Article on how today's "vocalists" are produced

[smark21]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/ar...it_th_20120630

[ralpht]

So sad, but so true.

[theboyfromxtown]

Very interesting indeed. Thank you for posting.

[chidrummer]

Yep, that's how it's done these days. Although not all producers break vocals up to this extent. There are still a lot
guys that will record several takes of the entire song and then edit from there. An ear for a great performance is still
the gold standard.

[soulster]

But, comping vocals has been happening since the the invention of punching in. Nothing new here.

[splanky]

But, comping vocals has been happening since the the invention of punching in. Nothing new here.

I have to agree pretty much with soulster here..If the writer meant it as an example of how today's
music pales in comparison of past releases it's a fail because the fact is it's been done before. The primary difference is in the technology, where as now it's all computers but back in the day it was as
soulster said, the punch in and the fine art of tape splicing. People would be surprised to find out how
many of their favorite "performances" including many big hits, were done in this manner. I know I was...

[soulster]

The only thing that has changed is the technology to do it with.

[imnokid]

I don't buy the "how it's always been done" retort. Yes, punches have always been done, but the three "stars" mentioned in the article probably couldn't sing a song "live" from top to bottom if their lives depended on it. They NEED to record a line at a time, whereas a good singer may say "I can sing that line better" after singing a whole song down and listening to playback. Throwing in a punch, or splicing takes is VERY different than cutting a vocal a line at a time.

[ralpht]

That is a fact Kid.

[smark21]

Interesting that at the end of the article it’s mention that singers like Celine Dion and Cher are turning to this producer. I wonder if he’ll have them record their vocals one line at a time?

[soulster]

I don't buy the "how it's always been done" retort. Yes, punches have always been done, but the three "stars" mentioned in the article probably couldn't sing a song "live" from top to bottom if their lives depended on it. They NEED to record a line at a time, whereas a good singer may say "I can sing that line better" after singing a whole song down and listening to playback. Throwing in a punch, or splicing takes is VERY different than cutting a vocal a line at a time.

We don't know for a fact that they can't sing a whole song well.

The mindset today is the need to get a 100%, pitch-perfect take, even if you can hear the effects of the autotune plug-in or harmonizer. And, that awful autotune effect is used as an effect. Singers who don't need it, like Usher, use it anyway for effect, because that's the style. But, I don't throw out the song if I still like it just because of the technology used on it.

I will say that, IMO, too many aspiring singers today don't feel the need to work on their talent. Why should they work on being technically perfect naturally when the technology can do it for them? It's laziness. I'm sure these singers are still around, but gone are the days of singers who can sing a song technically perfectly without any studio manipulation. And, the producers don't care because the audience doesn't care. The same goes for musicians. It used to be that musicians, especially studio musicians, could play in their sleep, and some probably did! Now everything is on key at the perfect tempo, with no mistakes. Takes away the feeling.

But, my argument is that the comping thing has been done since the invention of multitracking. It's just easier and more seamless with computers now. And any kid with a laptop and some software can do it in his or her bathroom. Will-i-am constructed and mixed the last Black Eyed Peas album on his laptop in a hotel room, with files worked on by fellow producers around the world, and the musicians in the band FTP's the files to him. Oh, even though it was all constructed on a laptop, I still like the album.

I just wish the current producers would work in higher bit-depths than 16-bit. What is this? 1986 again?

[juicefree20]

One of the things that I feel that more people should be lamenting is the complete loss of originality, as well as the thought that even seasoned vetrans are going out of their way to sound like just one more of the current 31 flavors, whom will be out of style, just as quickly as all of the other 30 flavors preceeding them were.

I can't understand how anyone blessed with a truly beautiful voice would want to detract from that instrument which most people would give their left-arm for, in order to sound like R2D2 forgetting to drink some oil.

When I read things such as this & think about how the internet, Facebook, youtube & the like seem to be creating so many clones, I begin to think that our society is becoming a bit Stefordian these days. Originality seems to be less of a norm, fitting it & being like everyone else seems to be the general direction of many these days.

I believe that George Clinton & the boys said it best...

"Think...it ain't illegal yet."

[imnokid]

the audience doesn't care.

And THAT, Ladies & Gentlemen, is what is wrong with the world today.

I compare the people who DO still make good music without RELYING on today's technology, with HBO & Showtime vs. network TV with all the bullshit reality shows.

As Ray Davies said "Give the people what they want."

[soulster]

And THAT, Ladies & Gentlemen, is what is wrong with the world today.

I compare the people who DO still make good music without RELYING on today's technology, with HBO & Showtime vs. network TV with all the bullshit reality shows.

As Ray Davies said "Give the people what they want."

