Where would you draw the line?

[Nawor]

Supposing you are asked to record a blonde, large breasted, digitally enhanced 'next big thing' for a major label.

 

She couldn't sing a note in tune to save her life... no problem that's YOUR JOB! You get out the trusty 'Autotune'.... but alas she still sounds like a seal giving birth.

 

Then after much rescheduling of sessions and many phonecalls a disc appears on your desk from someone high up in the company with a small note attached which reads 'Don't blow this!'

 

After trying to interpret what that note really means, you discover the disc is jammed packed with vocal convolution files of all the great female singers in history.... So what would you do?

 

1. Take the gig.

 

2. Politely decline.

 

3. Rudely decline.

 

4. Agree to the Autotune but draw the line at the vocal convolution modelling.

 

5. Ask for her phone number.

 

This message has been edited by Rowan on 04-25-2001 at 11:31 AM

[Yuri T.]

Tell her you have a home studio where the two of you can work on her microphone technique.

[Anderton]

>>After trying to interpret what that note really means, you discover the disc is jammed packed with vocal convolution files of all the great female singers in history.... So what would you do?<<

 

If I had a lot of outstanding bills, I'd take the gig. If I didn't need the bucks, I'd do something else.

 

Sometimes art crosses over into being employment...I consider it a challenge to take something that's not happening and try to get it to happen.

[Lee Flier]

I think once you decide to go down that road, it's pretty laughable if you then decide later that there's a line to be drawn somewhere: "Oh, autotune is OK but convolutions aren't." Either way, she can't sing and you knew she couldn't sing pretty early on in the process. You still decided to take the gig and now you're bound to do whatever it takes to make it sound acceptable. Not a real fun position to be in. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

--Lee

[miroslav]

How large? Give it to us in REAL numbers.

 

Easy girls...e.a.s.y....I'm just kidding.

 

Besides, I'm an ass man (ohhh Jenny Lopez!)...I'm not kidding.

 

Rowan...Rowan...Rowan...we should all have your problem every once in awhile...it's a great character builder.

 

1.)Seems like the Autotune ain't gonna' help much...so bite the bullet and use the disc...you are already in the thick of it. Hell, she/they will only have themselves to blame when the brick wall hits.

You would actually be doing the right thing...you will set her/them up for the big fall.

 

2.)Or...you could develop a very contagious, long term "illness"...and hope they go elsewhere.

 

3.)If you are single...make a move on the blonde...what's the worst that could happen..if she goes for it...you're "in like Flynn", and then you can steer her toward the path of righteousness. If she doesn't go for it... she will get pissed, and you are off the "recording hook".

[autistic bliss]

I'm sorry to digress, but... "convolution disk"? What's going on here? I didn't think we could do this yet. Did agent Moulder get you this disk? What are you going to do with it (assuming you end up doing anything)?

 

As for ethics, it doesn't sound completely Milli Vanilli to me (YET), but it does sound like a complete suckfest (not in a good way). If you need the geets, this job won't get your Grammy taken away, (YET).

 

On the other hand: The poison of bad music lingers in the heart, festering. Are you willing to risk that?

[coyote]

How about this solution:

 

You take the gig on the condition that you can be credited under a pseudonym! Just as many writers use one name for their art - and another for their ghostwriting and yet another for magazine articles (so they can pay the bills which allow them to create their art). It's not unheard of; in fact, often guest artists are credited under pseudonyms in order to avoid contractual disputes.

[Nawor]

That's my point. If we are talking about something as fundemental as a vocal performance then what can be considered enhancements and where do you cross the line into downright misrepresentation?

 

Assuming the freedom of a good mic and pre.

 

1. Compression & Limiting

2. Equalisation

3. Reverb/Delay effects

4. Autotune

5. Convolution/Modelling

 

For me 4 & 5 cross the line and you could even say a great singer with excellent dynamic control won't need any compression/limiting.

