Buck62
噛んでくれ
Then how would you explain Lou Reed?
Then how would you explain Lou Reed?
Paul881
Look Mom, I can play!
Well Buck, there's an exception to every rule
Personally, for me some of the stuff that came out of the 70's was truly mind-blowing (literally!!!!
)
No record company will take similar bands and muso's onto the books now. Its all commercial crap.
In the UK we have a Saturday night show called pop idol that is mega big, in all the papers (tabloids) every day. And my kids can't understand why I don't dig it.
Oh well, at least I have my album collection!
Personally, for me some of the stuff that came out of the 70's was truly mind-blowing (literally!!!!
)No record company will take similar bands and muso's onto the books now. Its all commercial crap.
In the UK we have a Saturday night show called pop idol that is mega big, in all the papers (tabloids) every day. And my kids can't understand why I don't dig it.
Oh well, at least I have my album collection!
L
langleyt
New member
It's sad, but true. That guy in SugarRay, what's his name, has a nice voice until you see them live. Actually, I saw them live on tv, but his singing was so out of tune I was embarrassed for him. And even though Aerosmith is my all time favorite band, Steven Tyler (my hero) leaves much to be desired when his vocals live verses his vocals in the studio.
You know it's like the problem we women face all the time. (female problems) But, you see all these impossibly thin, perfect, beautiful women. And no matter how hard you try, you just can't get that kind of perfection. And in reality they can't either.
Is it live or is it Memorex?
t
You know it's like the problem we women face all the time.
(female problems) But, you see all these impossibly thin, perfect, beautiful women. And no matter how hard you try, you just can't get that kind of perfection. And in reality they can't either.Is it live or is it Memorex?
t
C
ColdAsh
New member
Since we're all putting in a vote for our favourite singing i think Jeff Buckley should get a mention, may he sret in piece. I never got to see him live but i've seen videos and his live stuff lives up to the expectations of his CD stuff. And in my opinion i havent heard many better singers than him with such a huge vocal range (may be Freddy Murcuy)
C
ColdAsh
New member
Oh yeah. Watch out guys, i think you're showing your age!
A
apush
New member
My 2 bits
As a singer myself I thought I'd add to the topic. Getting it perfect in the studio just takes time and patience. For me, I know within the first ten minutes of tracking if I'm going to be pitch-perfect or just wasting the engineer's time (and my money). And if I'm going to suck we call it a day and re-schedule. Nothing sounds better than getting that perfect take. Even if it takes a month to squeeze out. In the past we did a lot of cut-and-paste. IMO you can hear the difference. And it fails to give an honest delivery of emotion to the song.
As far as live performance goes...it depends on the singer and the situation. I've seen Tool 3 times, Maynard was always perfect. The first time I saw A Perfect Circle, Maynard was god awful. Flat all over the place. The next time I saw them he was better. I think it's got to with how much you practice and HOW you practice.
I used to record (video) every practice and show to see where my problem spots were. If I always sang flat on a certain part, I'd try to sing sharp at that point the next time. Hopefully fixing it. I'd just try to get some percpective and really pick my performance apart until I got it right.
As a singer myself I thought I'd add to the topic. Getting it perfect in the studio just takes time and patience. For me, I know within the first ten minutes of tracking if I'm going to be pitch-perfect or just wasting the engineer's time (and my money). And if I'm going to suck we call it a day and re-schedule. Nothing sounds better than getting that perfect take. Even if it takes a month to squeeze out. In the past we did a lot of cut-and-paste. IMO you can hear the difference. And it fails to give an honest delivery of emotion to the song.
As far as live performance goes...it depends on the singer and the situation. I've seen Tool 3 times, Maynard was always perfect. The first time I saw A Perfect Circle, Maynard was god awful. Flat all over the place. The next time I saw them he was better. I think it's got to with how much you practice and HOW you practice.
I used to record (video) every practice and show to see where my problem spots were. If I always sang flat on a certain part, I'd try to sing sharp at that point the next time. Hopefully fixing it. I'd just try to get some percpective and really pick my performance apart until I got it right.
B
blackbuck
New member
Picking on an artist because of a particular performance isn't very fair. I saw no doubt twice, and both times they were superb. THough other people I know have seen them also, and it seemed like they had a bad night or something. People have on and off days, especially when singing every single night for months on end.
