Who was better vocally? Stevie or Christine?

Mokona · #1 08-04-2005, 09:34 PM

So I was listening to the Mac tonight in my car and I thought of this. Stevie has that husky vibratto and Christine has that smooth as velvet sound, so as far as vocal abilities go, I kind of think Christine is a bit better.

I favor Stevie in almost every way, but mostly because her music and sound are so unique that I enjoy listening to her much more, but I can't deny that Christine has some seriously smooth pipes.

What're your thoughts?

GateandGarden · #2 08-04-2005, 09:40 PM

I would say it depends on the song and era.

Right now I would say Christine is a better singer. In 1973, Stevie was probably better, IMO.

AliceLover · #3 08-04-2005, 09:40 PM

Thats a very hard question IMO. I think Stevie uses her range more than Christine, but Christine always seems to be singing in the upper register. And I really can't think of a time where Christine has sounded horrible at a show, whereas if its Stevie I can think of plenty.

Mokona · #4 08-04-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

I would say it depends on the song and era.

Right now I would say Christine is a better singer. In 1973, Stevie was probably better, IMO.

Stevie definitely had some real power back then and she does use a lot more of her range than Christine. That's probably the reason why Christine is easy for me to sing along with, whereas with Stevie, I can't even begin to try.

GateandGarden · #5 08-04-2005, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mokona

Stevie definitely had some real power back then and she does use a lot more of her range than Christine. That's probably the reason why Christine is easy for me to sing along with, whereas with Stevie, I can't even begin to try.

Well, I do think it all depends. I don't think it's too easy to navigate through songs like "Prove Your Love" and "You Make Lovin' Fun." And then she seems to be using her lower range a bit more on In the Meantime.

And then with Stevie, I can't even begin to sing some of her most recent songs because they're ridiculously low for me.

But then songs like the Rumours version of "Silver Springs" and others like "Bella Donna," I find easy enough. Well, Chris has her easy-to-sing tunes, too. "Say You Love Me" and "Believe Me" are relatively easy in my book.

I'm going all over the place. Sorry.

MacMan · #6 08-04-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Well, I do think it all depends. I don't think it's too easy to navigate through songs like "Prove Your Love" and "You Make Lovin' Fun." And then she seems to be using her lower range a bit more on In the Meantime.

And then with Stevie, I can't even begin to sing some of her most recent songs because they're ridiculously low for me.

But then songs like the Rumours version of "Silver Springs" and others like "Bella Donna," I find easy enough. Well, Chris has her easy-to-sing tunes, too. "Say You Love Me" and "Believe Me" are relatively easy in my book.

I'm going all over the place. Sorry.

You can be the harmony part now that Stevie is so low...

LiquidBlue5000 · #7 08-04-2005, 10:22 PM

Bekka!!!!!!!

mcboo · #8 08-04-2005, 10:28 PM

it's like comparing apples to oranges (or melons

)

I like Stevies voice better, but I also enjoy listening to Christine. I REALLY like it when they are singing together and Lindsey joins in...

Mokona · #9 08-04-2005, 10:28 PM

All I'm able to sing are the low parts, so we can all harmonize! I have absolutely no upper register, or if I do, it's on vacation somewhere.

gldstwmn · #10 08-04-2005, 10:35 PM

Apples and oranges. They're both great singers, unique in their own ways.

dissention · #11 08-04-2005, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AliceLover

Thats a very hard question IMO. I think Stevie uses her range more than Christine, but Christine always seems to be singing in the upper register. And I really can't think of a time where Christine has sounded horrible at a show, whereas if its Stevie I can think of plenty.

Stevie has a range?

Christine has a rich and smooth voice that sounds almost ethereal and otherworldly in it's beauty whenever she opens her mouth to sing. She sings effortlessly, like it's as natural as simply speaking; her vocals never sound labored, they always sound like she just sat down and that's what came out. I also think she has the most poignant voice out of all the Maccers. She can take the most pedestrian of lyrics ("You woo me until the sun comes up" or "I gotta get my feet back on the ground") and make you think, if for only a second, that they're somehow profound.

Stevie will never be accused by me of having a remarkable voice. She's alternately shrill, droning, hushed, strained, sore, and tired, but it works for her. Most of the time, at least. Her imperfect, cracked & battered voice suits the material that she sings because only a true character could write those kinds of songs and if they don't have a voice that's got as much personality as the songs do, they're dead in the water. Imagine Celine Dion singing "No Spoken Word". Think it would work? No. That's why most covers of Stevie's material are so sub-par; because her voice is just as much a part of them as the lyrics are or the music is. She can sing a song and, even if the song itself is putrid swill or the vocal drives you batty, she sounds like she believes what she's singing. You can feel the emotional connection she has to the words that come out of her mouth.

