For me it’s “JUUUUUUUST”

Jonathan Mays very well said. Some of the greatest music ever was 50s-70s when these singers were at their peak.

True, mostly. But something serious needs to be clarified: Liza Minnelli shouts. Judy Garland *sings*.

Jonathan Mays...finally! You have unlocked what separates Judy Garland from EVERY other singer. Thank you!

Well expressed. I feel similarly with Sinatra, Brel, Holliday & Piaf.

very very well said mr. mays!!!

hardly.....since 95% of Judy's audience were gay men....

@@jadezee6316 That is a load of sh** in the fifties most of the audience, like me were with their partners, of the opposite sex. I was there with my girl, who is now my wife of nearly 70 years!

Frank will never be forgotten either.

That's because Frank felt the emotion too. It's who can sing with emotion and feeling-not just "belting it out."

Wow very deep

i bet she did.

It’s the number one comment on her efforts as posted here. The woman had a gift and it was exploited at every age of her too short life. I danced, it’s a different realm, but I get it. I identify with her gift and have reverence for her ability to “meet her match” year after year after year.

And I bet he did too -- or at least often.

Bravo!!

Nice list, but, Ella may be the only one who comes closest to belonging on that list. There's no one who can finish a song like Judy. Absolutely no one.

Terry Smith Yep.

One can only dream. And oh, what a dream.

Yes just imagine being there and hearing her sing

At her worst, she was superior to just about anybody.

This isnt her peak

She was actually already quite sick at this point in her life. She was just the ultimate entertainer and could cover it all up and hide her pain to give the most amazing performance.

She was ok.

Purely the greatest vocal talent of the 20th century. Her control, power, and delivery have not been matched. She could take a worn out old song and have you mesmerized by it. 0:03

Actually no. She needed composers to write melodies and lyrics to wrote words that were compelling for her to sing like this.

@@kevinwilson3609 How to miss the point 101

@@kevinwilson3609 I mean she co-wrote Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas but whatever you say...She definitely didn't need anyone to write things for her, and they're right, she could sing lines of code and sound incredible.

@@lapetitepapillon9101I do not believe anyone would actually listen to her sing a phonebook. And its insulting to all the talented people who wrote her songs to suggest otherwise, as of their contributions are meaningless

@@briannab4037 Indeed!!

***** Thank you Drew, and from what I'm learning about her now, you're too right, sadly. However, I watched a documentary made by her daughter, Lorna Luft, last night, and it seems, that Judy and her 3 children had a wonderful close knit life together, and I don't feel it was all doom and gloom. We just don't seem to have true ARTISTS, like her any more though, and anybody is a "star" these days. How fantastic that we have YT now, and can look back on Judy's life, and her huge body of works, and what a legacy she leaves behind her. I've adored learning about her, and what a witty LADY! x

***** Dearest Drew, I cannot thank you enough for this kind information on Judy, I'll look into it. Also, thank you so very much for the Berlin info. That's been fascinating to learn about! I now love this era too, and understand it so much more. I'm sorry in the delay in getting back to you, but I've got a long term illness, fibromyalgia, that leaves me in chronic pain etc. With my fondest best wishes to you, always.

Catherine Blair that's one of the keys for singing a song--it has to come from within--and she knew how to do it consistently---people feel it instinctively.

Catherine Blair that's one of the keys for singing a song--it has to come from within--and she knew how to do it consistently---people feel it instinctively.

+Catherine Blair Hey Catherine I've waited so long to respond to "Judy does not act, she feels". Obviously we both love Judy so much and my intent is not to argue. However she IS acting while singing this song. I say that with the utmost respect to Judy as a professional performer. Her head movements, eye movements impeccably timed with the words IS a performance. She was not always happy to be on stage, but her unmatched dedication to her job and her unbelievable discipline insured every song was the best she could give to her audience. I read once before going on stage she would say "fuck em, fuck em, fuck em", yet that is not what the world saw. She surely felt music deeply and her interpretations of songs are magic, but she was a performer above all else whether singing or acting, whether she wanted to be on or not. So. Yes her acting skills are on as much display for this televised taping as her singing talent. In fact, although I believe she is the most talented vocalist the world has known, her acting skills exceed even that. In conclusion - Judy Garland, in my opinion, is the greatest entertainment talent the world has has ever seen.

If anyone has never seen her in "A Star Is Born" with James Mason, it's one of the greatest performances ever on film. It will literally rip your heart out your chest. What she goes through as she watches James Mason's character destroy himself is some of the most moving acting ever.

Debbie Wileman comes damn close. She channels Judy, check out her channel.

@@threesharpsa7302 Agreed. And another one worthy of mention is her Oscar-nominated turn in "Judgment at Nuremburg" (1961). She doesn't sing a note, but her performance is riveting.

Yes!

Wow well spoken yes

Now 60 years ago and still so true.

I never considered that

That is so nice to know. To have Judy as your muse is surely to have Heaven on your side. BTW, The music score to "Oliver" stands out in my mind as one of the very best ever.

