28 Nov
2004
28 Nov
'04
9:48 p.m.
On Sunday 28 November 2004 07:00 pm, tim hall wrote:
Yup
Absolutely. One musician friend of mine has this dreadful tendency to
flange/chorus everything he does. He thinks this 'fattens up' the sound. I
keep trying to explain that it in fact does the opposite, it muddies it all
up into a chorusy wash. The best vocal sound is inevitably the least messed
about - maybe a little compression and a natural reverb, that's it.
Like I used to say "you can't shine shit". Slept on the couch a few times
for
that opinion. ;)
Last Sunday 28 November 2004 15:47, John Check was
like:
Yup
> Vocals are often a problem for people who
don't particularly think of
> themselves as "good" singers (whatever that means: is Bob Dylan a
> "good" singer ?), and there's a resulting tendency to put the vocals
> too far
No, from a technical POV, Bob Dylan is not a good singer. So what? plenty
of people love his voice and buy his records. Never really understood it
myself. My favourite singer, Robert Wyatt used to suffer from his fellow
Soft Machine members deliberately rearranging songs so he couldn't fit any
vocals in. Philistines. Beauty is in the ear of the beholder.
I say two
words to my comparatively green musician friends who say "ya
gotta have good vox"; Tom Waites. AFAICT it's the same with every singer
as far as insecurity goes and I've worked with lots.
Well, you _do_ have to have good vox, but what that means varies according
to the needs of the piece and the listener.
There are certain things that will improve vocal
performance - Confidence,
relaxation, good breathing. warm-ups and a good microphone & monitoring.
Technical limitations aren't a problem if you work with them. If you've
only got a vocal range of half an octave, don't try those Maria Carey
songs! Find out where your strong notes are and pitch accordingly. Most
people who tell me they can't sing are in fact trying to sing well out of
their range (Basses who try to follow female leads at pitch for example).
Absolutely. One has to find ones voice.
back in the mix. The thought is often to truly
"mix" the vocals in with
the instruments, but I suggest taking it the other way on, i.e., mixing
the instruments against the voice. The song is the thing, its melody
and lyrics must be clearly heard (or at least clearly sensed: I can't
Yup. I used to work a lot with doo woppers. 'Nuff said. Best practice seems to be to set the balance of the
drums and main vocal
first and then mix everything else slightly behind, bass first, rhythmic /
chordal instruments last and usually furthest back. Backing vocals can be
anything from dry to lost in the wash depending on how close you want the
harmonies and the mood of the music.
That's what I like to call "juice". Nothing like a few spirit beads to make
it
real.
> usually understand the lyrics to Mudvayne
but at least their man is out
> front). One of my favorite local musicians made a wonderful album years
> ago, but the one mistake he made on it was to mix his voice too deeply
> into the instrumental sounds. He told me he wished he hadn't done so,
> and that his decision was based on his poor opinion of his own singing.
> Sometimes it's best to get another opinion, I guess that's part of the
> function of a good producer.
Definitely. The human voice is the closest instrument to our emotions and
we are all our own worst critics. It's important to get it right as the
vocals are also the main point of emotional contact in most songs.
Remember, some of the great stuff about Elvis is when his voice cracks with
emotion. The way you feel when you record the vocals is what gets
transferred to the listener - if you feel like you're doing a tightrope
walk and only just make it to the end or are on the edge of tears, that's
what the listener will perceive. These are often the 'magic' takes.
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk