Quote:
Originally Posted by secret love
It is an unpopular opinion, but I prefer the current "contralto" voice to the "mezzo-soprano". What do you guys prefer?
|
She has a nice, rich dry-sherry warmth to her lower register these days, which I really like. In her 20s, she had more of a head voice and therefore a thinner, reedier quality, even in those early stage shows. I think the year of solid, tough touring in 1977 really pushed her singing into her chest (compare a
World Turning from the European stint in April with the Japanese leg in December). By the time she recorded
Sara, she had lost that thrushlike warble of her 20s. What she lost in range, maybe she gained in character and warmth.
The resonance of Stevie's voice has always depended on 1) the health of her sinus cavity (she used to sound awful in Southern California concerts when there was a dry, dusty Santa Ana condition) and 2) the musical character of the band supporting her. She almost always sounded better either with Fleetwood Mac in the olden days or with more recent solo bands that left her plenty of space in the mix. But now that Fleetwood Mac and her solo bands usually create wall-to-wall noise, it's hard for her to "rise above." In fact,
Landslide is usually her best-sounding vocal all night—because she's not doing battle against drums, bass, synths, and electric guitars.
(The worst bands ever for her to sing
against were her 1986 road band and then her 1991 band. Neither of those macho groups were sensitive to what they were forcing her to do with a weakened instrument. They seemed to think they were supporting Sammy Hagar or Rob Halford.)