Moderators davie Posted December 17, 2016 Moderators Share Posted December 17, 2016 Hi fellow singers, I found an article that I would like to share with you. This talks about how most vocals on hit records are made these days. A real eye-opener. Feel free to discuss and post your thoughts http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-little-known-recording-trick-that-makes-singers-sound-perfect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kickingtone Posted December 19, 2016 Members Share Posted December 19, 2016 I discovered this a while back. A fat lot of pretence goes into production, and performance in general :-) Still, I am surprised at the number of takes they use, and that they take it down to the syllable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators davie Posted December 19, 2016 Author Moderators Share Posted December 19, 2016 New2, I agree its very difficult to re-produce the same results from a studio recording in a live show. In the studio the singer has the benefit of multiple takes and post-editing, whereas a live show is just the one take, raw no edits, so a few mistakes or whatever are not totally unexpected. Sometimes singers might not perform as well in a live venue due to different monitoring setups. Though there are some singers who actually perform better in a live situation than in the studio because they're able to feed off from the energy of a live audience. kickingtone, I was surprised as well to how many takes they use to produce a song. Like Christina Aguilera using 100 takes on that one song. But its not because she's a bad singer or anything, she's an amazing singer, but its because of how meticulous the producers were and how specific the record label's expectations were. Sometimes vocal producers would chop up every phrase or every word so that they can hone in on which take has the right kind of colour or nuance they want. Its not always about covering up mistakes. But in my opinion, even if the person is a good singer, their slight imperfections in the vocal is what makes it honest unique and interesting to listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kickingtone Posted December 19, 2016 Members Share Posted December 19, 2016 davie, even productions labeled as "live" can be spliced, I have been told. They take a bunch of live live performances and chop and mix them up. I guess the date of the resulting "live" performance is fairly arbitrary, perhaps the date of the most used take. The reason I call it a pretence is because the production method is hidden. People are misled. Most people would be very surprised (and many dismayed and in denial of the fact) that such tampering of the singing of their favourite singer was felt necessary. These are role models that people try to emulate. They want to believe in that expertise and perfection. Ha ha.. imagine where the Mona Lisa would be now if it were a hundred takes by Leonardo da Vinci, spliced together by some backwoodsman :-) I know that is unfair :-) Production is very skilled work. Point is that we can no longer talk about the artist in the same way. The producer has also become a creative artist, and the nature of the art has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators davie Posted December 19, 2016 Author Moderators Share Posted December 19, 2016 kickingtone, If the "live" recording is something that is released at a later time, then there's the possibly of post-editing, but if you're listening to a live performance in "real-time" then there's no editing that can be done to it. Aside from effects processing (like delay, compression, EQ, etc), which is pretty standard for all live setups, there is no splicing or editing on a performance in real-time. There's the possibly of some artists using live pitch-correction during their shows, but it's either very subtle or as not as common. I agree that production is very skilled work. Personally, I've been focusing a lot on improving my production and arrangement skills lately, which I find is very time-consuming. No matter the type of skill, it all comes down to practice, practice, practice.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kickingtone Posted December 19, 2016 Members Share Posted December 19, 2016 kickingtone' date=' If the "live" recording is something that is released at a later time, then there's the possibly of post-editing, but if you're listening to a live performance in "real-time" then there's no editing that can be done to it. Aside from effects processing (like delay, compression, EQ, etc), which is pretty standard for all live setups, there is no splicing or editing on a performance in real-time. There's the possibly of some artists using live pitch-correction during their shows, but it's either very subtle or as not as common.[/quote'] I was referring to recordings which were labeled "live", but were actually a composite of several live recordings. As for real-time, I think that a lot of editing can, and does go on. They can go from unedited all the way to total lip-synch, or mixing and merging pre-recorded vocals, live. Then, like artificial orange juice that is labeled natural because it contains a couple of ground up pips in the coloured sugar water, they can call the vocals live, just because some of it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FelipeCarvalho Posted December 28, 2016 Members Share Posted December 28, 2016 Hi! My 2 cents: Its indeed how things are done on a production environment, and indeed every commercial piece of music nowdays (even recorded *live* shows) will be edited to sound at least good (and sometimes ruined to sound perfect). There are exceptions to this, some singers sound much better live than on recordings, exactly because there is no one to mess with their performance. Still, when it comes to us mere mortals, it doesn't make much of a difference does it? I mean, if you audition for a corporate band, they will expect