Karaoke Forums

Not sure you have to pursue it "as a living" Nigel, that's a sure way to introduce anguish to musicianship  LOL   Professionally sure,  but it's tough doing it, and making a living...


OK, I'm going to try posting this now... I can almost concentrate now...


Transferred from Discussion forum... posted there first as test run.

I wanted to type something over in singer's forum regarding an observation I made that the better a vocalist is, the greater the expectations the listener likely has of a good mix, higher end, tastefully used FX, and there will be even less forgiveness to the listener's ear often regarding recording ability, and mixing skills, because often times, that's all that we hear, that doesn't sound professional... likely MORE important for the excellent pro-amateur singers, to learn about mixing, FX, and how to record, sometimes that's ALL that doesn't sound great, and the contrast is considerable because the backing of course is studio mixed while your voices are pro-sounding as well.  A few vocalist's in here, actually sound better than the band they are using in their backing, the dynamic's, and singing is just even MORE pro-sounding and more tastefully done than the mix they are singing over..   ... It ocurred to me that when I listen to the excellent singer in Showcase, I become less forgiving of their lack of engineering ability...sad but true, I'll bet this is a normal phenomenon too, because sometimes the only thorn in the side of the submitted material, is the mix and FX, settings used, the cheaper recording equip, etc... What I think many here is pro-quality musicianship, and they therefore tend to scrutinize the mix and recording ability too ~  I find that I do that

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

I'll have to admit to being guilty of that too.

After what's being said about SS, I feel the need to sub some more songs myself just to see what happens.

Well, I know I'm not all together sure what I'm doing when mixing--it's all experimentation, although I think my next stop at the bookstore I'll look for a specialized book if available.  It is also frustrating when you think you've done a pretty good performance and you just vitiate the quality of the recording with a lack of knowledge in sound recording.  Referring to Steve's comment, the listener is probably more marked in their criticism of a "good" singer's performance due to mediocre or ruinous sound quality and mixing because they know the person in all likelihood is doing just fine but they can't enjoy the voice or the overall recording fully.

As a collector of vintage music, a good example is this.  I could put on a recording of Louis Armstrong's "Mahogany Hall Stomp"--a landmark recording for him--made in 1928.  To listen to the flat, tinny, aural effect of this recording, one not understanding the primative conditions these recordings were made under would wonder just what was so great about the performance.  In this instance, we have to remember when this particular recording was first played by listeners they were used to the "sound" they had available so could only compare what they considered a "great" record to any other by the resources available.  The same situation holds true for most modern day viewers of silent films.

If you ask me, the most important part of your recordings is going to be your mic. I think alot of folks on here are using the Shure 58's, or some other type of dynamic mic, which are pretty much intended for live applications. If you want to increase the quality of your recordings, a condenser is the way to go.  Audio-Technica has a few entry level condensers that are well worth the investment, I have the AT 20-20, which is around 160 bucks I think. If you were to listen to my old recordings and then listen to the newer ones with this mic, you would notice a night and day difference......BUT...i'm still using Audacity for my mixing program, everything else I have tried is just a pain in the A, and i'm comfortable with it....

_________________
Satisfaction is the death of desire

Hey ya'll.. thought I'd weigh in on this conversation.  Forgive me if I start to ramble as it's been a long day ..

On the subject of vibrato..

To my understanding, it's actually a delicate balance of air pressure/resistance and the adduction of the vocal folds.  If you think about trying to sing a straight tone, your chords are a little more tightly adducted (held closed).  This is not to say that you put undue stress or "squeeze" the chords, but liken it to  holding a cup firmly (not tightly) in your grasp.  This stops the vibrato, and is the sensation I get when I'm specifically trying to do straight toned singing.  The sound is still free flowing and resonant but more controlled and narrowed. (air wise)

If you get the proper balance of air pressure (this is where breathing and your diaphragm comes in) and slightly lessening the adduction of the folds, you will relax into a natural vibrato.  Do not confuse needing good diaphragmatic support with "Diaphragmatic Vibrato" which is unhealthy for singers.  You mostly hear it with some broadway singers and is also a technique used by oboe players by which a fake vibrato is created by pulsing the diaphragm muscle.. not good for the voice! Think of air pressure/resistance as it is to a wind player.  A clarinet or oboe offers quite a bit of resistance because of the narrow opening of the instrument and the tighter embouchure.  These instruments offer their players instant pressure.  Other instruments like the flute, tuba, and voice require you to provide your OWN resistace through proper diaphragmatic support. To use your diapraghm to get the proper air pressure, try exercises where you take in a large low breath for a certain amount of counts and then release this air slowly and measuredly on an "ess" sound for a certain amount of counts.. the sensation you feel in your abdomin region as you regulate the air flow out, is the same which you need to assert the proper air pressure.  This in combination with the more relaxed feel in the throat (think of holding a glass loosely.. just enough so it doesn't fall) will help you produce a more healthy and even vibrato..

The two main problems with vibrato are

Too Fast which can come as a result of improper support, tongue tension, improper adduction of the folds

or Too Slow/Wobble-Like which usually is a result of too LITTLE adduction of the vocal folds, or an unfocused tone.

To get a more focused sound that is devoid of unwanted air, think "laser beam" (I feel like i'm in Austin Powers now ).  You want to channel the sound and get all of the excess air out, and proper placement of the sound is key.  I suggest doing exercises on an "NG" sound which forces you to have a more focused sensation.  One exercise I have my students do is one in which they start on the 5th note of the scale on the syllable "Zing" reapeat the same note on the syllable "Ring" and then descend the scale down to tonic on the syllable "Ey"  Make sure to close to the "ng" sounds and keep your sound focused and placed in that same "pocket" as you open to the EY syllable and descend the scale..

Ok .. I think I've rambled enough for one post... Nice to have a discussion on these technical matters going.. Have a great night!

_________________
[scroll][/scroll]

[font=andalus]We Are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
We are the Movers and Shakers of the World Forever it Seems...[/font]

That's important info actually.  Most consider the SM-57 & SM-58 the "One microphone does it all" workhorse of a microphone, that'll suffice for just about any application beit live or direct into a board/computer/Analogue or Digital recording device...

Here's something I find all too common among even the best of the best singers !
Let's call this the:

Masking things with reverberation epidemic

Let me give an example of something, that I find a few of the excellent singer's here have a tendency to over-do IMHO, Some really have a great natural feel and expression and can adjust their timbre and dynamics accordingly... BUT for some reason... they feel compelled to throw in a noticeable amount of a type of reverberation, that doesn't suit the song (IMO), or seem to add anything to their singing, once again, IMO.. The type of reverb, as well as the way it's used detracts from what might otherwise be a professional sounding job in terms of actual singing ability, mix, etc.. The reverb setting seems to be a problem *at least as I hear the finished composition*... Not only does improper reverb setting end up throwing-off vocal timbre, tonal balance, AND tempo, it muddies up chances of tight synchronization with the instrumental and vocal backings, phrasing is no longer tight,  and the reverb adds ALOT of "tin"/treble and shrillness to the otherwise balanced vocal timbre.  When some of you do this IMO, it covers up your knack for dynamics.  Alot of Reverb runs together your words, phrasing; Cadence runs over.. and oftentimes unfortuneately some of you end up sounding as though you are singing in the middle of a blizzard, or even into a 55 gallon drum, and your voices sound as though they are getting carried all over the place... Note attack also ends up sounding like a pinched harmonic into a fuzz machine


I'm sorry,  I HAD to say it  :shock:

Setting FX (IMHO),  MIGHT perhaps be an area that we can discuss and learn something about.. Sometimes LESS gives you ALOT more !   and how about utilizing natural room reverb, position for holding and singing into microphone ?.. When to back it away, etc...

