Well, JayG's comment made me chuckle. This may sound strange, but I find it strangely comforting as an artist to hear that someone doesn't enjoy another artist who is so undeniably extraordinary to me. I mean, I got gooesbumps (actual, not figurative) hearing Idina sing "Learn to Live Without" and it sounds like some others would have rather heard a jackhammer in their kitchen. Proof that you just can't please everyone no matter how great you are. But, hey, to me, she was pretty "flawless"!
Audra McDonald is vocally flawless. Kelli O'Hara is vocally flawless. Idina Menzel is far from flawless, and that's OKAY. There is nothing wrong with that seeing as she's a pop/rock vocalist.
Your whole post is not a fact it's just your O P I N I O N. Just like it's my O P I N I O N that Idina is vocally flawless. But, that's OKAY because that's the way I feel about it. Regardless of what your O P I N I O N is.
I'd argue and tell anyone who thought Idina's voice is flawless to go and watch her performance at the Academy Awards.
That said, from what I've heard, she's improved since Wicked, definitely. (Does she still gasp for air every other word? I remember that being a problem during her Wicked days.)
Not all great singers are "vocally flawless" when it comes to technique. Merman certainly wasn't. Patti LuPone isn't. Bernadette Peters sure isn't.
No one would ever argue that those three ladies aren't great singers, I don't think. They do all have a very unique sound, which I think is part of their appeal.
While I can appreciate the technically proficient sound of someone like Audra or Kelli O'Hara, I do prefer singers with a more unique sound. It's all a matter of personal preference.
Please, no one is "flawless." Kelli had her flat moments during THE VIEW. But she is still amazing. Idina has a very unique sound. It is slightly polarizing, but for me, I'd rather have someone who may be slightly imperfect but have a lot of passion, a unique sound and characteristic.
"Life in theater is give and take...but you need to be ready to give more then you take..."
What first attracted me to the OBC of Wicked was the fact that Cheno and Idina's voices were so opposite, and I think that's why it worked so well (for me at least). I don't think you can really compare her voice to anyone's, which is pretty cool in itself. However, there is only so much I can take of it before craving to here someone like Kelli, Cheno, or Audra.
I'm not talking about sound or tone. I'm talking about technique. A "flawless" vocal performance refers to the musicality and execution of the song vocally. Not the 'sound' or emotion of it.
This argument always comes up and again, I find it rather amusing. Nothing is ever truly flawless or perfect, even merely technically speaking. But if we pretend for a moment technical perfection ALL THE TIME is a real thing, I don't see it's purpose in art. It's like a person who is physically beautiful and perfect looking in every way, but when you sit down with them on your first date, they have no personality and there's nothing for you two to talk about. That's pretty flawed for me!
Music is about expression and storytelling, and without that, it is grievously flawed, if you ask me. God virtually every singer who has made a significant mark in their time has had some very distinctive "flaws" that made them so special to begin with!
Yes, I COMPLETELY agree with you, BroadwayGirl. I think people just assume that any kind of criticism is an attack on Idina Menzel. Sorry. It's not. I am simply addressing the use of the word "flawless."
I finally got around to watching her performance on the TODAY show and...WOW she really sounds fantastic. Her belt is out of this world. She sounds much better than her Wicked days and she really looks comfortable and happy. I'm sure she is over the moon about all the success that has happened to her and I'm so happy for her.