Was Whitney Houston Born 25 Years Too Early?

Whitney Houston deserves every bit of the praise and honor she got when she died young a year ago today. She's one of a small handful of the greatest vocalists in the 50-some years of modern pop music, and I think that's all the more remarkable considering she came of age in the absolute worst point for her particular talents.

Houston released her first album in March 1985, smack in the middle the most synthesizer-slathered period in pop music. The highest-selling albums of the previous 12 months were "Thriller," "Purple Rain," and "Like A Virgin;" even Bruce Springsteen broke out the synths on his album later that year. Houston (and her handlers) obviously weren't about to go against the prevailing winds.

The results are good songs, sung brilliantly. But on a song like "How Will I Know," her vocals don't come through as well as it feels like they should, and I blame the synths. It's most obvious on the chorus- her voice comes through plenty strong in the more spacious arrangements of the verses, but even her mountain-leveling pipes sound like they need to compete with the synth stabs that are carrying the instrumental hook.

Same sort of deal on "I Wanna Dance With Somebody" (released two years later). The arrangement gives the first three chorus lines plenty of room for her vocal power, but the addition of the synth hook on the final line doesn't sound like it's strengthening the power of the song so much as presenting another powerful sound that has to compete with Whitney's voice.

I can't help but conclude that, while Whitney can make a lot out of those songs, they're simply not an ideal fit for what she brings to the table. This is consistent with the fact that her two most lasting contributions to popular memory are the comparatively unadorned versions of "I Will Always Love You" and the national anthem. And, coming from the opposite direction, I think it's also consistent with the fact that plenty of popular and/or (in my opinion) great synth-pop doesn't involve strong vocalists. Britney Spears is a perfectly competent vocalist, but she's nowhere in Whitney's league. Yet when you listen to a song like "Oops I Did It Again," her thinner voice fits more naturally with the bed of synths than Whitney's belting, at least to my ears.

Or take Cut Copy's "Far Away", perhaps the best song on what I'd consider the best synth-pop album of the past decade. Like on the Houston songs, the core synthesizer melody sounds particularly full and powerful here, but Dan Whitford's vocal line projects a light tone that makes it sound less like a "lead vocal" than a polite, gentle countermelody under the driving synth hook.

I have at least two theories about why strong singers and synth-pop sometimes coexist awkwardly.
1. Basic acoustics. Synthesizers can fill up the frequency spectrum as or more easily than any "natural instruments," especially in an era like the mid-'80s where the production norm is to place them so prominently in the mix. There's just so much sound going on instrumentally that it's for the better if vocals come across in a somewhat secondary, subordinate role.

2. Our own preconceptions. We perceive vocals as an organic sound, and synthesizers as an inorganic, artificial sound. Which, perhaps subconsciously, makes it feel a bit unnatural for such powerful examples of both stacked on top of each other. This may make more sense when you think of the inverted version of the Houston example- it would almost undoubtedly sound odd to hear artificial, autotuned vocals over music based on naturally recorded piano or acoustic guitar.

Maybe it's one of those, maybe it's both, or maybe you might not even hear what I'm hearing anyways. The upshot, in any case, is this: Whitney's a deserved legend based in large part on music like the above. But if she was born 25 years later and came of age today, her pop template would be Adele rather than Madonna. I can't help but think the result might have been even better for her legacy.