Jump to content

What is the name of the vocal technique that creates a digitized sound

Rate this topic


Sebastiane12
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is the name of the vocal technique that creates a digitized sound?

No, I don't mean computer work. I was listening to a radio program discussing Chris Brown and how he has learned this retro vocal technique, popularized by an older singer (I forgot who! Someone from the 70's or older, don't remember.) Google failed me - so maybe someone here knows some more information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the name of the vocal technique that creates a digitized sound?

No, I don't mean computer work. I was listening to a radio program discussing Chris Brown and how he has learned this retro vocal technique, popularized by an older singer (I forgot who! Someone from the 70's or older, don't remember.) Google failed me - so maybe someone here knows some more information?

Sebastiane12: No digital sound in the 70s. Do you have an example of Chris Brown doing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The production technique that creates a digitized sound is called Antares Autotune.

The vocal technique that creates a digitized sound is called twang.

Quack quack quack.... I-AM-A-ROBOT.

I prefer the second one since I don't need a computer to do it :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both just awful.

Well, twang don't have to sound quacky and roboty. And it have LOTS of uses for singers if you learn to control it. Higher volume and controlled distorsion being two examples... Used in everything from opera to pop and rock, so I think it shouldn't be dismissed that easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, twang don't have to sound quacky and roboty. And it have LOTS of uses for singers if you learn to control it. Higher volume and controlled distorsion being two examples... Used in everything from opera to pop and rock, so I think it shouldn't be dismissed that easily.

I am not saying that twang is awful. I am saying twang to the point of sounding like a robot (Outside of training purposes) is awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that twang is awful. I am saying twang to the point of sounding like a robot (Outside of training purposes) is awful.

Alright - then I agree with you. It's not a very pleasant sound.

I can see some use for digitizing the voice with computer processing, if you're into radio pop and such. People have made big careers out of that (Cheer, T-pain and so on). Otherwise I'd stay away from that too. Personally I'm more into rock and metal, and there it's not used in the same way (or at all) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright - then I agree with you. It's not a very pleasant sound.

I can see some use for digitizing the voice with computer processing, if you're into radio pop and such. People have made big careers out of that (Cheer, T-pain and so on). Otherwise I'd stay away from that too. Personally I'm more into rock and metal, and there it's not used in the same way (or at all) :)

It is sad that people make careers out of being terrible. It is not there fault, but the people that give them money for doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'm more into rock and metal, and there it's not used in the same way (or at all) :)

When you look at liner notes and see the word "digitally mastered" or "digitally re-mastered" (in the case of an earlier recording that was on tape and vinyl, initially), think about it.

That's why I say that when you are singing along with a song and you feel that you cannot quite sound like the recording, don't worry, neither can the original singer. Not mention that the vocal track is not one track song all the way through, even if the singer sang the track full 3 times through (very rare, if ever.) All vocal tracks get comp'd to some degree, more often than not, creating a recording that never existed in real life.

Yes there are some singers who define very well how they are singing the song and stick with it, no matter how many times the producers make them re-record. These are the people that sound the same way live as they did on the recording. Those who sound different live had more comp'ing on the studio album.

It's a gamble, either way. And a wise producer does not treat everyone with the same stamp. Mutt Lange produced Hysteria by Def Leppard. Very heavy on the editing. Layered vocals. Fuzzy bass. Wet, echoy drums with double bass kick, each one mic'd separately.

"Highway to Hell" by AC/DC. Very little processing. No echo on the vocals and guitar on the title track. Angus and Malcom are standing right on your head, up front, from the first crunch. Bon is phonating right in front of you. You can smell the scotch on his breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this particular case I was reffering to the "digitized sound" the thread was about (heavy, roboty auto-tune if I understood it correctly), and that is mainly used in pop and dance music, not so much in rock and metal. I'm well aware of the editing that goes into making an album (didn't we have this discussion in another thread not too long ago, when you and me seemed to have the same opinions about editing recordings? :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, you and I think the same. I replied for others that might not have known to what you are referring. In heavy metal and hard rock, autotuning is very light and judicious and meant to be invisible.

In some r&b and pop, autotune is very heavy, an intended production value of the song.

And I should have addressed more generally.

Sorry, Marcus, my bad ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

The sound you may be referring to is the talk box, used by Stevie Wonder (may have been 1972 as he did Papa was a Rolling Stone too with one),

Watch this one too;

and, Peter Frampton in 1976 (Show me the way / Do you feel like we do),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXQzaqrtcs

Ealiest use was 1939, so the idea and use is quite old - so Alvino Rey.

Then more used in the 60's - Pete Drake; 1974 - Rufus (song written by Stevie Wonder, so see above SW link).

80's Roger Troutman, Gilmore - the list goes on.

Pitch correction is more a "nudge" chromatically (or modern day a smoother version) to the nearest note (i.e. vocal sound slightly flat is "nudged" to nearest correct note. Cher ... etc use a slew rate to a note that gives all those sounds you hear in the songs and use of glissing allows for the effect more used in pop today.

From a studio perspective use, you should not hear the close "nudge" to note, but I've heard quite a few studio releases where even a "nudge" comes out as a chromatic correction that is obvious. When done well, you'll never know it was there.

Back to the post;

Hope it helps, it may be the sound you were hearing. As the (carrier) sound was generated by an instrument (i.e. guitar / keyboard) and a person "vocalises (and / or makes the correct shapes to the sound)", the output sound is sung sounded on the carrier. The modern equivalent is the vocoder, but the talk box is still used.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...