KillerKu

This is a good direction. I can give you a few different ideas for compression. Something I like to do is use a lighter compression (lower ratio, maybe 2/1) with a slower attack time as a primary compressor. The reason why the attack time is slow is so consonants don't get eaten and some dynamic range is preserved. Then I will set a second compressor at a higher volume more serving as a milder 'limiter.' This will have a faster attack time to catch huge spikes in the really loud parts. I've found when using a single compressor it will often 'squash' the dynamic range and/or have a tendency to eat consonants. Some producers ride volume for every word, but I like to keep the original 'vocal dynamics' intact for the most part. The other thing you might benefit from is a richer reverb. It still sounds pretty dry. And possibly some kind of double tracking. Delay can work in a pinch. What you'd do is have one main track of vocals without delay, and have one track of vocals with delay but quietly playing (imperceptible to most people) and panned. Microphones are generally mono recording devices. Imagine if you are in the same room with someone, you'll hear the voice in both ears from a different wavelength, different angles, and there will be lots of reverberation/reflection throughout the room. When the voice goes straight into the mic, it's like if it were possible to have both of your ears right at someone's mouth. A lot of the production tricks are to simulate those other qualities where each ear would be hearing a different reflection pattern than a single mono mouth in each ear. In particular softer/headier voices generally use more production to give them a bit more 'space.' It's been done for a very long time. I listen to a lot of Thom Yorke, and if I had a raw vocal of his it would sound tiny. But even his smallest voices can sound 'wide and encompassing' due to techniques like that. For the technique thing, keep singing. You've made huge progress since arriving here. It will keep happening.

I'm a huge fan of human timing, human pitching, and vocal originality. I dislike arbitrary rules taking precedents over human expression. That said, Smells like Teen Spirit is a bit over the top for me. I think locking into the rhythm and pitch a bit closer would connect with me more personally. However, I hear a kernel of an identity in there that is distinct and could be polished. Sweet Child O Mine is closer. I think the yodeling is a great vocal quality for you to develop. The pitch is much better, but the phrasing is consistently rushed. Think of rhythm as a give or take. It helps if you rush to lag a bit later. I think of it kind of like borrowing time. I have to say I'm very excited to see where you go. I already know these are more stylistic than technical hurdles. You're fearless and willing to try radically different forms of expression in order to find yourself and you emote very clearly in music. Like rhythm, style is often a question of how far away you can get from convention without alienating. Singing for me in itself can be very bland and vanilla. Voice goes to note on rhythm. Woo. But you've got the spark and the passion for something more. The searching and yearning so that really excites me.

This could become a thing. Onto the review. I can start with some of what interests me about it. I like the rough, harsh quality of the vocal, it has a defiantly independent quality to it and for me that quality sits very well with the subject matter. Everyone has flaws, rough qualities, or harsh qualities, and often times we are rejected for those reasons. Perfection is easier to love. Most people aren't rejected because they are too perfected. However, while I think that quality is important, I do think the backing track has this polished quality that is a bit at odds with it so it creates a bit of dissonance. I think keeping some of the tonal roughness, while ironing out a bit of the pitch and timing might mesh better. Maybe even a slightly more polished production on the vocal with a bit more reverb and perhaps delay. In my head I hear a middle ground, a slightly rougher, dirtier (imperfect) backing track, and a slightly more polished (still imperfect) voice might find a middle ground where the two could meet and agree on the expression. That said, I can feel the heartfelt qualities in the performance and there are times when it works completely for me musically, but other times feels a bit in congruent. If you keep training you'll likely get the expression congruent cause I can already hear it in there, it's just not quiet held together all the time for me yet.