Blink and Sum are exceptions. They seem very processed, and honestly live I've always heard that they sucked. Which is wierd for me with "punk" bands, I mean the vocals arn't supposed to be perfect, and PR ussually is about the energy of the show. Anyway, that's mostly because they are every bit as commercial as britnay.
Blink and Sum are exceptions. They seem very processed, and honestly live I've always heard that they sucked. Which is wierd for me with "punk" bands, I mean the vocals arn't supposed to be perfect, and PR ussually is about the energy of the show. Anyway, that's mostly because they are every bit as commercial as britnay.
O
old guy
New member
wow...magic!!!
Apart from all the magic studio gear available, you might be dissapointed to learn that some ugly tricks are used on-stage too. About 10 years ago we were invited to visit a pretty well known acappella quartet (no names but rhymes with pile-ons). Anyhoo...it was at their rehearsal, that we discovered they used a DAT feed of their entire set list, so if for any reason one singer or another was a bit off that night, their soundman could bring up the DAT to the front ends and only the soundman and "Mr. Lipsync" would know the truth. Kinda disheartening ain't it, but it goes on a lot. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Having said that....Yes there are some actual dynamic performers out there, like the Eagles, whose live vocals are really incredible.
My favourite vocalist: Lucinda Williams.
Apart from all the magic studio gear available, you might be dissapointed to learn that some ugly tricks are used on-stage too. About 10 years ago we were invited to visit a pretty well known acappella quartet (no names but rhymes with pile-ons). Anyhoo...it was at their rehearsal, that we discovered they used a DAT feed of their entire set list, so if for any reason one singer or another was a bit off that night, their soundman could bring up the DAT to the front ends and only the soundman and "Mr. Lipsync" would know the truth. Kinda disheartening ain't it, but it goes on a lot. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Having said that....Yes there are some actual dynamic performers out there, like the Eagles, whose live vocals are really incredible.
My favourite vocalist: Lucinda Williams.
W
webstop
New member
Old Guy,
Since you brought this up, here is one for laughs.
Russian mega-platinum top pop singer Kirkorov is lip-synching almost all the time. Here is an interesting mp3 file of how he really sings live. It was obviously recorded through his mic and you can hear actual recording playing. You will not understand the words, but that does not really matter. It is still very funny. The truth is as naked as can be.
This webserver does not allow direct linking to mp3 file, therefore please go this webpage http://www.angelfire.com/va/samarvvv/ and click on "PRIKOL v MP3 - (by Kirkorov on the live concert !!!!!)" link at the bottom right. Enjoy.
Since you brought this up, here is one for laughs.
Russian mega-platinum top pop singer Kirkorov is lip-synching almost all the time. Here is an interesting mp3 file of how he really sings live. It was obviously recorded through his mic and you can hear actual recording playing. You will not understand the words, but that does not really matter. It is still very funny. The truth is as naked as can be.
This webserver does not allow direct linking to mp3 file, therefore please go this webpage http://www.angelfire.com/va/samarvvv/ and click on "PRIKOL v MP3 - (by Kirkorov on the live concert !!!!!)" link at the bottom right. Enjoy.
Last edited:
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
You cant underestimate the power of a good monitor system and monitor engineer. A good monitor engineer has to please 5 different people at the same time with 5 seperate mixes.
Ever notice how bands on some TV shows almost always suck? The old Letterman show almost all bands sounded like crap. The room can play a big part of that too.
Of course comparing some new flavor of the month to a trained 20yr veteran performer isnt fair either.
As for good live performers:
Sara Mclachlin is awesome live.
Ever notice how bands on some TV shows almost always suck? The old Letterman show almost all bands sounded like crap. The room can play a big part of that too.
Of course comparing some new flavor of the month to a trained 20yr veteran performer isnt fair either.
As for good live performers:
Sara Mclachlin is awesome live.
S
synergy
New member
No one has mentioned Dave Matthews Band? They have a alot of live albums.
C
chessrock
Banned
Back to the original subject . . .
The ability to edit, punch-in, and auto-tune in the studio all go without saying.
