Singers, Keys & Range

[miroslav]

I was looking for a good method of identifying a singer's "natural" Key.

 

Identifying Range is fairly straightforward, but even though you know someone is a Tenor, there might be certain Keys that sound good, while others sound hyped or wrong. I realize that melody/phrasing will also have an effect on Key choice.

 

Besides having them sing a song in several different Keys, and then just using your ears to pick the most "pleasing" Key, is there a more mathematical/theoretical way to do this?

 

I just notice that often, untrained singers are "out of their range" and more subtly, in the wrong Key.

 

Any ideas?

[Tedster]

Weird, for example, but true. Why for example a certain note can be relatively easy to hit in one song, but nearly impossible in another. Same note, different key perhaps.

 

The whole vocal thing has me puzzled, because it's so intangible. To that end, I don't think that anyone else likes to discuss it either.

[Curve Dominant]

Ah, Miro, one of the rare threads on vocals. Your use of the word "key" is prophetic, because most often the vocal performance, and recording of it, is "key" to a successful song. And, yet, so few threads around here on vocals. How odd. Props ta Miro for getting ahead of the curve.

 

>>Identifying Range is fairly straightforward, but even though you know someone is a Tenor, there might be certain Keys that sound good, while others sound hyped or wrong.<<

 

There is a singer's "range," and then there is the singer's "voice." You have to find "the voice" that lurks within "the range."

 

>>Besides having them sing a song in several different keys, and then just using your ears to pick the most "pleasing" key, is there a more mathematical/theoretical way to do this?<<

 

In a word, no. You must use your ears. Let me re-phrase that: you must use your instincts.

 

>>I just notice that often, untrained singers are "out of their range" and more subtly, in the wrong Key.<<

 

...and trained singers, as well. That's where you come in, Miro. It's your job to guide your singers to their "sweet spot." Singers, even great ones, often have no idea what their optimum range is, or how much swing they need to ride the groove of any given rhythm. You must guide them to excellence in these areas. Hopefully you find/work with singers who can learn and retain this knowledge. Stay in touch with those folks, because there's a lot of singers out there who are 90% there, but will not get that last 10% down, because their hearts are not in it. Singers are like boxers: they have to have a lot of heart if they're gonna go the distance. You want to work with folks who are open-minded enough to go the extra mile.

 

"There are no traffic jams on the extra mile."

[Tedster]

Good words, Curve. Re: the lack of vocal stuff...vocals are so damned intangible. I mean, just about anyone can listen and say "that's good" or "that sucks"...but, you can't talk about pickups or software, or strings, or a specific technique like you can with other instruments. You don't put your fingers here to get a G chord or a Bb note. But, as you said, it's the most important bit, and a damned sight harder than it sounds to do well.

 

So, how many vocal people are here?

[Graham English]

I know this much- singers can increase their range higher but not lower.

 

I don't think any math can define the proper key for the song. I think the song picks the key, not the singer. Though that's not usually what ends up happening.

 

Singing in tune can be difficult with headphones. It probably has to do with the pressure inside the head from singing. That's why it's good to take one ear piece off part way.

 

If a singer has trouble hitting a high note, advise them to think "forward" instead of "up." Physically speaking, the vocal cords run from back to front and singing higher involves closing the vocal cords towards the front. Singers tend to look up and raise their eyebrows and stand on their tippy toes to reach those high notes. But that just takes energy away from proper vocal technique.

 

Next time a singer sounds out of key to you, throw something at them (like a cymbal). It worked for Bird.

[Curve Dominant]

The voice, Ted, is such a personal instrument, that it tends to trandscend the medium to which it is recorded, or conveyed in a live setting. The charisma (or lack thereof) of the vocalist determines the success (or failure) of the effect on the audience. Then, the literary properties of the lyrical content carry their own set of energies. That is what complicates the issue in the minds of engineers. Intangible? If you look at it that way, perhaps. But not beyond understanding. There's a tipping-point upon which effectiveness in any given singer's performance will "carry over" - delivery is the key. That delivery requires an energy level that the singer must possess.

 

This is true with any instrumentalist. It's not what is being played, but rather the energy with which it is executed that makes the difference between "nice" and what goes down in history.