I really, really liked At Last. It sounded gleeful, eager, anticipating, earnest and yearning. The Coldplay song was pretty good, but your voice sounds a bit bigger than that song to me and fits more in a jazzier place to my ears. I've said before a big Sinatra fan, and a big Beatles fan, but Frank often sounded a bit 'confined' when covering Beatles songs. . I admire your desire to have a unique vocal style. I'm exactly the same way and the singers that engage me most have strong identity and unique characteristics. I've had a preference for strong character singers over vanilla traditional singing from a very early age. But none of them rolled out of bed at 3 years old into these characters, it is developed over a life time. I do have a question though, what kind of microphone are you using and what sort of recording setup are you using? There is a mid range boost that sounds a bit karaoke to me. Your diction is not particularly pronounced but certain compressors can eat consonants and certain mics can lack articulation. I'd suggest a condenser mic of some kind for recording. A lot of singers I like have mushy diction (Thom Yorke, Joe Strummer). It can be a stylistic choice, but getting any technological barriers out of the way could help you hear best what you sound like when developing your style. You're more than good enough at singing at this point to justify getting an accurate representation of what you sound like. It's not just for our ears, but for yours.

It seems like when you lean towards curbing people seem to respond favorably. My habits are to lean towards that too, but I find if I hold onto it too high it tend to want to plug up. But for the highest parts of the chorus you might want to lean back into more forward vowels letting twang give more of the body. When I listened to the original though,the placement is quite close and it's more production that sets you apart. Increasing some of the brighter side of the EQ spectrum and light auto tune would place you closer to the original more so than the placement adjustment. Overall, I think it's a good direction for your voice, as you have a bright/light voice and working with it seems like a good idea.

That will do it, for a good condenser, 4 to 6 inches is considered close miking and you need a good pop shield for plosives. A lot of vocals are recorded further away. The closer you are to the mic, the larger the dynamic range of volumes too. For the dynamic range in general you'll want to use some kind of compressor. We've been long due for an explanation of how compressors work so I'll drop this here: Overall Goal For a Compressor: Reduce the dynamic range between high volume and low volumes so the overall volume levels are closer Features of a Compressor: Threshold: At what volume/decibel should it begin compressing the sound. Ratio: How much to compress/divide the signal by. A ratio of 2 would divide the volume by 2, a ratio of 3 would divide by 3 and so forth. Attack: How many milliseconds the compressor should wait before it begins compressing the volume (this can be useful for drums or allowing louder consonants through) Release: How many milliseconds it takes for the compressor to release the compression and begin the attack again Knee: How immediate the compressor will reach peak compression. (A softer number will ramp up to the max ratio slower, a harder number will instantly compress) At some point I think you should get your recording stuff setup cause in my mind you owe it to yourself. For your singing and your studying. It will help you hear better what you're doing and what others are doing which can help progress, but it will also improve the quality of the recordings.

I think Felipe has a good point here. I think I know what he is talking about with the 'roundness' of the timbre. He's more skilled than I am at demonstrating this, but if you're having trouble understanding the generalized sound, I displayed extreme vowels and sung centered on them in the chorus and then attempted somewhere in between: https://app.box.com/s/c0vuvtgent151tgbyhxachmwgfpmlpzd The first is like an 'a' vowel, kind of like apple, or cat. It's twangy, catty, kind of high larynx and more nasal. It's a bit closer to what you're doing and is much closer to the voice you started with, but you might be opening up your soft palate a bit more. The second is kind of a round sounding vowel. We don't really have a way to type it in English. It's kind of an ooh, kind of an oh, and kind of an uh. For me I picture an invisible L with my tongue. If you do the extreme in falsetto I've been told it sounds like a woman. If you do it lower pitched and with more volume and support in the lower register it might sound more like a cartoon opera voice. So those are two extremes. Neither are something I'd sing with, the cartoon opera thing was kind of forced and the cattier thing was very harsh and nasally. The last attempt was to find somewhere in between the extreme sounds. What you could do is explore the cartoon opera thing, find the placement, try to get it so it's not straining and pushing and then move back more towards the cattier, quackier, nasally position. See if there is a spot in between that you like best for your voice.