 

By the way Lee, I posted this as a 'hypothetical situation' after reading somewhere about vocal modelling being the next 'big thing'. It's a road I won't be going down. But get ready for it.... it's on it's way and the major labels will be wetting their pants. Just think of all the 'beautiful people' that failed their auditions last year that will soon be getting a call saying... "Can't sing? Minor problem... come on down!"

 

It looks like the next step after Autotune... Autofraud!

Don't worry even Autotune will seem 'credible before long. I can just hear some ageing engineers in ten years time. "Geez Saam... remember Autotune?... Awww they don't make 'em like that anymore... do they?"

 

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I think once you decide to go down that road, it's pretty laughable if you then decide later that there's a line to be drawn somewhere: "Oh, autotune is OK but convolutions aren't." Either way, she can't sing and you knew she couldn't sing pretty early on in the process. You still decided to take the gig and now you're bound to do whatever it takes to make it sound acceptable. Not a real fun position to be in. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

--Lee

 

[Anderton]

>>I can just hear some ageing engineers in ten years time. "Geez Saam... remember Autotune?... Awww they don't make 'em like that anymore... do they?"<<

 

Well, the pre-CBS AutoTunes were the best, although the ones with the tweed covers generally sounded better than the ones with Tolex.

 

BTW about vocal modelling...we'll see how well it actually works. I have my doubts. Although if something can make me sound like James Earl Jones when doing voiceovers...hmmm...well, I may have to (ahem) test out this type of unit....

 

Think I'll jump off the forum for a while, I'm in a weird mood this morning! Maybe it's because I'm faced with something unusual: I'm working on the soundtrack for a movie, and usually the editor cuts to my music. But I was out of town when he started, so he cut to a music library piece which he doesn't really care for that much, but all the video is totally synched with the music. So now I'm essentially overdubbing cool little things to breathe some life into the existing music. It's a strange exercise, and a little intimidating, but interesting.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Rowan:

...a 'hypothetical situation'...

 

WHAT!!!...Rowan you SUCK!!!

Don't you EVER do that again!!!

 

 

...blonde, large breasted...a 'hypothetical situation'...

 

Man that's just plain mean!!!

[Nawor]

I thought Agent Moulder had left?... You wouldn't have Scully's number by any chance?

 

Originally posted by autistic bliss:

I'm sorry to digress, but... "convolution disk"? What's going on here? I didn't think we could do this yet. Did agent Moulder get you this disk?....

[KenElevenShadows]

If I really needed to pay the bills, I'd just simply do the best job I could without pulling a Milli Vanilli. Otherwise, I'd probably move on.

 

Also, I prefer brunettes and have a super-cool, beautiful girlfriend.

 

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

Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er/nectar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

music*travel photos*tibet*lots of stuff

"Sangsara" "Irian Jaya" & d i t h er CDs available!

http://www.elevenshadows.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Lee Flier]

Rowan,

 

I look at it this way: things like compression, EQ, and reverb are mainly there to compensate for artifacts that are introduced in the RECORDING or amplification process. For example you can often hear a great singer live in a room, with no microphone, compression or EQ, and it sounds wonderful. But as soon as you put a mic on the singer you're changing the frequency response of the natural voice, and also the dynamics (singer moves closer or farther away from a mic causing plosives or bass proximity or transients). Plus the space around a close-miced singer doesn't sound like a natural room, so you add some reverb or delay. EQ can be used because the vocal needs it to cut through amplified instruments.

 

Sometimes you do use the above effects to "enhance" a vocalist's tone, but you're still using it to enhance something that's already THERE.

 

Autotuning and vocal modelling are essentially CREATING a performance that was never there in the first place. There's a line to be drawn there with comping, too. Using one verse of one take and flying in the second verse from a different take isn't that bad, but when you get to the level of piecing together every word from different alternate takes, again you are constructing a performance that never happened and which the vocalist obviously isn't capable of.

