Great comments Mark. BTW, Judy did have some vocal chord problems mid career which did cause her to go flat sometimes. She even contemplated quitting "the business." Instead, she went into very intense vocal study, and still studies with a vocal teacher in NYC. The result is that high, clear, bell like tone of hers which is even better now than 40 years ago.
Jerry Mark or Travis wrote: > Maybe it's the way it's been recorded in more recent years. Driving home > tonight I was listening to disk 2 of 'Forever' and heard one of the songs > that was newly written & recorded at the time of this compilation called > 'Walls (We Are Not Forgotten)'. Her voice rings through strong & clear on > this song and is very powerful. But there's something about the way it's > recorded that seems to soften the sound of it and I've noticed this on > several of her later songs. And no offense to Mack, but when 'Hard Times > For Lovers' was a hit on the radio it used to drive me nuts because she > sounded flat half the time and I thought 'boy, she's really lost it!' But > now I'm wondering if it was the way it was recorded. The newer version of > 'Chelsea Morning' is another one where the voice seems lost in a fog inside > an echo chamber or some damn thing. She has a beautiful voice and I don't > see any need to soften it or obscure it in a blurry, echo-ey haze of sound. > The early recordings that have less production really showcase that voice. > But she's also proven she can front some fairly heavy production and still > sound great like on 'First Boy I Loved' or 'Albatross'. Anyway I'm really > enjoying exploring her body of work. I'm developing a great deal of respect > and admiration for her. She chose wonderful songs to sing and sang them > with beauty & conviction. And some of her writing's not bad either. > > Mark E in Seattle