[Curve Dominant]

>>If a singer has trouble hitting a high note, advise them to think "forward" instead of "up." <<

 

Yes, definitely, excellent advice. Transrational wins a case of TastyCakes for scoring that goal. (That's an old Philadelphia Flyers hockey team reference, btw.)

[captain54]

My background is that of a performer and vocal coach, "trained" in practically every style and genre of vocal performing...

 

Generally speaking, range can be determined by bass, bass-baritone, tenor, alto, mezzo-soprano, and soprano...there are variations of each, some voices land in between each category...

 

I can pretty much determine what category someone is by listening to their speaking voice...

 

in terms of actual note range:

BASS....upper note limit E above middle C and lower note roughly two octaves below that

BASS-BARITONE...upper note limit G above middle C and two octaves below on the bottom end....

TENOR...upper note limit B or an octave above middle C and two octaves below that on the bottom end..

 

As far as ALTO, MEZZO-SOPRANO,SOPRANO.....transpose it one octave above the men's voices previously mentioned....

 

In PoP and Rock singing, a lot of that is blown out of the water by the use of the head voice..for example, Robert Plant of Zeppelin is probably a tenor that learned how to use his head voice to an extreme...although I've seen Plant in concert a few times when his head voice failed him and he had to revert to his natural voice...

 

the 70's group Three Dog Night made a lot of money as head voice singers, and they took a lot of their cues from Frankie Valli and Eddie Kendricks of the Temptations...again, these are exceptions to the norm and more of a "stylized" type of singing..

 

Once a singer starts "thinking" about range he or she is usually in trouble...the key is to try to pick vocal material that lies within your natural range and tell the story of the song...

 

Invariably, proper breathing and tone placement can extend range, but only to a point...more importantly, technique will improve the flexibilty of the instrument and allow the vocalist to sustain the emotional and lyrical

phrasing that allows the song to be communicated.....

 

you can have a singer sing "DO-RE-MI" a few times and pretty quickly see where his voice lies, its not that hard...if he or she is straining to hit certain notes, you know he is out of his range...

 

But then again it depends on the song...Listen to Bruce Springsteen...he's out of his range 75% of the time, but it works cause his songs are about balls out pain and yearning, so a strained, pushed, overextended voice works...

[Philip OKeefe]

Captain54 brings out some EXCELLENT points here. The following isn't as a argument to, but hopefull a suplement to those remarks.

 

First of all, I am a major believer in the song being the most important thing, then the singer. All the cool production sweetening and tricks in the world won't make up for a lack in the first two elements, and neither will the greatest solo or rhythm track. So when am producing, I pay a LOT of attention to vocals.

 

I have a wife who's a former RCA artist, and an honest to God MONSTER vocalist. She's been singing since she was 3 and has done lots of stuff. Power out the ears, confidence and control at any volume, great vibrato, etc.

 

She's done lots of professional singing, used to tour with Andre Crouch (yeah, the Gospel singer) and people don't believe such a powerful and soulful voice comes out of a little 5' 3" redhead. They expect her to look like Aretha or something. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Anyhow, she studied opera as a teenager and although she had a fairly well known teacher who encouraged her in it, she dropped it in favor of her pop / rock / R&B flavored stuff. Even though she has a 4 octave range, most producers who had recorded her singing solo vocals (BGV's are another story!) usually had her singing soprano parts, but I prefer her in the alto range. Not that she ever sounds unsupported or like she's struggling on high notes, but just because I prefer the timbre of her voice in that particular range for many songs. So if you're dealing with a great singer, just because they CAN sing in a particular key or range might not mean that they SHOULD on a particular song. Experiment and try different things, and see what fits not only for the vocalist (which is priority one IMO) but also for the song.

 

On a singer with a more limited range, I will sometimes have them sing the song for me acapella without giving them any pitch reference. This doesn't work very well for singers with perfect pitch! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Anyway, they'll frequently sing in a range that's comfortable for them, and not in the key that might have been "pre-chosen". Figure out what key they're singing in (which is easy for me because I was blessed with perfect pitch) and go with that.

