Jump to content

Beyonce's Vocal Technique

Rate this topic


DrD

Recommended Posts

I didn't watch the Super Bowl, no. Moving balls back and forth never interested me much. But that doesn't surprise me. The problem is if any pop star makes a political statement, it will have an impact, regardless of music, because celebrity is power. Actors, reality TV stars, everyone can make statements and get people into a fuss. 

That was pretty cool lyrically.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KillerKu said:

Anyone can make something original, if you fart enough times into a microphone it will create a 'never before captured composition.' Some people were just better at making something original AND appealing. Those are my heroes.

But you need to realize what is appealing to you might not be appealing to others.

You finally brought singers I do like: Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

Yes... but "fresh" to you just means that another culture pulls up another artist in another part of the country. They all still continue working at a local level to produce more and more artists. But it takes a long time for music to develop... so its not like after Cobain everyone collectively gets together to say "alright guys! Good work! Now it's time to create a funk revival but this time using an electric triangle. Clock in on Monday!" It just KEEPS going right where it left off as if Cobain hadn't existed.

Maybe in 10 years a new artist will come out that to you is "fresh" but to everyone in the area they sound pretty much like everyone else. The reason it's "fresh" to you is because the media brought it to your attention!

Well, Cobain isn't necessarily one of my heroes. He had a distinctive voice once upon a time and I haven't heard anyone within the Seattle music scene who sang similarly. I am not in a position to travel the world. But I do like pilfering through soundcloud.

Never found anything as good as the people who toured and collected fans the old fashioned way. There were fans of the Beatles before the media. They were rejected by their first record label.

The media may have ultimately brought certain artists to attention, but back then, it took a lot of work on the artist's part to perform and gain the attention of others which meant they had to do something of value in the first place. And on the other hand, there are manufactured bands that didn't start organically.

Now there is so much music on the internet it's virtually impossible to find things of that quality, because we never needed to capture anyone's attention to post anything in the first place. I'm no different. I don't really want attention. I'm working on songs to complete an album and will release it. If someone stumbles upon it and appreciates it that's their thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rosa said:

But you need to realize what is appealing to you might not be appealing to others.

You finally brought singers I do like: Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles.

The point of making art for me is some will like it and others won't. If the goal is for everyone to like it, then that's more of a product. Requires lots of focus testing and market research to try to dial into a demographics so as to never offend anyone. 

If no one disliked the sound or didn't find the art uncomfortable, I'd be incredibly disappointed in my art. If I had to choose, I'd prefer no one liked the art than everyone. Ideally, some people would find something that was 'offbeat' about it that was relate able because they are 'offbeat' too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related to the "folk" music you were talking about, I liked seeing this band by chance. We've traditionally had a band like this in every village (the village band/la banda del pueblo :D ) but for some reason there is no famous group like this here!

 

Maybe people will relate that to the village band and it is not good enough to be fashionable???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rosa, Hmmm... That kind of has a power ballad structure and tempo with more horns. I did hear what sounded like a few accidentals in the melody which might have been a bit too much for pop, but I think their best bet for achieving success here might have been in the 80s on soft radio:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KillerKu said:

If the canvas is good, then a similar blob of color can be fine. The problem with quantizing is it moves the entire canvas towards certain positions way beyond human error. If two people play the same riff, it's still in reality a different riff, because there will be subtle differences in the playing (human factor). If A computer quantizes it, then it literally becomes the same riff.  

But once music has been through the corporate media that first time. It's a done deal for me. Some artists try to progress and continue to dispense music which I appreciate. But I'm not interested in revivals or 'redoes.' If it wasn't already stolen, it's time to move on to something fresh for me.

No, it does not become the same riff if quantized, which means fixed to a beat or time sig. And really, if you know anything about recording, quantizing is mainly used with MIDI data. In addition, not everything is quantized a lot. You can vary it. The only way I know of to quantize a melody from a guitar is if the guitar is MIDI or goes through MIDI to write data on a MIDI track and then quantizing will move the down beat to the nearest whole note.

In fact, if you know anything about recording, you will know that you can quantize each MIDI as you wish. You could make each item more individual rather than less.

If you know something about recording, you know that you can take an audio track and adjust the tempo without changing pitch and vice versa.

And for those of us who play musical instruments, the individual tone is in our hands and fingers. I could go to a Steve Vai show and he could hand me the guitar hanging from his shoulders and I could play the same riff he does and it will sound different. That's another reason that I don't buy the supposition that a digital software or even tempo fix of a track will remove the individuality in the tone. Because that individuality is not controlled by how far or close to the beat the player was.