What I find sad however,  is that a few in here that really DO belong in a pro-singing settings, have stated, the purpose of the reverb is to compensate for certain areas they feel are currently somewhat weak, or hard to "nail" with accuracy. The problem with this, is that the listener can often tell when the singer is using reverb to hide. It shows.[/u]

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Hey Jazzy, WELCOME !!!!





(Incidently, how many compliments do people receive on reverberation use like this, over in the Critique areas of Singer's Showcase ) ?

btw. PLEASE feel free to disagree with anything I say,  I can take it, believe me.

During a few HONEST critiques I've been asked to offer, really the ONLY thing I felt that would be a great improvement of the submitted song would've been a more tasteful use of reverb.. Either a different reverb setting, less reverb, or sometimes perhaps, MAYBE just a better reverb unit or better source for the effect might be the answer... Not all devices have good reverb offerings for the pro-level singer... and again THIS is what I find the problem to be... Some of you are just too darn good, to get away with this... HOWEVER, the mediocre singer can...

This is my point !   You pro sounding vocalists often don't get the same consideration from we listeners regarding the mixing aspects and setting/tweaking of your equipment, we have much higher standards for you  

Since I'm not too familiar with UL'ing a song to a site like the Singer's Showcase. Is it possible that when you UL your song, in addition to the FX you use during the recording process, during the upload even more extraneous FX are added ?

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

This is an excellent point Michael,  again it's something Billy (OK what now) brought up in the content of the last critiquing thread (from a few months back)..  The person requesting opinions, should absolutely state things such as "This is what I'm trying to do with this Song",  Or  "I'm trying to make this MINE", add my own "Signature Style", change the genre, etc...  I think sometimes however, for many of us, it's what we miss or can't hear objectively when listening to own work, that others as sounding boards, really become valuable.. I've beem told..

"your playing is rigid, relax... TOO choppy"  I just couldn't hear it for some reason, that was how adrenaline affected my playing..  I WAS tense, BUT, that's all I recognised, and "choppy, and rigid" was the result, I couldn't hear it... That was VERY good to know !

So I agree,  We should inform others what our goal is, and let them know what our needs/desires are as specifically as possible. Either way, being specific can mean "I'm aware of the following,  can you listen for ? etc", or... "This is where I am at, at this point, Let me have it no holds barred !", whatever it is we want from the experience should always be specified.  I'm better off to give the Critiquer COMPLETE freedom to suggest WHATEVER it is they wish to offer, or tune into whatever it is that caught THEIR ear as beig somewhat weak.Oten times, that's even more valuable IN MY particular case.. However you know your stronger points,  and have specific areas you'd like to fine-tune... In my case, there are VERY few strong points, at this point ... When we stop practicing, we lose ALOT.  The advanced "practiced musician" has specific areas they want to build...Different stages in the art, different needs...

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

OK, Time for a TRIVIA question about basic music theory !
(actually this is sort've a lie.. I just forgot the answer to the following question)

When pertaining to intervals. Why is the Tonic--->subdominant (I-IV) referred to as a Perfect 4th, and the Tonic--->Dominant (I-V) a Perfect 5th ? I used these terms recently in here when discussing cadences... I forgot why these are termed "Perfect" intervals.. While others are minor, or Major with the exception of the Octave.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

............I'll be the first to admit I have no idea what your talking about, I wouldn't be surprised if Elisha answered it though............

_________________
Satisfaction is the death of desire

Geez all I know is a 5th has five semitones and the 4th has four semitones, duh how's dat?. If this is a quiz and merchandise is involved, the the tonic is the first key of the scale.  Send case of Mars Bars to Klein-Ko Enterprises, Inc., Freehold, NJ.

Hey guys


   Basically, Assuming you are seated at the piano.. Sing a  middle C  note, followed by the E directly above it.. That interval is a Major 3rd.... Assuming you Sing that same C again, followed buy the Eb above it, you have just sung a minor 3rd interval.. Look at a C,  and imagine the next diatonic note D, that is a major 2nd, C-C# a minor second. etc.