 

I also agree with transrational's comment that the key of the song is frequently best defined by the song, and some singers shouldn't be singing particular songs, even if you can find a suitable key that's comfortable for the singer. I feel this is part of the whole pre-production and song selection process. I'd like to determine suitable songs and keys before I lay the first track down. What, you want to change the key AFTER you've waxed the rhythm bed tracks? Not me folks!

 

And back to Captain54's comments. He / she (sorry, I don't know which applies) makes reference to "head voice". Here's a couple more examples of particular parts in head voice (sometimes mistakenly called falsetto):

 

Don Henley - chorus of "The Boys of Summer"

 

Paul McCartney - almost all of "Here There and Everywhere"

 

Pillip Bailey - Most eveything he sang with Earth Wind and Fire

 

There's a pronounced "break point" in many singers when the switch from head voice to chest voice or vise versa. A really good singer can control and minimize this to where it's nearly unnoticable, but many many singers have not developed this skill. So for those singers, try not to get the key set to where they'll have to make the jump from one to another in a uncomfortable and noticable spot. Most singers have less power in head voice, and tend to sound thinner, so that's another consideration you'll need to think about.

 

Sometimes that break can be a cool thing (Eric Clapton on "Have You Ever Loved a Woman" where he goes up on "...you just love that woman... SO MUCH it's a shame and a sin... ALL THE TIME / you know..." - the natural break really emphasizes the emotion and degree of the amount ("so much") of love in that particular line, and is appropriate.

 

I'm not going to get into all the technical terms you'd learn in a first year class voice course (although taking such a class might be a good idea for anyone who wants to produce) but there are certain things that are going to be more difficult to sing than others - even though the highest note in either phrase is the same. Say for example you have two phrases that both hit a C as their high note, and that C is near the high end of the particular singer's range. One phrase might be easier than the other to sing, depending on what the sylables and notes preceeding and following that high note are. Again, this is something that should be taken into account in pre-production. Some songs are just difficult to sing (the US national Anthem comes to mind...). Part of your job as a producer is to help pick the appropriate songs that will be right for the artist, and that the artist is right for.

 

Okay, there's some of my take on vocals. Sorry it was so long, but since there was a complaint that no one ever wanted to discuss the subject.... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA

http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[x factor music]

i'm a pop and rock singer that's been through classical training in music school and i feel i have an above average grasp of the technical aspects of singing, so....

 

all that aside, why not just go to a keyboard, plunk out the melody in several different keys, and see which one is most comfortable for the singer?

 

to hit a higher note, and project more clearly, one of my voice teachers taught me to take the back of my thumb and press it against the back of my upper front teeth. with your tongue, you can taste the spot that you touched. you should sing directly through that spot. really helps projection.

 

also, if a singer is not accomplished enough to bridge the gap between their head and chest voice, they should never be asked to do it in a performance...if they can't make that seamless transition they are (a) singing out of their range and (b) sounding really bad. one of the best examples of this transition i've ever heard is Bobby Hatfield in the Righteous Brothers' version of "Unchained Melody."

[D. Gauss]

<>, and some singers shouldn't be singing particular songs,>>

 

 

especially with guitar based rock songs. on guitar, nothing sounds like an open G chord. so if the vocals aren't makin it, try retuning versus straight transposition. good example: bad company's "can't get enough of your love" written in open g (slide tuning)for ian hunter to sing in mott the hoople. paul rogers couldn't do it in that key, so mick ralphs tuned down the whole guitar down to c to keep the same voicings. also one of the reasons van halen, kiss, hendrix and srv tune to Eb so you can sing a little higher relative to the chords being played. and capos are cool too!

 

<>

 

did somebody say william shatner?

[lwilliam]

Sometimes it's the WORDS that are difficult to sing at a certain pitch. The way the muscles have to work to enunciate the word can really change the emotion of the phrase. Moving a song key up or down a step to get a difficult-to-sing word further from the singer's "break point" (for instance) can radically change the emotion of the word and the singer's ability to deliver it convincingly.

 

I will sometimes try to locate a singer's breakpoint(s) and try keys that minimize notes on or right next to them. I believe (not 100% sure) that males have a single breakpoint and females have two. I can't always find two on females. Can any of these voice coaches confirm or deny this?

