Jewel Sings Much Better Live Than On Record
Looking back at 2003, Jewel observed to Doug Elfman of The Las Vegas Review Journal that she devoted only six weeks to writing and mixing her big pop album, ‘0304,’ with its hit single, ‘Intuition.’ “I don’t even try to sing great in the studio. It doesn’t inspire me at all. When I’m live, and there’s an audience, I sing 50 times better than on the record. I don’t know, I’ve never felt like a show-off in the studio,” she says and chuckles. “It’s like a means to an end.” The story at reviewjournal.com has since been removed.
Related News
9 thoughts on “Jewel Sings Much Better Live Than On Record”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Sounds the same to me! all in all, she still doesn’t have a good voice live or in the studio.
No, but she is a very good artist.
you mean songwriter…an artist has everything down…she doesn’t have vocals down
Well, she sings OK, has very meaningful lyrics usually, and plays guitar.
yeah but extraordinary talent is what makes an artist…she’s a good entertainer.
^^^ WTF, amusicfanofsoul??? I’m not a big Jewel fan, but your little “you-gotta-have-a-great-voice-to-be-an-artist-otherwise-you’re-just-an-entertainer” theory is bull-sh|t. You’re right, to an extent, in saying that you *do* have to have an extraordinary talent — but that talent could be singing, writing, painting… The list goes on. So, what… are you trying to say that John Lennon and Bob Dylan aren’t artists because they don’t have strong singing voices and dancing skills? Is Michaelangelo not an artist because he couldn’t bust a tune on demand? Think.
Oh, and Jimi Hendrix must just be some “silly ole’ guitar player” — definitely not an artist — because we all know he didn’t have Whitney’s pipes.
so if Britney learned to play the guitar and wrote songs…would you consider her an artist?
but you have to have some talent to get you somewhere…to show that you didn’t get there with nothing.
Nice try, but I never said Britney was an artist. But, since you mentioned it… If she came out with some good, thought-provoking songs then YES, I would consider her an artist — no matter what her voice sounds like. The same goes for Christina… She can sing till she busts a lung, and claim to be “real” ’till the cows come home but until she comes out with something other than re-hashed, derivative, been-there-done-that crap, her music will be nothing more than enjoyable FLUFF to me. But that’s fine. Everyone has a different opinion on what an artist is. What truly makes someone an “artist” anyways? I think you should just like whatever music you choose to, and appreciate that particular musician for their particular talents — and there is a broad spectrum of talents. When you try to define artistry, it is no longer artistry. There *is* no clear-cut definition of an artist, or what they should be. Sorry that was long, but do you understand what I’m trying to say?