I'll tell you what really fueled this thing with technology: cost. It's just cheaper to produce in the box.

[chidrummer]

More fuel for the fire and then later some questions:

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and...pitch?page=0,0

[StuBass1]

Perhaps the bottom line is that the producer is paid to turn out a finished product. Technology has allowed music production the tools necessary to make "more perfect" the end result. Obviously these techniques won't work during live performances. On the other hand...a so called "great" singer who requires 30 takes to get it right might not be such a "great" singer...

[Jerry Oz]

Count me in the minority, here. As I see it, the producer is the artist and the "artist" is just a tool being used to put together something that "music fans" want. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer singers who can actually make a mistake into a unique aspect of his/her performance. Remember the scene in the television version of the Jackson 5 story where Jermaine complained that Michael said "Just look over your shoulders, honey!" instead of "shoulder" as instructed by Berry Gordy? Gordy explained that he liked it and the final version of the song uses it. That would not be the case in today's sterilized world of pop music.

I don't have a lot of respect for today's pop singers anyway, so this article does nothing to diminish my opinion of them. The fact that Autotune is used as much as it is should be the first clue that artists aren't being marketed on their talent so much as their image. With that being said, I can appreciate the producer if not the singer.

On a side note, I think it's an absolute hoot that shows like "American Idol" and "X-Factor" employ "artists" like J-Lo, Britney Spears, and Paula Abdul to judge and decide the fate of singers who are 10X more talented than they are. These people couldn't hold a clear note if someone jammed Ella Fitzgerald down their throats and they have the nerve to critique someone else? They would be the first contestant voted off in week one if they were participants instead of judges.

[soulster]

Obviously these techniques won't work during live performances.

Actually, they do. Not only do they use backing tracks so the 'singers" can just pretend to sing, they can put autotune on the bus.

[Jerry Oz]

Actually, they do. Not only do they use backing tracks so the 'singers" can just pretend to sing, they can put autotune on the bus.

Is it just me, or does anybody else roll their eyes when singers jump around and dance like crazy in concert while their voices hold the most steady and even level and pacing? I had to show my wife how it's impossible to dance like a madman and sing well at the same time. The use of vocal tracks is out of control. You'd think that the whole Ashley Simpson SNL fiasco would be a cautionary tale, but Madonna and Britney Spears prove that it's not.

[destruction]

Is it just me, or does anybody else roll their eyes when singers jump around and dance like crazy in concert while their voices hold the most steady and even level and pacing? I had to show my wife how it's impossible to dance like a madman and sing well at the same time. The use of vocal tracks is out of control. You'd think that the whole Ashley Simpson SNL fiasco would be a cautionary tale, but Madonna and Britney Spears prove that it's not.

I personally don't care much for that either. I've always believed that being able to sing and dance, a la The Tempts and Michael.....was a part of their Talent. On the other hand, there are those who don't mind plunking down 100 bux to watch their fave artist lip sync and dance to the hits.....I don't begrudge them.

At the Merriweather Post Pavillion in Columbia, I saw Reggae star Luciano leave the stage, mid song, and run, past the seats, almost all the way to the back of the field and back to the stage......without missing a note. At the time I remember thinking...."Dam...and this dude smokes ganja....Dam"

[Jerry Oz]

That is too funny. Oh well, I guess you are right that if the [[most of) the crowd is happy, the artist has done his/her job.

[StuBass1]

Actually, they do. Not only do they use backing tracks so the 'singers" can just pretend to sing, they can put autotune on the bus.

True that many artists use those crutches...but I don't consider that a "live" performance any more than I consider the way artists used to lip sync their performances on American Bandstand and Soul Train in the old days.

[Jerry Oz]

Sorry for the Faux News clip. This should happen to every lip syncer.

[soulster]

Is it just me, or does anybody else roll their eyes when singers jump around and dance like crazy in concert while their voices hold the most steady and even level and pacing? I had to show my wife how it's impossible to dance like a madman and sing well at the same time. The use of vocal tracks is out of control. You'd think that the whole Ashley Simpson SNL fiasco would be a cautionary tale, but Madonna and Britney Spears prove that it's not.

The first time I became aware of singers using backing tracks of their vocals in concert was in the 80s with Janet Jackson. She had the head-set on, and probably did sing a little, but I could tell the live sound guys mixed it in with pre-recorded tracks. No way could she do all that dancing and sting like the record. But, one could also blame the audience. People, when they go to shows, want to pretty much hear what's on the records. They want to see the artists, but want the familiarity of the music.

[soulster]

True that many artists use those crutches...but I don't consider that a "live" performance any more than I consider the way artists used to lip sync their performances on American Bandstand and Soul Train in the old days.

