Comments on: Rufus Wainwright’s Voice

By: Roger Bourland

Roger Bourland — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:19:47 +0000

It veers off into a subject that my musicologist colleague, Mitchell Morris, encouraged me to do. To address the question: what is effeminate? is an interesting challenge. That doesn’t mean I can’t pursue your suggestion, which I thank you for.

By: krisis

krisis — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:46:07 +0000

Overall, this is lightweight, and as much (if not more) about how voice generally impacts perceptions of sexuality as it’s about Rufus’s voice specifically. The quote you use to head the chapter definitely implies it will be more about his singing.

Hopefully you spend some more time talking about the qualities of Rufus’s singing voice, including his break between pure chest and mixed, and his use of falsetto (esp. to complete backing harmonies). I’m especially interested to read discussion of how he resonates different sounds differently in different areas of the mask.

From a flow standpoint, i feel like the chapter takes a major step backwards at “I should clarify what I mean by “effeminate.”” - jusr when you are starting to get into a meaty, chronological analysis.

By: Roger Bourland

Roger Bourland — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:38:30 +0000

Joe: In the case of kd lang, her original songs have become less interesting over the years, but her voice is better than ever. In Rufus’s case, I tend to agree, that if he starts only putting out covers, I’m not sure I would stay a fan.

By: JoeGreen

JoeGreen — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:56:56 +0000

An interesting contrast between popular music and classical is the role of “singer-songwriter”, a figure totally absent in the world of opera and lieder to the best of my knowledge.

Some singer-songwriters are more singer than songwriter, but most are more songwriter than singer, a category we can safely put Bob Dylan into. And yet Dylan’s records are (rightly) highly acclaimed.

There is something about a somebody singing their own words/poetry that is compelling to the modern ear, and there are few artists that can sustain a major career as an ‘interpreter’, certainly not one with any artistic credibility.

I’d also put RW in the “mostly songwriter” category based on my usual question of “would anyone buy his records if they were just made of cover versions?”

This is what makes RW’s upcoming Carnegie Hall Judy Garland concert such a curious (okay, bizarre!) proposition. Couragious,crazy or a publicity stunt? I don’t know, but we’re going to find out.

By: twarner

twarner — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 05:44:29 +0000

I may be in a distinct minority, then, because I can barely stand his live performances, which is shame since I’m sure I would spend thousands of dollars trailing RW around the world if I did. Part of it’s his sister, I have to say, who I was shocked to discover recently is singer in the rather catchy song “Tommy Come Home” aside RW’s “I’m A Runnin’” of Tommy Tricker fame. Their harmonies are fingernails on a chalkboard, to me, although on an album, I find them rather soothing. Go figure.

P.S. If anyone has either of those to Tricker songs on MP3 (I have the movie, of course, but can’t seem to find a way to get them on to MP3 player for those lazy walks around the park), I would be eternally thankful if you could send them on over to twarner@richmond.com. Thanks!

By: Meg

Meg — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:39:08 +0000

re twarner’s comment:
It’s interesting but my sister, who likes his music but isn’t a big fan, far prefers his voice live as opposed to on cd. By “live” I don’t mean live recordings but actually attending concerts. I don’t know how to explain it really but she feels like it sounds stronger live. Not louder but as though there’s more behind it? I know what she means but I can’t really describe it . . .

By: Roger Bourland

Roger Bourland — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:52:58 +0000

Cath: I don’t think I said that his singing voice was gay sounding, only his speaking voice. I, along with thousands of other gay men, are always incredulous that so many people couldn’t tell by their voice that Liberace or Paul Lind or Richard Simmons were gay! As James Merrill used to always say: “those that know, know; and those that don’t, don’t!”

By: cath

cath — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:03:37 +0000

I have never thought of the “gay voice” as a physiological trait before - that’s interesting. Also, when I have raved about Rufus to people who know his music a bit but don’t know anything about him, they have always said “Oh? Is he gay? I didn’t realise.” And neither did I till the first time I saw him interviewed - so I don’t think his singing voice is blatantly gay, particularly since time (and ciggies!) have deepened it. And re Loudon’s voice and Rufus’ voice, there are moments on the McGarrigle Hour CD and DVD where I cannot tell their voices apart.

By: Roger Bourland

Roger Bourland — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:58:56 +0000

Thanks for your comments TW. I’ll see if I can find a different was of expressing the opening line. Regarding live vs studio performances, all artists are different. Crosby Stills and Nash were terrible live, but excellent in the studio. Can you imagine The Beatles doing Sgt Pepper live? Rufus does a pretty good job at “recreating the record” live, but many people on the RW bulletin board prefer live Rufus to studio Rufus. I think they are very close. The difference to me is the amount of time he has spent singing the song. This was clear with the new Bacharach songs where he never seemed to really get on top of the performance. His own voice and talent just kinda carried the day, but had he lived with it longer, it very well could have evolved into something extraordinary.

By: twarner

twarner — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:55:23 +0000

Very interesting. You zoom right in on the question at hand. “controversy” in the first sentence is probably the wrong. Reasonable people don’t disgree for reasonable reasons, but matters of taste and aesthetics. Can opinions be controversial? I always thought they couldn’t. Controversy also implies that one side will eventually be right or that there is at least a right side out there. RW’s strikes me as just a personal taste. Individial.

Also, tell me, is there a difference in sound between live and studio performances? Billy Joel, for example, records all this studio albums live, in that every song we have in MP3 is an actual live performance, even if its the best of hundreds he did. And, because of that, his concents bear a considerable similiarity to his albums. RW spends a lot of time putting together his songs. It’s not live in that respect and sounds that are produced in the studio cannot be reproduced on stage. So, it may be that his life performaces are less Rufus Wainwrightian than his albums and his voice may be more of a negative when not supported by all sorts of neat little tricks. In your little kdland story, for example, you could say, “Well, he’s not as good live. But, I’ll buy you one his albums.”

I look foward an autographed copy of your book.