Judy Garland vs. Julie Andrews vs. Barbra Streisand

Streisand's! Julie is too sweet for me and Judy's too raw and aggressive.

First, I don't think Andrews can hold a candle to either Garland OR
Streisand's voice, beautiful though Julie's voice was (how sad to say "was"...
but that's a different thread).

Barbra belongs in the EXCLUSIVE company of Garland, Lena Horne,
and Ella Fitzgerald.

I prefer Garland's voice at its peak, as it was so emotional, haunting,
rich and beautiful. Not a shred of artificiality. But Streisand
is truly amazing, too.

What period do you consider Garland's voice to be at her peak?

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 

That's a very good question, and believe it or not, I get trounced upon by
Garland fanatics when I choose the 1940s. Most fans prefer her 1950's/'60's
voice, which I also enjoy, but her voice disintegrated much too early. To
me, her voice in such films as "For Me and My Gal" "Meet Me in St. Louis",
"The Harvey Girls", etc. is my fave sound.

It's a subjective question. Certainly Streisand has a greater range, but range
is common and not something I go by (Mariah Carey has a great range, but I don't
think her voice has much quality to it). Barbra also has taken much better
care of her voice, although she claims she's never done anything special to
preserve it.

One thing's for sure: I have never heard any of the greats sound as wonderful
at 74 as Streisand does. Her voice is better now than it's been in years.

They are all very different.

Judy is the most vulnerable, most giving to her audiences, and needed to break away from the MGM factory to really get a chance to get proper technical training. The way she was directed at MGM had her performing only one way, a habit she needed to break and indeed did once Sid Luft got a hold of her and put her on stage in front of a live audience as opposed to a cold movie camera. Liza has many of her mother's attributes (particularly the use of hands and her adoration of the audience), but is perhaps a bit more hyper in her own personality. People either love it or hate it, but other than perhaps Bette Midler, Liza represents today (when she does get to perform) that she is "Little Miss Showbiz", the survivor who is not living in her mother's shadow, but continuing a legacy, sort of like a musical Barrymore.

Julie, who ironically made her film debut the year after Judy's last movie musical, was Broadway trained, and like Judy, had been performing since she was a child. Julie was trained as a singer, but more or less became an actress who happened to be a great singer. I don't notice any regular habits in her singing, but she has a tendency to psychologically wink at the audience, as if agreeing with him that her singing on top of a mountain or inside a painting is really silly. She's the classiest of the three, a true lady in her live performances, yet really gracious.

Barbra, of course, is that star you can't reach. She's eccentric, dizzy, smart, shrewd and in a world of her own. She changes the phrasing and music to suit her needs, and even when joking with her audiences, somehow seems uncomfortable. She is great when sharing a memory, allowing the audience briefly into her soul, but only just giving that little tidbit of who she is underneath all the bravado. It's great, because it keeps that air of mystery. It's obvious that she was restricted in her film roles because of her looks and the era in which she was coming up, and really has grown, mellowed and obviously lightened up over the past decade.

Then, there are the other icons-Bette, whom as I mentioned, is equally little Miss Showbiz as Liza is with her energy, humor and giving as a performer. Diana, really a throwback to old fashioned glamour, but often can come off as unreachable.

"Great theater makes you smile. Outstanding theater may make you weep."

I don't agree that Garland gained "technical training" by performing live.
She had performed live plenty of times from the age of two all the
ways through her teens. She also did plenty of radio.

Garland's nuance in singing developed through Roger Edens at Metro who
guided her, allowing Garland to develop the purer, more beautiful aspect
to her singing. When she started performing live on stage in '51,
Garland actually reverted BACK to her old vaudeville singing - it wasn't
something new she learned.

There is more to "belting", and thank God that for every "The Man
That Got Away", we have "But Not For Me" and "Look For the Silver Lining."

Neither Ross nor Midler possess great instruments. Great stars? Yes,
but not truly great singers. Same with Minnelli, although she was
a great performer, before she became a sort of inside joke. Too bad.

they're voices are so different. You really can't compare them. Julie and Barbra can really belt out a note but Julie is a soprano so it's different. Depends on what mood I'm in