This is awesome. I love your expressiveness as the face matches the timbre. Rob already covered it, but this production is pretty karaoke sounding. Like the kind of thing you'd give an unskilled singer to hide the flaws. There's almost a hissing quality to the reverb it's so bright. Your voice doesn't need a disguise it just needs to be propped up. I don't know what kind of program you're using but there are some pretty good vst plugins out there. I use Cakewalk/Sonar so a lot of times I"ll just use the sonitus built in as I find it intuitive, but ambience is a well known free one that can get some good sounds, but it's a bit technical

This has got a dirty sound. The pitching isn't centered per se but it kind of works with the thematic which is grimy and a bit harsh (things I often like). I wouldn't quite know what to give for vocal advice, because it seems to have a cohesive sound, if not necessarily commercial. I think the chorus is a bit too repetitive and doesn't develop enough for my tastes. The bridge at 1:25 is my favorite section, it has momentum and feels like the song is going in a forward direction. A lot of popular music is very similar to chanting though. I've always had difficulty more difficulty with tolerating repetition even when I was a kid though. When I was growing up this song was a huge hit: For me that combination of that chorus and that hook repeating were maddening. But it sold lots of albums and I knew people who were enamored from start to finish for repeated listens. Tolerance to repetition is very subjective among listeners it's actually really interesting and makes me wonder why people respond differently to it.

I'm digging this. I always knew I'd appreciate where your voice was gonna be going. I got a question though, how close is the mic? If I were to EQ this track I'd roll off the section below 60 hz (possibly higher) and possibly lean a bit towards some treble frequencies. Your voice is really rich which is awesome, but there is a bit of a plosive quality to it and a little shimmer would do it nicely. A lot of your heroes who use a windier phonation are EQed that way and a long with compression it can help this kind of vocal sit in a mix. A good step might be to toy with some production at some point here cause the singing is soulful and on a good path.

I hear the Seal quality in the timbre too. It's the breath but slight creak in the timbre. I can really feel this cover. My favorite parts are actually the latter sections where the Seal quality breaks down a bit. There is a slight breakup in the registering, sounds like the position of your tract (vowel shading, sob quality, imo) changes according to the emotions being expressed which sounds less immaculate and more sincere. That quality for me is one of the biggest qualities I'm attracted to in singers. Every time I've heard your voice you've had it, even in a foreign language. I feel like you could be really successful as there is aesthetic appeal (I think it's the Sealish quality Ronws describes), but also a sense of humanity. I'm not really a Seal fan as I don't really connect with his performances. It's almost like he's too immaculate for my tastes. If Seal sang a bit more you do, I might have been more of a fan.

Metal like neutral if I had to pick a tech term. The posture and position is basically the same M1/M2 so it bridges most seamlessly at usable volumes. The high scream and body of the song here not drastically different, just bridging:

It's good. It's also an excellent choice for progression into head voice. I was listening to the Slider album awhile back and was thinking of how Bolan was the antithesis of pulling chest. It's light, it's thin, and wispy, but it's not strained or pulled at all. It seems like a sound that can be built from with the right resonance and maybe a bit more closure, but not a huge amount. It won't function very well by pressing, pulling, squeezing for more. All good sounds that we appreciate, but you aren't pulling chest anymore.

What makes someone an expert though? Jamie Vendera is a guy that until recently barely sang at all, and has had material for some time. I don't know if he studied the science (Estill, CVT) or traditional methods like Bel Canto. He also says he is 'not' an expert. If something someone is suggesting is actively harming someone, I tend to advise caution. The 'hold your tongue out' exercise that has floated around in various places has a good chance of being involved in my my nerve damage, so I'm one to point out caution wit that exercise. But if you were to call out this guy, you'd have to call out a lot of people that have in one way or another helped others by offering their perspectives. In all honesty, I'm weary of proclaimed experts. I trust people who are always willing to absorb new information and process things as a potential novice a bit more than the many experts throughout history.

