studio108 said: "This may be an unpopular opinion and my apologies to any Meryl Streep fans in advance.Hervoice sounded the best it has in her career...impossibly so. Every other movie musical I've seen her in made me long for a stronger singer in the role. But not this time. Is it even possible at her age (71) to finally be coming into her own as a singer?
Here comes the unpopular part... and I have no proof of this, but it's the only thing that makes sense: has the technology of tuning and fattening vocalsjust gotten so good and so undetectable that it can turn a mediocre singer into a diva? That said, every performance for the past 25 years,recordedor filmed, has been fixed to some degree. Nicole Kidman's singing voice inMoulin Rouge owes a great deal to the technology,but at least you knew it was there. Meryl Streep's voice in this moviestruck me as a bituncanny. It's far better than it should be, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Then again, since she never has to sing live anyway, does it even matter?"
While there is surely some fine-tuning going on in the studio, there has to be a basis for it somewhere. If her vocals were as heavily altered as some people are implying, why wouldn't they do that for literally anyone else who comes across badly in movie musicals? Emma Watson was only a few years ago. I feel like every time Meryl has sung in a movie since Mamma Mia, the resounding sentiment seems to be "She sounds shockingly great." But how long can something continue to be surprising? People even have to cook up Donna Murphy conspiracy theories to explain why someone is a good singer (when Donna sounded nothing like Meryl in the role).
I'm not saying she could play DeeDee on stage with the same vocal consistency, but she is clearly a versatile vocalist. And she hasn't spent her entire career belting night after night, so her voice is likely better preserved than a lot of her Broadway contemporaries.