Taken from Christina Aguilera's time at the Mickey Mouse Club-which would make her around thirteen/fourteen, I think- this video was sent to me via email (hooray for emails!). I wasn't even aware that Christina was singing during her stint on the show, but according to Wiki it was part of the gig. The more you know, eh?
Oddly (to me), the songs chosen, by whoever was working behind the scene, were grown-ass tracks! There are other videos of the Genie In A Bottle singer covering hits from Toni Braxton (Another Sad Love Song), CeCe Peniston (I'm Not Over You) and Mary J. Blige (Real Love), however I thought I'd go with the SWV cover of Weak because I also enjoyed the other singers (Rhona Bennett and Nita Booth ) who joined the young Diva on stage.
Watching these videos it's apparent that Christina's singing style hasn't changed all that much since she was a teenager- no shade intended. Artificially lowered timbre, vocal slides, and contrasting (oft poorly supported) upper belts are all things that have followed the Diva through into her adult years. However, age, and experience, has brought the Diva's mature singing style a believability that her youth didn't convey very well.
Was it any wonder she was called "the little girl with the big voice"!
Thoughts?
All in all, she will be forever known as the naturally gifted singer of whom used and abused her voice to the point of (near) destruction. Christina has always wanted a "Rich, Dark & Heavy Tone" - she said it herself during her early years (on many occasions) and she obviously withheld that very same wish even as an adolescent because one can almost see the extreme lowering of her larynx during this performance as she tries to attain that sound - AT 14 YEARS OLD. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a 'Light/Full- Lyric' vocal instrument, especially if it is mastered and taken care of properly.
ReplyDeleteHere is the performance of her singing: "Another Sad Love Song" that same year. Thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAIe1eoXtnU
This point may have been brought up before and I know that the comparison between her and Britney is extremely overused but I find it fascinating. At one pint both of them have said that they wish their voices were different. Britney wanted to sing like Christina and the tone that Christina desired is one reminiscent of Britney's voice when she was younger and to some extent the remnants she still has. Britney's lows are still more natural sounding than when she makes her voice go higher (although I appreciate her falsetto moments). Over the years their voices have changed to some extent, and both have caused some damage to their tools. It is obvious that Britney's level of destruction is much higher even though we have still seen glimpses of it like on Britney Jean. I find Christina to be a more technical singer who still tries to force a different sound of her voice. Britney is more of a chameleon or actress when it comes to using her recognizable voice and adapting it to her wide variety of songs (most of them unreleased unfortunately). Sorry if I went into a bit of a tangent.The main point I was trying to make is that while the two have a great number of differences in terms of singing, there are also some slight similarities. I think someone said this before but if they had been born with the vocal tones of one another then maybe they would be happier and their voices might not of had to suffer some of the noticeable damage that has occurred over the years.
ReplyDelete*point
ReplyDeleteI thought everyone knew Christina used to sang (sang not sing*) on the Mickey Mouse Club seeing as thats how she was able to start her professional career as she had a good fanbase that grew up with her. She had connections from early on that led her to movie soundtrack roles (Mulan) and then eventually her record contract that led to her current career. Anyways- there are shows shes done when she was really young where her tone isn't as muffled but still a little stifled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HfHXqzLflY
ReplyDeleteI love this performance!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go as far as saying it's been abused to the point of destruction - there are definitely quite a few performances recently where her original, natural timbre is still in tact and her range (bar the belting range in the 5th octave) is still relatively ok.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, her voice is far from 'near destruction'. Yes, it has changed, but not by much. Its still very recognizable, whether she's singing in her natural voice or with raised larynx. To a layman, she'd sound the same as she did in 1998. There is noticeable rasp now but I find it debatable if its natural or not. Christina uses lot of vocal 'effects'/poor technique in the name of style and its well-known.
ReplyDeleteAll said, she will always remain one of the most naturally gifted singers in pop. Her voice, versatility and stage presence truly set her apart from the other, countless, dime-a-dozen "good technicians". The reason for her success and popularity is her overall entertainment appeal, not just the singing part. I love her personally because her singing feels natural, emotionally resonating and honest. Her voice is perfect for Pop. Also, she's a much successful chameleon than most singers I've ever heard. She's convincing in almost every genre she's sung in till date. That is true talent.
Like her or hate her singing. She's anything but forgettable, and that pretty much says it all.
I definitely agree with your "2nd Paragraph" - you made fantastic points. However, all in all, I am very biased when it comes to Christina now, particularly because I don't like how she has come to damage it overtime.
ReplyDeleteWhen one is young the voice can take a lot of abuse and bounce back, but as soon as one hits 25 if one hasn't learned how to sing in a healthy way, the voice ages really, really fast.
ReplyDeleteI think between them Britney had the more natural sound and vocal placement, there are performances of her in the Mickey Mouse Club where she belts out effortless F5, something I have never heard Christina do (key word EFFORTLESS).