a singer with rhythm problems

Alvin G

New member
Hi
I'm producing a singer with great performance and lyrics but when it comes to recording guitar and Vocals,
I find that he is lack of rhythm and timing, which means he don’t know when a bar is end or when is the 1.
That thing makes the post work very hard!

Any tips for working with that kind of artist?

Right now I'm telling him to work at his home on singing and playing
with a metronome with the tempo of the song, which is partially helps
but I wonder if there are other tips out there?

thank you
 
Make sure you're giving the singer the best chance by sending him a cue mix with a strong beat. Would it help to add a click track to the mix? If the problem is that the singer has potential but just isn't very good, he's going to have to practice to get better. That takes time. Does he understand the basics of rhythm, how to count a bar. Can you explain that to him and get him to practice it? Is he tapping his foot or putting his body into the rhythm as he sings? Can you get him to do it?

And maybe even more fundamentally--can he hear the problem? Can he hear the differences between a groovy performance and what he is doing? If not, you might want to move on.
 
On a song that I create, timing is getting the song structured. Cues to when am I doing straight verse, getting ready for a change to chorus or what ever. In order to hit it right, I have to give myself setups for the change. Drum, bass, something that alerts me to a change. And this is a song I created. If he has nothing to go on, then just counting, which wouldn't work for vocals as the singer is trying to remember lyrics, making sure he/she is ready for a pass, how to break up a word. I don't think it that simple.

Make sure you are providing him/her with everything they need to "get into" the song. Maybe the person who made the song has no groove. It isn't just about the beats per minute.
 
Interesting. In my opinion, there is nothing like a metronome to kill the sense of rhythm stone dead. But it is only an opinion. :)
 
Interesting. In my opinion, there is nothing like a metronome to kill the sense of rhythm stone dead. But it is only an opinion. :)

I would generally consider an inability to find the groove along with a click to be shortcoming in a musician (on par with not knowing the note names for example). That said, all theory is just guidelines, so no one's beholden to a click.

That said, if you're having timing problems, having a click is probably what he needs. If the song needs to have a looser tempo and change speed throughout, it might make sense to have someone with a good sense of timing click sticks (or something) along with a performance or two to get a click that matches the structure of the song.
 
If the song needs to have a looser tempo and change speed throughout, it might make sense to have someone with a good sense of timing click sticks (or something) along with a performance or two to get a click that matches the structure of the song.

For me, this is the issue -- the difference between "click" and "metronomic click". Very few songs (or perhaps few that I tend to listen to) are metronomic. At the sub-beat level, where the groove and style usually belong, the metronome is too crude a reference. At that point I would have to listen and "tango" with the music itself, with it's natural, subtle variations. That is where all the power of expression is, imo.

I was recently watching a vid of a singer training. She was told not to rush. Her teacher told her, "Don't worry. That particular phrase is difficult. The composer knows this, the conductor knows it and the orchestra knows it. They will "wait"! Take your time." So, there are also technical reasons, as well as artistic reasons, why a metronome is only a rough guide.

Beyond that, two different musicians/singers can find subtly different grooves that are each perfectly acceptable. Even the same singer on a different day may be subtly different, not because of randomness, but because of what the actual music is telling them on that particular day.

In fact, for me, a metronomic beat stands out and should be used sparingly for artistic effect.
 
i think he don't hear the problem at the moment of singing but do feel when he is off the click. the tapping thing is a good idea. thanks :)
(that is an answer to Robus)
 
Interesting. In my opinion, there is nothing like a metronome to kill the sense of rhythm stone dead. But it is only an opinion. :)

That is an old school method. i know some people believe that. i believe that in todays world to play or sing with a metronome is a strong ability which can help me as a producer to add more interesting instruments and ideas after, before or during the recording process. that make anything more flexible.
 
For me, this is the issue -- the difference between "click" and "metronomic click". Very few songs (or perhaps few that I tend to listen to) are metronomic. At the sub-beat level, where the groove and style usually belong, the metronome is too crude a reference. At that point I would have to listen and "tango" with the music itself, with it's natural, subtle variations. That is where all the power of expression is, imo.