 

 

 

------------------

Larry W.

[captain54]

As a general rule, that's correct the male "break" is a little more pronounced than the female "breaks", the male division is normally the chest voice and the head voice, while the female "breaks" generally one each, in the both the head voice and the chest voice....

 

Sometimes the deficiencies in the technique, and how the artist compensates for those faults thru years of developing his/her own technique add character to the voice, make is his or her own, and can make it very interesting..

 

Gwen Stefani would be a good example...not a technically proficient singer, she has found a way to compensate for all the weird breaks in her voice and has unconsciously developed her own interesting vocal character...

 

Now in the case of studio production and trying to facilitate a seemless vocal performance in an artist, as sort of an "emergency fix", I would try to focus on relaxation and deep breathing first, then run thru some basic

vocal exercises to get some supported breathing and "tone placement" working"...BTW, the "tone behind the front teeth" does work in a pinch...

 

Supporting diaphragm breathing can mean as much as good posture...try singing or speaking with your back pressed up against the wall, trying to "fuse" your spine to the wall, from the top of your head to down to the bottom of your butt, and you'll feel an example of what supported breathing is...

 

the last thing you want to do is give any vocalist even an inkling that he/she even has any breaks...the power of a vocal performance can only be released when a singer has in their mind that their instrument is a solid, unified instrument from top to bottom....

[John Sayers]

Ahhh - we finally talk about real recording, not about f**kn microphones. I differ from the captain in this area in that pop vocal is about breaking the vocal production rules not following them. The Captain would have lowered the keys Sarah McCoughlan (Spelling?) sang in and removed the beautiful breaks into falseto that has created her distinctive sound. There are thousands of trained singers who can do all the correct breathing etc but they are as boring as batshit and IMHO have no place in popular music. Sure there are the Tom Jones of the world but they are more the rareity than the norm, it' s the distinctive styles that make up popular music vocals and there are broken rules all over the place.

 

When recording vocals I insist that the only ones in the studio are me and the singer (I do my own engineering) Firstly I get the singer relaxed and experimental, we are trying to find distinctive ways of phrasing and timing to give character to the vocal, to make it different from the trained way of doing it, to be unique, to have style. To me these are the important things, not the breathing or the body posture etc.

 

my 2cents

 

cheers

john

[Tedster]

>>In PoP and Rock singing, a lot of that is blown out of the water by the use of the head voice..for example, Robert Plant of Zeppelin is probably a tenor that learned how to use his head voice to an extreme...although I've seen Plant in concert a few times when his head voice failed him and he had to revert to his natural voice...

 

 

By "head voice" you mean castrato, er, falsetto? And how does one develop that so it doesn't sound contrived or stupid?

[Tedster]

>>In PoP and Rock singing, a lot of that is blown out of the water by the use of the head voice..for example, Robert Plant of Zeppelin is probably a tenor that learned how to use his head voice to an extreme...although I've seen Plant in concert a few times when his head voice failed him and he had to revert to his natural voice...

 

 

By "head voice" you mean castrato...er, falsetto? And how does one develop that so it doesn't sound stupid?

[Tedster]

Okay, I didn't read all the posts before I responded. Head voice=castr, er, "what is commonly called 'falsetto'".

 

It's interesting, as in our group, the bass player is what I would consider a gifted tenor. Probably the best singer in the band, technically. Could do Broadway with those pipes, he could. But I sing most of the songs. Why? Because a Bruce Springsteen number isn't supposed to sound like "Danny Boy", and he can't make the transition easily. Never developed soul.

 

And Curve, as John Sayers said..."At last we talk about real recording, not microphones etc."...that's what I mean by intangible. Not really intangible, but you can analyze a microphone...freq resp, look at the specs etc...but it's more subjective with the voice. That's all I was getting at. Weird. Like Neil Young...a lot of people say his singing sucks...but those same people buy his CDs and really do love his voice. Hard to put your finger on...that's what I was gettin' at...

[captain54]

If I may respond to your post, J. Sayers, I wouldn't be so quick to diss

"trained" vocalists and the like who are aware of some technique....