That's just the thing, I've been kind of AWOL for awhile in the review and critique section and it was the uniqueness of this cover that caught my ear and brought me out of the woodwork. It honestly sounds a bit innovative and I'm kind of picky about innovation. It's not 'pretty or traditional' or whatever, but it's refreshing to hear something different. In a way I hope as Joe refines his performs style, he will keep some of the same characteristics. Ronws got it right, it sounds artistic. It's not like a manufactured candy bar that rushes sugar to your brain and fills you with sugar pleasure but it gave me a different emotional response than other singers, and it wasn't bad, it was more like edgy and whoa. For me one of the worst experience I have in music is when something is 'mildly pleasant at best, forgettable at worst.' And I honestly feel bad when I feel that way. Joe gets a response from everyone here one way or another. It's provocative. So my advice is basically figure out what you want to do. You want to sell sugar, or you want to make something a bit crazy and push a few boundaries and press people's buttons and at what point do you want to draw the line between something generically pleasant and something uncompromisingly expressive, stimulating or challenging or whatever. It already sounded provocative to me, not unpleasant for me, but I have a higher tolerance for obscure/weird human expressions than some. If it were me, I'd add a bit more sugar in there, but you know, not everyone can be provocative and get a strong response from people. I would be hesitant to completely abandon that quality unless you have a specific mainstream traditional genre you want to fit into. Sometime I wonder myself if I'm not doing it right if a certain section of the population isn't a little outrage, or butthurt hearing it. That's stimulation, it's response. I always dreamed of beig a performer where some people would be like, 'I can relate to that, wow that is expressive.' and others would be adamantly opposed, 'that is not the way to sing. You are terrible singer. Blah blah blah.' I'd prefer to be hated on than have most agree something is mildly pleasant. At least it's some kind of genuine feeling that was communicated.

On the subject of interpretation, have you read the lyrics and tried to figure out what you were attempting to convey with each line? This is inherently a subjective process so I'd be hesitant to say anyone can is incorrect about the meaning of a song. But rather than worry about sounding like the original artist or not, sometimes I find it very helpful to look at the lines of a song as a story. Even then, it is possible to sing a song sarcastically, in third person, and so forth. But the further away you get from the 'generic meaning' of a song the more people won't get it, and dire hard fans might be miffed at your sacrilegious treatment. This is a pretty famous example of a song being treated sacrilegiously, and probably equally appreciated and hated by various camps: Whatever audience finds value in it doesn't have to be Sinatra (singer) or Paul Anka (lyrical composer) or fans of the melody from which it was derived (Comme d'habitude). As for the vocal training thing, I would probably just leave that alone for now. I personally have a fair amount of accumulated singing knowledge at this point from experience and the company I've kept (it's hard not to learn a bit about singing with so many singers and singing teachers here). I help a bit here and there when I can, but I wouldn't want to appear in a professional capacity or as someone with expertise. I have going on five octaves of vocal range, but for me it is not at all a measurement of my qualifications, because I consider many people more qualified. It's up to you to make the final decision what you believe on that matter. Anyway, I probably agree with Rob most that I can't tell where your vocal abilities are at, right now from one song. What is choice, what is not choice. But amateur art is art as well. There 'are' art scenes that aren't predominately learning reproduce and demonstrate traditional techniques in each field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_it_yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art There are comparably smaller, but not non existent audiences for this kind of art. So whatever direction you choose to go, its up to you.

It's going to depend tremendously on the audience. An artier crowd looking to connect emotionally with an original performer, there is a chance in my opinion, if your songs are composed to suit your performance style. American Idol signing contests, definitely no. In a bar cover band, it might be iffy. It might depend on how much you were willing to sacrifice to sound 'more like the original.' In some ways, by singing covers we are amplifying the 'power of the formula' vs the power of 'individual expression,' as the musical formula has already previously worked in the past and many listeners find deviations from that formula frustrating, where as with an unfamiliar song listeners are forced to explore something as more of its own entity. As a singer songwriter, it would be a gamble (and honestly it is for anyone, but. Broadway and opera no way unless you cleaned up a whole lot and matched their stylistic requirements in addition to technical requirements. A great example is this, Queensryche, is known for being technically proficient and appreciated predominately for a certain sound. Even when Geoff Tate deviated from the sound he got a lot of flak from his own fans, so if this cover was to go out to Queensryche devout fans Rob is probably right. I guess the question is how well can you replicate a pitch and keep locked into a mechanical tempo if done intentionally? That's typically the safest route, but for people like me we can find it a bit sterile and are attracted to more 'wild and untamed' human expression. Maybe try an open mic first. Try playing at a local park. If you have an art scene in your community check that out and see what they are up to. Maybe make some connections. Bar bands without formulaic sounds can scare of customers, so bars don't like that. Coffee shops are sometimes known for songwriter types, but if it's too edgy and loud they might spit out their coffee. Lou Reed hung out with Andy Warhol. In general I've found strange/outsider people like unusual music more on average than the average person. The more you deviate from the norm, the more you have to rely on abnormal listeners.

