Vocals. How do they do that?

  • Thread starter Thread starter webstop
  • Start date Start date
I admit it!

crosstudio said:
<snip>

which artist in this world is going to admit to using autotune?

OK, I admit it. I just recorded a single with my band, and we used autotune. On one note. Our singer is an award winning jazz singer, and she's usually spot on. She blew one, highish note at the end of a long session and we didn't notice it until the next day. So, we fixed it.

We also fixed one bari sax note that was a bit flat at a crucial point in the song, and to get consistent tone we fixed that too.

For your amusement - I'm a bass singer, and wanted to check my tuning. On one note I got so low Autotune couldn't track it! Haha... And I was spot on on every note, which was nice.

It's a usefule money saving and time saving tool, used carefully (or as an effect I suppose) it has its place.

Ian
 
I saw Styx during their reunion tour a few years back, and I have to say that I was very impressed with their vocals. Still kickin' it after all those years.

I think the prize goes to REO Speedwagon though for overall live performance (IMHO). I saw them perform at a County fair here in Wisconsin (gotta be almost 10 years ago now). Anyway, I was amazed by the musicianship that was on that stage. Not only could those guys perform exactly what was on their albums, but they could also just jam some improv stuff like you wouldn't believe!

I don't limit good performances to 70s bands, because I was also impressed with Dream Theater when I saw them at Summerfest in Milwaukee. Granted, there were no back up vocals (like the albums), but the lead vocals were pretty darn good from what I remember...And other than the guitar being a little out of tune, the rest of the performance was amazing. I really didn't think they could pull off their music live! Excellent musicians, albeit their music has to be taken in moderation. ;)
 
I'm also not a fan of Autotune, in theory, but it's important to be realistic, too.

For instance, in this day and age, there's basically no such thing as a true "live" album.

Metallica put out a live album a little while ago. They could do it.

Filled with overdubs.

How did grammy's performances sound to you? I think U2 did pretty well.

Some of the instrumental parts were pre-recorded. I couldn't tell about the vocals, but I'm guessing Bono was totally live.

Now, I'm not saying these bands are shams, but this is reality. I'm pretty sure that U2 relies a lot on pre-recorded parts nowadays, but I also know that in their day, they were one of the best live bands in the world - no tricks.

The Who recently released a live album, The Blues to the Bush. Tons of overdubs. They also released a two-disc version of Live at Leeds. Roger went back into the studio to fix some of his vocals on that, too.

Want 100% natural? Get a bootleg. It's the only way.

IMO, the problem isn't just that bands can't do it live anymore. I think it's also the pressure that if they're going to release something, it had better be perfect. Long gone are the days when a major record label could release a record with a jacket that says "Crackling noises aren't the fault of your stereo!".

As much as people complain about "shitty pop music", blah blah etc etc, I think a part of the problem is that it's true that there aren't as many bands these days who can really give you a show live. Kids want a good show just as badly as we do, and the vast majority of today's "nu-metal" bands can't deliver.

I generally don't go and see current acts, for this reason. If I go and see the Who, Jethro Tull, Robert Plant, or whoever, I know what I'm going to get. A couple summers ago, I went to see the Who when they came to Michigan. The ticket cost me $80, but you know what? The show was brilliant, and it was worth every penny.

One of my favorite singing-related quotes is from Roger Daltrey: "Gimme a bum note and a bead of sweat anyday." You can't get away with that nowadays. You'll get laughed out of the record company's office and onto the street.

I'll echo what somebody earlier said about Robert Plant. Amazing live. Get a bootleg from early 1969, before he started to lose his voice, and... oh, wow. Dude could scream like a cat. And it's funny, but he's getting better with age. When Page/Plant toured in 1997/98 or thereabouts, he actually was in his best vocal form since about 1973. No joke. The No Quarter tour was kinda Jimmy Page's spotlight, but Walking Into Clarksdale was all Robert.

I know this board is highly anti-pop, but don't think that a kid can't sing just because he's good looking. You pay Peter Frampton and Paul McCartney that respect - give today's artists equal consideration. It took a long time for people to realize what good musicians Duran Duran were. And you know what? N'Sync are excellent vocalists. I wouldn't actually want to go to one of their concerts, but in the television performances I've seen, they didn't lip-sync. And their vocals were damn good, especially amazing when you consider that their dance moves are the most taxing I've seen since Michael Jackson's (who does lipsync a lot of his performances).

Christina Aguilera is a disappointment, though. For the reputation that she has as a stellar vocalist, I've noticed that she'll sing her live parts live, until the song gets to a difficult part. Then it's pre-recorded. I noticed this a few times in her "My Reflection" TV special. "I Turn To You" is the only example I can think of offhand, but there were a couple of others. When the song reaches a huge climax - just when a great vocalist should shine - the camera goes to her back, and suddenly the vocals sound like they're coming from somewhere else, exactly the same as on the record.

Same with her performance this year at the Grammies. In that song from Moulin Rouge, just before Christina sings her verse, she sings a "Hey, hey, heeee-e-e-ey" type thing, with a huge sweeping glissando. Brilliant. The only worthwhile part of the entire song. And in the performance, she didn't sing that part live. It was taped, and she started singing at the verse. I was disappointed beyond belief. "Today's best young vocalist" should be able to do better.
 
Which is why you shouldn't pay big dollars to see big acts. Just go see whoever plays their ass off locally. There's always someone in every town that's just as good as any major acts.
SUPPORT LOCAL MUSIC!!!!
 
Lt. Bob said:
Which is why you shouldn't pay big dollars to see big acts. Just go see whoever plays their ass off locally. There's always someone in every town that's just as good as any major acts.
SUPPORT LOCAL MUSIC!!!!

Touche'

You da man, Bob! ;)
 
2 cents

REO chuckwagon at the county fair - yep, that's about right

Regarding the Eagles "too perfect" live effort Hell Freezes Over - I agree that that is absolutlely on of the most wonderful live recordings ever, but as opposed to overdubs, the members attributed their stellar performance to the in-ear monitoring....
 
webstop said:
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.

Dude - I could do that to ANY song out there...in about 15 seconds. Get out your mic...play the mp3 in the background...growl some crap over it...and boom - you have the file you linked to.

If thats the naked truth I'm santa claus. In which case...where is my free gear??

Heh, I dont know Kirkorov, and from the sounds of his track i dont want to, but still I'll stick up for the guy
 
Great post, Eurythmic. So many of the so-called "live" albums we listen to are anything but. The classic example is *Alive!* by Kiss. Eddie Kramer says that, aside from the drums, virtually nothing on that album is live; the guys were so active on the stage that much of the time they weren't even near a mic for vocals.

On the other hand, Kramer says that LZ's *The Song Remains the Same* is almost completely live, particularly the vocals. Plant wouldn't be bothered to do any touching-up, because it was extra work. I'm not saying he was lazy, mind you; he just chose not to expend effort to make himself sound perfect.

So live recordings are a mixed bag. I always wonder how anything can be made of a live recording, since it seems to me that most shows I've attended the guitars are so piercing as to be unrecognizable. Maybe it's the venue, but I have gotten to the point where I hate super-loud music, especially guitar. Guess I'm gettin' old :rolleyes:.
 
wes480 said:


Dude - I could do that to ANY song out there...in about 15 seconds. Get out your mic...play the mp3 in the background...growl some crap over it...and boom - you have the file you linked to.

If thats the naked truth I'm santa claus. In which case...where is my free gear??

Heh, I dont know Kirkorov, and from the sounds of his track i dont want to, but still I'll stick up for the guy

As you said, you don't know the guy. He doesn't sing live.
Sorry, no freebies for you...
 
vocals

At somepoint.... this became a discussion about artists particular vocals... but the original question to me was how do they get the great vocals in the studio... i would like to re posit that question..

How can you make vocals sound as strong as possible? Are there programs? Plug ins? Great Mics to recommend?

Thank you...
 
CharlieLACA,

You've really got to read through all the posts. There were a lot of suggestions given....vocal comps, autotune, better headphone mix, etc.
I think the only way to get a strong performance on tape(HD) is to have a strong performance from the singer. I know, it's seems pretty obvious.

A lot of singers think they are better than they really are. And goddamn if they don't like the way they sound recorded. It must be the engineer's fault. "I don't sound that bad live. It must be eq. Can you fix that note?" Muthafukka! Shit, I'm ranting!

Anyways, the only thing that really matters is having a singer who can really sing. That being the first priority, just about any mic will do. I think Bjork uses an SM58 on her CDs. Regardless of what you may think of her or her music the vocal sound on her CDs is top notch.
 
Vocals train

Did Anyone notice Train on the grammy's this year? Monohan was awful...

I am a big fan of the Drops of Jupiter Album... Lyrically its kind of weak, but there are some great songs and great melodies there... and I saw them at the House of Blues on Sunset a week before that album came out and they rocked...

I think they are a great band but...at the Grammys they blew... Was it just me?
 
nobody has mentioned some GREAT bands.

1. Barenaked Ladies. INCREDIBLE live. Awesome vocals. Truely can doing anything live that they can on a record. IMHO - better live. Really good entertaining show. You will go away from that show a fan.

2. Living Colour. Always loved them. Got a live import cd from China INCREDIBLE. FINALLY saw them in 2001 when they re-united for some small shows. COMPLETELY AMAZING. Corey can sing anything and puts 150% into it. Amazing musicians all of them. Actually did a drum solo in the middle of the gig!

3. Sarah McLachlan. she can siiiinnnng!!! Just beautiful voice. talented band. Great live performance.
 
sorry - me again

And did everybody just laugh their arses off when you heard that Cher song for the first time .... you know ... then one that they tweaked her voice to do that tonal thing. I think it was "Do you believe in life after love". I'm glad that effect died quick.

I'm a firm believer in "If you can't do it live, don't do it". I hate hearing a million guitars in a song. There is just something about a 3 of 4 piece band jamming that is just the coolest. You can hear EVERY instrument. Nobody steps on anyone's toes. Good. Clean. Simple.

So I guess you can always clean up crap with technology. But if the vocalist is good, even if recorded like crap, the talent will make up for it. Heck, you can see a good vocalist on a home recorded camcorder tape and know that they rule, and get MORE of an experience from a lesser quality! Isn't that why bootlegs are so popular?

ok - that's all .. :)
 
singers

If you get a chance you should see a band called Ours live. The stuff he does on the album is absolutely amazing! And Jimmy Gnecco(vocals) pulls off every note and vabrato to a tee. Perfect for you Jeff Buckley fans out there. :cool:
 
Any branch of music that has periodic competitions, and/or
live shows will tend to produce the best popular singers.
Ever notice how many great soul and R & B singers came out of
the gospel church traditions? It ain't random!
It's surprising that more aspiring singers who really want to improve aren't a part of an acapella group of some kind.
Making a point of going 5 or 6 times a month to my vocal chapter
meetings has helped me be a better singer and mostly get over
stage fright. If it works for me, then it should work for most anyone. Plus it helps you understand what kind of voice you have,
and what type(s) of material it's best suited for.
No better way to gain confidence than by singing in front of other
singers. Talk about a tough audience!

P.S. Other than than justifed extenuating circumstances,
like illness or budget shortage-down with autotune!
 
Geddy Lee has been perfect every time I have seen rush. Jeff lynne was pretty good live when I saw ELO back in 1982 or so....I feel so old.
 
Back
Top