Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

[b]With this software Froggy from The Little Rascals could
sing like a pro. This is why you should always judge a
band after you hear them LIVE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zeLKMHx ... re=related

Call me a purist, but I think all this kind of software they're coming out with should be outlawed.

Kruliosis wrote:Call me a purist, but I think all this kind of software they're coming out with should be outlawed.

There's a popular singer in Japan who is entirely computer generated, CGI hologram, simulated voice, everything. She's basically an animated manga character.


Hatsune Miku

The problem isn't the software itself.. It's the way Cher used it and eventually all of R&B and hip-hop.

It's nothing more than a pitch corrector, and you would be shocked to know how many of your favorite legends have used it. It was a secret in the music industry at first. In it's original design, and the way it was intended in the beginning, it works very smoothly. Producers would use it sparingly for a few notes here and there just to avoid going back and punching in.

Sure enough, leave it to someone to experiment and use it in a heavier manner than it was intended. And yea.. That's what we're left with nowadays as a standard.

We even used it in a few spots on our album for a few quick fixes. Like I mentioned before, it was the producer that said it just made it easier for him. At one point, he showed us what one of our songs would sound like if we used it like that, and we laughed our asses off!! He did it to Sky Down, and I sounded like a robot singing reggae.

Shredd6 wrote:The problem isn't the software itself.. It's the way Cher used it and eventually all of R&B and hip-hop.

It's nothing more than a pitch corrector, and you would be shocked to know how many of your favorite legends have used it. It was a secret in the music industry at first. In it's original design, and the way it was intended in the beginning, it works very smoothly. Producers would use it sparingly for a few notes here and there just to avoid going back and punching in.

Sure enough, leave it to someone to experiment and use it in a heavier manner than it was intended. And yea.. That's what we're left with nowadays as a standard.

We even used it in a few spots on our album for a few quick fixes. Like I mentioned before, it was the producer that said it just made it easier for him. At one point, he showed us what one of our songs would sound like if we used it like that, and we laughed our asses off!! He did it to Sky Down, and I sounded like a robot singing reggae.

Cher simply used it like a vocoder effect for one song. One rapper used it on a whole album and started a trend. Most effects are best used sparingly, I think. Too much and it becomes cheesy and stupid. But, then again, sometimes you WANT cheesy and stupid...so....

That's pretty damned cool.
I need that so I can actually do my own vocals for demo purposes.

Wouldn't use the other stuff much if at all me thinks, but the vocal thing would be useful for me.

I’m trying it out with the thirty day demo.

I think Bob posted about this a while back. It also can detect and edit separate notes within a chord. We had a big moral discussion about it then, mostly lead by myself no less. But when you get down to it all anyone actually cares about, is how something sounds. Now if I could boast to have music better sounding than Cher perhaps I would decline, but I think I need more help than a commercial pro, not less.

So I could sound crappy as a purists, or just sell out for a better sound. Of course to be a true purists I would have to throw MIDI recording, compression, percussion shaping and any other neat toy on the trash pile as well. Performing live is one thing, but since the proliferation of computer music on the internet, nothing short of perfection is required just to compete. Some of you folks already know this, I’m still learning.

I did a track a while ago and the common consensus was that the vocals were the major flaw. It’s a perfect test project. I’ll see you folks in a couple of days/weeks, if/when I get it figured out.

lalong wrote:I’m trying it out with the thirty day demo.

I think Bob posted about this a while back. It also can detect and edit separate notes within a chord. We had a big moral discussion about it then, mostly lead by myself no less. But when you get down to it all anyone actually cares about, is how something sounds. Now if I could boast to have music better sounding than Cher perhaps I would decline, but I think I need more help than a commercial pro, not less.

So I could sound crappy as a purists, or just sell out for a better sound. Of course to be a true purists I would have to throw MIDI recording, compression, percussion shaping and any other neat toy on the trash pile as well. Performing live is one thing, but since the proliferation of computer music on the internet, nothing short of perfection is required just to compete. Some of you folks already know this, I’m still learning.

I did a track a while ago and the common consensus was that the vocals were the major flaw. It’s a perfect test project. I’ll see you folks in a couple of days/weeks, if/when I get it figured out.

I'm sure you could write a better song than Half Breed. I Got You Babe could be blamed on Sonny Bono, though.

Now if you REALLY wanted to be a purist you'd use a single microphone and a wire recorder or get an old Edison cylinder recorder (no electricity used at all!)

You probably already covered this in your earlier debate. But, imperfection often works in art. Sometimes not. IMHO.

Shredd6 wrote:
It's nothing more than a pitch corrector, and you would be shocked to know how many of your favorite legends have used it. It was a secret in the music industry at first. In it's original design, and the way it was intended in the beginning, it works very smoothly.

That is more than believable.

I think once people catch on to this, there's going to be throngs over-using it.

I don't necessarily see using something like this sparingly bad per se. It's kind of like food...just don't stuff your jaws with too much of it.