But some drummers I have admired the most can play as if he or she was a metronome. And a metronome is a way of quantizing or steadying or fixing the beat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronws said:

No, it does not become the same riff if quantized, which means fixed to a beat or time sig. And really, if you know anything about recording, quantizing is mainly used with MIDI data. In addition, not everything is quantized a lot. You can vary it. The only way I know of to quantize a melody from a guitar is if the guitar is MIDI or goes through MIDI to write data on a MIDI track and then quantizing will move the down beat to the nearest whole note.

In fact, if you know anything about recording, you will know that you can quantize each MIDI as you wish. You could make each item more individual rather than less.

If you know something about recording, you know that you can take an audio track and adjust the tempo with pitch and vice versa.

And for those of us who play musical instruments, the individual tone is on our hands and fingers. I could go to a Steve Vai show and he could hand me the guitar hanging from his shoulders and I could play the same riff he does and it will sound different. That's another reason that I don't buy the supposition that a digital software or even tempo fix of a track will remove the individuality in the tone. Because that individuality is not controlled by how far or close to the beat the player was.

But some drummers I have admired the most can play is he or she was a metronome. And a metronome is a way of quantizing or steadying or fixing the beat.

 

Quantization is used to make metronome like drums in popular music. It can be used to make midi looser, but is rarely used to make live playing looser. It's used on everything.

 

It's silly you two think you know more than Visconti who has been in the production game for longer than anyone here. Tristan tried to make a few indie albums and now he seems to believe he's an expert when he's barely old enough to legally drink, and you espoused Audacity as a viable recording solution for some time.

Visconti is an industry professional who has been in this since the 60s. He has more experience than the two of you combined by many factors. The statement ruffles feathers because it is true. The pop industry is constantly modifying music to make it conform to the same grids. If you like that grid, that's fine, but that doesn't change what is happening. 

You can arbitrarily single out rhythmic variation as not being an individual distinction in music, but then you might as well just lock Sinatra's vocals to a grid too. Vocals sometimes get quantized too. Should Visconti start espousing electrician information and say you're out of touch?  I'd expect you to say the same.

I've been working with real multi track recording (not audacity) midi/audio software for years. I don't claim to be an expert. But I know enough to verify this information and to expect anything less from someone who has spent 50+ years having a pretty good idea of what is going on with the recording process is ridiculous.

And I've drummed for over 10 years. I don't claim to be the best drummer in the world or the expert on drumming, but I've listened to a lot of drums throughout the decades. To my ears there were obvious changes during certain digital transitions in pop music.

I'd love to hear a top producer say this stuff doesn't happen all the time. Few people like to lie in public. That's for sure.

Dan is the only one of us with brains. He just shuts up and does. Sure, it's your right to believe, but it's ridiculous to drag a professional with 10 times the experience through the mud when google is that way to instantly prove audio quantizing existing and functioning in pro tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, KillerKu said:

It's silly you two think you know more than Visconti who has been in the production game for longer than anyone here. Tristan tried to make a few indie albums and now he is an expert when he barely old enough to legally drink, much less be a record producer and you espoused Audacity as a viable recording solution for some time.

Visconti is an industry professional who has been in this since the 60s. He has more experience than the two of you combined by many factors. The statement ruffles feathers because it is true. The pop industry is constantly modifying music to make it conform to the same grids. If you like that grid, that's fine, but that doesn't change this.

You can arbitrarily single out rhythmic variation as not being an individual distinction, in music, but then you might as well just lock Sinatra's vocals to a grid too (and vocals are quantized too). Should Visconti start espousing 'electrician' information and say you're out of touch?  I'd expect you to say the same. You're apparently both ignorant on this subject and out of your depth, imo.

I've been working with real multi track recording (not audacity) midi/audio software for years. I don't claim to be an expert. But I know enough to verify this information and to expect anything less from someone who has spent 50+ years having a pretty good idea of what is going on with the recording process is ridiculous.

And I've drummed for over 10 years. I don't claim to be the best drummer in the world or the expert on drumming, but I've listened to a lot of drums throughout the decades. To my ears there were obvious changes during certain digital transitions.

I'd love to hear a top producer say this stuff doesn't happen all the time. Few people like to lie in public. That's for sure. Better to keep quiet.

I don't think it is fair to cherry pick points to deflate the position or opinion of another, but it does happen. Yes, I espoused Audacity for quite sometime, I have even have a thread about it and I would still recommend it for some things. And then I upgraded to Reaper and had a thread about that. I was talking with a local musician singer / songwriter guy. He uses Logic Pro, exports to wav and then masters in Audacity, oddly enough. He actually likes the noise reduction tool. But yeah, even if I have only been using Reaper for slightly more than a year, it doesn't mean what I said was wrong. Nor does your information about Visconti, who is not the only producer / engineer in the world, negate what I said.