I'm happy for ya. That said Elise and winning contest is not a surprising title. The only thing I will say, is that I enjoy both the original, and this is a great version and I know why it won, but a possible next step, might be to pull apart even a bit more from the original. The beginning has quite a bit of Amy quack, it kind of trails away from it and goes a different direction. But part of the reason why people love Amy is she did that quacky thing and it worked really well stylistically and originally for her, with her phrasing and was a really fleshed out identity. You are good enough you will likely find some success as a singer regardless, but if you want to be on top of the world, I think developing a persona is the key. Lady Gaga sang for years as a nobody, but it was only once she developed the persona that it fully took off. It can be a combination of visuals, stylistics quirks unique to you in your vocal habits, (Gaga does this honky nasal sound, that's arguably an ugly sound, but makes her distinguishable to me, even a casual listener). So it's something to think about as you move forward. The foundation is there and imo it is likely you will find some kind of employment as a singer in your lifetime if you seek it out, but I think there is potential for mainstream success as well and it might be something you could create as an artist, rather than be manufactured by record companies if you distinguish yourself and develop the 'persona' of the artist.

If I had never heard this song I would probably hear a slight clash with backing track. Your voice sounds restless emotionally. The backing track sounds a bit tighter, polished, more controlled and subdued (which is a style Tate sung with). The melody structure, timing eccentricities, might work if the arrangement also had restless qualities that complemented it, or on contrast maybe even something even more mechanical, so the voice sounded strangled by the track and like it needed to break free. As is, it connected with me emotionally, but aesthetically I think either you or the track (even original) would need to give or take a bit either direction (tempo, pitch, etc).

I actually think this is going in a good direction. The emotions are very different than the original. I get like a cross betweeen Roger Waters ( Pink Floyd) and Lou Reed. When I hear it, I feel tension, anxiety, and despair, but also a sense of repressed or depressed affection. It sounds like a love letter from someone who can't express love for some reason (horrible life circumstance, or something else), and has a lot of charm. I do think if you pulled the pitch a little closer to equal temperament and the rhythm a bit closer to the beat, you could express these emotions while getting more approachable and accessible. I don't however believe these are emotions that can be expressed precisely. Very few people are 'desperately precise, mechanically anxious' and so forth. These emotions tend to affect motor control and I don't think those emotions would connect with me if it didn't have some of the characteristics of being a bit stilted, trembling, and out of control. I don't know if those are the emotions you're trying to express, but it works as a piece of art. It gets a response from me emotionally. The trick for a commercial performer would be to find the balance that works for their art between making that connection and also being approachable as a piece of music, which usually involves some degree of a formula. For me emotions are not formulaic, controlled, meticulous experiences at all. The sound of my voice when emotional is not that either. But music which is closer to the formula has more appeal to the average person aesthetically (harmony vs dissonance, meter, etc). So a lot of what makes me connect with music is the struggle between the emotional 'loss of control' and music having some kind of formula which is emotionless, static, without that struggle.