So, I like both of their voices and I like them both for different reasons.

strandinthewind · #12 08-04-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Stevie has a range?

Christine has a rich and smooth voice that sounds almost ethereal and otherworldly in it's beauty whenever she opens her mouth to sing. She sings effortlessly, like it's as natural as simply speaking; her vocals never sound labored, they always sound like she just sat down and that's what came out. I also think she has the most poignant voice out of all the Maccers. She can take the most pedestrian of lyrics ("You woo me until the sun comes up" or "I gotta get my feet back on the ground") and make you think, if for only a second, that they're somehow profound.

Stevie will never be accused by me of having a remarkable voice. She's alternately shrill, droning, hushed, strained, sore, and tired, but it works for her. Most of the time, at least. Her imperfect, cracked & battered voice suits the material that she sings because only a true character could write those kinds of songs and if they don't have a voice that's got as much personality as the songs do, they're dead in the water. Imagine Celine Dion singing "No Spoken Word". Think it would work? No. That's why most covers of Stevie's material are so sub-par; because her voice is just as much a part of them as the lyrics are or the music is. She can sing a song and, even if the song itself is putrid swill or the vocal drives you batty, she sounds like she believes what she's singing. You can feel the emotional connection she has to the words that come out of her mouth.

So, I like both of their voices and I like them both for different reasons.

Stevie had range until 1983

Vocally, IMO she has always been superior to CM solely because of the passion in that voice. Academically, CM on Why and Songbird cannot be matched.

AliceLover · #13 08-04-2005, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Stevie has a range?

Christine has a rich and smooth voice that sounds almost ethereal and otherworldly in it's beauty whenever she opens her mouth to sing. She sings effortlessly, like it's as natural as simply speaking; her vocals never sound labored, they always sound like she just sat down and that's what came out. I also think she has the most poignant voice out of all the Maccers. She can take the most pedestrian of lyrics ("You woo me until the sun comes up" or "I gotta get my feet back on the ground") and make you think, if for only a second, that they're somehow profound.

Stevie will never be accused by me of having a remarkable voice. She's alternately shrill, droning, hushed, strained, sore, and tired, but it works for her. Most of the time, at least. Her imperfect, cracked & battered voice suits the material that she sings because only a true character could write those kinds of songs and if they don't have a voice that's got as much personality as the songs do, they're dead in the water. Imagine Celine Dion singing "No Spoken Word". Think it would work? No. That's why most covers of Stevie's material are so sub-par; because her voice is just as much a part of them as the lyrics are or the music is. She can sing a song and, even if the song itself is putrid swill or the vocal drives you batty, she sounds like she believes what she's singing. You can feel the emotional connection she has to the words that come out of her mouth.

So, I like both of their voices and I like them both for different reasons.

She did. Talk to me is a nice example.

GateandGarden · #14 08-04-2005, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Stevie has a range?

Christine has a rich and smooth voice that sounds almost ethereal and otherworldly in it's beauty whenever she opens her mouth to sing. She sings effortlessly, like it's as natural as simply speaking; her vocals never sound labored, they always sound like she just sat down and that's what came out. I also think she has the most poignant voice out of all the Maccers. She can take the most pedestrian of lyrics ("You woo me until the sun comes up" or "I gotta get my feet back on the ground") and make you think, if for only a second, that they're somehow profound.

Stevie will never be accused by me of having a remarkable voice. She's alternately shrill, droning, hushed, strained, sore, and tired, but it works for her. Most of the time, at least. Her imperfect, cracked & battered voice suits the material that she sings because only a true character could write those kinds of songs and if they don't have a voice that's got as much personality as the songs do, they're dead in the water. Imagine Celine Dion singing "No Spoken Word". Think it would work? No. That's why most covers of Stevie's material are so sub-par; because her voice is just as much a part of them as the lyrics are or the music is. She can sing a song and, even if the song itself is putrid swill or the vocal drives you batty, she sounds like she believes what she's singing. You can feel the emotional connection she has to the words that come out of her mouth.

So, I like both of their voices and I like them both for different reasons.

I thought the original poster was referring to technical qualities, not what you're talking about. Technically, I think Stevie was right on during the seventies and early to mid eighties. Whatever the case, I think what you've said is right, except for the thing about Stevie not having a range. She seemed to have an impressive enough range until she got older and I'm assuming she has lost it. Also, the whole "shrill, droning, etc." thing doesn't apply to her earlier years, IMO.

dissention · #15 08-04-2005, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I thought the original poster was referring to technical qualities, not what you're talking about. Technically, I think Stevie was right on during the seventies and early to mid eighties.

Well, then in that case, my vote goes to Christine. She's always been a great singer. She knows her range and doesn't try to sing out of it like Stevie; a very skilled vocalist, that Christine.