And I have played guitar and sang for four times as long as you have played drums. And I can still make mistakes. I can still get out of time when the desire and wish was to be in time. And the whole point of my playing has been to be in time. Which is not to take away from anyone else's sense of rubato. So, "better to keep quiet." Was that meant for me? I mean, I value that statement.

And that is why I read a lot from others about recording music and mixing and mastering. And watch their tutorials. And I am currently reading the book "Sing to Me" by LA Reid, who talks about how Traynor's "All About that Bass" came to be. What you hear on the album and all the radio play is the demo recording she brought from Nashville. The office staff at Epic wanted to do mixing moves and he forbade them to touch it and that they were to release as it is. So, not every producer / engineer will do everything to a song. I value that, too. Which does not mean that edits and fixes were NOT done to the song in the demo stage, before being brought to the signing party.

I am also not afraid to have an opinion different than a pro. I love Glenn Fricker to death but I think sometimes sampled drums can helped, especially if, as he puts it, the drummer cannot count to four. It's ironic, really, the desire to not use MIDI drums yet have a human drummer play like a metronome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6844036/david-bowie-blackstar-album-debuts-no-1-on-billboard-200-charts

 

Out of touch, right? Like a female soprano or audacity expert? :(

I'd love to have an honest, educated record producer like Visconti involved in my music who would always tell me what he was doing and produce number 1 albums  with the artist  on their own terms.

Sampling is again different from quantization. A sample is a sound file played repeatedly. Quanitization is moving what is already in the sound around. Just believe whatever you want. I'm gonna work on my music and take a break here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Robert Lunte said:

For the love of God... how do I stop getting these "Beyonce... " notifications?  

I only get notifications if one of my posts is Quoted or Liked. I don't know why you are getting notifications for this thread. :D 

You should now be getting some notifications from the quotes and likes haha.

Edit: Ok, I've now seen down the thread, on the left, there is an option for "Notify me of replies". You might have pushed that button accidentally. Sure you can undo it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for being an ass. I was having a bad day. I have a strong opinion because I've been a musician for 17 years and have listened and played along to music from 1920 to 2015. And have read industry insiders discussing exactly what I'm hearing repeatedly with vast amounts of experience in a studio:

Dave Grohl:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/dave-grohl-studio-technology-is-ruining-rock.256256/

Corey Taylor:

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2012/10/23/has-technology-ruined-music/

Tayor Hawkins:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2010-07-17-hawkins_N.htm

Just like Visconti all of these people have more more experience than any of us in professional recording situations in the mainstream music industry. They can hear the change in sound too. I can hear it just by tapping my finger along to recordings or comparing the pitch of pre auto tune singers. If you guys can't hear it and disagree, that's fine. But every insider musician I've ever encountered can clearly hear changes beginning at a certain era. 

And I do intend to make my my own music in my own vision. I'll produce it as best as I can because I'm not as good of a producer as Visconti and I won't be able to afford Visconti. I have health problems, I'm not going to be touring. But I'd love to have Grohl, Hawkins, Taylor, or Visconti helping with production because they've been musicians and in production environments 20-50 years. Most have done session work and released lots of albums. Visconti has been a bass player since the 60s, he's got excellent timing. All are singers. I'm not a huge Foo Fighters or Slipknot fan, but they are always sincere in what they do and I don't dislike what they do either. From all accounts I've heard, everyone involved are excellent, honest people.

We're all on the same page hearing similar things. An artist would obviously have to work with a producer that can hear the same things. We all claim to hear the changes from working on a computerized grid rather than working from human expression. We all have strong beliefs cause we have ears and most of us are drummers, bass players, singers and fans of historical music too. We are the human factor that is being lost to modern production, and when producers remove it, it sounds obvious cause we've been doing 'the human factor' and listening to it for a long time.

But its fine man. You don't hear it, I hear it. Some others hear it, others don't. I've never heard an industry insider in mainstream commercial music that couldn't hear it. But they probably exist.

So sorry for being an ass and being disrespectful to both of you. Ronws, Tristan. Agree to disagree. But you're not going to be able to change my mind anymore than anyone could change Grohl, Taylor, Hawkins, Visconti. That's how it sounds. There's nothing I can do to change how it sounds to you either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said people should stop. I said it is used to limit the natural movement of the human body itself in expression. Nothing in history I'm aware of was ever valued in the arts that placed an artificial limit on the movement of the human body in expressing itself  (painting, dancing, etc). I also said I think it sounds terrible and will likely be less valued than the natural movement of the human body. If you want an example:

Around 3:35-3:37  take a listen to the 'day.' Yeah right, James. Straight as an arrow and warbling. Sounds gross. This is an example of an album might have had more historical value without brickwall limiters and auto tune.

Instead, it came and went in part because of modern production techniques. It will probably be remembered more for it's production being a 'sign of the times' than the music, there was significantly less criticism of the songwriting itself.