 

Personally I wouldn't accept that kind of gig. In fact, those kinds of gigs are why I quit engineering on a full time basis. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Yuri T.:

Tell her you have a home studio where the two of you can work on her microphone technique.

 

 

10 pts.

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[artnoiser]

I think I tend to agree with Lee (personally, of course). As an artist, is there a certain...integrity...that you should try to preserve? I think the other way to look at it is something that Craig said, about art becoming a job. I guess what makes it difficult for me is that in the end, the job will pose as art and pretend that it's art, adn even sell "because it is art" and maybe even win Grammys, which supposedly only works or creators of art get. (Some people might argue that your client is a work of art, though, in which case...)...

 

For some people this gets downright into ethics, which is controvertial enough in itself...

 

Maybe it depends on what your vision on what art means to you, and how you see yourself as an artist (or an engineer or both, etc), and how your work relates to you. Are you comfortable with the fact that people whose opinions you respect might be bitching about your product once it is out, like so many of us do of autotune artists? You aren't the guy creating the product, but you're still the guy who agreed in putting it on tape.

 

I don't want to sound like it's some kind of sin. It's clearly not...just loose thoughts that I would probably ask myself, and once I think through them, I am ready to make a desicion that leaves me with some peace of mind...

 

artnoiser

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Rowan:

Supposing you are asked to record a blonde, large breasted, digitally enhanced 'next big thing' for a major label.

 

Ok.... Ok..... Ok....... Oh, wait, there's more to this?

 

She couldn't sing a note in tune to save her life... no problem that's YOUR JOB! You get out the trusty 'Autotune'.... but alas she still sounds like a seal giving birth.

 

The question is: does she care, and does the label care?

 

appears on your desk from someone high up in the company with a small note attached which reads 'Don't blow this!'

 

I assume "a worthy amount of money" is involved in this transaction. I assume my role is producer in this case, since I'm being given the task of making her "happen". There would have to be enough money to pull a Milli Vanilli I think. In which case, I don't blame the people that made "Milli Vanilli" - or Paula Abdul, or any other number of "ghosted" acts. This isn't the White Power question....

 

1. Take the gig.

 

Take the gig. No one is getting hurt, and someone *will* do it and make money at it I presume; at some point it will blow up like the Milli Vanilli situation, and it won't happen again. Or, like Autotune, people won't care and it won't matter anymore anyhow....

 

4. Agree to the Autotune but draw the line at the vocal convolution modelling.

 

I don't see the difference. If a person can't sing they can't sing. This "X-Files" technology presumes any input can be morphed into any output. Which means it doesn't matter if she does it, or anyone else - and effectively renders the act of "singing" pointless.

 

I don't see any technology making *that* happen. I know there will soon be convolution technology that will morph the sound a certain way, but it's not going to interpret lyrics melodically or create hooks. In that sense a pop singer that has merely been produced by someone to make a product they didn't write isn't far removed to me from a person being the visual image of a creation. Again, it's a Gibsonian cultural shift: people don't care about where a creation came from, but the end "reality" of it.

 

Sociological escapism: I don't think there's a *whole* lot of adults that think Britney has any sort of actual vocal talent whatsoever, and they don't care; it's like a 3-D movie to them. When they go to the theatre they know Stallone isn't a real hero, for instance - they don't care, it's escapism. The music business has morphed into entertainment escapism, and the "Visual Icon" for music is nothing more than what an actor does in a movie, only in real time during the run of the music's popularity.

 

So in this hypothetical case, it's akin to making a movie that lasts the length of the popularity of the "artist" in question. As long as the "deception" doesn't involve the notion that the artist has some sort of extraordinary music capability, it falls into the escapism category. The end result being either the public becomes jaded by it and it goes away, or it remains a phenomenon akin to "auditory fiction".