I was recently watching a vid of a singer training. She was told not to rush. Her teacher told her, "Don't worry. That particular phrase is difficult. The composer knows this, the conductor knows it and the orchestra knows it. They will "wait"! Take your time." So, there are also technical reasons, as well as artistic reasons, why a metronome is only a rough guide.

Beyond that, two different musicians/singers can find subtly different grooves that are each perfectly acceptable. Even the same singer on a different day may be subtly different, not because of randomness, but because of what the actual music is telling them on that particular day.

In fact, for me, a metronomic beat stands out and should be used sparingly for artistic effect.

Interesting approach.
thanks
 
I smiled - today I am chopping up a performers track, and attempting to do exactly this - make it hit the beats - she's in front or behind with no rhyme or reason.
 
I agree that when a good singer attacks a song they can move their phrasing around the beat to create an interesting and exciting vocal track. Billie Holiday was a great exponent of singing behind the beat. But for a singer to do this, they need to know where the beat is in the first place. There is a big difference between artistic expression and rhythmic incompetence. The latter needs to be addressed first. Interpretation comes second. I've had to deal with singer-guitarists who drop or add bars and beats at random because their internal sense of rhythm has not been developed.
 
I agree that when a good singer attacks a song they can move their phrasing around the beat to create an interesting and exciting vocal track. Billie Holiday was a great exponent of singing behind the beat. But for a singer to do this, they need to know where the beat is in the first place. There is a big difference between artistic expression and rhythmic incompetence. The latter needs to be addressed first. Interpretation comes second. I've had to deal with singer-guitarists who drop or add bars and beats at random because their internal sense of rhythm has not been developed.

I've worked with a few people like that before.
One guy in particular was a solid guitarist and a very good singer.
When singing he'd always be exactly where he was meant to be but when playing the guitar he'd just drop/add beats left right and centre.
Once I just let him run for 3:30 to see what would happen and he drop beats so many times that he ended up being right for about 1/4 of the song, purely by chance.

I used to give him a placeholder simple drum beat instead of a click and sometimes I'd record myself playing a solid chord on beat one of each bar.
You can argue that I shouldn't have to do that, or the guy isn't good enough to record, but for him that meant the difference between a perfect take and a useless take.
 
I agree that when a good singer attacks a song they can move their phrasing around the beat to create an interesting and exciting vocal track. Billie Holiday was a great exponent of singing behind the beat. But for a singer to do this, they need to know where the beat is in the first place. There is a big difference between artistic expression and rhythmic incompetence. The latter needs to be addressed first. Interpretation comes second. I've had to deal with singer-guitarists who drop or add bars and beats at random because their internal sense of rhythm has not been developed.

This is exactly what I am talking about. (Sometimes, I get the impression that the engineer has created the effect, rather than the singer, but hey! ;) )

My thinking is that there are really two parts to this: hearing what the vocals should sound like relative to the music, then being able to reproduce it. A metronome can be an aid to the first part, but, once the singer has heard how the vocals relate to the instruments, he should cut out the metronome, imo, because at that point it becomes about the feel. If he uses or imagines a metronome at that point, it is likely to sound dead. He should be feeding off the instruments, and he should have learned the general flow from the feel.

In fact, I would say that not making the switch can lead to the the problems steenamaroo mentions. It would be like a motorist saying, hey, I've driven round that circuit so many times, give me a metronome and I can do it with my eyes shut. I know exactly when to steer and when to shift. Of course, the driver is going to end up upside down in a bush. The reality is that they have to learn to respond to the real mccoy, which is the road (or the instruments, in the case of the singer).
 
It would be like a motorist saying, hey, I've driven round that circuit so many times, give me a metronome and I can do it with my eyes shut. I know exactly when to steer and when to shift. Of course, the driver is going to end up upside down in a bush. The reality is that they have to learn to respond to the real mccoy, which is the road (or the instruments, in the case of the singer).

To continue the motoring analogy . . . a skilled driver, when driving round a circuit, will have a sense of how the cars is behaving (e.g. whether it has a tendency to understeer or oversteer), and a sense of how it is reacting to the road surface. They will know to steer early on this corner, but go wide on that corner . . . and so on. That's a skill that you develop through experience. There is little to be gained by that driver telling a new driver to do those things if the new driver can't yet drive the car in a straight line.
 