And, you'd think that some of them would have at least practiced a little in front of the mirror first!

[Jerry Oz]

Especially Janet Jackson, Soulster. Jam and Lewis let her whisper into the mic in the studio because she couldn't rip in key while singing loud. I like a lot of her music and she's by far my favorite of the clan [[well, maybe tied with Mike) but that girl benefited as much as anyone in the '80s and '90s from working with a production team that knew how to make her sound gooooood. I don't see what's so different with what they did for Janet than what Kuk Harrell does for the Biebers and J-Los of today's world. The producers are like the Wizard of Oz; maybe we don't need to peek behind the curtain to see how the magic is made [[although 90% of y'all have been in the studio with the wizards; lucky!).

[chidrummer]

Wow, you guys are answering the questions before I can ask them.

So what do you guys and gals think? Voice substitutions were frequently done in movies as far back as the '30's. At about the same time microphones were coming into great use and older theater performers complained that people like Bing Crosby couldn't sing because they couldn't belt. To call someone a crooner was to insult their talent.

The songs of our youth were not done in one take with everyone playing perfectly. In fact, your favorite song might be a combination takes 4, 9 and 36 with the intro tacked on from take 1. Was that cheating? Do you really feel like you've been had?

And now comes Auto Tune. You know it's not just for voices? It works on keyboards, guitars, basses, horns, strings and even drums. Did you know AT has been used during remixes and remastering sessions? Remember the slightly flat 1st trumpet on The Outsider's hit, Time Won't Let Me? That's suckers perfect now. The two missing notes on the guitar riff of The Beatles', Daytripper? It's missing no more. That rough edit on the end of the long version of Layla?
Smooth as silk now. That annoying mid-rangy sound on most of Chicago's first 6 LP's ? All cleaned up and nicely balanced. All courtesy of ProTools. Hasn't the use of current technology in these cases made the music better?

You should know that whole lines or just sections of instruments or vocals, can be shifted, copied and or pasted to change a phrase, better a groove or just save time and money repeating background vocals. Is all of this the equivalent of performance enhancing drugs? Electronic steroids?

What's at the heart of the distaste for these tools? Do you think that we've lost the "specialness" of the artist or are we just not accustomed to a new set of tools that future generations won't even notice?

[chidrummer]

And just when you thought the fun and artistry has gone out of music. Someone does something like this:

http://www.chicagomusicexchange.com/...l#.T_dqZZFnXC8

My homey, Alex has gone viral...and that's a good thing, I think.

[soulster]

Wow, you guys are answering the questions before I can ask them.

So what do you guys and gals think? Voice substitutions were frequently done in movies as far back as the '30's. At about the same time microphones were coming into great use and older theater performers complained that people like Bing Crosby couldn't sing because they couldn't belt. To call someone a crooner was to insult their talent.

The songs of our youth were not done in one take with everyone playing perfectly. In fact, your favorite song might be a combination takes 4, 9 and 36 with the intro tacked on from take 1. Was that cheating? Do you really feel like you've been had?

And now comes Auto Tune. You know it's not just for voices? It works on keyboards, guitars, basses, horns, strings and even drums. Did you know AT has been used during remixes and remastering sessions? Remember the slightly flat 1st trumpet on The Outsider's hit, Time Won't Let Me? That's suckers perfect now. The two missing notes on the guitar riff of The Beatles', Daytripper? It's missing no more. That rough edit on the end of the long version of Layla?
Smooth as silk now. That annoying mid-rangy sound on most of Chicago's first 6 LP's ? All cleaned up and nicely balanced. All courtesy of ProTools. Hasn't the use of current technology in these cases made the music better?

You should know that whole lines or just sections of instruments or vocals, can be shifted, copied and or pasted to change a phrase, better a groove or just save time and money repeating background vocals. Is all of this the equivalent of performance enhancing drugs? Electronic steroids?

What's at the heart of the distaste for these tools? Do you think that we've lost the "specialness" of the artist or are we just not accustomed to a new set of tools that future generations won't even notice?

You know, it isn't the technology that is the bad thing, not even the use of it is bad. It's those who use them, or make the decision to use them that is the problem.

[Jerry Oz]

This all reminds me of an '80s flick called "Looker" where a technology company would give actresses and models plastic surgery to perfect their faces, digitize their images, and kill the women so that they could profit from their images. These techniques simply supplant the producer for the artist. The artist is basically the instrument and his voice or music is to be cut up, spliced, dubbed, effected, EQed, filtered, and otherwise processed as the producer, the true artist, decides makes the song pop better. Now that I think about it, hasn't it always been the case?