you to perform dozens of different styles and sound great on all of them right there on the spot (and there WILL be someone near perfect auditioning on the good opportunities). Theater, same. Rock bands, a little less demanding, but still you won't be able to comp anything... It can be a very powerful way to help your study. If you learn to use the tool, and use it to plan an interpretation on a song, instead of trying to gamble for a decent take, you can test ideas easily and then define how you will sing the whole thing (which then you can practice doing single takes on). But I don't think its very wise to go with the idea that its fine to depend on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CosmicDolphin Posted December 31, 2016 Members Share Posted December 31, 2016 Close to all commercial music recordings have been utterly fake music. It's been this way for many long decades. Since the 60's when multi track recording was invented. Until then everyone had to perform their parts at the same time and they were recorded to one or two tracks When you hear a recording you are NOT hearing a proper "performance" of music There is still a performance. The drummer still has to drum, the singer still has to sing etc..they just layer tracks on top of each other. It's been this way since the late 60's. If you want a proper "performance" you can go to a concert. Most of these bands still sound great live that I've seen. You are hearing tiny bits and pieces (often thousands of bits and pieces) that are pieced together' date=' changed and altered to give a final "impression" of a performance. [/color'] Not thousands, but if records weren't made this way your favourite songs wouldn't sound like they do - there'd be no Sgt Peppers , arguably one of the greatest albums of all time. Records are hyper realistic impressions of what was performed. It's art after all..no different to different to using Photoshop to enhance an image. If I play a guitar part in a 4 minute song and after 3 flawless minutes I flub a chord, then it's easier to rewind slightly and re-record the 10 seconds I cocked up and paste it over the mistake than try and do the whole thing perfect from start to finish. It was the same before computers, you just did a "punch in " on the tape recorder and went over the mistake. It's nothing new, you can just get more detailed about it now. It's totally 100% FAKE music. It's not fake, it's a record. That's what records are..an extremely highly polished and enhanced version of what was recorded And it's become 100% accepted by both the recording industry and buying public. You can't argue with popularity( well you could..but you'd be wrong ) - Robbie Williams A terrible guitarist' date=' a horrible singer, a useless pianist and a poor quality band can be made to sound absolutely FANTASTIC on a recording. [/color'] Having been asked to mix all of the above I can honestly say "No they can't " ..give it a try if you like, there's enough free studio software out there. A turd is still a turd no matter how much polishing you do, otherwise every wannabe bedroom musician would be selling their FANTASTIC records and topping the charts. A lot of skill and talent goes into making records sound the way they do, like I said it's art..not real life. Doesn't mean it's fake. Maybe Lisa Gherardinithe ( the woman in Da-Vinci's Mona Lisa ) had nasty zit on her face that day, or bags under her eyes..maybe that smile is fake and she wasn't smiling at all..we'll never know because it's art and Da-Vinci maybe chose what to include or leave out or alter what he could see through his own eyes to make a more subjectively beautiful painting. Does that make it fake ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1001gear Posted December 31, 2016 Members Share Posted December 31, 2016 I think a large part of the music factory approach is just that. Cheap, quick, glossy product. This unfortunately addresses and bypasses the expensive expert in expensive expert musicians. Still, were I a composer there are certain genre I would not leave for humans to butcher either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FelipeCarvalho Posted December 31, 2016 Members Share Posted December 31, 2016 A lot of skill and talent goes into making records sound the way they do, like I said it's art..not real life. Doesn't mean it's fake. Yep, I think its always important to keep in mind that SOMEONE had to do what we are listening to. Maybe it isn´t the singer himself, but someone else that knows a real lot about vocals that had to fix it, often capable of singing the part him/herself (I know a voice producer that does this kind of work, its way easier/faster to sing it yourself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators davie Posted January 1, 2017 Author Moderators Share Posted January 1, 2017 What do you produce? I'm currently working on writing and producing my own songs. Though its a bit of a generalization, I would probably categorize as something in the pop/rock genre. As someone who is doing everything, its extremely hard, from lyrics to arrangements, instruments to recording and mixing. I'm working to release some new songs this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators davie Posted January 5, 2017 Author Moderators Share Posted January 5, 2017 I have no idea on how this all works! Do you mix and master them on home equipment or in a recording studio? How do you relies them? Upload them to the net for free download or have an agent sell them I'm still trying to figure things along the way. I have a bit of an idea though. Planning to record and mix everything myself at my small home studio. I already have a fair amount of recording equipment to get the things I want done. Then possibly sending my mixes to a friend to master at his recording studio, but we'll see how timing goes. I'll keep all of you guys posted on progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.