I know it gives me chills every single time

I adore Judy but shani Wallis did it better 🤷‍♀️

You are so right. Her show was great; short-sighted management at CBS gave up on her simply because the show didn't hit number one in viewership immediately upon its debut.

Raymond Farrish ...True indeed. But there was more going-on with her show than people today realize (or people who are interested in such matters.). Very complex cock-up by CBS. Judy's weekly show was created to compete specifically with Bonanza, the popular Western serial, Sunday-night program that EVERYONE in America loved, and enjoyed watching after their rough work weeks in suburban, post-war USA. Understandable. Judy's first TV show that was pitted against Bonanza blew the Bonanza out of the water. Beat them hard in ratings. But that was because seeing Judy Garland on TV was an "event" and people gave-up their comfy Bonanza schedule to watch her. But she wasn't a good weekly "battler" with Bonanza. Too completely different ideas and needs of American viewers. Hear a legend pour her heart out in song every Sunday night ... or enjoy the root-em, toot-em fellas at the Ponderosa ranch. Much easier on the working American psyche. At best, what CBS should have done was put Judy's show on another night, and then maybe a few, select times a year pitted her show against Bonanza with extra-extra special concert shows (Sinatra, Dean Martin, maybe Elvis ... who wanted $70,000 to go on Judy's show. They refused.) Or, her handlers should have secured for her a deal wherein she did maybe four "seasonal specials" a year. (Judy at Easter, Judy on the Fourth of July, Judy at Labor Day, Judy at Christmas.) Big production and big money for Judy. A million bucks for each show, and have them every year. It would have become an American fixture, I believe. Her "specials" crushed all the competition. Her weekly program could have been a huge success with a little tweaking by CBS, on another night, but her real power was in special "event-type" programs. Watching a powerful, intense personality like Judy Garland every Sunday night was too much for the casual viewer at the end of their work-week. But the show could still have been easily turned into a ratings success on another night.

"Sear the soul". What a brilliant description. That is precisely what she does.

Thank You, Sue. I think essays out before I write them.

amen 🙏🏼

I AM crying!

She’s definitely acting. I see a moment where she finishes a big note, and she has a big twinkle in her eye, very pleased with herself. Then, the next instant, she’s back into the character. Brilliant.

yes!!! the way they were able to tell stories through lyrics and vocals was something very rare

j music and covers Agreed! It was effortless for Judy and effortless for Whitney. They just had a God given talent

One of the best assessments of her unique talent I have run-across. Well done and well intuited, CS Zimmerman.

Well said . Was listening to Eydie Gorme when this came up . Watching Ms. Garland as I listen evokes many emotions , more than any other ever has .

Beautiful words, thank you.

That’s a fine compliment, but perhaps the portion of her work you feel is “overestimated” occurred after 1965. For someone who seems eager to critique great voices, I’d challenge you to analyze her massive Decca/MGM 1940s catalogue, her mid-late 1950s/early 1960s Capitol studio work (and Carnegie Hall, which stands on its own). After the 1950s it was nearly impossible to get Garland into a recording studio. Capitol Records even complained about it after ‘Judy at Carnegie Hall’ won 5 Grammys, went double platinum, etc. Judy didn’t like studios anymore, after that. So you ought to “estimate” her work as it was captured in plentiful, notated, controlled environments (mentioned above). Seriously, one of the stupidest statements anyone could make within a context of historicity is that Judy Garland’s “work” (as an entirety) is “overestimated”. Some of her later-in-life squawkings are too highly praised, certainly, but to say that the bulk of her recorded and filmed work, as an entirety, is “overestimated” removes anyone from an objective historical discussion about her contributions.

@@jonathankieranwriter Y'all sound nutty. Read my comment again. Then review your non sequitur hysterical response.

@@TombCat LOL I am a Garland "nut" and you can see how up in arms her rabid supporters get with such a statement. If you have time or care to listen to her very early as far back as when she was 12! Judy is otherworldly and you have no idea how she can be that good.Then keep discovering her work through the decades at MGM then the 50s and of course 1961 Carnegie Hall live. If you then go late in her life the greatest of her voice diminished but she replaces it with unparalleled stage presence. Maybe she is overestimated because you heard her late in her life. Believe me at her best and peak Judy had no peer.Only Streisand, Piaf Ella can give her a run for her money but DO NOT surpass her

@@markwhitman9029 I couldn’t have said it better myself.

​@@TombCatthey are nutty beyond reason....I was a member of the church of Judy but couldn't stand the uncritical hysterics anymore 😆...only other diva fanbase ( more of a cult) that comes close is Streisand's...beware of both..they bite and hit you with their rythm stick

Great! But, why "like?" Why not ACTUALLY???

yes, that part is spectacular isn't it ? she doesn't quite manage it every time when she sings this, but when she is at her peak like in this clip it always, always takes my breath away ...

Too true...

Well said. : )

Sotr Cleaner how do you not see that she is probably the first original diva. She owns this in such a feminine and powerful way. She is totally a diva.

Agree Judy was not a diva thank god. To me a diva puts herself on a pedestal but judy never did that, quite the opposite. There is no ego in her work. She's not getting off on her undoubted vocal virtuosity.