GEtting a full, lush, background vocal sound live

[dmunsie]

Ok, I've learned alot from this forum but I need to make sure this is the way to do it...correctly.

 

In my band there are 4 background singers. I want to get that full lush, background vocal sound, similar to the classic sound of "Journey" in songs like "Anytime, Feeling That Way", etc.

 

What I want to do is process each background voice and have the following on each voice:

 

Octave Up, Octave Down, Chorus, Reverb

 

At first I thought I could just add an fx processor and use it as fx send/return, but after talking with a few people, they recommend I get a seperate fx box for each singer and use it as inserts on each channel.

 

Which method do you think I should go with? 4 Lexicon fx units is still under a grand so it's not that bad financially, but I would prefer to use one unit in a send/return mode if possible.

[Unalaska]

that's a really bad idea. How about you all learn to sing.

 

Then: use a pitch shifter set to unison (usually they'll be like +/- 6 cents off from the pitch). It's kind of a chorus type effect but not so outragous as using an octave effect. I remember playing with a Digitech S100 and getting a cool sound doing this for a studio recording. Really centers the vocal line. For live though, it might be worth a play. Start with good singing though..

p

[tlbonehead]

that sounds like a horrible mess. Add a little reverb and delay and just sing the parts correctly.

[dmunsie]

uh...thanks for the excellent comments.

[alcohol]

I really like dry vocals. They are so 'in your face.' Less chance of feedback too.

[Rbts]

Hmmm... everybody thinks it will be a disaster....and they are probably right. The point is perhaps that no amount of processing will make singing that doesn't sound good --- sound GOOD---- so you need to be on it first.

 

But you could try what you are talking about by buying ONE of the units, and trying it as a group effect and try it as a single channel effect (as an insert) and see which is closer to what you want.

 

I suspect that such background parts may well be more enhanced than regular sing alongs, and I suspect that a single effects unit used as a group effect for the background vocals would work well.

 

But, and here is the rub... you have to be nailing the singing... weekly pracitice at low volumes, focusing on just the harmony parts, over and over again.

 

EVERYBODY ALWAYS SAYS LESS IS MORE ON VOCAL EFFECTS.... another huge risk of increasing the amount of reverbs and such is that it is often a way to get some GOD AWFUL feedback loops started too, so try it in in a live setting (with no audience present) first.

[Nobody Told Me]

 

uh...thanks for the excellent comments.

 

 

Actually, I thought those were excellent comments.

 

What you're describing sounds to me like it would get you more of a Bohemian Rhapsody type of effect, and I imagine it would be a nightmare to control in a live situation.

[lifeloverwg]

While I have no idea whether your approach will get the sound you are looking for, If you are looking to put the same effects on all the background vocals then I don't see any reason why you need seperate FX units for each channel, just group them and insert the FX on the group.

 

The problem you will likely run into is that the lush rich sound you covet was recorded, processed, limited and mastered in a pristine studio enviroment with very expensive gear, where as most of the people on this board would tend to be trying to reproduce their favorite "band sound" in a noise polluted bar/club enviroment with MI grade gear. Hence the prevelance of suggestions to keep it simple and claims that less is more. I would rent an FX box and try it out before committing much money to it.

 

Good luck, Winston

[MarkGifford-1]

Record the tracks to a CD and fly them in, to augment the guys that sang. That's what Journey did.

 

MG

[rxnet]

I believe he wants something that will give them that full chorus like sound...Van Halen used to do it all the time..Michael Anthony basically was the backups but he always sounded like a choir when he sang (not one voice)...what effects unit would provide such an effect??

[alcohol]

When your singers are singing in tune, live it always sounds great, effects dilute the live sound. You already have the reverb of the room.

[axemanchris]

I've always gotten away with adding some subtle chorus and pitch-shifting on backing vox. That's recording, though. Can't see why it wouldn't work live, though.

 

Also consider some delay. No repeats (feedback = 0), but a 50/50 mix of dry and a delayed signal offset by, say, 15ms.

 

Chris

 

... and seriously.... the comment about flying them in was really a decent idea. I've considered that too! Unless someone f**s it up, the audience will totally not notice anything except awesomeness. Don't use it to *replace* actual backing vox, but as a layering supplement.... it could be fantastic.