 

Hmmm. Ultimately, that's where the big labels are going to have to go philosophy wise I think if they can continue with their current operating model, unhindered by MP3's. They'll have to consider the whole media presentation as a work of real-time fiction in progress, which is essentially what Spears is (and a number of other acts).

 

 

From an engineer's moral standpoint, I don't see it as being anything different than a cinematographer's on a fictional movie shoot: if the end use wants to believe the fiction, it's up to them. Suspension of reality is the goal, and for some it's easier to attain than in others. No one here believes Britny has any vocal chops, right? For us she represents real-time fiction.

 

Hmm. Actually, you know what modern pop music is?

 

It's the auditory equivalent of "Professional Wrestling". Everyone knows it's fake, but it's still somehow entertaining to some people. Not me, however...

 

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[dansouth]

If it paid well, if I could work with good musicians, and if the music wasn't TOO cheesy, I'd take the gig. The money would be appreciated, and I might make some contacts of get better projects as a result of my contribution. BUT...I would not want to make a career out of this type of project.

[Lee Flier]

Interesting point about escapism, Chip, and undoubtedly true. It's funny though, because that points to an obvious social change in the way people perceive music.

 

I don't know about you, but I've ALWAYS noticed a difference in the way people perceive musicians vs. say, actors (or wrestlers). If you go to a movie, it's stated up front: this is a fictional situation, and it's the director's job to make it look real, and the people in the movie are ACTORS - their job is to PRETEND this situation is real and convince the audience of it. The audience knows that, and they're willing to play along.

 

If you read a novel, you KNOW it's a work of fiction and that the writer's specific job is to engage you and make you feel that it's really happening.

 

However, if you read a book classified as "non fiction" and you found gross factual errors in it, or the author threw in a person who doesn't exist, you'd be pissed. You'd question the integrity of the entire book. Sure there are such things as "docudramas" or dramatizations of actual events, but a non-fiction writer or filmmaker generally makes it clear at some point that that is the case.

 

Historically, I think people's perception of music is that it is "non-fiction". They go to see a singer-songwriter and ASSUME the lyrics are autobiographical. They expect that a performance is genuinely felt. A lot of people criticized Alice Cooper or David Bowie in the 70's for "playing roles" on stage. That anybody could be "acting" in a musical performance or worse, creating a performance that isn't actually there would really offend a lot of audiences, even teenage audiences who aren't "supposed" to be that sophisticated. Everybody knows wrestling is staged, but if you went to a basketball or baseball game and you found out it was rigged and the players were staging their moves, even if the "game" still showed a considerable amount of athletic prowess, you'd be pissed, right?

 

I guess that's changing. We may now find ourselves in a position of having to categorize music as "fiction" or "nonfiction", just so we know what we're getting. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[Calfee Jones]

... is she a 'real' blonde? ...

[KenElevenShadows]

Unless someone completely sucks, I've found that I can comp vocals and end up with a reasonable vocal take. And if they suck worse than that, I'm not sure that all of the plug-ins at your disposal are really going to make that much of a difference!!!

 

Again, I'd take the gig if I needed the money; otherwise, I'd rather record someone more interesting/compelling.

 

Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er/Nectar

[coyote]

But one could then say we crossed into 'fictional' music the moment overdubbing first happened. Or perhaps electric amplification.... in a nonfiction music environment Mick Mars would be playing an acoustic guitar & Nikki Six would be playing upright bass & Vince Neil would be shouting at the devil, and Tommy Lee would be thundering on those cannon drums of his & drowning everything else out! As soon as you add reverb to your mix you're in the land of fictional music.....

 

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I guess that's changing. We may now find ourselves in a position of having to categorize music as "fiction" or "nonfiction", just so we know what we're getting. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[miroslav]

Lee, we've always had "fiction" and "non-fiction" music. I don't think there is a current "social change in the way people perceive music".

 

A lot of 50s/60s/70s....to current Pop/Top 40, IS based on "fiction"...yeah, you can "relate to the lyrics"...but I don't think you actually belive for a moment that they are autobiographical.