 

It's unfortunate that as soon as you start talking about posture and breathing in singing, in some folks it conjures up images of Brunhilde belting out some Wagnerian epic, or Pavorotti belting out a high C after high C while he mops his brow..

 

In the real world of studio recording, vocalists are constantly hitting brick walls with their technique and looking for answers to why this or that doesnt work or sounds like crap....

 

As far as Sarah McClough....and her delightful vocal instrument, I thought I did mention that there are artists in our midsts that thru the years have developed their own way to cope with technical workarounds and as a result have come up with their own interesting vocal character...

 

Even these folks, at times, allways somehow in some form, come back to vocal tech 101 (breathing and posture), and at the very least, it can save some unnecessary wear and tear on the voice..

 

I'll give you that preoccupation with technique can produce performances as

boring as bat dung, but in those cases, it is technique improperly implemented...

[John Sayers]

Yeah I'm with you Captain..I've seen good singers loose their voices due to throat nodules etc...but just as opera is a vocal distortion, (i.e. noone really sings like that!) so is pop.

 

cheers

John

[PLX18O]

Good thread, on a subject close to my heart http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

I taught myself to sing after getting frustrated with singers! But it ain't easy, that's for sure. I'm not a natural singer, and going out of key is my speciality. But with practice I believe anyone can do it.

It's interesting to hear about the "head voice". I've always switched between the two (unsmoothly) without realising there was a name for the technique.

So many rock bands tune down to accomodate their singers, and also to make the guitars sound heavier - Hendrix, Guns'n'Roses etc. Tuning from E down to D is the norm, and certainly helps me.

This is true with any instrumentalist. It's not what is being played, but rather the energy with which it is executed that makes the difference between "nice" and what goes down in history.

Couldn't agree more. Listen to the attitude in Axl Roses voice, or even Eminems for that matter (in his wilder moments). I think a lot of pitch-perfect singers sound dull because their natural voice characteristics are watered down in the pursuit of perfection.

The one thing I have to improve in my voice is the conviction with which it's delivered. Since I consider my vocals to be my "weakest link", let's see more threads like this.

Cheers

[michael saulnier]

In some cases, it's the lack of proper singing skills that the artist is known for.

 

Here's the beginnings of a list of some "singers" who "can't sing" if you judge them strictly by proper technique... but who make a big impression on the audience... Apologies in advance for those who disagree with my picks.

 

The obvious first... and some previously mentioned.

 

Bob Dylan

Mick Jagger

Jimi Hendrix

Bruce Springsteen

Neil Young

Johnny Winter

Muddy Waters

Rory Gallagher

John Lennon - (at times)

 

 

Agree / disagree?

 

Tell me the ones I'm forgetting?

 

guitplayer

[PLX18O]

Lou Reed!

[Tedster]

Definitely Lou Reed.

 

James Taylor...Tom Petty...lessee...Fred Schneider of the B-52s. I've heard it about Michael Bolton. People don't know what to do with poor Michael. He's got the voice of a rock and roller, but, he squanders it on sentimental tunes. So, the people (55 and up business and cocktail set) that like that kind of music expect to hear a voice like Nat King Cole singing it, and they hear Michael Bolton, and their brains don't know how to process it. Meanwhile, the rock and rollers are going "YEAH...great voice...why is he singing that stupid Kenny G crap?" 'cause their brains don't know how to process it either.

 

But I love all of those voices.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Tedster:

...Neil Young...a lot of people say his singing sucks...but those same people buy his CDs and really do love his voice...

 

As I mentioned in a different thread, Neil's singing AND guitar playing is out of tune most of the time, but it does sound great to me! Love Neil Young!

 

Otherwise, hey, didn't think this tread would get this many bites!

 

Some REALLY useful information here.

 

So to sum up the answers to my initial question:

 

Using your ears is the only method to decide which KEY is best for a particular song --- based on the particular RANGE of the singer(s).

 

Correct?

 

For all you vocal coaches out there, how much can/will voice training allow someone to increase their RANGE...is it possible or is what you are born with is pretty much it?

 

When I write a song, it will be in a particular key, but then when I actually get ready to sing/record it, I will usually sit at the piano (sometimes guitar, but the piano is easier for transposition purposes) and try several different KEYS, working within my RANGE.