But a few things I think we have overlooked:
1) Monitor mix. Rarely are they "ideal." If every singer could hear themselves perfectly through the monitors, and with a perfect blend of all instruments behind them at all times, you would notice a drastic improvement in all live vocals.
2) Road wear. Only the best-trained vocalists (Ian Gillan for example) understand how to employ the kinds of breathing techniques necessary for voice-preservation over a multiple-date tour. The average singer's voice is bound to get tired at some point.
The ability to edit, punch-in, and auto-tune in the studio all go without saying.
But a few things I think we have overlooked:
1) Monitor mix. Rarely are they "ideal." If every singer could hear themselves perfectly through the monitors, and with a perfect blend of all instruments behind them at all times, you would notice a drastic improvement in all live vocals.
2) Road wear. Only the best-trained vocalists (Ian Gillan for example) understand how to employ the kinds of breathing techniques necessary for voice-preservation over a multiple-date tour. The average singer's voice is bound to get tired at some point.
L
langleyt
New member
Two very good points chessrock, especially #1. I have seen professional people cup their ear while performing and you know they can't hear. Then you think, I bet that Soundman is gonna get his ear full later.
t
t
nessbass
New member
Buck62 said:
Then how would you explain Lou Reed?
But wait, what about Bob Dylan? Now that guy has got some ugly vocal chords!!
D
drewcifer
New member
eagles vocals
I'm a huge Eagles Fan, and If memory serves, vocal overdubs, at least on backing vocals, were done for the original Live Album. As for Hell Freezes Over, I would wager that the backing vocals were overdubbed as well, because they are too perfect.
I'm a huge Eagles Fan, and If memory serves, vocal overdubs, at least on backing vocals, were done for the original Live Album. As for Hell Freezes Over, I would wager that the backing vocals were overdubbed as well, because they are too perfect.
C
crgman
New member
Amen to everything said here! There is no respect for good musicianship any more. The 10 best vocalists live I have ever seen are:
1) Kurt Elling - jazz soloist, he is perfect on stage
2) Jon Anderson - YES
3) Trevor Rabin - his YES days, he was awesome
4) Phil Collins
5) Sting
6) The Everly Brothers
7) All singers in the Trans-Siberian Orchestra
8) Dennis DeYoung and Tommy Shaw from STYX
9) Steve Perry - Journey
10) New York Voices (all 4, but mainly Darmon Meader - That cat can scat!)
And many of these I actually only saw after their hayday's. OK- so there are more than 10 there!
-c
1) Kurt Elling - jazz soloist, he is perfect on stage
2) Jon Anderson - YES
3) Trevor Rabin - his YES days, he was awesome
4) Phil Collins
5) Sting
6) The Everly Brothers
7) All singers in the Trans-Siberian Orchestra
8) Dennis DeYoung and Tommy Shaw from STYX
9) Steve Perry - Journey
10) New York Voices (all 4, but mainly Darmon Meader - That cat can scat!)
And many of these I actually only saw after their hayday's. OK- so there are more than 10 there!
-c
W
webstop
New member
Nobody mentioned Eric Clapton's Unplugged session.
R
RBB
New member
what is *good* singing, anyway?
Interesting thread.
I'm glad that Kirk Cobain, Dave Matthews, Lou Reed, and Bob Dylan have all been brought up, because therein lies a distinction. Personally, I like works by all of these guys, but would not call any of them great singers in the classical or trained sense. However, I like all of their styles. Their singing is as much a part of the success of their sound as any of their playing. Singing flat or sharp or even so far out of the ballpark it's a stretch to call it singing works sometimes, especially in rock and roll. Not that we always hear these guys completely dry, but much of what conservatives or traditionalists may call "bad singing" is left in the finished product. Granted this usually doesn't have "mass" appeal needed by business to make back their millions invested in the product.
So, I'll go out on a limb, and say that most of us seem to agree that it's not really the "good" or "bad" singing that is irritating, it's the correction process that is used to dupe consumers. A lot of Pop music has been manufactured to match good looks or style with a "clean" sound. I guess it's just easier to fix the sound than fix someone's looks.