Still...though most of that stuff is acknowledged as "pure gold", it has numerous session musicians on the tracks, while the real band members "took five".

 

I think motive & execution might be the real issue.

If you are claiming to be a singer...you need to be able to sing. But if you use autotune or comping to correct some ka ka sections because you've given up after 30 takes...that's not totally "faking it".

 

It can be dangerous if we do use all this new technology to create totally fictitious musicians/singers/performers...those motives WOULD be highly questionable.

 

But $$$$ talks...so who knows what is/will be going on behind closed studio doors and what is truly in a persons heart?

 

This message has been edited by miroslav on 04-25-2001 at 02:11 PM

[Lee Flier]

Coyote and Miroslav, I agree that in reality we've always had a certain amount of "fiction" in music. But I don't think most audiences necessarily knew that. Milli Vanilli was definitely an eye-opener for lots of people, but now they just kinda shrug their shoulders at lip-syncing.

 

And while you and I know that lyrics aren't autobiographical, many listeners don't want to think so. I think you know what I mean: it's OK if Harrison Ford isn't really Indiana Jones, cause everybody knows he's acting, but a lot of people are really shocked if they find that a lyric of a song isn't "true". At least that used to be the case, I think listeners are getting more wise to that now.

 

The "nonfiction" perception of music can work against you sometimes, too. Ever write a song about say, suicide, and have all your relatives hear it and call you up asking if you need help? Or write a song about cheating and have your significant other think you must really be cheating? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-25-2001 at 02:17 PM

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

...Harrison Ford isn't really Indiana Jones...

 

WHOA...wait a minute here!

 

First Rowan:

"...blonde, large breasted...a 'hypothetical situation'..."

 

Now you're gonna' tell me that "Indy" ain't REAL!

 

No...no way...don't you go there Lee!

I can't handle two illusions getting crushed in one thread.

 

 

 

This message has been edited by miroslav on 04-25-2001 at 02:59 PM

[Nawor]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN A... 'REAL BLONDE!'... of course she IS!

In exactly the same way she is a 'REAL SINGER!'

 

Originally posted by Calfee Jones:

... is she a 'real' blonde? ...

 

I mean the hairdresser took THAT gig didn't he?... and then there was the plastic surgeon.... and the guy that designed the Programable Capacitive Discharge muscle spasm triggers to program her dance steps... all run from a laptop I believe. You've surely heard of MIDI drum triggers... well now we have MIDI MUSCLE TRIGGERS.... Hmmm.. could be an alternative to Viagra... That's not a bad idea, I think I'll talk to my lawyer.

 

Shame on you Calfee... shame on you for ever doubting this ARTISTE'... and the motivation of her record company 'PHONY MUSIC' who after all is just nurturing this sweet young thing so all that talent can be unlocked and made available to the masses. Keeping it all to oneself would just be purley selfish. I mean talent like this doesn't just 'happen' it has to be painstakingly manufactured. Silicon boobs.... silicon chips.... ah what the heck... where's the bar?...

 

This message has been edited by Rowan on 04-26-2001 at 12:18 AM

[Nawor]

Of course there are talented musicians out there.... both fossils and youngsters. And I'm sure many of them post on this forum. Everyone with a computer, soundcard and some music software doesn't produce junk. But commercial pressures are a reality and those of you that work in the industry still must often question some of the things that you are asked to do... because now you can do almost anything. In that case is it simply a matter of saying ...."This is my job, I'm providing a service... It's not up to me to make a judgement here. Besides if I don't do this... someone else will take the money and I won't get another call."...

 

Maybe I'm just being nostalgic... but I'm glad I don't run a studio full time for a living. I have a 'normal' day job and do the recording thing because I enjoy it.

 

I did once have inspirations about running a studio but after working in a couple of studios over the years I've been cured of that! Now I've started up a small independant label with a 'recording facility'.