    When we get to F however,  C to F is no longer considered a major or minor quality interval..  It's considered a Perfect 4th.  Similarly C to G is the Perfect 5th, but when you get to A the C--->A interval is once again a major quality interval
I don't remember why the 4th and 5th receive different designations..  I forgot where the term "Perfect interval" comes from.. Why the major or minor designation in the case of these intervals is dropped, but instead, they are referred to as P4 and P5..

     An actual 5th interval can only consist of your root position note (let's call this  middle C to try to keep things easier), and the Diatonic 5th. *Full scale tone increments* the G note above your C is a distance of 7 piano semitones up..
If we start thinking "frets" and guitar neck theory now, it'll really confuse things

if you walk up from middle C  to the G above it, that is 7 chromatic piano notes (semitones), the applied Perfect 5th, or 5th interval of course doesn't consider the notes :between them" It's only the G as related to the C that earns this interval the term perfect 5th interval..   When playing both notes together you have your Perfect 5th, or just play them in sequence.. THE INTERVAL between THESE two notes, is all you refer to as P5... In terms of scale theory... C is your root or tonic... F would actually be your subdominant, and G becomes your Dominant.. It get's somewhat confusing when you think about it..HEHE.. The theory is "related" theory.. or 12 tone theory, the interval is just the TWO NOTES alone, between them however there are measuring means of tones and semitones... For the sake of this type theory,  You don't actually have ANYTHING beyond the C note, and the G note in a perfect 5th. NOTHING else matters  There aren't 5 or even 7 "Semitones" in your perfect 5th. but the perfect 5th when measured in distance by other scale :notes:..is a distance of 7 chromatic (semitone notes) between these two scale tones.. A 5th only relates to your tonic C....and the scale tone G above it, G is five scale TONES up from your middle C,..  Terminology in music theory really can get confusing.




Actually if you break the octave down into semitones,  there are 12 semitones within an octave, if you go up an octave your 13th tone is a new octave up... Take the Key of C travel 12 semitones up from that C.. You are on the B, which is the last note before the Octave.. C-C is 0 interval and called "the Unison" "hypothetically".. "same note"...This is called Western music 12 tone theory, or what we learn in rudimentry theory..  INTERESTINGLY C--->F is a P4, HOWEVER there are not four semitones in that interval..  There are actually 5 chromatic tones between the two notes..  

P5 C--->G is 7 semitones.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Steven, let me guess, you're an excellent chess player.....heheheheh.

Truth be known, ADD makes even basic music theory very difficult for me these days Michael.. I was a decent chess player, and decent in abstract areas.  When it comes to basic logic.  I fall on my face though.. Computers were EXTREMELY tough for me in the DOS 6 and Win 3.11 days.. You couldn't BS DOS, it was very stubborn that way  LOL

This is just the VERY start of how music get's mathematical. Composition was so hard, I had to drop the course not once but twice.. Well in actuality I got an "F" one of the times.... 2nd year music theory is extremely tougn too, once you get into inverting 6th chords, figured bass, etc... It's very abstract; It's quite geometric when we look at a piano keyboard as a means of reference, breaking an octave down into 12 reference tones is very inexact however, for all I know, western music might have created the scale based on the pianist, or harpsichord players needs MANY years ago... A physicist would tell us there exists likely an unmeasureable number of harmonic tones, overtones in any note alone, because VERY few tones we hear are pure tones ..  I hope when I read what I typed regarding this, I can live with myself  LOL ... It's sweltering here, not thinking too straight.... NOW keep in mind.. The 12 tone scale was how Western music utilized math in a music context for theory, we break our smallest scale on a keyboard instrument down to the 12 tone/chromatic type scale... A piano tuner learns that between C and C#, that interval ALONE, is broken down into about 100 cents, if two unison strings on your piano are even 2 or 3 off from one-another, you are going to hear it !..It;s often concentration that's toughest., but the Piano tuner learns to not tune by ear (which can drive the perfectionist crazy) but using beats.. or physic's principles regarding characteristic of soundwaves.. It's not exact.. semitones are as I stated a measurement tool the Western cultures use.. it's necessary at first to ONLY use a tempered instrument such as a piano when trying to understand such "math".. On a tempered (keyboard-type fixed tuning instrument) there alot of fascinating theory.. Scale and mode theory get tough..