I'm not telling people to stop, simply describing how I view it. I think unless you intentionally want to sound like a robot. Don't use robotic means to restrict the movement of the human body in arts (dancing, singing, drumming, etc). The people who use artificial sounds to depict artificial sounds are making an artistic statement. But producers right now are using it to try to make things sound 'perfectly human' rather than depicting something artificial on purpose. They think they can get away with it. But it doesn't fool me and it won't fool history, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, I've been listening to James since Kill Em All live and on recording. No way in hell that note isn't tuned. That's part of how I figured it out 'the sound.' Cause I've listened to lots of singers pre and post tuning and followed their careers into the change. The sound was obvious.

And I fully intend to use distorted vocals in some of my  compositions. It's one of my primary goals to create contrast between 'real human vocals' and 'mangled' vocals. One of my goals in my composition at this point is to depict conflict between human freedom and oppression. So mangling the voice serves that function, but I won't damage my compositions by restricting the pitch possibilities to a grid.

Take a look at 0:20. Now with obvious Stairstepping. but same sound as before, just turned higher to tug more at the notes:

Hahahahha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another thing, Cher's Believe was released in 1998. Until that point, it was an industry secret. But not too long after (1999), Anthony Kiedis of all people started becoming quite the singer who could pitch a straight toned harmony on the dot after decades of being 'that guy that sucks that is fun to listen to':

Now listen to about 2:59 right there. Why is this huge glitch there on a massive hit where the pitch is suddenly jumping? Hmmm.... If you're like me and you've followed loads of singers who were never pitch perfect until 1999, it's really obvious. That's not how they phonate live after that. That's not how they phonated on any studio albums before that. Not at all.

That's what he sounded like. He has a distinct vibrato and is pitchy. That's the story of Kiedis until 1999, even on the albums it was clearly a task for him. I was fine with him singing like that. I think if anything is the rock n roll spirit it's not a genre, so much as someone singing their heart out and letting it all hang out. But I'm not hearing that anymore, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harmonies are a great place to listen for tuning and for me Californication has that effect plain as day. I first learned with a guitar it was a bit hard to tell the microtonal difference between two notes when tuning by ear.

But there is a trick with guitar, rather than listening to two notes and trying to hear the microtonal difference, play two notes at the same time and listen to the 'beat' or pulse of the harmony. More dissonance will create stronger 'beats' and more consonance will create less. The harmonies on that Chili Peppers record are devoid of not only vibrato, but the 'beats' are about as good as equal temperament will ever get. There isn't a single shimmer, wave, or wobble the mechanism which is obvious due to there being 3 part harmony. I get more beats from my electronically tuned guitar playing two notes!

You can hear microtonal differences in 'beats' in this video. When it moves towards just intonation the beats (pulse) of the harmony pretty much disappears. In equal temperament they emerge but are tolerable. Pretty much all of western music is out of tune like this (outside of acappela quartets). If you tune a guitar to just intonation by ear, the guitar would be more out of tune with itself. The further out of tune you go, the stronger the pulse of the two sound waves. 

A real human voice will always have a slight wobble. There is no such a thing as a straight tone if you measure via objective terms (jitter and wobble always exist). I can hear varying beats in pretty much all harmonies in popular music prior to auto tune. Superhuman consonance was invented and the 'pulse' never wavers in anything I hear on the radio, like a synthesizer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in some of my favorite harmonies of all times, I can hear shimmer/beats. These both might be steering towards just intonation, because they are acapella, but I can still hear beats if I listen closely enough.

Meanwhile, this song is filled with beats!

Beatles weren't as skilled at singing precisely centered in harmony as the other two (imo). They were more dirty rock n roll. But that's why they were so distinctive and interesting. The world of music is very bland for me without micro-tonal differences between singers to give them character, personality, and life. In the music I listen to, every harmony can be unique and special, because every singer in every harmony is that way! No two harmonies are alike, always shimmering and subtly shifting, pulsing, changing, morphing. It's beautiful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS for the singers you were posting. The Weekend studio track sounds like it is pitch hugging frequently to me. It has a jittery skippy quality between note transitions as well.

The live one could include some small doctoring, but that would be the point where it would be indistinguishable for me. As for youtube guy, I would have turned it off before the glitch. It has the sound. 

Anthony Kiedis was more on key on that performance, but I intentionally grabbed a performance from the same year as the album. Pitch correction was viable in studio prior to live settings, but I wouldn't be surprised if performances are doctored now, even if not live. Although a few recent live Peppers performances I looked up sounded rough.

Me, I don't care if it is like the album or not, I just want the heart and soul coming from the human body. If I like the sound, I like the sound. If I don't, I don't. I give performers permission to do whatever they want with sound to move me as long as it feels insincere. Insincere robot voice has a bad track record. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...