I dig it. It kind of has a grunge quality to me a bit. I heard the high note there go flat and then creep up in tune. It was probably a mistake but I prefer rock n roll like that, hanging on by the skin of your teeth. If you want to get rid of the brick wall you would want to go back to training/strengthening head voice or doing more vowel mods. Your folds will hit the brick wall if either the vowel or the closure level doesn't support it. The thing is it sounds good, sounds dirty, but not too dirty. Sounds a bit raw, not too rough. Depending on what you're going for genre wise it works aesthetically. Slapback was a bit interesting, but it's going to depend on you and your audience. Do you want to be a dirty rock n roll singer? It still sells to this day with post grunge acts and all that to the right audience. Or do you want to be a more quasi operatic kind of singer? Cause people who are into that might find it a bit too rough with a more stable bridge and less strain. Would you like to do both? Or would you like to do your own thing, work on your own "Elvis" genre (not that Elvis), right? In the long run if folks like Dan are correct then getting rid of the brick wall will be better for your health. But in the meantime it's kind of what sounds cool, what compels you. Where do you want to go? Cause my honest opinion has been that you are likely ready for some dirty rock n roll if you could write songs or form a band. You'd have a whole life time to become Pavarotti or Dio or whoever insert 'super polished guy', but your youth ticks away steadily. Meanwhile, please don't misunderstand me, I'd rather listen to your voice or your art any day, (not a fan of their their songwriting), but Chad Kroeger sells a ton of albums and the people buying it couldn't care much less that he isn't Dio or Pavorotti or whatever super vocalist you want to compare to. So figure out what you want to do. Stepping out the door today, I would wager you have 'a shot' as much as the rock guy, but a lot of it would boil down to charisma, songwriting, life circumstances (you don't exactly live in the center of the music industry). So just think about what you want out of this. If you want to be a broadway, opera star, you aren't there yet. If you want to be an a metal band, it might depend on the kind (Metallica maybe so, Symphony X maybe not). A gutter punk band? Might already be too good. Heh. You'll reach a point where you have competence for certain things. I'm not saying stop training but if you got your youth and health. The best advice I've got is to try to get out there and make things happen if your life circumstances allow it. Do stuff (perform, get in a band, write songs, network). Don't just train. I can sing a comfortable A4, and bridge fine in that area. But I can testify it doesn't go anywhere by itself and I doubt I'd sound much better singing the song.

This is cool. Your voice sounds good throughout. When you said take it an octave up I was a bit hesitant given the flavor of the song, but I dug it cause it kept some of the light feel and has an almost surreal quality that made it much more interesting. That's really interesting about vibrato. I've heard violin players recommending to go up to pitch, but not above it. When playing guitar, bend vibrato when you can come from below tends to sound less harsh to my ears than going above the pitch and back down. I was recently looking at my voice on a program where I could see the vibrato objectively. I couldn't make heads or tails of what I preferred. You sounded good, so it works!

This is the right direction for now. You can work over time at adding more mass if that is your intent. As for volume, sing an A2, and then sing this voice you're doing right here. Same distance from mic, no compression. Watch the size of the sound wave. You'll probably be surprised how loud it is. The other vocal you were using was shouting so of course that was loud. It would have probably been 5 times as loud as your A2. In some ways certain voices may feel smaller or seem smaller in your throat than they sound if you're used to shouting. I've got no problem with shouting artistically personally as I like the sound, but if you have other less fatiguing ways to sing that's a good thing. Eventually you may be able to swell this voice here into a shout.

I'm digging this. Nice rendition of the song. I like the richness of your lower range and the way the phrasing drifts just a little and keeps that conversational feel. I agree with Benny a bit on the low note thing. I remember gaining 2 semi tones from Jonpall's suggestion in maintaining twang. Now, you sound at least a semi tone or lower in placement and with a naturally darker timbre than I am. I feel like you're better equipped to handle this song. But if I do that twang thing it stabilizes this region of my voice. If I grab that section, no compression, 12 inches from mic (no proximity boost): https://app.box.com/s/5a487winlv1kxqlzrqaiklfyotc0llm6 You can hear my volume decreasing on those G2s (far from a bass). Volume will steadily decrease to some point but the twang has a stabilizing effect on the way down.

Focus on finding a way to smoothly transition from a headier voice into your chest with no flip. Strengthen the head voice so there isn't a noticeable flip at various volumes. Top down sirens might be useful. Once you get the idea of bridging and connecting the voice, you can include more bottom up. Right now it sounds like you slam the high notes. Do descending scales from head voice as well as ascending scales. And I think you might be a nasal baritone excluding lower resonance like Bowie pre 75 or so. But it's too early for faching and it will really only matter for low notes and timbre all that much.