When trying to figure this out using a guitar neck, it becomes quite difficult btw..

Gosh, I hope at least a sentence or two in any of my posts tonight are lucid.  :shock: ..

One other interesting tidbit,.. To fool the ear the experienced orchestral string players IE violinists use a slightly different fingering on the 3rd and 7th of MOST western ascending, and descending major, natural, and harmonic minor scales, when descending the violinst often compensates for the humen ear WANTING to hear a slightly lower note than the same note of that ascending scale,. Sort've like a musical magician..  They make slight adjustments to fool the ear..

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Alas, music theory was always a toughie for me--I'm a mathematical imbecile...I had a math teacher that made life even more difficult when he told me that how could somebody that played Bach so well be so pathetic in math....real inspiration that bozo.

If I recall correctly, the terminology for those two intervals came about as a result of Pythagorus's mathmatical concept of intonation in development of the church modes.  Perfect 5th and Perfect 4th were thus named as a direct result of the mathmatical correlation between these pitches and their mathmatical difference from the tonic string..  Don't quote me on that, but that's what I vaguely remember from music history classes. I don't believe major and minor tonalities were named until later when the twelve tone system was developed.  Up until then, they used a seven tone scale.

_________________
[scroll][/scroll]

[font=andalus]We Are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
We are the Movers and Shakers of the World Forever it Seems...[/font]

Ah shoot, and all this time I thought it was Zoot Simm's theory....dagummit.  Thank for you for the edification Baggy!

Thank you jazzy.  It's been at least 35 years since I studied any of this, and come to think of it,  I might NEVER have learned or questioned the actual derivation of the Perfect 4th and 5th.  Although I do recall why they are the Sub Dominant, Dominant, etc.. It would make ALOT of sense to me if Pythagorus and Aristotle had ALOT of bearing on classical styles... Because even in the older days, Music being an "Aesthetic" area, European, or ancient Greek belief still was prevalent during the Baroque period (at least I think it was) and you DID in fact hear the goal was often to compose the "Perfect style" of music... The philosophy of Aesthetic areas..

Here, let me enter a quote from an excerpt that discussed "styles" of music during the older period..  It just makes alot of sense to me that THAT would've been the actual reason for the terms Perfect 4th and 5th.. Thanks Jazzy..

Here's the quote:

"It was the aim of Classical composers to achieve "perfect" music. That is, music that was completely perfect from a technical standpoint. This restriction led to very conservative music, strong but not really emotional. This is how most of Classical style music went and how the composers composed it (with the notable exception of Beethoven). Don’t get the wrong idea about this; the music Mozart gave us is beautiful and moving, and he was a born and bred Classical composer. Conservative does not mean boring. There are many notable examples of the Classical style, including the musical stereotype that is Beethoven’s 5th symphony."

One other question.  Is the 7 tone scale also referred to as the "Diatonic scale" which is also Greek ?  Another thing I forgot. I've so often heard kids on the piano being told  "Diatonic" or just the white keys...Which I think technically is quite inaccurate... I assumed the Diatonic scale to be the term for the 7 tone scale..

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Let me share this site I just found. I don't know anything about it, so I know nothing of it's accuracy yet.. But it LOOKS at first glance to be pretty good

http://www.numbera.com/musictheory/history/styles.aspx


Sort've the "Monarch notes" for music theory...

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".