 

The Linn Drum got many drummers sacked.... sequencers came along and venues stopped supporting live bands and started hiring 'boy/girl' duets... then came kareoke.... etc. Once upon a time kids aspired to learn guitar like Hendrix or Page or the drums like Ginger Baker or whoever. Because that's what they heard on the radio and that's what pissed off their parents! Granted... I accept of course a real band doesn't guarantee good music either. I mean we all seen our fair share of gimmick bands over the years from bubblegum bands to metal bands with two tennis balls and a salami shoved into leather pants.

 

Recently a friend of mine won an Aria award (Australian equivelant of a Grammy) for best 'blues/roots' album of the year. This was a 'peer' award not the most 'popular' award. He has a record deal with a local label licensed through EMI. His albums are distributed through Virgin and he has a publishing deal with Sony Music. The drummer that played with him for over five years is considered to be amongst the best drummers in the country. Then 6 months ago under pressure from EMI it was decided he needed a more 'accessible sound' so they remixed one of his singles and replaced the drummer with a loop. The drummer has since left, the single bombed and for what? Maybe to appeal to a younger audience who would never buy his albums anyway. He is not and never was a mainstream commercial entity. He will 'tick over' probably for years to come with a slowly growing following. But of course that's not fast enough for most record companies so they need a hook. His hardcore fans are beginning to wonder what in the hell is he turning into. And he's beginning to wonder himself. I've no doubt he's beginning to contemplate the day his contract ends and marketing 'his own' material on the net. I mean here's a record company with an award winning artist that doesn't know how to market him because they've created the very market he doesn't fit into! Kinda makes you wonder. How many songs in the top forty will we be listening to in ten years time? Maybe it doesn't matter. Still the major labels are laughing all the way to the bank. Who needs writers, muscians, instruments, arrangers.... my God... drummers!!?? What was once spent on the song is now spent on the video. I hear the same samples and loops used on the 'same sounding songs' time after time. How many kids under fifteen have heard a real drummer.... does that even matter? Maybe that's what our parents said about twelve-bar-blues.

 

A thought to ponder. And this really is my point in a nutshell. Imagine beginning from tommorow. No computers, sequencers, drum machines, samplers, autotuners, songs with more than fifty 'babys' in them, and digitally enhanced boobs for one year. In other words if it ain't there when it hits the mic... it ain't there. How many of the 'so called' artists in the charts now would still be up there in a year?? Who or what would replace them... and would it sell? Would all the kids on the block start rioting and trash the place? Would the industry become financially poorer but musically richer?

 

This message has been edited by Rowan on 04-26-2001 at 01:14 AM

[Philip OKeefe]

Originally posted by coyote:

How about this solution:

 

You take the gig on the condition that you can be credited under a pseudonym!

 

Been there - done that. Good suggestion!

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA

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

pokeefe777@msn.com

[Philip OKeefe]

Originally posted by Rowan:

That's my point. If we are talking about something as fundemental as a vocal performance then what can be considered enhancements and where do you cross the line into downright misrepresentation?

 

Assuming the freedom of a good mic and pre.

 

1. Compression & Limiting

2. Equalisation

3. Reverb/Delay effects

4. Autotune

5. Convolution/Modelling

 

For me 4 & 5 cross the line and you could even say a great singer with excellent dynamic control won't need any compression/limiting.

 

 

 

I see where you're going with this Rowan, and I agree with you in principal on a lot of it. But I think that you left a couple of items off of your list, namely punching in and comps.

 

Let's face it - multitrack recording isn't about "reality" and never really HAS been. Multitrack is used (for the vast majority of records) to CREATE the ILLUSION of a performance that NEVER HAPPENED!!! Sure, there's nothing like a GREAT artist who can come in and NAIL IT without any studio sausage tricks, autotuning, gobs of compression, etc. I actually prefer records with the occasional "human error" on them - I like (and miss) the "reality" of the "old days" in this post Pro Tools world (ie back when most people could actually play and / or sing with some skill), but even in the 50's (How High The Moon) things were done with studio versions of "smoke and mirrors". And there's still artists who ARE tallented today.

