You have faith? Her technique is essentially the same as it has always been; the reason she sounds like shit all the time now is because of her vocal damage. She was able to get by on the Power of Youth (tm) and her natural good tone in the middle range of her voice until recent years. Maybe if she magically developed, I don't know, discipline and respect for her craft she'd still be able to sound respectable in spite of her damage, but you're kidding yourself if you think that's going to take place after almost fifteen years.
Yeah, no.
Mumei, you're being way too hard on her, because this isn't a very accurate assessment of Christina's voice at all.
Yeah, it's established that shoddy technique can lead to hastened tone degradation, reduced range, breathiness, and general vocal damage.
But, in
most cases, vocal damage does not lead to your general singing ability careening off a cliff in such a short time as you're suggesting with Christina and in general. There are countless singers with technique that ranges from "passable" to "all out shit" who go on to maintain their general ability for the vast majority of their lives and careers. Just off the top of my head:
-Fantasia Barrino (terrible technique, but still maintains most her Idol range)
-Nikka Costa
-Tina Turner (was touring and singing LIVE well into her 60s. Questionable technique, especially when she was younger.)
-Most gospel singers (they're not all Yolanda Adams)
-Grace Potter (probably my current fave vocalist, but her larynx is often sky-fucking-high when she sings)
I could go on, but the singers I listed above all posses a vocal technique that is as unfortified as Christina's or worse, but still maintain the overall qualities of their voices for
years (or even decades) into their careers, even with constant touring/performing.
Simply stated, poor technique isn't an adequate excuse for the the vocal quality of someone like Christina - a 32-year-old (not old for a singer by any means)
NON-SMOKER who until now only put out albums every 4 years and didn't even bother touring her last two eras (in fact, hasn't toured or performed consistently in almost a decade at this point). Vocal technique just doesn't explain it. It doesn't even explain
half of it. She
just doesn't sing enough for her technique to have that kind of tangible effect on her singing. I've just never heard it - not in any of my other faves with less-than-perfect technique or in the score of singers I've heard perform live.
But you know what can have a very problematic and near-immediately identifiable effect on the quality of someone's voice?
Disuse.
The parts of the body that make up the voice are mostly just a series of muscles. And, like most other muscles, they have to be constantly worked to maintain their flexibility and youthfulness. Fail to do this, and your voice will lock up and lose these qualities just like any other muscles. It's why any opera singer will tell you that constant vocal exercises are absolutely crucial to their craft,
especially in their off-seasons.
And you know this because disuse had a huge affect on Whitney. People like to claim her vocal shit-shows late in career as being the result of her age and rampant drug use - and yeah, that's partially true. But it doesn't fully explain it. Being in her mid-forties, Whitney really wasn't THAT old (and, with her flawless technique, Whitney had the potential to sing beautifully well into true old age). And while you could definitely hear the drugs in her voice, they alone don't account for it because, by most accounts, Whitney had been smoking and doing MAD drugs for years before it became public knowledge. Nippy had been a dopehead pretty much since she discovered Hollywood; she went through her most iconic eras high as a kite (AND an avid smoker of plain old cigarettes). So what did Whitney's voice in?
Wasn't her age, because relative to her peers she wasn't that old.
Wasn't her technique, which was flawless.
Wasn't the drugs because, well, in terms of career lifespan she'd always been a drug addict.
No, in the end it was all of these things compounded by the fact that for years Whitney just hadn't been singing. She could fend off the effects of the drugs for years because her near constant singing/performing and perfect technique kept her voice limber. But the second she stopped singing regularly her voice settled into all of those unhealthy choices she was regularly making, and the result was...well, we don't need to relive it.
Similarly for Christina, she has issues that could contribute to diminished vocal quality. I won't make excuses for her bad technique. But none of this has a more pronounced effect on her singing than the simple fact that she just doesn't sing often. Christina takes YEARS off from performing and, when she's on break, she doesn't sing. She barely puts in appearances, she doesn't do vocal exercises, she doesn't keep up with a vocal coach. She does nothing. And that's affecting her now because she takes so much time off and then tries to just jump back into the game singing songs that span 3 octaves live. Yeah, no.
But the voice is still there. The range is largely still there. If it wasn't, she wouldn't be able to even hit these notes in-studio, but she can. If you want an example of singers whose voices are truly shot, listen to Julie Andrews. Listen to Liza Minnelli. These are singers whose voices are so gone that they can't even access their original ranges in a studio environment, much less live.
Christina isn't there yet, far from it.
Which is why I maintain what I said: If Christina regained the discipline to submit herself to regular vocal exercises and working with a vocal coach, I have no doubt in my mind that she could regain the vast majority of her original vocal ability. I still maintain that her biggest problem is simple disuse, not technique.
We've seen Disciplinetina return with her dedication to losing weight. I have faith that some of that renewed dedication will seep into her singing. *.*