 

I'll listen to the overall sound of a particular KEY, but I will also think about where the "meat and potatoes" of the MELODY is.

 

So for instance, if the verses are without a ton of backing instruments and backing vocals, then that is where I'll pay attention to KEY choices, even if the chorus has the hook of the song, because the chorus will have a lot more backing and the lead vox might not be as "fragile" there as in the verses. That is just one example.

 

Any more great tips/techniques for giving (not capturing - we've covered that often enough in other threads), or helping a singer give their best vocal performance for the engineer to capture?

[x factor music]

as far as the list of singers mentioned who in a traditional way may not be great "singers," i would beg to disagree....i feel like most everyone on that list are great singers, because being a great singer or vocalist is not a matter of proper breath support, range, or intonation, but more in terms of that person's ability to "sell" the song with their emotions and delivery. the phrasing of a guy like bruce springsteen or phil lynott is what makes that person a great singer...

 

but in defense of the boring as batshit vocal technicians out there...it is not the voice that is boring, it's the delivery! guys like springsteen and dylan prove that point. if you think sarah mclaughlin isn't a technical vocalist, you aren't listening too closely...it's her unique phrasing and delivery that sells the song and makes you listen....it's the basic elements of voice that she uses to maintain her voice and make it do the things it does.

[captain54]

The greatest musicians in the history of music have never relied on strictly emotions and delivery to "sell" any particular piece...They've relied on a certain amount of "chops" to bring it to the level of artistry, from Herbie Hancock to Gene Krupa to Benny Goodman to Jimi Hendrix to Stevie Ray Vaughn to Eddie Van Halen and on and on and on...

 

Why should singers be any different??

 

Having said that, I understand that whatever moves someone, whatever stirs their soul, is really what this all comes down to in the end....I've seen people moved by "Happy Birthday" sung by a scratchy throated loved one and were moved to tears...

 

A singer comes to a vocal coach when his instrument has failed him...and it happens a lot with singers...when they can't get a handle on the expressive of their instrument...A good coach never tries to change a technique into "the proper technique"... and I don't know how all that got started cause its all hogwash...

 

I was in Austin this weekend and I heard a few performers I admire and whose recordings I've enjoyed....I must say that their live performances paled in comparison to their studio work....didnt even sound like the same artist....draw your own conclusions...and I'm speaking from a vocal standpoint..

 

there really is no right or wrong steadfast rule with range..it depends so much on the song itself..the notes can just lie a certain way and it cooks in one song and then in another it sounds like crap....

 

I'm a firm believer in serving the song....what is the vocalist trying to say?? If the song is about how you love someone very much but yet have never been able to win them over no matter how hard you try, maybe a quirvering vibrato and a struggle with certain notes just out of the reach of your range is appropriate...

 

But if you are singing out about how the love of your life and just set you

free like you've never been set free before, then its appropriate for the voice to soar and dance...in that case, you have to go back to the woodshed and get some technique together...not necessarily to extend range but to set the voice free to trip the light fantastic...

[soapbox]

Thanks for such thorough and well thought out posts. Ive been enjoying this rare thread. Here comes another long one...

 

Originally posted by Tedster:

Why for example a certain note can be relatively easy to hit in one song, but nearly impossible in another.

 

There are three reasons I can think of for that: 1) Some vowels are easier to sing than others, so it may be a case of same note, different vowel. 2) What are the notes leading to the difficult note? If a singer has to cross her/her break (as Phil and others described above) in the melody leading up to the note which was easy, but now difficult, youve found your reason for the problem. 3) If the singer has thrashed her/his voice in concert recently, it could be a case of same note, different health.

 

Looking at reason two, you *might* be able to make a case for several better, more "natural" keys for a singer. From my understanding (as a student), a vocalists break is usually around a half step interval. Avoid scales with those two notes together, and you may have found a singers "natural keys."

 

Originally posted by transrational:

I know this much- singers can increase their range higher but not lower.

 

I used to believe that as well, but thats not my experience now. Ive been studying with a "speech level singing" teacher who increased my low end by over a whole step. When I told him I thought that was impossible, he said, "No, thats not uncommon at all."

