same rich and full tone that the rest of the voice had stands true in the high range, even more so than the middle. She also showed in her earlier years that she could mix her voice brilliantly [White Christmas, Where There’s Music), thereby getting a sweeter, less overpowering sound, which she used in later years as well, though less frequently. When Judy decided to use head voice, though rarely displayed, it still shone with surprising brilliance and ease [Opera Spoof], encompassing at least G5 if not higher. The head voice lost no tone or warmth, taking on a nearly operatic quality that was incredibly full and bright.

Overall, though she is renowned for being an emotive singer, but her technique was quite brilliant, and that she could even sing by the late 60s given her use of drugs and alcohol is quite amazing.

She was great. I don't understand all this talk about when she was older. I don't think she slipped a bit.

I would of loved to have seen her do the 1964 movie version of Gypsy that would of been something...

She was some kind of gal!

Come to think of it she would probably never would of taken the Mama Rose role in '64 even if offered, she wouldn't have done that to The Merm.

OP: R.E.S.P.E.C.T.!

You are a T.R.O.L.L.

[quote]Come to think of it she would probably never would of taken the Mama Rose role in '64 even if offered, she wouldn't have done that to The Merm.

She took Annie Get Your Gun and didn't care whether The Merm liked it or not.

Good point R51

I think it would of been great to have seen either of them over Rosalind "Dub Me" Russell

R19 - I love Garland, but she's young in that video and doesn't pull it off, IMO.

R23 Zing. Now that's enchanting. And such skill. Pity young singers these days can't sing in that style, clear and lovely and straightforward.

r43 - That was sublime.

What Now My Love 1966

Judy was one of the most talented singers ever. She also had a lot of pain and struggle throughout her life. Despite that, she had a good heart, which is hard to encounter in Hollywood. At a time when gay people were oppressed beyond belief, they identified with her struggles and she theirs.

R45 you copied all that, right?

I like blue.

Judy Garland was a mess.

The last 2 to 3 years of her life Judy was shunned by just about everybody in the biz. Dirk Bogarde who had at one time loved Judy and craved her company wanted nothing to do with her. She was too far gone - too much drama, paranoia, fits of anger, etc. Even Capucine who was a lovely woman who loved to nurture and care for others could no longer tolerate Judy's company for the same reasons.

Perhaps if there had been a Betty Ford Center at that time Judy may have had a chance.

I doubt she would have had much of a chance. She had been in facilities many times before and she never showed much recognition of her problems, which were pretty complex. Some aren't meant to live a long life. The worst thing about Garland's later life was that she had NO FUCKING MONEY. She earned millions, worked like a dog, lived modestly and had nothing. Whitney and Elvis had the money that their hard work, long careers and fame warranted. Garland was used and ripped off by the people she trusted, they worked her to death and sold out her carcass like a broke down racehorse. Financial security can be the savior of aging addicts and broken down performers. She had proved her worth, might have cleaned up and lived a quiet life. Her name would always bring thunderous ovations, forty years of greatness guaranteed that. But she was done singing.

OP is the dumbest shit God ever put on this earth.

Yup!

Range isn't really the requirement for being a great singer. Judy was a true storyteller in her songs, which is something missing from most recording artists today.

Jesus, Judy would have been the definitive Mama Rose. Different from Merman and LuPone and most of the others, but perhaps even more effective. I remember seeing Linda Lavin in the role when she replaced Tyne Daly (who's still the best Rose I've ever seen even if she couldn't sustain most of the notes) and I thought her take on Rose would have been similar to how Judy would have played it. There was a realism in her take that would have worked beautifully on screen, but it didn't transfer well on stage. A lot of people didn't like her take on it, but I thought she was pretty terrific. Not my favorite mind you and her "Rose's Turn" was all wrong, but she made a lot of interesting, winning choices. Just watch her "Some People" attached here and tell me you can't see traces of Judy in there. I still think this is my favorite version of that song. It's normally just this angry shriek fest from the get-go, but Lavin lets it build and by the time she gets to "Goodbye to blueberry pie", it's reached a thrilling fever pitch.

What does it mean to "put a song over," as stated in R3? Forgive me, I'm a non-native English speaker.