I don't think that singers got worse after the 70s or the musicianship has fallen off, but appearance became MUCH more important in the 80s when marketing music. For this reason, they began to manufacture music for looks, not the other way around. There are still great musicians out there and there are also a lot of great unpolished bands putting out albums as well, but you won't see them at the top of the charts or on TV if they don't look good (exceptions occur), mainly because they don't get the bankroll they need to produce chart topping results. We all know that you can be great, but you can't get a #1 without a lot of money and support, usually provided by major labels. Especially now when radio is all but an in house marketing arm of the labels.
But as to why things sound different live, I think that most of the reasons have been pointed out. As far as performances go, the difference in what you hear, mostly from the monitors, can make a huge difference. I'm sure many here have played shows where you just went off pure memorization because you couldn't hear anything else.
Interesting thread.
I'm glad that Kirk Cobain, Dave Matthews, Lou Reed, and Bob Dylan have all been brought up, because therein lies a distinction. Personally, I like works by all of these guys, but would not call any of them great singers in the classical or trained sense. However, I like all of their styles. Their singing is as much a part of the success of their sound as any of their playing. Singing flat or sharp or even so far out of the ballpark it's a stretch to call it singing works sometimes, especially in rock and roll. Not that we always hear these guys completely dry, but much of what conservatives or traditionalists may call "bad singing" is left in the finished product. Granted this usually doesn't have "mass" appeal needed by business to make back their millions invested in the product.
So, I'll go out on a limb, and say that most of us seem to agree that it's not really the "good" or "bad" singing that is irritating, it's the correction process that is used to dupe consumers. A lot of Pop music has been manufactured to match good looks or style with a "clean" sound. I guess it's just easier to fix the sound than fix someone's looks.
I don't think that singers got worse after the 70s or the musicianship has fallen off, but appearance became MUCH more important in the 80s when marketing music. For this reason, they began to manufacture music for looks, not the other way around. There are still great musicians out there and there are also a lot of great unpolished bands putting out albums as well, but you won't see them at the top of the charts or on TV if they don't look good (exceptions occur), mainly because they don't get the bankroll they need to produce chart topping results. We all know that you can be great, but you can't get a #1 without a lot of money and support, usually provided by major labels. Especially now when radio is all but an in house marketing arm of the labels.
But as to why things sound different live, I think that most of the reasons have been pointed out. As far as performances go, the difference in what you hear, mostly from the monitors, can make a huge difference. I'm sure many here have played shows where you just went off pure memorization because you couldn't hear anything else.
Aaron Cheney
Favorite Chord: C 6/9
I must agree.
Very well put.
I don't think talented people stopped being born after the '70's. There are still wonderfully talented musicians everywhere, you just have to look closer to discern them.
It's so easy to forget that stereo recordings and multi-tracking were still relatively new things 30-40 years ago. Artists were often limited in their options for overdubs, signal processing, etc. Engineers had only had a decade or two to figure things out.
Now, we all have the benefit of 30 extra years of experience and technological advances in multi-track recording. We have the luxury of a zillion overdubs and all the signal processing power we could ever ask for. We have the ability to rebuild him....to make the world's first bionic man.
That is... to make every recorded performance a perfect performance. How can a human ever duplicate that live?
The way I see it, the problem isn't less than perfect live perfomances, it's recordings that are unbelievably, unhumanly perfect.
And as long as we're naming names, how about Tom Petty?
Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
Very well put.
I don't think talented people stopped being born after the '70's. There are still wonderfully talented musicians everywhere, you just have to look closer to discern them.
It's so easy to forget that stereo recordings and multi-tracking were still relatively new things 30-40 years ago. Artists were often limited in their options for overdubs, signal processing, etc. Engineers had only had a decade or two to figure things out.
Now, we all have the benefit of 30 extra years of experience and technological advances in multi-track recording. We have the luxury of a zillion overdubs and all the signal processing power we could ever ask for. We have the ability to rebuild him....to make the world's first bionic man.
That is... to make every recorded performance a perfect performance. How can a human ever duplicate that live?
The way I see it, the problem isn't less than perfect live perfomances, it's recordings that are unbelievably, unhumanly perfect.
And as long as we're naming names, how about Tom Petty?
Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
jgourd
New member
Mel (Velvet Fog) Torme is great but check out some of the later digital recordings of Joe Williams, one of the Jazz / Blues greats.