 

So in answer to your question, I'd probably have rejected the gig from the start, because it's not the type of thing I would really like to be doing, and life is too short. OTOH, there is a certain amount of challenge (professionally speaking) to taking something that's complete garbage and making it listenable, but beyond doing it "once in a great while" just to prove that I can and for the challenge, I prefer working on things I like to things that I don't like.

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA

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

pokeefe777@msn.com

[musicman1ovation.net]

Take away the bit record company moguls, and I've more or less been in that situation. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif While the whole subject has been fairly tongue-in-cheek, it really isn't all that impossible a scenario, so here's what I'd do:

 

Find out if the material has already been selected... if so, I'd want to know if they are married to it or can it change, even to the point of genre... and if not, I'd want A&R control (or at least first whack). The reason for this is that I've run into more than one vocalist that sounds terrible on the stuff they want to do and like, but if they'll take some direction, it turns out they can actually pull off another kind of material. Also, it is surprising how many vocalists don't sing in the right range. Has anyone ever seen the Karen Carpenter Story? She had, of course, a WONDERFUL voice, but in the movie, they are in a studio and the first song she sings (having come to play drums, and not expecting to sing at all) is within her range, but it was all in this upper not-so-pleasant register. The engineer's cringing and wanting to say a polite "thanks for coming" till Richard suddenly "gets" it and has her try again much lower. Whoa! All the sudden, Miss sounds-like-every-other-grating-high-school-singer overflows with honey. I had a girl want me to record her, and I discovered that her horrid sounding voice, which I was ready to turn down, actually sounded amazingly better in a much lower range. The problem was, apparently her daddy the preacher just loved his little songbird and thought the higher she sang the better. So, even though I never said anything negative about the too high horrid sound (even complimented her politely), and was melting and having a spontaneous positive reaction to hearing her in the lower range, she was unable to accept any guidance at all... and the problem solved itself, because I believe my even suggesting she try it different set off her princess relay, and she just never called back. It was too bad, because if she ever made the CD with that squeaky voice... Lord, help us! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif ... and it is a shame that she couldn't enjoy discovering a voice that may well have been truly developed into a livelihood.

 

So basically I've discovered that some vocalists have had too much amateur feedback and have gotten into the rut of how singing feels (physically, not emotionally) and not how it sounds. If I was approached, I'd at least want a shot at making sure they were their best, but I'd need a week or two to determine if (1) there's even something in there waiting to happen (2) the vocalist was willing to try new things and trust someone else to help them... after all, after it's all done, if they think it's bull, they can go back to what they were doing before (3) the record moguls were accepting of the new direction. I mean, what if they were expecting a Tiffany but actually had a wailing blues woman on their hands? The "Tiffany" herself might not have even discovered it. What she knows is that she's pretty, sexy, loves to perform, and wants to be a singer. So possibly, instead of heading to the more expected teeny pop direction, it might just be that the blues is going to be treated to a pretty, sexy, down and dirty interpreter of the blues.

 

One never knows. If there was resistance to any of the above, though... I think I'd hear my mommy calling. LOL

[Max Ventura]

If you work for a commercial studio, or anyway a commercial studio is your trade, then it's not your call, it's the customer's. Unless it goes against your religious or moral (seriously moral, this case won't apply) or political views you better do what customer asks. I, for instance, am a vegetarian, but when I was working as a waiter I was recommending, and happily selling, a lot of meat dishes, because the restaurant owner had hired a waiter, not his opinions.

 

But if you are an indipendent producer/engineer, or a producer that is involved on an artistic level as opposed to a employee/employer level, then it's your call.

As a challenge, I'd take it.