Well yeah Mike and that was the general gist of the conversation. In my opinion the imperfection has to be obviously intentional to be art. I don’t have any gimmick in mind, so it’s just going to have to sound good. Our vocals are the weakest link and short of a killer bass line, it’s the thing that’s going to make or break a song in that first five seconds. We are changing our methods after this next one. Hopefully to get good, versus mediocre results.

What wouldn’t I do for a good sound? Scour the internet for hours at a time learning about mixing and recording techniques, practice playing until my fingers are stiff, take every measure I can think of to have clean, crisp original sound samples, dwell over a mix for weeks at a time A/B-ing it to death, spending a small fortune over the years to upgrade equipment. I’ll get there eventually, but if there is a way to get the vocals to actually sound good right now? Hell yeah, I’m doing it.

To attract the good people who may lack our identical vision, it’s going to have to sound good. It’s a catch 22, unless it’s good to begin with, no one with great talent is going to show any interest and it’ll never get better. With some luck, eventually the vocals will end up sounding good all by themselves.

lalong wrote:Well yeah Mike and that was the general gist of the conversation. In my opinion the imperfection has to be obviously intentional to be art. I don’t have any gimmick in mind, so it’s just going to have to sound good. Our vocals are the weakest link and short of a killer bass line, it’s the thing that’s going to make or break a song in that first five seconds. We are changing our methods after this next one. Hopefully to get good, versus mediocre results.

What wouldn’t I do for a good sound? Scour the internet for hours at a time learning about mixing and recording techniques, practice playing until my fingers are stiff, take every measure I can think of to have clean, crisp original sound samples, dwell over a mix for weeks at a time A/B-ing it to death, spending a small fortune over the years to upgrade equipment. I’ll get there eventually, but if there is a way to get the vocals to actually sound good right now? Hell yeah, I’m doing it.

To attract the good people who may lack our identical vision, it’s going to have to sound good. It’s a catch 22, unless it’s good to begin with, no one with great talent is going to show any interest and it’ll never get better. With some luck, eventually the vocals will end up sounding good all by themselves.

And people wonder why I don't have any music up.

I don't know about the "obviously intentional" part. Outsider artists (or Art Brut) are all about getting at the untrained, unbiased, individual. It may seem sloppy or just weird on the surface. But, it usually has something deeper beneath it. I guess it just depends.

I don't think it has to be obviously intentional. Look at the beatles. I don't think they ever made a perfect song, from a technical standpoint. but the little imperfections are somehow endearing to me. Makes them seem human.

I've used pitch correction and yes it is amazing what can be done. That said,
no amount of pitch correction will correct for the lack of what is called simple talent. I don't posses it and believe me I wish I did. Real talent sings out of pitch and often out of time. It is not a matter of vocal perfection it is a matter of vocal infection.....does the performance move you. Does it make you feel alive. You know I watched a youtube video of Christy whitley with Daniel Lanois : /www.youtube.com/watch?v=e255MtrXG7g and I was amazed at how such a simple recording ( It was done with few mic's) just fist take, effects, sounded so pure. Pitch, I'm not sure I was ever listening for pitch.

Correction, her name is Trixie.

Mike I’m usually really lenient on the music I like personally. If someone hits a wrong note, I’m not the type to say well that guy just sucks because he can’t play flawlessly for four minutes. But if you decide to deviate entirely from conformity, it had better be done with conviction. That’s what I mean. All art is based on perception. An A minor could sound like crap, if you’re playing an A sus4 instead for no particular reason other than a missed chord. Now do it four times in that same song and people get the gist the first time wasn’t a fluke. It may sound off, but then there is a strong suspicion it’s supposed too.

In live music if you’re doing a headstand at the same time, chances are it’ll go over well. On a blind download over the internet, the perception and purpose is massively different. There are lots of other perfectly orderly quantized and beautifully compressed options available. Imperfection is just not a strong selling angle, I’m not talking about money, but acceptance. The story or concept would have to be really huge, to offset intentional ineptness. Sid Vicious for example. And yeah Mike there are no limitations in the other direction, towards the pursuit of legitimacy. Somewhere out there, is a drummer complaining about the innovation of plucked strings.

Dizzizz:
I agree there is no such thing as a perfect musician or performance, but by perfect music I’m referring to computer generated composition. Sure technically not absolutely perfect, nothing can be, but when you can edit and create within a millisecond, it’s closer than the real thing could ever accomplish. The Beatles were also huge studio innovators, much of what they did for effects in the studio had never been done before. Does that make them any less talented? Not too long ago someone had posted Paul’s solo vocal track and wow, yeah the guy could sing. But let’s remove punch in recording, reverb and any other tool that enhances his ability and then compare it to a good modern vocalist with all the bells and whistles applied. Is it a fair match?

I’m just saying they may not have been perfect, but if there were a way that they could have sounded better, they would and did use it. Now given that I don’t know any Paul McCartney’s offhand, should I limit the abilities to enhance what I have for the sake of sincerity, or do whatever possible to make the best of what I have available? Anyone who has been to a professional studio has had access to the same tools, or even better, especially with the assistance of a professional. What I’m doing is in my own hands, if there is a way to improve it, I’m going to try.