 

BTW, "speech level singing," invented by Seth Riggs, inspires as much hot debate among singing teachers as Mac vs. PC threads on the net. Any comments, captain54?

 

Originally posted by transrational:

Singing in tune can be difficult with headphones. That's why it's good to take one ear piece off part way.

 

I have found that to be helpful with singers I produce. I also find that if they focus on the bass in the track, that helps intonation as well.

 

Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

The charisma (or lack thereof) of the vocalist determines the success (or failure) of the effect on the audience. delivery is the key. That delivery requires an energy level that the singer must possess.

 

I couldnt agree more. When comping, Ill pick the emotional take over the "perfect" one nine times out of ten, especially now that theres AutoTune.

 

Phil, I love your comments about having a singer sing a cappella to find the right key, and that finding the best key for the song is not just about range but timbre as well! Of course, part of artist development in pop music is creating a consistent and therefore recognizable sound. If an artist sounds too different in another range one has to weigh not only whats best for the song, but whats best for the project. Fortunately, thats a rare conflict.

 

This message has been edited by soapbox on 03-14-2001 at 06:14 AM

[Tedster]

Miroslav wrote:

 

>>>Any more great tips/techniques for giving (not capturing - we've covered that often enough in other threads), or helping a singer give their best vocal performance for the engineer to capture?

 

Well, here you get ol' Ted to talk about one of his pet peeves, and I'm sure that the flames are going to explode on this one, but...

 

ISOLATION.

 

Is all the isolation we place on recording vocalists (or ANYTHING) reeeeaally necessary? I mean, you take a person who's used to pumping it out a'la Bruce or Susan Tedeschi, with the kick drum pounding their chest and the Marshall whomping their nuts (or ovaries as the case may be)...there's ENERGY there.

 

Then you give 'em the studio equivalent of a karaoke bar thru headphones and expect them to match that level? How?

 

What's more important, the energetic performance or the perfect isolation recording technique (the flawless capturing of a blase performance)?

 

I read somewhere an ad about some little gizmo that promises to mute out tom overtones so you can get a perfect snare recording on that channel. GEEZ. I mean...isn't it a drum SET? Next thing you know, some idiot will want to use 88 mics through 88 channels so they can isolate every frickin' note of a piano performance. Whatever happened to the days when they used to set (albeit carefully and scientifically place) several mics in a studio, one for vocals...and have some big band leader with Tony Bennett come in and do the tracks? And you had the "capturing" of the performance...(performance being the key word).

 

I'll shut up now.

[captain54]

As far as "speech level" singing...Its been used as a tool for quite a long time, so I don't know if its really anything new or was "invented" by anyone...

 

In a lot of cases a voice is road weary and basically worn threadbare by night after night of overwork...It helps to bring the voice back to "speech level" or basically just bring the voice back starting with the basics...refocusing the tone, some sort of breath support, etc, happens thru basic speech without any attention to intonation of a sung vocal tone..

 

In time then all that muscle memory is reapplied to a sustained vocal tone with an emphasis on a supported phrased "sentence" ....

 

In reality though, the spoken word and the sung word differ in a lot of respects because they require different dynamics...

 

As far as isolating a performance, I'll take in even one step further and say that in this day and age, with the abilitly to do massive vocal comping and editing, an engineer can piece together an "energized' performance like a jig saw puzzle...

 

In a recent EQ Mag, Graham Nash was interviewed and said the early Hollies records from the mid 60's where simply mics capturing a couple of their club sets that they had been performing for a couple of years...

 

there's a certain magic that happens when an ensemble of live musicians are bouncing their harmonics off one another (no pun intended)...that interplay produces a very unique sonic character that I'm still not sure can be duplicated when performances are mixed and matched and sliced and diced...

[KidCharlemagne]

great thread. singing is the great distinguisher between the ones who make it and the also ran. but no rules apply. any one have any experience with the vocal institute folks in Ca who have a series of training cds out for about fifty bucks? thinking of buying but hate to risk money on useless rubbish. forget what its called, but its made by a male and female and has testimony from stars in many fields.