[Dark Ice]

What I want to do is process each background voice and have the following on each voice: Octave Up, Octave Down, Chorus, Reverb

 

At the very least, you should record your vocals and try those effects out with a software DSP first, before you go spending any money. There are probably loads of free plug ins that could do this. You *could* find that it sounds really awful

 

Steve.

[Prog]

Anything that can be done in a studio can be done live (unless everyone is dead). It just may not be practical.

 

Using vocal doubling effects can work quite well. Like Unalaska said, some randomize pitch between +/- 6 cents or so. The randomizing is what gives it a human effect.

 

Forget about the octave effects, though.

[bassred]

I did Octave, third and fifth (or something like that ) on a backup part I recorded, it was cool (blended way below the actual backup Part) on a 'just messing around' type of thing, but imagine if one person is off-pitch, then his/her effects are too, soon everyone on stage is off and the whole thing tuns into a train wreck...

 

I put just a little delay and some very light reverb on our vocals, not too much of anything, though (the guys in the band are always asking for more, but I like it this way....)

[rxnet]

I did Octave, third and fifth (or something like that ) on a backup part I recorded, it was cool (blended way below the actual backup Part) on a 'just messing around' type of thing, but imagine if one person is off-pitch, then his/her effects are too, soon everyone on stage is off and the whole thing tuns into a train wreck... I put just a little delay and some very light reverb on our vocals, not too much of anything, though (the guys in the band are always asking for more, but I like it this way....)

 

then just add apitch corrector likr the other thread and then it doesn't matter what you sing!!

 

just kidding!!

[Dogoth]

Another thing that helps is a comp on each channel (you can use a little more compression if that channel isn't going to be a front vocal). This allows for a more balanced chord (chords usualy sound better if all 3-4 or 5 parts are at the same level). If your going to use some FX specificaly for the choral parts then I'd rout them all to a group and insert the FX there (that's just how I'd do it).

[agedhorse]

This is more along the lines of the types of music I cut my teeth on, so let me give a few hints that may make things more possible.

 

1. Learn the parts and learn them absolutely right on. Nothing projects "fat and tight" like confidence that you know your part.

 

2. Practice and maybe everyone take some vocal lessons to improve your chances. Practice with the CD's and practice singing the particular parts you are trying to hit.

 

3. Sing within your ability. Nothing sounds worse than a processed singer trying to do something that they shouldn't be attempting. I would much rather listen to (or mix) something with a more basic, simple approach. Notice that this sounds a lot like my constant ranting about folks trying to be too fancy and tricky with their PA's before getting the bsaics down cold.

 

4. With effects, less is definately more. Compression likle JRBLE recommended is an excellent idea, then a little reverb (nothing too long or lush orcomplex) with a little chorus perhaps. Sometimes a little delay with a little repeat but pretty short time (15-75mSec) added in can fatten things up a little too.

 

5. You can try adding a little harmonizer but be very subtle as it can sound really phony to someone who knows how they work/sound. Thirds and/or fifths mixed pretty far down is a good place to start. Stay away from octaves as that's pretty obvious, beware of everyone singing with the harmonies as it can get overwhelming awfully quickly. Remember that if you sing off pitch, those harmonies will follow you and really sound bad. I have found that a harmonizer on one or maybe 2 of the BEST vocalists is a better approach.

 

I worked shows with the bands mentioned (way back when of course), along with stuff like Steely Dan, Starship, just did a show w/ Craig Chaquiso, Fleetwood Mack and this was at a time when the Eventide harmonizer was not even out yet (for live use), delays and echo was done with tape loops, reverbs used springs and real (steel) plates. What you heard was generally pretty much live with few simple effects. Also, there was some use of taped (R to R... no digital anything live back then) back-up tracks but this was not really that common. The vocals were just really good right off the stage.

[tlbonehead]

I thought I read or saw somewhere that Bohemian Rhapsody was done with a mic connected to a synth, speaking the words and playing their actual harmony notes on the keyboard.

[The Real MC]

I experimented with Bohemian Rhapsody on a vocoder and can affirm that it can no way emulate the live vocals that Queen sang on the recording.