↓
 
Home » Rumer vs. Carpenter

Rumer vs. Carpenter

The New Neo Posted on by

On this recent thread about singing, commenter “Anne” mentioned a contemporary singer named Rumer and compared her to Karen Carpenter.

I’d never heard of Rumer, and so I went to YouTube (never need much urging to take a trip to YouTube, my favorite vice!), and listened. This is what I heard:

I certainly hear—something a bit similar. There’s the obvious fact that both Rumer and Carpenter specialize in languid tunes with a hint of melancholy. Both have a relaxed and easy unforced quality with a harmonic vibration in the lower registers.

But Rumer lacks that special quality I mentioned here—an immediately recognizable uniqueness. Carpenter’s voice has a richness and a resonance in the lower registers that is hers alone.

Simply put, Rumer is a viola, and Carpenter a cello:

Comments

Rumer vs. Carpenter — 19 Comments

  4. Rich and resonant.

    Yes, exactly.

    It was the resonance of Karen Carpenter’s voice that is both unmistakable and so remarkable.

    The deep tones, luxurious, seemingly effortless, and pitch perfect.

    As I wrote in the previous thread, it was the material she recorded that is held against her – it cannot be her voice or singing.

  5. Don’t get me wrong: I love the Carpenters. Karen’s voice is almost nonpareil. I’ve already mentioned (on the other thread) that I think “Only Yesterday” is the most beautiful love song.

    However, I suspect that much of the “resonance” or “richness” of Karen’s voice that people are noting is due to the expert use of overdubbing by Richard.

  7. I knew Karen and Richard through high school and college – even before they were discovered.

    Karen’s voice did have that very rich tenor timbre to it, even when speaking – no overdubbing needed (Some of their recordings did have her singing harmony with herself).

    A little tidbit that not a lot of people know is that Karen didn’t really care for singing. She preferred to “just be the drummer”.

  8. Rumer is good, and certainly reminiscent of Karen Carpenter. The difference is, I listened to the Rumer clip and thought it sounded nice. I listened to the Carpenter clip, and in five seconds had goosebumps on my arm.

  9. Saying that Karen Carpenter is too syrupy speaks to genre, not to the character of her voice; the overdubbing, something they learned from the work of Les Paul, is much the same thing. You could overdub me singing “We’ve Only Just Begun” and it would still sound like the anguished cry of a horse banshee, or Geddy Lee – take your pick.

    Carpenter’s voice has a richness in it that defies words. Is it in the overtones? Is it in the vibrato? Both? Neither? I don’t know. But when she sings, it seems as though you are immersed in the sound, instead of just hearing it. Martina McBride has that quality to her voice, as did Orbison.

  10. I would say that Carpenter’s voice just has far more “core” to it. Very likely due to much more of the overtones series being prevalent. It may be my ears, but Rumer seems to me to be a few cents low at time which does not allow her voice to project as much given the style. Some of this may be due to experience as well.
    My two cents so to speak. Loved the Viola vice Cello.

  11. I am the Anne who wrote the original comment comparing Rumer to Karen Carpenter. It’s very interesting to read all the different views, although I’m rather surprised to see the slightly critical comments about Rumer. I will admit perhaps my ears are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the difference in quality. While neither The Carpenters nor Rumer are really my kind of music, I think they both have beautiful voices and a rare talent.

  13. I think Rumer’s voice is not a phenomenon like Karen Carpenter’s. But I also think her style is very different — Rumer is cool, with a bit of an Astrud Gilberto instrument-like sound. I like listening to her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