To put a song over is to sell it so convincingly to the audience that for those few brief moments, you may forget you're listening to a singer and you get entirely caught up in the emotion and the underlying meaning of the song.

Put more simply, it means the singer and the song become one. There's no sense of artifice, of pretense. It's as real as it gets.

I thought put a song over means the listener enjoys the song, gets the emotion and meaning and DOESN'T pay attention to flaws, effort and the artifice. Like suspension of disbelief in movies.

Thank you for the clarification, R67! Very well put.

[quote]What does it mean to "put a song over,"

I'm r3, and r67 pretty much has it right. Just to add to that, it's when everyone who hears the song is joined together in the universal truth of the song.

Singers like Whitney Houston could thrill a listener with what she could do with her voice, but when you stopped listening to the song, nothing had moved you other than the voice.

When you listen to Judy Garland sing "Over The Rainbow" you get caught up in the idea that there has to be something more out there. Everyone longs for the ability to be as free as the bird to fly to a better place. I've heard "Over The Rainbow" sung by many singers and nobody even comes close to the longing that Judy put into that song.

Also listen to "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas." The Christmas holiday is supposed to be the most joyful time of the year. Yet Judy is singing about the sadness of not being where she wants to be. "Until then we'll have to muddle through somehow." Through her singing, everyone understands that there's something more. Once again, I've heard many singers perform this song, and nobody "owns" the song like Judy. It's her song.

EXACTLY^ and thanks R65--Lavin was great---she actually acted that song and built to a peak. NEVER saw it done that way. And agreed about Tyne in the role; warm AND wild, regardless of her singing.

R65 Thanks for the clip. Lavin is wonderful there.

Lavin doesn't have star power (that something extra) but she sure understands the role and puts the number across in a unique personal way.

I think what Judy would have brought to Mama Rose was a dreamy quality. It's missing in every Rose performance. Rose is always played as a schemer, never a dreamer.

"Some People" is always played with anger and determination. I think Judy could have played that song with hope and the "I'll get my kids out" would have been more desperate than angry.

"I think what Judy would have brought to Mama Rose was a dreamy quality. It's missing in every Rose performance." PERFECT comment. She would have taken Rose somewhere over that rainbow. I never thought of that before and now that's all I can see. Thanks R73

She was a good singer, range, dexterity. She learned singing and performing on the road. She was a natural.

[quote]She took Annie Get Your Gun and didn't care whether The Merm liked it or not.

That was me.

Imagine if Garland had gotten her health together in the early 60s, then went on to do the movie versions of Gypsy... Hello Dolly and even Mame...

[quote]Imagine if Garland had gotten her health together in the early 60s, then went on to do the movie versions of Gypsy... Hello Dolly and even Mame...

But Judy needed the right director. One of her problems on Annie Get Your Gun was that she didn't like the original director Busby Berkley.

How come Jabba never ransacks threads about Judy, Adele, Ella, Donna, Pink, Sia and say Anita? Oh yeah, these all have one thing in common: being real singers.

In my books, she succeeded at neither.

[quote]I would of loved to have seen her do the 1964 movie version of Gypsy that would of been something...

You would HAVE loved.

That would HAVE been something.

That's why I love Lavin's performance of "Some People" so much. It has that dreamy quality to it. She isn't just screaming the song. The lyrics themselves are angry and desperate enough without adding to it. It's the classic "I want" song a la Over The Rainbow when you really think about it. The character is expressing what they want out of life and, by the end of the song, the character begins taking the steps to get it.

I think that's what's something big that's missing from the two filmed versions. Russell and especially Midler are still playing for the back of the house in every scene which makes for an uncomfortable experience. Lavin's performance is perfectly tailored for the screen and incredibly believable. I think Judy would have been able to interpret the character in a similar way.

Year later, Liza did a version of "Rose's Turn" that is still one of my favorites. It's angry, sad, desperate, sweaty, uncomfortable, and disturbing. I think it's one of her best performances. I wonder if Judy would have done it similarly.

I politely disagree with R67's definition of what it means to "put over a song." The phrase is frequently used to describe someone who isn't a good technical singer but who "sells" the material by dint of being a compelling performer. Glynis Johns and Judi Dench are not strong singers, but they both succeeded in moving audiences as Desiree in A Little Night Music because they knew how to "put over a song."

Judy Garland lost much of her singing ability on the 1960s. There are many recordings late in her career where she is in ghastly voice. But she is still giving a great show because she knows how to put over a song. In other words, her singing didn't sound as pretty as it used to, but she still knew how to go out there and sell them a bucket of clams.

lol, it's hilarious to watch elder-gays lose their shit over anyone daring to call out the original Lindsay Lohan as being limited, which she truly was. Even her rendition of "Over the Rainbow" was flawed. Garland is forgotten, and for good reason.

R84: Four Words!

[quote]lol, it's hilarious to watch elder-gays lose their shit over anyone daring to call out the original Lindsay Lohan as being limited, which she truly was. Even her rendition of "Over the Rainbow" was flawed. Garland is forgotten, and for good reason.

Garland is forgotten? Only to you! May I remind you that this thread is about Judy Garland, who certainly still hasn't been forgotten.

She wasn't either. She was a drug fiend.

"Garland is forgotten"? You're kidding, right?

r40

It still doesn't make Judy better

[quote] lol, it's hilarious to watch elder-gays lose their shit over anyone daring to call out the original Lindsay Lohan as being limited, which she truly was. Even her rendition of "Over the Rainbow" was flawed. Garland is forgotten, and for good reason

L.B. Mayer nor any other studio boss had doctors prescribe drugs for Lohan. The studio system didn't turn Lohan into an addict. Lohan's managers never mismanaged or stole her money. Lohan does not have the kind of talent that Garland had. Lohan was not worked to death by the studio. Garland had made almost 30 movies by the time she was Lohan's age. Lohan has made maybe 12 or 13. Other than being child stars who battled substance abuse problems. Garland and Lohan have very little in common.

The Wizard of Oz is a classic and it is aired multiple times annually. Her television show is currently being reaired on cable. Her recordings continue to be popular. She is far from forgotten.

Let the bitch be dead. It's been almost 5 decades since the shrew croaked.

Okay, this thread is being stalked

[quote] Okay, this thread is being stalked

What do you mean by that?

By that I mean R91

They probably mean "trolled"

[quote] Her television show is currently being reaired on cable.

On which channel?

Are the two mutually exclusive?

[quote]the 1964 movie version of Gypsy

Not the 1962 version?

Get TV, R96.

You're an idiot, r84...an IDIOT!

Judy was a singer AND and entertainer

[qutoe]Garland is forgotten, and for good reason.

Judy Garland will NEVER be forgotten because she's was the star of the most famous movie in American history.

r102 Judy was in "The Incredible Mr. Limpet"?

[quote]Judy Garland will NEVER be forgotten because she's was the star of the most famous movie in American history.

Somebody needs to bring a lawsuit because I've watched The Sound of Music several times and I've never seen her in it.

R103 No, that was Vincente Minnelli.

OP is right imho. But in the beginning Judy was considered a singer. She was trained to sing and perform in musicals. In her youth she had an absolutely beautiful voice. If you want to hear how good she really was, listen to her Decca recordings especially those in the early '40's. That was when she was still strong and healthy, before the drugs started taking their toll. It always bugs me how fans focus on the 50's and especially the 60's as far as her singing is concerned. By then she had given herself over to hamming it up and making everything so emotional; that was her shtick -- a gimmick to compensate for the fact that her vocal talents had declined. And that's when the vibrato started getting out of control and when she became the "entertainer". She still sang well at some points but she was pretty much selling at that point. Anyone who thinks she wasn't incorporating the "poor Judy" act into her performances by then is kidding themselves.

[quote] She still sang well at some points but she was pretty much selling at that point.

Mama was in a movie that said she could go on singing.

Judy at Carnegie Hall 1961 is the greatest album of all time.

Chapeau if you can get through the first 50 seconds of this fat queen - I couldn't. The rest is great stuff,

I agree with r57.

OP, stop rattling the cages!

r82's clip of Liza singing "Rose's Turn" is terrifying. And I mean that as a compliment.

r45, Though I have no musical training or specialized knowledge, I found your thoughtful contribution very interesting and informative. Thank you for helping those of us who love Judy's voice understand much better how she achieved the remarkable and unforgettable music she gave us.