There is little to be gained by that driver telling a new driver to do those things if the new driver can't yet drive the car in a straight line.

Sure. But what role does the "metronome" play in getting the new driver to drive in a straight line? The metronome is just the fixed element, the approximation -- the steering wheel should be "centered". But our new driver is still going to end up in a bush.

What I am trying to say is that the new driver is not learning to "hear the metronome" (feel when the steering wheel is centered), but is using it as a tool to learn how the road feels and the car responds. He soon needs to forget completely about the "position of the steering wheel" and respond to the road, even when driving in a straight line.
 
Oops, I forgot to mention...

My advice would be to pick a suitable instrument and practise "singing" it alongside the vocals. Like so...

"...on the walkways of the magazine...bam bam b-bam b-bam b-she don't know the words...."

Sing through the pauses. If you are losing it during a phrase, drop some of the words and replace them by "singing" the part of your key instrument.

This helps you to "sight" an instrument and really feel how it relates. You can even try different instruments.

Once the groove is established you can mute the "additions" with ease.

Heaven help you if you are thinking --

"...on the walkways of the magazine...TICK........TICK.......HALF-TICK -she TICK don't know the words...."
 
The analogy isn't really working for me but I will say that my experience with people like this suggests that they just don't have a built in click or measure counter.
Either that or they struggle to concentrate on it whilst doing something else.

If you want a motoring analogy, take the trained driver and blindfold him and see how far he gets around a track he knows.
In that scenario the visual cues are our backing track and/or click.

In all seriousness, I'm pretty sure a lot of them could complete a familiar track, in the same way that I can play the bass part to whatever song you like on its own, observing whatever rests etc.
Doesn't really work either but whatever...lol

The idea of creative freedom may or may not work - I'm not big into any kind of racing but I'd assume that certain drivers have certain traits but also that there is a best/fastest way to complete any given course.
Those two ideas fight each other but regardless, creative liberties and personal touches in music are a totally separate conversation from rhythmic capability.

Willie Nelson never sang the right note at the right time once in his career, but I'm pretty sure he knows it too. ;)
 
Well there is more than one issue here. The OP wants the singer to sing on the beat which we all know is about as sterile as you can get and a good and or great singer is going to put swing or syncopation that fits with the emotion of the track, add to that the vocal is usually the feature meaning it is sung to music rather than the music to the singer. So training to sing to a metronome will only give the singer the opportunity to learn how to sing "in time". I say opportunity to learn as some people don't have a rhythmic sense and cant really learn it . Barring such a tragedy however, the newly on the beat singer will not necessarily now suddenly be able to perform a nuanced version where they are playing in, around , outside the pocket. My point is the OP can only guide the singer to learn more to become skilled at performing with whatever tools they can including many of the ideas mentioned by ya'll, but don't get your hopes up as the performer may not have the ability to achieve a good take even if they practice these measures.
 
From the OPs description, it sounds like a generic rigid on-the-beat performance would be just fine. :p
I don't mean that disrespectfully but if your client or friend is literally losing track of which beat is '1', getting any usable take is a win.
If you have a group of guys playing smoke on the water and one of them doesn't go "2-3-4", there's only so much you're going to get from him.

It's like teaching someone an instrument. You're not looking for expression and individuality at the start. You're looking for the right notes in the right order, with the right timing.
The rest may or may not develop in time, with that foundation in place.

Your guy obviously has some of the foundations in place but one is missing, so I think the best you can do is heavily supplement it and hope it's enough.
If it's worth anything, my guy was really easy going and invited me to literally conduct while he performed.
I was doing road traffic gestures and all sorts of shit, but we got there.
 
Man if it works I say go for it. get one of those flashing light things that you can adjust the speed of and point it where it will do the most good, some peeps will do best with visual clues. I like the idea of recording a track of just musical cues that wont be in the final mix, whether they are drum hits, synth stabs or the actual vocal performance played by an instrument to sing a copy of, if it helps get the performance , why not?
 
Back
Top